Can i play Solo without being penalized already?

General Discussion
Prev 1 4 5 6 25 Next
I have to agree in spirit with the OP. You already gain more exp in a well organized group because the synergies between skills and group buffs help you clear things faster. This is especially evident on greater rifts which you can usually run up to 10 levels higher in groups then in solo. Therefore you already earn more exp.

OP is right that the strengh in numbers benefit was more for a time when G Rifts didn't exist and the devs were more concerned about players teaming up to farm the torment levels. Heck it might even be from before Torment... I don't remember.

Now it just seems assenine that someone gets more MF and EXP per monster kills simply because they are playing with a buddy. People will still team up for GRIFTS and Speeding through regular content to increase rates of drops.

Plus this would allow for more efficient farming of rifts where a speed monk goes one way, a demon hunter the other, and the the two barbs also split up and clear a T6 rift map in 10 seconds. It would be fun. But blizz sees this as a minus a am sure.
P.S.

It would also be favorable for those of us that play solo at times because we need to constantly pause the game to check on things and can't devote hours on end of uninterrupted gameplay.
05/28/2015 10:59 AMPosted by Nesa
05/27/2015 11:28 PMPosted by CreationEdge
If you want to close the gap between your solo toons and multiplayer toons on the current servers, you have the choice to play multiplayer. Staunchly refusing to take advantage of a game mechanic is an absolutely terrible reason for the developers to add new mechanics such as single-player buffs.


Or they could just make the 2 modes a bit closer than the current cavernous gap?


Pretty much any improvement to solo play is going to benefit all players, and won't address the gap.

Or you're going to get a bigger backlash of group players that think single-player bonuses should be rolled into multi-player bonuses.

It's not going to satisfy anyone in the long run. The appeasement would be merely for a perception of imbalance, when in fact if you're playing solo you're balanced for solo play and it's completely pointless to compare yourself to group play or top-tier leaderboards.
When the game came out and both solo and multiplayer were about equally rewarding, people wouldn't play multiplayer because *gasp* they enjoyed playing solo mode more.

So Blizzard decided to shower co-op with bonuses that made it more rewarding. It still didn't help that much since the players still found solo mode more fun for the most part. Fast forward a few years and with greater rifts and +xp bonus working as it does suddenly co-op is much more rewarding to play and the massive difference in xp earned finally has pushed people into co-op. All it took was it being at least twice as rewarding as solo. Now the expected backlash is coming from people, who always preferred to play solo (but now feel forced to play co-op), asking why solo play is being discriminated in this game.

If you all are enjoying co-up, why are you afraid of solo play being equally rewarding?
I have been playing more solo lately, doing bounties for rift keys since I have run out. It seems that the leg drop rate may have recently been buffed (or I have just been lucky). I have gotten a decent amount of legs in bounties, which I never have before. I always ran T6 bounties, to get the 100% leg in the Horadric Cache, but usually didnt get any legendary items while doing the bounties. In the last few days I have averaged a couple legs before I completed the bounties in an act and got the cache.
05/28/2015 05:42 PMPosted by CreationEdge
05/28/2015 10:59 AMPosted by Nesa
...

Or they could just make the 2 modes a bit closer than the current cavernous gap?


Pretty much any improvement to solo play is going to benefit all players, and won't address the gap.


There are a lot of ways they could go about buffing only solo XP, even something as mundane as giving your follower an item/aura that gives you a +xx% xp buff (whatever they deem to be 'parity'). And even then it still wouldn't even address all the myriad *other* ways MP is superior to solo (MF buff, loot sharing in an otherwise BoA game, and higher gem levels being the most glaring) in terms of power progression vs time spent playing.

05/28/2015 05:42 PMPosted by CreationEdge

Or you're going to get a bigger backlash of group players that think single-player bonuses should be rolled into multi-player bonuses.

It's not going to satisfy anyone in the long run. The appeasement would be merely for a perception of imbalance, when in fact if you're playing solo you're balanced for solo play and it's completely pointless to compare yourself to group play or top-tier leaderboards.


It's not a 'perception' of imbalance, it's a fact. And where the 'problem' manifests itself is when you run group RIFTs, get +10 gems levels, better gear, and a few hundred more paragon over what you could have done completely solo (in the same time frame), and then compete on the 'solo' leaderboards.
+1 to above
I agree... I run 95% solo because I don't want to have to worry about the group makeup (skills, builds etc)... it's tiresome, and even in CLAN there can be guys like 'hey pal, please ditch this and use this and that'... frell you, I'll play WTH I want to play, fella...

Other people generally suck, unless it's somebody you KNOW, then you KNOW what to expect.
99% of the time? Not worth my headache, man...
05/28/2015 05:42 PMPosted by CreationEdge
05/28/2015 10:59 AMPosted by Nesa
...

Or they could just make the 2 modes a bit closer than the current cavernous gap?


Pretty much any improvement to solo play is going to benefit all players, and won't address the gap.

Or you're going to get a bigger backlash of group players that think single-player bonuses should be rolled into multi-player bonuses.

It's not going to satisfy anyone in the long run. The appeasement would be merely for a perception of imbalance, when in fact if you're playing solo you're balanced for solo play and it's completely pointless to compare yourself to group play or top-tier leaderboards.


Pls explain why u must play predominantly multiplayer in order to compete on SOLO leaderboard
05/29/2015 12:16 AMPosted by Kotobeast
05/28/2015 05:42 PMPosted by CreationEdge
...

Pretty much any improvement to solo play is going to benefit all players, and won't address the gap.

Or you're going to get a bigger backlash of group players that think single-player bonuses should be rolled into multi-player bonuses.

It's not going to satisfy anyone in the long run. The appeasement would be merely for a perception of imbalance, when in fact if you're playing solo you're balanced for solo play and it's completely pointless to compare yourself to group play or top-tier leaderboards.


Pls explain why u must play predominantly multiplayer in order to compete on SOLO leaderboard


You don't 'have' to, but you get much more chances at gear in a group and the extra few hundred paragon levels makes a large difference.
05/29/2015 01:05 AMPosted by KTap
05/29/2015 12:16 AMPosted by Kotobeast
...

Pls explain why u must play predominantly multiplayer in order to compete on SOLO leaderboard


You don't 'have' to, but you get much more chances at gear in a group and the extra few hundred paragon levels makes a large difference.


Exactly

Solo player doing speed 40s with 1 trial per rift

Vs group player doing speed 45s with 1 trial per 4 rift

Group player gets 2-3x more drops

And 2-3x more exp

If he is playing zdps, due to multiplicative exp gain he will actually get 6-9x more exp than solo player

But fair is fair rite
Multi-player games having a longer playing life than solo games. This has been true for well over a decade, basically since high speed internet connections became the norm in industrialised countries, although there was evidence this was true even for some local multi-player games. So remembering that you have to recognise that the devs want to encourage group play not for any ideological reasons but because of longevity. The more people that keep playing D3 the larger their budget for continued development, xpacs and sequels.

The problem with D3 is that the social elements of the game are virtually non-existent and therefore the only way to encourage group play is the reward structure. As a solo player I’m okay with group play being encouraged with greater rewards but that has to be tempered. At the moment the game’s reward structure has been skewed way too far in favour of group play.

The main reason for this is an ideological decision the devs did make. That is, an exponential increase in rewards based on difficulty, this is true for XP, gold and loot. GRs were an exception when implemented because the devs did not view them as farming/grinding opportunities but rather achievements in their own right. The second XP gains in GRs became more rewarding than T6 this ceased being the case. That being said as long as solo and different group make-ups have the opportunity to play at the same GR level this would not be a problem. That is clearly not the case as the game currently stands.

The devs have an in-built bonus to XP and loot of 30% for group play but that’s absolutely irrelevant if groups can finish GRs 15 levels higher than solo players. That 15 level difference in terms of XP grind is massively more than 30% and the power increase from extra para and leg gem levels just adds insult to injury. At the moment that 30% bonus just feels like salt into the wound of solo players rather than an encouragement for group play. That’s not to say I want to get rid of the 30% bonus what I want is that 15 level gap closed to a max of 5 but preferably zero.

There are many ways this could be achieved, the most obvious is to increase the monster HP for group play. That’s slightly boring and I would prefer a more imaginative answer. Increasing follower effectiveness being the best I’ve heard. However, I would like to propose a slightly different system than just making followers more efficient killers. How about follower items (or follower leg gems) that massively increase XP gain, increase the chance to level a leg gem, increase the chance of ancient items, increase elite damage, reduce incoming elite damage, skills/items that occupy RGs……..and so on. This would at least go some way to mitigate that 15 level difference, not to mention give followers a purpose beyond Unity.

For solo play there is also an argument for limiting leg gem level to the highest level completed in solo play. So a leg gem levelled to 60 by group play would be limited to 40 if that is your highest completed solo level. That would at least mitigate that aspect of the 15 level difference.

In the absence of a solution the only way to make solo play competitive is to have solo only servers, chars or leader boards.
05/28/2015 11:38 PMPosted by Nesa

It's not a 'perception' of imbalance, it's a fact. And where the 'problem' manifests itself is when you run group RIFTs, get +10 gems levels, better gear, and a few hundred more paragon over what you could have done completely solo (in the same time frame), and then compete on the 'solo' leaderboards.


Yes, that's a perception of imbalance, because those solo leaderboards are not for solo players. They're for players that ran the grift by themselves that time.

There's no description anywhere saying "Solo Leaderboards are for players that never use Multiplayer features". It's a given that those people will have access to MP benefits, as do the rest of the players.

If you want to compare yourself purely to solo players, don't use the leaderboards. That's not their function.
Bring back trading, and only XP would be a problem for solo'ing.
05/29/2015 09:25 AMPosted by CreationEdge
If you want to compare yourself purely to solo players, don't use the leaderboards. That's not their function.


You literally just made my head explode and completely dodged the point of the thread at the same time. Well played, you might have a bright future in politics.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.
Its to push people to multibox, gives them more money for people to buy more then 1 copy. They learned this in WoW.
05/27/2015 01:49 PMPosted by Andernut
I like playing solo and group. But a mediocre group is still far more rewarding in terms of drops and paragon experience than solo can hope to be.

You make a fair point here, and I think it would help the discussion if we described our philosophy about how we balance single player and multiplayer rewards.

While we want both single player and multiplayer to feel rewarding, if we have to choose between making one or the other better, we’d rather err on the side of multiplayer. Or, to frame things in terms of the end result: given the choice between a single player person feeling more incentive to group up or a multiplayer person feeling forced to kick their friends out of their game, we’d rather have the former.

Early on in Diablo III’s development, many players felt that single player was the only rewarding way to play. While we don’t ever want to return to that state, the size of the gap between the two is also important and something we are always looking to improve. In order to fine tune the two, our changes are going to be incremental as we try to bring single player rewards up carefully.

We’ll continue to keep an eye out for your feedback on this issue and pass along the constructive ideas we’ve seen here and elsewhere.
05/29/2015 02:10 PMPosted by Tyvalir
05/27/2015 01:49 PMPosted by Andernut
I like playing solo and group. But a mediocre group is still far more rewarding in terms of drops and paragon experience than solo can hope to be.

You make a fair point here, and I think it would help the discussion if we described our philosophy about how we balance single player and multiplayer rewards.

While we want both single player and multiplayer to feel rewarding, if we have to choose between making one or the other better, we’d rather err on the side of multiplayer. Or, to frame things in terms of the end result: given the choice between a single player person feeling more incentive to group up or a multiplayer person feeling forced to kick their friends out of their game, we’d rather have the former.

Early on in Diablo III’s development, many players felt that single player was the only rewarding way to play. While we don’t ever want to return to that state, the size of the gap between the two is also important and something we are always looking to improve. In order to fine tune the two, our changes are going to be incremental as we try to bring single player rewards up carefully.

We’ll continue to keep an eye out for your feedback on this issue and pass along the constructive ideas we’ve seen here and elsewhere.


I agree that multiplayer should be slightly more advantageous than solo.

But what about the fact the zDPS leachers are leveling twice as fast as the people putting out the DPS? From a hardcore perspective: I always thought diablo gains should be earned through risk vs. reward. Right now the classes with the least risk (zDPS supports) are gaining XP wayyy faster than anyone else due to the bug of XP being multiplicative in GRs that the devs decided to keep in the game.

I know this issue has already been brought up to the devs and can't be changed mid-season, but just thought I'd throw it out there again :)
05/29/2015 02:10 PMPosted by Tyvalir
05/27/2015 01:49 PMPosted by Andernut
I like playing solo and group. But a mediocre group is still far more rewarding in terms of drops and paragon experience than solo can hope to be.

You make a fair point here, and I think it would help the discussion if we described our philosophy about how we balance single player and multiplayer rewards.

While we want both single player and multiplayer to feel rewarding, if we have to choose between making one or the other better, we’d rather err on the side of multiplayer. Or, to frame things in terms of the end result: given the choice between a single player person feeling more incentive to group up or a multiplayer person feeling forced to kick their friends out of their game, we’d rather have the former.

Early on in Diablo III’s development, many players felt that single player was the only rewarding way to play. While we don’t ever want to return to that state, the size of the gap between the two is also important and something we are always looking to improve. In order to fine tune the two, our changes are going to be incremental as we try to bring single player rewards up carefully.

We’ll continue to keep an eye out for your feedback on this issue and pass along the constructive ideas we’ve seen here and elsewhere.


What about the absolutely silly issue that to compete in SOLO leader boards you HAVE to play in groups? That makes no sense to me what so ever.
05/29/2015 02:10 PMPosted by Tyvalir
While we want both single player and multiplayer to feel rewarding, if we have to choose between making one or the other better, we’d rather err on the side of multiplayer. Or, to frame things in terms of the end result: given the choice between a single player person feeling more incentive to group up or a multiplayer person feeling forced to kick their friends out of their game, we’d rather have the former.


I hate people, but I love Diablo. The struggle is real.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum