A way to end all of the solo play needs buff cries.

General Discussion
Back pre release, they actually had a way to salvage item into mats while fighting monsters. You didn't need to port to town every few minutes, never saw the light of day though.

They also thought of making crafting materials into something that didn't take up inventory space, sort of like blood shards and gold, i assume they would of had auto pick up in that situation.

Gets to a point though where it could feel like your playing a phone game...
09/15/2015 11:34 AMPosted by Kixx
Why do people keep asking for a solo only ladder? It's never going to happen and its a terrible, terrible idea.


And having people that only group, dominating the solo boards is good how?

09/15/2015 02:03 PMPosted by Saidosha
Now, I will say a solo-only ladder is a bad idea because we do not need yet another mode fragmenting the player base akin to SC/HC and Season/Non.


First off, a solo ladder isn't a game mode. Solo already exists. You can't that it will add another mode as an excuse. Second, they need to remove the solo boards if nothing will change. It can't be a solo boards if all the top spots are filled with group players, now can it?

Either remove the solo boards or stop allowing group only players from dominating them. No part time group players are topping the solo boards. Only the full time groupers are.
09/15/2015 11:11 AMPosted by BobWitchDR
Blizzard will never implement a system that promotes solo play over multiplayer. They want people playing together. They have pushed MP since day one and it's not going to change anytime soon.


Why would you people downvote this guy's post? He takes no pro or con position, just stating fact.

Blizzard has even implied as much on numerous occasions as to their intended philosophy behind the game.
09/16/2015 12:55 AMPosted by Espiritu
your a troll no 100% solo player would have ur paragon levels unless they bot and even botting that would be hard.


Ummm, I've only been playing since December, have only played multiplayer maybe a dozen times with my son, and Kixx is not THAT far ahead of me. Had he started in Jan 2014, that's a totally realistic solo paragon level.
09/16/2015 12:55 AMPosted by Espiritu
09/15/2015 11:34 AMPosted by Kixx
Why do people keep asking for a solo only ladder? It's never going to happen and its a terrible, terrible idea. Most people play a mix and end up soloing a lot more as the season goes on and their friend's list gets less populated.

A solo player could easily hit my paragon lvl by now. The real answer is for Blizzard to actually ban the botters. People that bot all night and then wake up and run hundreds of GRs. That's a bigger problem. The people below that tier that are grouping and playing efficiently, you are never going to beat them.


your a troll no 100% solo player would have ur paragon levels unless they bot and even botting that would be hard.

Solo needs to be buffed it is that simple, some people don't want to play with !@# hats 24/7 on D3 so a lot wait for clan members problem is after a couple weeks of season numbers die down fast and many fall behind because of the OP bonus group play get.

Not about making solo better, it is about making it fairer. the people saying this should not happen prob don't even play the game and prob just bot most of the time.


My best RL friend is primarily a solo player 85% of the time and he is nearing Paragon 600. When he plays with other people it's his brother or me.
09/16/2015 08:10 AMPosted by Fauxlivia
09/16/2015 12:55 AMPosted by Espiritu
your a troll no 100% solo player would have ur paragon levels unless they bot and even botting that would be hard.


Ummm, I've only been playing since December, have only played multiplayer maybe a dozen times with my son, and Kixx is not THAT far ahead of me. Had he started in Jan 2014, that's a totally realistic solo paragon level.


Every 100 levels you gain is equivalent to all the previous levels. For example 1-600 in XP is equal to 600-682. Gaining levels gets surprisingly gruesome as you get up there. It's just shy of 19 Billion XP to get a level for me now at Paragon 761. I can solo a GR60 and I have never measured the total XP I get from killing monsters at that GR but the closing of a GR60 is 990 Million XP.
09/15/2015 11:06 AMPosted by Borg
That would only be useful for a small number of players. It's been suggested dozens of times before.

The problem is, a lot of people play solo some of the time and in groups the rest. Not that many people want a pure solo board, they just don't want the time they spend outside of organized efficient groups to be so dramatically and obviously next to pointless in comparison to their time spent grouped.

Now that my friends log in less and less I spend a lot more time solo. I've hardly gained any paragon in a week because playing solo your xp/hour goes to near nothing in comparison to Grift farming in groups with 1-2 xp geared people. That is not how the game should be balanced. XP farming Grifts with xp gear should not even be a thing at all let alone the most efficient way to play. It adds nothing of value to the game. There's no reason bonus XP should be multiplictive in Grifts only. There's no reason to make Grifts the primary place for XP gain. There's no reason to promote the use of bonus XP at level 70 at all really. It's worse than MF gear ever was yet they decided to remove that from the game while making bonus XP a necessity for efficient play?


Pay attention EmmetOtter and other fanboys. This is real issue and explains very thoroughly what/why and some options on how to fix it.

Thanks Borg
09/15/2015 09:50 PMPosted by Saidosha

But is it truly best for the game for things to functioning as they are at present? Blizzard wanting people to play in MP is not the same as alienating those who do not or can not. Otherwise, we may as well eliminate all private games and make it just one public free-for-all. So, since you've made it a point to declare the multiplayer population is the dominant faction on numerous occasions, I'll just join that other poster in the "citation required" crowd. Quit projecting your preference and/or the misguided superiority complex you've derived from complacency in the false choice we've been given. Blizz is messing up. We're calling them out on it, some even going the extra mile with solutions. That's it. Most of us understand MP will always convey an innate advantage via manpower and synergy. We'd just rather it be a matter of inches than miles.

You have asked for a citation and while Blizzard may not publish usage statistics publicly they do mention the importance of "online play" an exceedingly number of times in their annual report. Why is online important? Certainly not for playing solo.

Then there is every single Blizzard product, which without fail are online, multiplayer centric games.

Then there are industry trends.
72% play of American pc gamers play online
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-05-02-72-percent-of-gamers-play-online-npd

56% of the most frequent gamers play with others and spend an average of 6.5 hours per week playing with others online and an average of 5 hours per week playing with others in person
http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ESA-Essential-Facts-2015.pdf

Look around you. Nearly every big title released has 1 thing in common: online play. Adding "online" increases the complexity and cost of development and can be extremely expensive to service (data center electricity consumption can exceed that of every house in small and medium sized cities). Why provide this complex and costly capability? Because multiplayer is just that important.

Solo is the soon-to-be-extinct dodo bird of gaming. Should we be surprised that Blizzard has over and over again stressed the importance of group play over solo play and that group play will always be the most rewarding way to play this game?

Then there's you and everyone like you screaming and crying about how unfair this "gap" is and how huge the problem is. It can only be "unfair" and "huge" if the vast majority of players are taking advantage of the benefits of group play. Otherwise it can barely be said to be an annoyance.

You are in the minority. If you want to maximize your chances of getting Blizz to take you seriously and making a change that helps you, you should stop thinking about what is best for your tiny little group and start thinking about what can actually help the vast majority of players in both modes: group and solo.
09/17/2015 06:10 AMPosted by EmmetOtter
09/15/2015 09:50 PMPosted by Saidosha

But is it truly best for the game for things to functioning as they are at present? Blizzard wanting people to play in MP is not the same as alienating those who do not or can not. Otherwise, we may as well eliminate all private games and make it just one public free-for-all. So, since you've made it a point to declare the multiplayer population is the dominant faction on numerous occasions, I'll just join that other poster in the "citation required" crowd. Quit projecting your preference and/or the misguided superiority complex you've derived from complacency in the false choice we've been given. Blizz is messing up. We're calling them out on it, some even going the extra mile with solutions. That's it. Most of us understand MP will always convey an innate advantage via manpower and synergy. We'd just rather it be a matter of inches than miles.

You have asked for a citation and while Blizzard may not publish usage statistics publicly they do mention the importance of "online play" an exceedingly number of times in their annual report. Why is online important? Certainly not for playing solo.

Then there is every single Blizzard product, which without fail are online, multiplayer centric games.

Then there are industry trends.
72% play of American pc gamers play online
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-05-02-72-percent-of-gamers-play-online-npd

56% of the most frequent gamers play with others and spend an average of 6.5 hours per week playing with others online and an average of 5 hours per week playing with others in person
http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ESA-Essential-Facts-2015.pdf

Look around you. Nearly every big title released has 1 thing in common: online play. Adding "online" increases the complexity and cost of development and can be extremely expensive to service (data center electricity consumption can exceed that of every house in small and medium sized cities). Why provide this complex and costly capability? Because multiplayer is just that important.

Solo is the soon-to-be-extinct dodo bird of gaming. Should we be surprised that Blizzard has over and over again stressed the importance of group play over solo play and that group play will always be the most rewarding way to play this game?

Then there's you and everyone like you screaming and crying about how unfair this "gap" is and how huge the problem is. It can only be "unfair" and "huge" if the vast majority of players are taking advantage of the benefits of group play. Otherwise it can barely be said to be an annoyance.

You are in the minority. If you want to maximize your chances of getting Blizz to take you seriously and making a change that helps you, you should stop thinking about what is best for your tiny little group and start thinking about what can actually help the vast majority of players in both modes: group and solo.


You have a very interesting view of what that article says. It says that people play online, but that doesn't mean they play multiplayer. If I go do daily quests in WoW, I am online but not necessarily grouped with people. If I play Diablo by myself, I am online but not playing with others. Maybe I will go play Civ 5 on Steam. Oop, I guess I am online, but not playing with anyone. Your conclusion from that may or may not be correct, but the information cited above does not support your position.

I actually have to argue the other way. If things weren't so incredibly inbalanced, people using bots would do so more in private games and not risk being reported for botting in pugs. Not that it's really a risk with what we've seen lately, but it's a better foot to stand on than what you have currently.

Here's an article to consider. I see some striking similarities to your own arguments.

http://fee.org/freeman/ten-reasons-not-to-abolish-slavery/
They got rid of MF, get rid of XP bonuses.
The solution to this is simple. Buff the followers a ton so they do meaningful dps and have meaningful abilities. Also buff the tollower tokens.

This way you can get more kill speed in solo and thus more XP over time.
09/17/2015 07:32 AMPosted by the8thark
The solution to this is simple. Buff the followers a ton so they do meaningful dps and have meaningful abilities. Also buff the tollower tokens.


Yes this is the logical solution.

Give the solo player a "group" with all the group perks.

- Change their stats so they are similar to a player where they can actually do respectable damage
- Allow players to fully gear them. Then players can outfit them with more DPS, CC, XP or whatever
- Allow generic legendary/set bonuses to apply to followers (non-class specific items)
- Allow players to hire ALL THREE OF THEM at once but adjust monster strength just like group play to compensate.
- Rework Ashera's into a follower only 6p super support set.
- Allow Arcstone to chain between all of them and the player more frequently then it may actually be a thing.
- Allow Leg Gems to work on them
- Make highest element on their gear be the main
- Allow Cube to work on them

Think of the benefits:
- A ton more gear slots open up to store junk on mules
- A actual reason to farm and use all those cool legendarys that are auto-junked today. Fire walkers for instance
- A new degree of gearing/build strategies for solo Grift progression because now you need to fully consider followers into the mix
- XP earn rate is now comparable to the group play if followers are decked out with XP gear
- 2 more meat shields to help the glass cannon builds (talking about you wizards)
- SIN buff gets applied to solo

I think doing this takes the solo experience to a whole new level of excitement. Brings me back to the Baldur's Gate days of being able to gear out your complete party and all the different options you had. We need Boo as the pet not that blue dog thing.

I can't imagine anyone would disagree with this but if anyone does I would love to hear why and what your "creative" solution is.
09/15/2015 01:46 PMPosted by Visionhero
I also agree it is much more beneficial to play Publics, unfortunately there is hardly anyone in Non-season now and when I do find people there they want to run GR35-40. I am solo'ing GR60 on my own and playing GR40 even with multiple players is not going to run. I tried the GR communities and still have only manage 2 Public games in over 2 weeks. I know I should be playing season, however seasons had zero attraction for me as a primary WD player.


So play seasons
09/17/2015 09:01 AMPosted by Necroforprez
09/15/2015 01:46 PMPosted by Visionhero
I also agree it is much more beneficial to play Publics, unfortunately there is hardly anyone in Non-season now and when I do find people there they want to run GR35-40. I am solo'ing GR60 on my own and playing GR40 even with multiple players is not going to run. I tried the GR communities and still have only manage 2 Public games in over 2 weeks. I know I should be playing season, however seasons had zero attraction for me as a primary WD player.


So play seasons


Why would I want to start at Paragon 0 on seasons when I am nearing Paragon 800 on non-seasons? Seasons has zero incentive to play right now. That legendary gem isn't all that great.

When seasons provide an incentive I play seasons until then I would rather play solo then start over in seasons and as my non-season paragon continues to grow the less incentive I will have to ever play seasons. I am a 40+ year old with kids and play heavily at a casual level. I have no need to compete on ladders.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum