Monos King

For sure. I'm still at a loss as to what mechanics specifically would help to offset it though, and which would be received the best. What comes to mind is Hamidon mitochondria though.

I don't feel useful in the auction house because Yomo's too busy monopolizing it.

In a vacuum yes, but in this case they aren't feeling useful exactly because of an element relating to said ease - that being DPS hyper meta, unkillable characters, and the near immediate access to this extreme damage and nigh unkillableness. You might make encounters go faster with your debuffs (if the enemies aren't one shot), and you might make someone only lose a 4th of their health instead of a third with your buffs...but your presence really didn't change the tide of the fight, or cause a beneficial strategy change. You might not have even used an attack on enemy before it fell. Take kins for example. A best case scenario of having the efficacy I'm talking about. We like damage. If you're on a team of unkillable tanks for some reason, a kin will literally be able to change how fights are approached. Instead of all of them needing to band together to kill an AV in effective time, after some fulcrums and speed boosts they'll be able to split, take on the AV with less of the team, and have the others deal with other objectives. But actually, all of those tanks are actually mega strong and could already do that, so a kin would just speed up whatever process is transpiring. This is a best case scenario because of how important damage is, and while a kin would be enjoyed, what they bring is mostly expendable. This is significantly exacerbated when what you bring to the table isn't some means of increasing damage. If you're on a team of health unmoving blasters, what good are you the mind controller? And why are they all so strong? Because progression was very easy. But again, I'm not clamoring for any buffs to enemies or nerfs to players. I think other mechanics will do the trick just fine. I do want to explain the perspective, and its source. There isn't any issue with the fact we can get super powerful, but I do think there is validity in noting how easy it is to get there.

Keep in mind I'm still primarily reviewing methods to reduce or exchange overall effectiveness (to maintain role efficacy and all), but I'll admit that sounds interesting. Particularly the range doubling element. I would like to see things like double range in exchange for halved strength, for instance. But I'm definitely not resistant to the ideas, because outside of the focus of this thread these are good suggestions in general.

We'd pretty much definitely need to already have plans for like next level incarnate content if we did actually end up opening up the later slots though. Did you see some of the drafted ideas for them in the AMAs? They were like hilariously insane: nuke level AoE debuffs and chance for one shots. I'd love to see how crazy it would get but first I'd need some toys to test them on. This one would be unpopular, but they'd probably have to be limited to said new content or have exceptionally long cooldowns outside of it in exchange for them being as awesome as I'd hope. I just can't see it being any other way consider what existing incarnates already spells for content now.

True, dev time is always kind of the presiding factor. But they have (even in this thread) expressed that if it's popular and desired, it can happen...eventually. So if something like the customizable incarnates we're talking about now somehow got a universal A-Okay, I think it could happen even on the time budget. I hadn't even thought about something as simple as customizing existing incarnates in exchange for reducing their overall performance though, that's a pretty neat thought. Of that line of "incarnate alternatives" that means we have that idea, and then the breakthrough idea from earlier that I still don't know what would consist of. Do you think a customizable incarnate would be an entire new slot to unlock, or just take perishable materials to do so?

That, but also the implementation would probably be seen as a solution to a problem. I don't like to think of it as matters of "problem and solution" and instead view it as "appealing to preferences", but the mere installation of something like this would probably leave a bad taste in mouths. One that opens floodgates to incarnate nerfs. That's my prediction, so we'd have to address that's not what's happening. Because I genuinely think it should be fine. There's also the matter that all the higher end TFs and similar content (not trials) would have to get changes to not have certain enemies unfixable from level 54. Because not everyone is an incarnate, and so that content would be like fighting 55s now. Not sure if it would take a lot of effort to go in and do that, but that could fix that issue. Edit: unless I misread and level 54s aren't getting any stronger with this proposal.

I kind of like this idea, it's interesting. But I also feel like it would be hated and no one would want it.

That sounds pretty fun to me, I think that kind of addition would be cool. And yeah, it probably wouldn't be an answer for everyone, but if it's something that doesn't give reason to object, I would put it on the list (assuming devs pick up the interest in it). This sort of de-incentivizing of what makes progression so quick is actually a great perspective. If the means exist, but few people really want to use said means, because of whatever appealing reasons, the saturation of power would weaken.

No I mean that's literally not quantifiable; they may or may not decide to use it, and their usages might vary. This isn't my personal group of buddies I'm talking about. Not everyone is the exact same, I can't make a blanket statement to that extent "every reward chaser is using pay2win powers, double XP booster, and power-leveling" or not, and trying to do so would be extremely disingenuous. And even if I did go and ask every single one I know, there's definitely going to be some I don't know that differ. Frankly, whether or not they do doesn't change anything...it's just kind of an assumed position that you created, and then claimed if they DO hold that position, they can't feel the way they feel. In that event, I direct you to my analogy. What I can do is make assessments about how they feel because some of them brought those concerns to me in the first place, and then create a classification based on that. If you're interested, I just asked you about factors that you think might be more verifiable/relevant. The thread title refers to the presentation of my OP, where I describe why progression in the game is easy. As for trying to convince others their concerns are misplaced, please show a quote of me doing this. Please show a quote of me doing this.

Well, I can't speak to whether or not the reward chasers are using power leveling, amplifiers, and double XP boosters. I can give my analogy from earlier, however.

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.