Hard Group Checks in U47 Dungeons

Major_Toughness · July 2

Asikoo wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Never seen a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE community so upset that they have to play with other players.

And why do you believe this happens?

ZoS catering to solo players made them entitled.

Major_Toughness · July 2

Meiox wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

People saying it´s bad design that you can´t solo a group dungeon have no idea what "good/bad design" actually means. You liking or disliking something has absolutely nothing to do with it being good/bad design. What matters is the developers intention when creating something. I´ll explain:

If you design content with the intention of it being done as a group, and players find ways to do it without a group, that is PER DEFINITION a bad design simply because your intended design didn´t reach/fulfill the goal you had in mind, players may like it sure, but that doesn´t mean it´s well designed. The same thing can be said about the opposite. Take animation cancelling for example. Was it something that was intended when ZOS designed the combat system? No it wasn´t, so per definition it was a bad design, but people liked it so it was kept in the game anyway.

Anyway, the amount of solo content in the game vastly overshadows group content so complaining that there is a dungeon that requires at least 2 people is some major cope.

How can something be designed for groups, when people can easily solo it?
Its like putting 2 pressure plates at the entrance of a delve and start calling it group content

Did you even read past the first comma? Entire comment answers your question.

Desiato · July 2

This isn't entitlement. I would love it if Dungeons were like they were 10 years ago and extremely difficult to solo.

People are conflating the arguments we see from the most casual players who ask for dungeons to be designed to be completed solo so they can play them like a solo instance or with a group of companions instead of players. That's not what many players are asking for here.

This is about taking away the option of even trying to do something more challenging. The requirement is tacked on and adds nothing to the experience in the dungeon. Now if there were actually interesting gameplay mechanics with real dynamic puzzles that actually took thought or timing, that would be different.

There is an entire subculture in this game dedicated to trying to solo content for the pure challenge of it. For example:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLzQgKbYeg-wLQSNqVzS7nQ/videos
https://www.youtube.com/@Hyperioxes/videos

There is simply no reason for ZOS to impede their enjoyment in this case. Again, if they want to add actual interesting cooperative mechs, that would be a different story.

Asikoo · July 2

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Asikoo wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Never seen a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE community so upset that they have to play with other players.

And why do you believe this happens?

ZoS catering to solo players made them entitled.

Or maybe it’s because multiplayer in this game feels more like gatekeeping and bullying than cooperation!
If you're not using a "metabuild", if you're not a "pro", or if you're not playing perfectly, you're basically not welcome in harder content.
And I’m specifically talking about harder content, because normal and even veteran difficulty is a joke.
Instead of support or encouragement, you get mocked for your build, your playstyle, or even just trying to enjoy the game your own way.
Do you get it now?

Major_Toughness · July 2

Asikoo wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Asikoo wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Never seen a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE community so upset that they have to play with other players.

And why do you believe this happens?

ZoS catering to solo players made them entitled.

Or maybe it’s because multiplayer in this game feels more like gatekeeping and bullying than cooperation!
If you're not using a "metabuild", if you're not a "pro", or if you're not playing perfectly, you're basically not welcome in harder content.
And I’m specifically talking about harder content, because normal and even veteran difficulty is a joke.
Instead of support or encouragement, you get mocked for your build, your playstyle, or even just trying to enjoy the game your own way.
Do you get it now?

No because I play with whoever I want, pug or not, and use the builds I want to use.

Join/make groups with friends/guildies.

colossalvoids · July 2

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Never seen a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE community so upset that they have to play with other players.

One thing doesn't have much to do with the other. I'm doing them with my group for the trifectas and solo them on my free time if feel like it. This design decisions are excluding solo players from potentially getting interested in the content all together instead of giving them a tease with soloing, no matter how hard or tricky it is.

Thinking it teaches people to group up is the same as thinking ganks or ball groups are teaching new pvpers to group up. It's just a design flaw.

Major_Toughness · July 2

colossalvoids wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Never seen a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE community so upset that they have to play with other players.

One thing doesn't have much to do with the other. I'm doing them with my group for the trifectas and solo them on my free time if feel like it. This design decisions are excluding solo players from potentially getting interested in the content all together instead of giving them a tease with soloing, no matter how hard or tricky it is.

Thinking it teaches people to group up is the same as thinking ganks or ball groups are teaching new pvpers to group up. It's just a design flaw.

I'm not going to lie if you are telling me if someone is presented with the fact you need to group up to do this, and that doesn't teach them, that they need to group up, I think they have bigger problems than video games.

CalamityCat · July 2

Have the devs actually sat in a queue as a DD for a specific DLC dungeon when it's only accessible for a limited group of players? That'd make for a fun live stream!

In principle I agree that a dungeon is a group activity, but only when players are realistically able to get a team together in a reasonable time. This design seems like a likely frustration for players who want to experience the new content when it gets released. It's more encouragement for players to fake as tank/healer just to get in.

I think it's harsh to fully prevent players from taking on the challenge of soloing a dungeon if they choose. At least unless you fix the queue system first. Eg by allowing some groups to just queue with fewer than four players or without the tank/healer if they choose that.

The sad thing is, sometimes soloing a dungeon is the only reliable way to explore it properly, loot chests and do the quests without skipping dialogue. I haven't done it often, as my partner and I can duo up for that. But that was our best solution to explore the last new dungeons and do the quests properly.

GloatingSwine · July 2

Freelancer_ESO wrote: »

Credible_Joe wrote: »

In the first dungeon showcased, right in the entrance, there is a Direfrost Pressure Plate check that prevents solo players from even starting the dungeon.

This is hostile design that disrespects player agency and signals an extremely negative "play the way we want you to" message to players with NPC companions, who want to challenge themselves, or simply want to enjoy the narrative of the dungeon without the pressure of randos in pickup groups or having to organize a guild event.

The community has consistently signaled that these hard group checks are not popular; ESPECIALLY with the introduction of NPC companions who should be able to perform these functions, but can't. I can't imagine where the sudden desire to constrain our gameplay came from; it's completely contrary to the rest of the signaling from the studio telling us we can play how we want.

It's possible that the mechanics later in the dungeon do actually need two players and thus having players hit a brick wall early may be more appealing than getting to the very end then getting stuck.

Personally, I'd rather be able to solo it so I can go at my own pace but...

It's possible but I don't think any dungeon has had an interesting split up mechanic yet.

A hard-CC catch and kill or some pressure plates aren't really interesting, interesting would be like a smaller scale version of Z'maja portals where half the group has to split off and do a thing, or a pair boss that are standing far apart (so they can't both be lazored) that have to be killed within a short window of each other or they res.

You know, boss mechanics that aren't "go invulnerable and spam adds".

colossalvoids · July 2

Major_Toughness wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Never seen a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE community so upset that they have to play with other players.

One thing doesn't have much to do with the other. I'm doing them with my group for the trifectas and solo them on my free time if feel like it. This design decisions are excluding solo players from potentially getting interested in the content all together instead of giving them a tease with soloing, no matter how hard or tricky it is.

Thinking it teaches people to group up is the same as thinking ganks or ball groups are teaching new pvpers to group up. It's just a design flaw.

I'm not going to lie if you are telling me if someone is presented with the fact you need to group up to do this, and that doesn't teach them, that they need to group up, I think they have bigger problems than video games.

Depends what you'd call teaching at that. If that's presenting with information and be what ever after - sure thing. If that's about the results, in that case grouping up for that it's a very different matter. They're learning that dungeons isn't something for them, which I've learned in my first casual guilds when just entered the game. People just give up on the idea all together or becoming vehemently opposed to anything group related, littering the forums with "delete PvP", "make endgame solo-able" etc. instead of doing anything productive. So working against them is working against yourself in that sense. Making them more welcomed and making them to familiarise themselves with content beforehand (even if met with failure to clear it) would help a lot.

WhiteCoatSyndrome · July 2

ZOS had better hope there are a lot of people on PTS this cycle, because being forced to group with another person will make it a lot harder to test. (There usually aren’t as many people on PTS as on live, making it exponentially more difficult to find a group, especially with Dungeons - PTS Trials usually come with a zone, so you might be able to catch people doing quests who are willing to try it out.) So now instead of testing on normal and trying to get as far in as I can by myself while I wait for other people to log in and maybe join…I get to listen to the opening dialogue and then log out because there isn’t that much else to test. I doubt I’m alone there.

So if there end up being any game-breaking bugs further in the Dungeon, thank ZOS’s pressure plates at the entrance.

Wing · July 2

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Never seen a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE community so upset that they have to play with other players.

well you see TES is a single player franchise, and recent community polling revealed anecdotal evidence that the majority of ESO players are solo or group at a minimum.

add to this that MMO's are becoming the old folks homes of games. . .

there is a difference between grouping if you would like amongst a massive community to play with, vs being forced to group against your will. how many people would go to public parks if they knew they HAD to group with some stranger to go for a walk, that's stupid.

Wing · July 2

Major_Toughness wrote: »

cyclonus11 wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Never seen a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE community so upset that they have to play with other players.

MMO does not mean FORCED GROUP.

You are not forced.

You choose to restrict yourself, therefore you can not do content which breaks your own (not the games) restrictions.

your ignoring a critical fact.

its a business that hopes to make money, not just a game. that requires players, concessions, compromises. you see ESO does not live in a vacuum, there are MANY other games like ESO that might do things better, or alot better.

but some of us like ESO, we hope to see it improve.

so the response of "LOL you expect to much! your playing wrong! nobody is forcing you to play! . . but still keep playing and paying the money so the game can exist for the few of us playing correctly."

no, i dont think i will.

i think i might. . .go somewhere else ^_^

Major_Toughness · July 2

Wing wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

cyclonus11 wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Never seen a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE community so upset that they have to play with other players.

MMO does not mean FORCED GROUP.

You are not forced.

You choose to restrict yourself, therefore you can not do content which breaks your own (not the games) restrictions.

your ignoring a critical fact.

its a business that hopes to make money, not just a game. that requires players, concessions, compromises. you see ESO does not live in a vacuum, there are MANY other games like ESO that might do things better, or alot better.

but some of us like ESO, we hope to see it improve.

so the response of "LOL you expect to much! your playing wrong! nobody is forcing you to play! . . but still keep playing and paying the money so the game can exist for the few of us playing correctly."

no, i dont think i will.

i think i might. . .go somewhere else ^_^

Because you have to play the game as intended? That's wild. You probably shouldn't be playing if you dislike the game and genre that much.

Jaimeh · July 2

WhiteCoatSyndrome wrote: »

So if there end up being any game-breaking bugs further in the Dungeon, thank ZOS’s pressure plates at the entrance.

Most people want to check out the HM mode for issues that interfere with completion and/or achievement objectives. You need a full group to do the HM, so this won't be a problem on the PTS cycle.

Credible_Joe · July 2

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Wing wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

cyclonus11 wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Never seen a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE community so upset that they have to play with other players.

MMO does not mean FORCED GROUP.

You are not forced.

You choose to restrict yourself, therefore you can not do content which breaks your own (not the games) restrictions.

your ignoring a critical fact.

its a business that hopes to make money, not just a game. that requires players, concessions, compromises. you see ESO does not live in a vacuum, there are MANY other games like ESO that might do things better, or alot better.

but some of us like ESO, we hope to see it improve.

so the response of "LOL you expect to much! your playing wrong! nobody is forcing you to play! . . but still keep playing and paying the money so the game can exist for the few of us playing correctly."

no, i dont think i will.

i think i might. . .go somewhere else ^_^

Because you have to play the game as intended? That's wild. You probably shouldn't be playing if you dislike the game and genre that much.

This is exactly what I'm talking about in regards to hostile design and hostile gameplay environment. In a live service game, 'take it or leave it' isn't a healthy attitude for fostering long term growth.

Thanks for bumping my thread with consistent, aggressive signaling of exactly the point I'm criticizing. Great to know we're playing your game wrong and we should just leave.

SeaGtGruff · July 2

Is there a group check after the pressure plates, or can the first dungeon be soloed once you get past the two pressure plates?

Ph1p · July 2

Wing wrote: »

there is a difference between grouping if you would like amongst a massive community to play with, vs being forced to group against your will. how many people would go to public parks if they knew they HAD to group with some stranger to go for a walk, that's stupid.

Comparing group dungeons to public parks is a massive stretch. The 40+ overland zones fit that analogy much better and, for the most part, indeed don't require any grouping whatsoever. Group dungeons are more like escape rooms, which are mostly designed for groups of people. Can some technically be completed by one person? Yes, but it makes no sense to complain if there is actually a puzzle requiring two people to solve.

Having said that, having a barrier just for the sake of it makes no sense to me either (looking at you, Direfrost Keep). But if the dungeon has proper mechanics that require the group to split up and coordinate, then it may be better to telegraph that from the beginning and not have solo players find out that they hit a wall after completing 80% of the dungeon.

WhiteCoatSyndrome · July 2

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

Is there a group check after the pressure plates, or can the first dungeon be soloed once you get past the two pressure plates?

Unless they changed it since then, I helped a guildie who wanted to solo Direfrost with the Direfrost pressure plates a while back and we found out the hard way if the second person leaves the group the Dungeon will kick the other person out. 😐 Not to say it would be impossible, but a bit more of a hassle for the second person than it would appear to be at first glance.

Major_Toughness · July 2

Credible_Joe wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Wing wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

cyclonus11 wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Never seen a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE community so upset that they have to play with other players.

MMO does not mean FORCED GROUP.

You are not forced.

You choose to restrict yourself, therefore you can not do content which breaks your own (not the games) restrictions.

your ignoring a critical fact.

its a business that hopes to make money, not just a game. that requires players, concessions, compromises. you see ESO does not live in a vacuum, there are MANY other games like ESO that might do things better, or alot better.

but some of us like ESO, we hope to see it improve.

so the response of "LOL you expect to much! your playing wrong! nobody is forcing you to play! . . but still keep playing and paying the money so the game can exist for the few of us playing correctly."

no, i dont think i will.

i think i might. . .go somewhere else ^_^

Because you have to play the game as intended? That's wild. You probably shouldn't be playing if you dislike the game and genre that much.

This is exactly what I'm talking about in regards to hostile design and hostile gameplay environment. In a live service game, 'take it or leave it' isn't a healthy attitude for fostering long term growth.

Thanks for bumping my thread with consistent, aggressive signaling of exactly the point I'm criticizing. Great to know we're playing your game wrong and we should just leave.

If you are that bothered by group dungeons being designed for groups, I can't help you.

The fact people are complaining about group content being designed for groups is wild, and goes to show how unhealthy the state of the game is, and how far it has strayed from it's design.

Credible_Joe · July 2

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Credible_Joe wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Wing wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

cyclonus11 wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Never seen a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE community so upset that they have to play with other players.

MMO does not mean FORCED GROUP.

You are not forced.

You choose to restrict yourself, therefore you can not do content which breaks your own (not the games) restrictions.

your ignoring a critical fact.

its a business that hopes to make money, not just a game. that requires players, concessions, compromises. you see ESO does not live in a vacuum, there are MANY other games like ESO that might do things better, or alot better.

but some of us like ESO, we hope to see it improve.

so the response of "LOL you expect to much! your playing wrong! nobody is forcing you to play! . . but still keep playing and paying the money so the game can exist for the few of us playing correctly."

no, i dont think i will.

i think i might. . .go somewhere else ^_^

Because you have to play the game as intended? That's wild. You probably shouldn't be playing if you dislike the game and genre that much.

This is exactly what I'm talking about in regards to hostile design and hostile gameplay environment. In a live service game, 'take it or leave it' isn't a healthy attitude for fostering long term growth.

Thanks for bumping my thread with consistent, aggressive signaling of exactly the point I'm criticizing. Great to know we're playing your game wrong and we should just leave.

If you are that bothered by group dungeons being designed for groups, I can't help you.

The fact people are complaining about group content being designed for groups is wild, and goes to show how unhealthy the state of the game is, and how far it has strayed from it's design.

I am bothered by hostile design that punishes alternative gameplay styles, as I've reiterated several times in this thread. As opposed to design that rewards or incentivizes group content, which I support and prefer to the hard checks I'm criticizing.

Feel free to continue ignoring those points; the more you bump my thread with the exact sentiments I'm criticizing the more visibility it gets. Contrarianism fuels engagement.

LadyGP · July 2

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Never seen a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE community so upset that they have to play with other players.

While I get where you are coming from... There are times where people just don't have the energy to be social.. or maybe they just want to do stuff on their own.

Example.. I want to run DSA because I need a weapon from there. This is something I can solo... but it takes much longer. I'd rather just solo it and do it on my terms... (I can afk for a few if needed) and not have to go through the stress of finding a group.

Making it so its literally impossible to even try something solo is a terrible design. If you truly don't want a solo to be able to do it just ramp up the difficulty but to make it so solos literally cant even enter.

Shame on ZoS. I'd like to know the "why" this decision was made. Maybe there is some context that is missing that would help this conversation a bit.

Major_Mangle · July 2

LadyGP wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Never seen a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE community so upset that they have to play with other players.

While I get where you are coming from... There are times where people just don't have the energy to be social.. or maybe they just want to do stuff on their own.

Example.. I want to run DSA because I need a weapon from there. This is something I can solo... but it takes much longer. I'd rather just solo it and do it on my terms... (I can afk for a few if needed) and not have to go through the stress of finding a group.

Making it so its literally impossible to even try something solo is a terrible design. If you truly don't want a solo to be able to do it just ramp up the difficulty but to make it so solos literally cant even enter.

Shame on ZoS. I'd like to know the "why" this decision was made. Maybe there is some context that is missing that would help this conversation a bit.

I´ll comment on the bolded part mainly:
It´s not bad design if the intended way of doing that particular dungeon is as a group. As I wrote in my earlier comment on this thread, good/bad design has nothing to do with players liking it or not, that´s irrelevant.

jaws343 · July 2

Major_Mangle wrote: »

LadyGP wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Never seen a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE community so upset that they have to play with other players.

While I get where you are coming from... There are times where people just don't have the energy to be social.. or maybe they just want to do stuff on their own.

Example.. I want to run DSA because I need a weapon from there. This is something I can solo... but it takes much longer. I'd rather just solo it and do it on my terms... (I can afk for a few if needed) and not have to go through the stress of finding a group.

Making it so its literally impossible to even try something solo is a terrible design. If you truly don't want a solo to be able to do it just ramp up the difficulty but to make it so solos literally cant even enter.

Shame on ZoS. I'd like to know the "why" this decision was made. Maybe there is some context that is missing that would help this conversation a bit.

I´ll comment on the bolded part mainly:
It´s not bad design if the intended way of doing that particular dungeon is as a group. As I wrote in my earlier comment on this thread, good/bad design has nothing to do with players liking it or not, that´s irrelevant.

But your argument falls apart in this exact dungeon instance where the gating mechanic is at the start and only requires two people to active it. So, duos are fine for a 4 man, but solo isn't because of an arbitrary blocker. It further falls apart when, by their very nature, companions are meant to be stand ins for group members. So a solo player with a companion, technically a group, cannot even start the dungeon because of the arbitrary gating mechanic.

Major_Mangle · July 2

jaws343 wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

LadyGP wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Never seen a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE community so upset that they have to play with other players.

While I get where you are coming from... There are times where people just don't have the energy to be social.. or maybe they just want to do stuff on their own.

Example.. I want to run DSA because I need a weapon from there. This is something I can solo... but it takes much longer. I'd rather just solo it and do it on my terms... (I can afk for a few if needed) and not have to go through the stress of finding a group.

Making it so its literally impossible to even try something solo is a terrible design. If you truly don't want a solo to be able to do it just ramp up the difficulty but to make it so solos literally cant even enter.

Shame on ZoS. I'd like to know the "why" this decision was made. Maybe there is some context that is missing that would help this conversation a bit.

I´ll comment on the bolded part mainly:
It´s not bad design if the intended way of doing that particular dungeon is as a group. As I wrote in my earlier comment on this thread, good/bad design has nothing to do with players liking it or not, that´s irrelevant.

But your argument falls apart in this exact dungeon instance where the gating mechanic is at the start and only requires two people to active it. So, duos are fine for a 4 man, but solo isn't because of an arbitrary blocker. It further falls apart when, by their very nature, companions are meant to be stand ins for group members. So a solo player with a companion, technically a group, cannot even start the dungeon because of the arbitrary gating mechanic.

While we don´t know the mechanics of that dungeon since they didn´t wanna spoil too much in the showcase, I´ll will assume that the pressure plates and traps will have mechanics that require players to coordinate and stand on them at the same time in order to execute said mechanics (they did say those traps will play a large part of the dungeon). So the initial pressure plates at the entrance of the dungeon I will assume is most likely acting as a small hint to the players that enters the dungeon what is to be expected. So no, my argument doesn´t fall a part in that sense.

LadyGP · July 2

Major_Mangle wrote: »

LadyGP wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Never seen a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE community so upset that they have to play with other players.

While I get where you are coming from... There are times where people just don't have the energy to be social.. or maybe they just want to do stuff on their own.

Example.. I want to run DSA because I need a weapon from there. This is something I can solo... but it takes much longer. I'd rather just solo it and do it on my terms... (I can afk for a few if needed) and not have to go through the stress of finding a group.

Making it so its literally impossible to even try something solo is a terrible design. If you truly don't want a solo to be able to do it just ramp up the difficulty but to make it so solos literally cant even enter.

Shame on ZoS. I'd like to know the "why" this decision was made. Maybe there is some context that is missing that would help this conversation a bit.

I´ll comment on the bolded part mainly:
It´s not bad design if the intended way of doing that particular dungeon is as a group. As I wrote in my earlier comment on this thread, good/bad design has nothing to do with players liking it or not, that´s irrelevant.

Good/bad game design has everything to do with what players like and don't like.

Is it "good game design" if I use all the best practices in the gaming industry but the game I make no one "likes" there for no one plays? It's the best game design based on game development best practices surely it will be the #1 game on Steam right?

twisttop138 · July 2

I'm of two minds really. I think group content should be group content but this pressure plate stuff isnt the way. Make interesting mechanics that challenge group players, have that be the reason it can't be soloed. Then if someone can solo it, good on them. It makes it so everyone wins. Us group players have content that's challenging and people that wanna really challenge themselves can I do understand that not everyone wants to group, and pugs can be a crapshoot. I recommend to everyone that asks to join a guild that fits you. They're out there. My social guild has regular weekly rostered vet dungeon training runs. They're so popular that we have to add more. I think if more solo players could find a positive experience in group content they would do it more. It just works, cause we always stop if someone wants to loot or listen to the dialogue or if the group agrees we go fast.

Major_Mangle · July 2

LadyGP wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

LadyGP wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Never seen a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE community so upset that they have to play with other players.

While I get where you are coming from... There are times where people just don't have the energy to be social.. or maybe they just want to do stuff on their own.

Example.. I want to run DSA because I need a weapon from there. This is something I can solo... but it takes much longer. I'd rather just solo it and do it on my terms... (I can afk for a few if needed) and not have to go through the stress of finding a group.

Making it so its literally impossible to even try something solo is a terrible design. If you truly don't want a solo to be able to do it just ramp up the difficulty but to make it so solos literally cant even enter.

Shame on ZoS. I'd like to know the "why" this decision was made. Maybe there is some context that is missing that would help this conversation a bit.

I´ll comment on the bolded part mainly:
It´s not bad design if the intended way of doing that particular dungeon is as a group. As I wrote in my earlier comment on this thread, good/bad design has nothing to do with players liking it or not, that´s irrelevant.

Good/bad game design has everything to do with what players like and don't like.

Is it "good game design" if I use all the best practices in the gaming industry but the game I make no one "likes" there for no one plays? It's the best game design based on game development best practices surely it will be the #1 game on Steam right?

The definition of good/bad game design is based on what the developers intended and what the outcome then is (how is that even a debate lol). You can like a bad design and you can dislike good design. Random theoretical example:
If I make content with the purpose of being so hard to complete and out of reach of majority players, and then a very few % of players manage to complete that content, that is by definition GOOD DESIGN (like certain HM trial trifectas aimed to be very very hard to achieve), because it fulfilled the goal it was design to do. Players may not like it and you´ve to rethink future decisions, but that´s another topic. But not liking something doesn´t make it bad design, that´s not how it works.

M1SHAAN · July 2

I was originally quite upset about this, but as I've thought about it, I'm more okay with it.

This barrier only seems to be on one of the dungeons, so I don't think ZOS is signaling that they never want us to be able to solo dungeons. Therefore, I'm assuming that there will be more group-needed mechanics later in the dungeon. If there are, I'd rather be barred from soloing right up front rather than forgetting a dungeon has an anti-solo mechanic and hitting a wall partway through. If there aren't group mechanics, though, I go back to my original gut reaction of this design choice being mean-spirited.

Finn's quip about them being group dungeons stung a bit, but I see his point from a combat design perspective. The content is designed for a four-person group, but you can't solely balance that around damage and healing capabilities because power creep might render it all trivial. Mechanics where individual group members have different responsibilities are more engaging and more resistant to power creep, but come at the cost of being able to solo them. And I think I'm okay with the developers designing the most interesting, engaging, and future-proof dungeons they can, even if it comes at the cost of being able to solo it.

I won't be happy if the "group mechanics" in the dungeon are just that there are more of these pads to stand on later in the dungeon to open a few more doors, that isn't interesting design. But I am open to trial-like group mechanics in group dungeons if they make the content interesting.

Credible_Joe · July 2

Major_Mangle wrote: »

jaws343 wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

LadyGP wrote: »

Major_Toughness wrote: »

Never seen a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE community so upset that they have to play with other players.

While I get where you are coming from... There are times where people just don't have the energy to be social.. or maybe they just want to do stuff on their own.

Example.. I want to run DSA because I need a weapon from there. This is something I can solo... but it takes much longer. I'd rather just solo it and do it on my terms... (I can afk for a few if needed) and not have to go through the stress of finding a group.

Making it so its literally impossible to even try something solo is a terrible design. If you truly don't want a solo to be able to do it just ramp up the difficulty but to make it so solos literally cant even enter.

Shame on ZoS. I'd like to know the "why" this decision was made. Maybe there is some context that is missing that would help this conversation a bit.

I´ll comment on the bolded part mainly:
It´s not bad design if the intended way of doing that particular dungeon is as a group. As I wrote in my earlier comment on this thread, good/bad design has nothing to do with players liking it or not, that´s irrelevant.

But your argument falls apart in this exact dungeon instance where the gating mechanic is at the start and only requires two people to active it. So, duos are fine for a 4 man, but solo isn't because of an arbitrary blocker. It further falls apart when, by their very nature, companions are meant to be stand ins for group members. So a solo player with a companion, technically a group, cannot even start the dungeon because of the arbitrary gating mechanic.

While we don´t know the mechanics of that dungeon since they didn´t wanna spoil too much in the showcase, I´ll will assume that the pressure plates and traps will have mechanics that require players to coordinate and stand on them at the same time in order to execute said mechanics (they did say those traps will play a large part of the dungeon). So the initial pressure plates at the entrance of the dungeon I will assume is most likely acting as a small hint to the players that enters the dungeon what is to be expected. So no, my argument doesn´t fall a part in that sense.

This angle is valid, but plays into the larger issue of designing puzzles, or more generally, problems for players to solve in video games.

Take just the pressure plate check at the beginning, for example. Any competent adventurer would find a suitably sized rock, or a pile of rocks, or otherwise figure out a way to weigh down the second pressure plate in order to advance. But, according to the design of the dungeon, the only solution we're allowed is to bring a second player. Companions don't count.

This goes deeper past video game design and is an issue for dungeon masters in TTRPGs. We've all heard this story-- a DM that's trying to flex their brain power designs a puzzle and has a very specific solution they want their players to spend time figuring out.

They don't consider that one of the players is at least as smart as they are, or even just more creative or cunning, and proposes an alternative solution that the DM did not consider, but is just as valid. The DM has two options:

Commit to the original solution, contrive an excuse as to why the player's alternative is not effective
Accept the alternative solution and improvise from there

Most agree that option 1 is a bad time and option 2 is good DMing. Unfortunately, video game designers do not have access to option two. Their solutions to problems they've designed are baked in.

So, good design in video games accounts for the limits of the medium and will avoid open-ended problems for players as much as possible. Any time we think "there's an obvious solution to this problem that we don't have access to purely because of the limits of the game," there has been a misstep in design. Examples include the small slopes we can't traverse Northward in Pokemon, gatekeeper NPCs we would feasibly be able to fight and defeat, sneak past, or trick in a lot of RPGs, locked doors that are impossible to pick for some reason, even when you have the actual Skeleton Key.

I said in an earlier reply, sentiments for or against content that's designed around or for groups are immaterial. This thread is criticizing the return of Option 1 design that we've seen in the past that has only brought frustration to players.

Maybe there's content further in the dungeon that requires multiple players, but again-- making a problem with an exclusive solution is the root issue here. Telling us we're not equipped to do this on our own and that we can't win without someone else present puts a limit on our characters that assumes we're incapable of finding some other solution to that problem. That's not a good feeling.