Monos King

Well, I was trying to divide two groups of players that specifically are prone to complaining about the game being easy. I haven't seen any alt-o-holics ever complain about challenge or difficulty; probably for reasons you just disclosed. My observation is that the easy game sentiment seems to stems from those types the most, not that everyone within those categories feels that way. Definitely didn't intend for it to come off as though those are the only two types of players. That being said, the category of a reward chaser in particular could definitely be fleshed out. I've mentioned badgers before previously a few pages back when I first defined the two groups, and I missed a bit since the above section was just a recap. By "rewards" I'm pretty much referring to those that increase character stats and utility. Yeah there's definitely more variables to consider. What other factors did you have in mind?

Then you are free to go to one of the many "The Game is Too Easy" threads and impugn the conversations there. You can also look at my opinions in other threads. If you're here, I expect you'll read what is being said rather than tangibly obsess over actual conspiracies about my motivations when I have been exceedingly transparent - through both short synopsis' and also walls of text. It would be pointless to disguise my meaning when I could easily make a thread called "Make the Game more Difficult". It is childish to continue assuming deceit just because you disagree with an existing opinion which I have labored to break down and review solely because I have noticed said opinion, and wanted to discuss options with that opinion in mind. Quit categorizing people without looking at what is being said. Stop assuming bad faith. Find me a single time I have asked for "jacked up difficulty". While I have explicitly stated I believe progression in the game easy, from a point of literal definition, and have looked at why, I have also explicitly stated that I do not personally have much issue with that. I am looking at options that could be interesting that might appeal to those that genuinely DO, and would be cool with those who enjoy the status quo, because even if within your limited sphere you think everything is ok, that does not mean it is the case for everyone. If you are incapable or uninterested in reading my breakdowns, then do not comment. If you are going to ignore all of that and then misconstrue my point anyway, then do not comment. The plague that is overtaking this thread is an immediate antagonization towards an opposing opinion, and is such a disappointing representation of the community it's actually upsetting. If the thread is too long for you to keep up with, ask me to quote something. Don't do this.

The idea wouldn't be to make fighting the enemies more difficult in the sense of increasing their stats or weakening players, so there wouldn't be any change in "difficulty levels". Recall the fights in certain encounters with say Ajax. It isn't hard, but there are things you need to do in order to damage him. Also take fighting something like tsoo. They can be quite challenging when you aren't familiar with their abilities, but once you know to aim for sorcerers, you can begin dealing with the rest. (At least when you aren't on a team that will just DPS them into oblivion.) That sort of thing. More thoughtful, not necessarily more difficult, encounters. Primarily surrounding the definitions of difficult, challenge, and progress as I highlighted in the OP. Not quite. I've said this a few times now, but the ease I'm reviewing is one of progression. For pretty much all of the reasons I highlighted previously, another "setting" won't do anything. In this games glory, people already have the options of settings, but the sentiment of "too ease" still exists. I'll again define the reward chasers and role-players. It is within these categories of players you will find "game too easy" sentiment the most. Reward chasers want their rewards to come at a price, and want things to feel earned. They aren't challenge hunters, they are ease haters. Their motto: if it comes easy, it's worth little. Feel how you want about them. Role-players are the players you might typically associate with "traditionalists", but really they just want to feel like they are contributing to teams they join. Progression holds an element of ease because rewards come easy, and roles are expendable. So you progress through the game very quickly. When you deconstruct what they are actually complaining about, it is an issue of efficacy and expediency. I doubt we can do anything about expedience, there's a lot of ways to move through content and levels quickly. Not to mention people like it. I do actually empathize with reward chasers, but I think that the proposed strategic encounters will make them feel the rewards were truly earned. In short, if the game stays easy (about the same as it is now) challenge wise, but everyone still has the ability to feel useful then I think both sides will be appeased. That I think we can do, if we come up with good ideas for it.

Actually, a few people have discussed how this game has been practiced and that contributes to overcoming content easily, but that just had little to do with the idea of progression being easy. Edit: Couple things that definitely made an impact though. 1) Higher accessibility of IOs (I don't just mean prices, I mean like PvP IOs dropping in not PvP content) 2) The very existence of attuned enhancements 3) Event IOs And other matters discussed earlier. And then of course there is the fact we've gotten the game down to a formula. That formulaic feel is one of the reasons I like the idea of tactical enemy groups and mechanics. In my opinion, it would be fun.

Right, this is the kind of conversation is sort of the goal. I don't think we've had this discussion a billion times, or even once, because people just regress into one everyone is sick of. Case in point. I don't want rewards reduced, and I've expressed disagreements with those that have. Yet those opinions leak in, or people immediately assume that's what is being suggested because the words "easy" and "difficulty" are mentioned. We all need to relax and pay attention to each other. One of what I briefed discussed with Lines back at page 1 was an incarnate alternative. The idea of something more versatile, thematic, and appealing than incarnates (but not as strong) was something I want to see how people feel about.

Because pretty much the first page of this thread, for context. Of what's explained, the biggest is probably that if the strongest characters are occupied elsewhere, they don't trickle into lower content and reduce the efficacy of individuals in teams. That's the theory, anyway. You can see it ring true in some genres, and it had some degree of impact here while trials were being released as I recall. But also, some of us enjoy that end game challenge. Overcoming what is only now feasible once you've gained ridiculous power can be fun. OPness as a prerequisite was pretty much narratively and mechanically the idea with the intended incarnate arcs, for instance.

I haven't. I don't think it needs to be a debate, either. What unfortunately seems prone to devolve into extreme defensiveness over the status quo masks a meaningful discussion about why some players are discontent with the state of things, and possible additions that could remedy that. On that path, we currently see some options being explored as Cobalt noted. Why shouldn't we continue to do that?

I'd like to remind that there are two points of this thread, and neither are to find ways to "force difficulty on others" but to try to elucidate what people mean by "difficult", which I divided into matters of progression, challenge, and difficulty. Progression is the big one. The other is to find ways that might make progression more thoughtful (not necessarily more "difficult") in ways both game is fine and game is too easy folks could agree on. Any talk of adding level shifts or buffing enemies and such like that isn't really the point, and has already been discussed elsewhere. It's pretty clear "game is fine" folks dont really want that anyhow.

Correct. And my point is that there are a pool of reasons goldside content is less played, and that picking a single quality about goldside and suggesting that that is the sole reason (or a reason at all) isn't a strong argument. Villside is also less played, and running on that logic, it means that players do not like temporary powers, or rewards, or interactive arcs, or less monotonous missions. It is, in fact, just correlation. But yeah, if I had to say one thing, it's that I agree. It would be cool to try.

That's fair. As I remember, people spoke with pride about conquering Malta spawns, and how their controllers locked down enemies so the rest of the team moves in. But from what I gather, presiding opinion may have changed (though forum and game opinions aren't often aligned). As I've expressed the game is pretty easy, I'd always be in favor of more enemies like that, and I still feel like there is a middle ground. But the game certainly isn't bad in its current state. Just admittedly, monotonous.

Delayed them until what? I think you're saying it would delay them until everyone has IO'ed out builds, but that actually didn't happen on live outside of the hyper competitive spheres. Villside has the most temporary powers, interactive arcs, and most rewarding missions of the three sides. It also has less monotonous missions than heroside. It is less played than heroside. Correlation, or causation? I'm sure you see how that argument is limited. @Blackbird71 I already expressed how I felt. If you can't find it in the thread, I will quote it.

That's correct. The grind stalls progression. Hence the existence of the grind prevented as many complaints regarding how easy progression is. No one is suggesting it's better to bring that back, but it is worth noting that it was a factor. One of many. As a result of that fact, we can look at ways to make progression not as easy, reviewing what sort of things did that was important for defining progression in this context. Bringing back the grind is decidedly not a good idea though. As I noted, the illusion of difficulty that the tedium created discouraged players from even attempting it, decreasing progress. And as such, teams weren't as saturated with extremely powerful characters, and thus content was more "difficult". But as I also noted, the true source of that difficulty was in the tactical teams were forced to adapt, and not the raw stat difference. So I am in favor of considering new content, and new enemies to be added in lower content that encourage tactics. My goal would be to create more thoughtful encounters, without increasing build investment.

I agree the most with this sentiment. I would love to see some unique tactical plays that would get us to think a bit more, while still maintaining effectiveness with as little as SOs.

You are free to come in with your own impressions of my motives. At the end of the day, it is good to reaffirm how everyone feels about the current state of difficulty. But you should also remember not everyone feels the way you do. When entertaining a discussion, you'll obviously look at both sides. Throughout this entire thread, if you read, you'll notice I never once mention "removing" options, and rather have only discussed possible inclusions. Just as how you feel, however, that a change would be a terrible take away, others feel a change would a much needed gain. But we're a community, and we won't always see eye to eye. That's ok. If you feel less irritated, you are free to add to the discussion. If there are any ways at all that will appeal to both sides, or information that will help understand both sides, brainstorming more ideas like that is a great idea.

I think this is always an option for those that are very interested in development, like perhaps the CB testers, but there is probably a comfortable divide between the typical player and those that want to be highly invested in the development of the game itself. After all, most players aren't even on the forums. Given expanded opportunity though, I know many of us would keep ardent eyes on the games inner-workings.

My apologies, I would just prefer this thread stay on topic. I thought that since I did in fact say what you quoted, it would be very obvious that when I said "I didn't say any of that" it meant that you misinterpreted my meaning and motive. I hope it is now clear. My question still remains for if you have an interest in the discussion.

What do you think of the idea of revamping certain NPCs to encourage different group tactics?

This is true. At the end of the day, I'd like to both find common ground understanding the issue, and then narrow down on what could be done about it that doesn't upset one side while also appealing to the other. The one recurring resolution is simply new hard content with new rewards, which is a great idea, although doesn't attenuate everything that is currently under scrutiny. I don't believe progression is arbitrary, though. I think there are enough sources of progression to come to a concrete definition of what it looks like. Whether or not that definition of progression is obsolete within city of heroes, though, is another matter.

City of Heroes is practically timeless because of all of its content and devoted community. I think no matter what happens, there will be a lot of people that are totally happy to just be playing. Even so, that isn't the case for everyone. If there were a way to continue to appeal to both those who enjoy things the way they are, while also creating a reinvigorated route for progress that both could appreciate, I'd like to find it. Unfortunately, not everyone feels as though things are fine as they are now. That's why I'm entertaining the discussion, and trying to define the divide.

That's probably the end of the matter therein; "CoH just isn't built like that". If so it's a lamentable truth. However, as I expressed earlier, the tedium created an illusion of difficulty that lead to actual difficulty - the fact that there was a much smaller percentage of max IO'd gods meant the greater majority of teams weren't stomping content to the point difficulty was mythic. What's important to note is that the content without IOs wasn't difficult because the enemies had extreme stats by comparison or anything, but because strategies were necessary to overcome what they did have. Malta enjoyed a devoted order of killing starting with sappers, tsoo was dealing with sorcerers (usually from distance), Devouring Earth you deal with the pet spawners, etc. So if we're brainstorming means to generate "true" difficulty that reflected the general state before IO builds were entirely widespread, it would be in reducing the rate of progression (out of the question) and introducing advanced tactics for overcoming enemies. It would be revamping some enemy groups, as well. In that manner, progression would require thought, although not necessarily high investment.

I agree with everything you've said, but I take a different conclusion from it. The fact that there is an easy route makes the game easy, and give the concerns of "games too easy" folks validity. Dominant Strategy, and all that. Games that don't have an "easy mode" route of progression can't be called easy. Since we're talking routes and modes, let's use an example. If you look at another genre, like storymode console/PC games for instance, there are easy and hard modes. When you take something like Cuphead... There are difficulty levels. This game is widely considered to be very difficult though. Why? Because even the easiest setting, is quite challenging. Those that complete that and are now looking for more challenges might begin taking on harder difficulties, putting limitations, enduring longer encounters. But since even the starting level has real rigor, the game is considered "challenging." We don't have that here. In CoH, Easy Mode takes you straight to the end, is exactly as effortless as is eponymous, and will simply give you everything you need progression wise. And in CoH, hardmode (when you create it for yourself) gives you pretty much nothing. There is no benefit to taking the harder route, you can do everything you want without it, thus most will, and actually have to go out of your way to seek challenge during progression. And then, once almighty, you can come down and crush what would've been apart of the "hard route". So, the game is easy. Again, that's not to say that's bad - a lot of people appreciate this change in their increased age and busyness, but I would like to demonstrate it as truth.

fffff This is the big concern of the "games too easy" crowd. It can be divided into reward chasers and role-players. When everyone around them is exceptionally powerful, the role players feel as though their role is muted. Without feeling they bring something to the team, there isn't much reason to team, as it isn't fun for them anymore. And in regards to those reward chasers who desire to feel as if they have "earned" something, they will be forever starved, because progression to each meaningful reward was essentially guaranteed. Refer to the analogy above in regards to running with severe limitations. This isn't limited to Power Progression either; since homecoming began XP is offered extremely quickly, costume pieces are auto unlocked, emotes are default granted, etc. This is a boon for some, who have always disliked grinding. But it's also bad for others, who will quickly see it as boring. There are precious few true "challenges" for those that have reach the readily accessible power ceiling. And, of those few challenges, none offer real reward (again unless you are a badge chaser or obsessive soloer). As a result, there is a part of the community who do not feel there is worth in majority of content, for they cruise along through the ranks of power easily on their own, and have no enjoyment from teaming because they feel useless in them.

Correct. The process of getting to the point of being that powerful is easy, which is what's being examined here. It definitely would be challenging to alter it satisfyingly, so again I'm left with the whole "game just needs better end game content to amuse our hyper gods" route that people have suggested for a little while now. I am of the opinion that alternative means of high power would be cool too though. You brought up the same concern someone did a far while back, and they suggested some sort of like tech breakthrough/culmination for their technology characters. Looking at the Praetorian villains, they are all narratively WAY more powerful than their primal counterparts, and it feels like each of them are villains that have already completed their master plans. If there were an alternative route detached and totally exclusive from incarnates, which I'll just call "Breakthrough" that was meant to imply your character had achieved their greatest goals and was now far more capable as a result (like the villain that built their doom ray or something" that would be cool. Maybe that could come with new content, it might be weaker but more flexible than incarnates (and have more options), but it'd take time to implement. If it was weaker but "funnner" than incarnates, that could offset some of the ostensible ease from the game.

I definitely didn't say any of that, but it's good to see how others feel about the topic of difficulty.