Determining if the Game is Too Easy

[DSorrow]

11 hours ago, Monos King said:

The difficulty was in the tedium

And thank the deities the tedium is gone. If the main challenge in a game is calendar management to fit in enough grinding time or developing enough perseverance to endure an abysmal ratio of tedium to enjoyable stuff it's just bad entertainment design.

 

I wouldn't mind actual difficulty that comes from designing a good build, game skill (i.e. reacting to enemy actions effectively) or such, but CoH isn't really a game like that at its core.

Edited July 9, 2021 by DSorrow

[skoryy]

7 hours ago, Monos King said:

However, it's been introduced as a problem

 

Is it, actually?

 

I would weigh Homecoming's success versus other servers that take the slower path and then ask again if its actually a problem.

[Monos King]

1 minute ago, DSorrow said:

I wouldn't mind actual difficulty that comes from designing a good build, game skill (i.e. reacting to enemy actions effectively) or such, but CoH isn't really a game like that at its core.

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.

[GraspingVileTerror]

@Monos King, I believe I understand what you're trying to get at in this thread, and I also understand why other players seem to appear to either be missing your point or talking around it.

At the risk of repeating myself, I suppose I should be explicit myself:

"Progression" is also arbitrary and the value of the concept as it applies to City should really be re-evaluated at this point.

 

I acknowledge that there are players who like a sense of progression, and value it above everything else that City actually has to offer.  Spoiler warning, but the series of threads I had planned that started with https://forums.homecomingservers.com/topic/29494-part-1-how-do-you-define-playing-the-game-specific-to-city-of-heroes/ were going to try to boil stuff like this down in a way that would hopefully give the community the tools to better discuss the issues different forms of "playing" present, and ergo the Devs more actionable feedback.

The planning for the Pride event took priority, so the research post series became another project that I put on a backburner . . . and I'll admit, it's once I put something on a backburner, I have a terrible tendency not to come back to it.  It's quite crowded back there . . . probably a bit of a fire hazard at this point . . . *coughs nervously*

I've really got to do better.  Sorry, to everyone.

 

But circling back to this topic . . . 

The structure with which progress is measured and doled out is, like many aspects of the game'y part of the game, at odds with the fundamentally essential nature of City being a deeply personal experience in an MMO environment.

My personal reason for being so passionate about City is how much potential it has.  Other aged MMOs are much more rigid in the space which they can explore radical departures from the preconceived notions of what a game "has to be."  City is primed and ready!  We just need to seize on the opportunities it presents us.

Naturally, with a volunteer group of Devs who have limited time to invest in City, we're faced with a bit of a challenge.  But in being volunteers, we do not have the fiscal responsibilities to constrain creativity!  There is also the added hurdle that many of the most adamant players seem to be chasing at rainbows and obsessed with a sense of nostalgia which City had moved away from even before it shut down.  I don't believe those players are in the wrong for -wanting- to reclaim the sense of their lost youth, but I also don't think it's particularly helpful to the sustainability and future development of City to pursue.  

That path only has one inevitable end:  Everyone finally burns out, because nothing really changed.  More of the same content, even on an endless treadmill of grind like the Legacy Devs admitted to in the A.M.A. isn't a healthy way to develop a game.  The wider industry is chalk full of examples demonstrating this.

 

All that said, though . . . I don't think it's a bad idea to try and engage in a discussion about the differences between Challenge, Difficulty, and Progression . . . I just think your initial post framed the topic in a way that could easily be interpreted as an attack on the preference of players who are comfortable with the game's current state in regard to those concepts.  Not an attack on the players themselves, of course . . . but something else I hoped to eventually touch upon in that series of research pieces:  Many players have linked their sense of personal identity to City or an aspect of the game/content.  

Treading carefully is important while that remains true.

[Monos King]

1 minute ago, skoryy said:

Is it, actually?

 

I would weigh Homecoming's success versus other servers that take the slower path and then ask again if its actually a problem

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.

[Monos King]

10 minutes ago, GraspingVileTerror said:

All that said, though . . . I don't think it's a bad idea to try and engage in a discussion about the differences between Challenge, Difficulty, and Progression . . . I just think your initial post framed the topic in a way that could easily be interpreted as an attack on the preference of players who are comfortable with the game's current state in regard to those concepts.  Not an attack on the players themselves, of course . . . but something else I hoped to eventually touch upon in that series of research pieces:  Many players have linked their sense of personal identity to City or an aspect of the game/content.  

Treading carefully is important while that remains true

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.

Edited July 9, 2021 by Monos King

[Snarky]

4 hours ago, Monos King said:

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

I pulled a direct quote out of your wall of text.  But you didn't say it?  Drugs are cruel.

[Monos King]

1 minute ago, Snarky said:

I pulled a direct quote out of your wall of text.  But you didn't say it?  Drugs are cruel.

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

[GraspingVileTerror]

The solution I would propose is two-prong:

1:  Establish some clear, publicly-available design documents for future content/gameplay, which specifically address intent, scope, methodology, known issues/hurdles, proposed solutions, and skill requirements.

2:  Expand the Homecoming Team with specific and focused calls to action for these projects, ensuring that recruits are on board with the projects they are signing up to.  Motivate cooperation and adherence to the projects with a number of various incentives (none of which are financial, for obvious reasons).

 

Now, I admit that this might be me being blinded by past biases in the industry, but it has been my experience that projects with clear leadership and goal-setting are more successful by leaps and bounds!

Homecoming has the passionate and skilled community members chomping at the bit to get in there.  Having the project design files public gives two advantages:  Curated recruitment for projects, and an opportunity to address serious flaws at a foundational level (such as intent, scope, and methodology), which can then be leveraged to acquire clearer feedback and apply it.

 

The first step, however, is educating the entire community.  I've been there so many times when a kid who signed up to be a QA tester thinking "playing games for a living will be fun" was faced with the realization that what they were signing up for was real work.  The ones who faired the best were the ones who were provided support and information from others who were more experienced.  None of that "sink or swim" bullshit.  That just tanked entire projects due to a cascading collapse.  

The best leaders (individuals or teams) that I worked with in the industry were the Teachers.  The ones who took time to clearly establish and effectively communicate goals.

I think we could benefit from that here.  I believe it could be put in to great effect, including the creation entirely new forms of play, which could then be constructed with the crucial understanding of what came before, where it failed to deliver or where it succeeded.  We could reach a critical sustainability of development, entirely with dedicated volunteers, passionate about City.

 

The new Progression that people could chase is the development of the game itself.

Does that sound appealing to anyone?

[Snarky]

4 minutes ago, Monos King said:

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

Pretty much think you are dodging not owning up to saying exactly what i quoted you as saying. An interesting referendum on different tactics itself.

[Monos King]

Just now, Snarky said:

Pretty much think you are dodging not owning up to saying exactly what i quoted you as saying. An interesting referendum on different tactics itself.

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.

[Monos King]

3 minutes ago, GraspingVileTerror said:

The first step, however, is educating the entire community.  I've been there so many times when a kid who signed up to be a QA tester thinking "playing games for a living will be fun" was faced with the realization that what they were signing up for was real work.  The ones who faired the best were the ones who were provided support and information from others who were more experienced.  None of that "sink or swim" bullshit.  That just tanked entire projects due to a cascading collapse.  

The best leaders (individuals or teams) that I worked with in the industry were the Teachers.  The ones who took time to clearly establish and effectively communicate goals.

I think we could benefit from that here.  I believe it could be put in to great effect, including the creation entirely new forms of play, which could then be constructed with the crucial understanding of what came before, where it failed to deliver or where it succeeded.  We could reach a critical sustainability of development, entirely with dedicated volunteers, passionate about City.

 

The new Progression that people could chase is the development of the game itself.

Does that sound appealing to anyone?

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.

[Snarky]

2 minutes ago, Monos King said:

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.

I pulled once sentence from your wall of text.  "Challenge exists if you make it, sure, but whether or not that challenge exists is completely irrelevant when it's always optional."'

 

I stated your goal is to remove options to play the game the way it is.  That is not an unreasonable interpretation of the sentence. Then you said you never said that.

 

So I ask you, beyond a nebulous discussion of "feelings" ...what, Sir, is your end goal?  

[Monos King]

2 minutes ago, Snarky said:

I pulled once sentence from your wall of text.  "Challenge exists if you make it, sure, but whether or not that challenge exists is completely irrelevant when it's always optional."'

 

I stated your goal is to remove options to play the game the way it is.  That is not an unreasonable interpretation of the sentence. Then you said you never said that.

 

So I ask you, beyond a nebulous discussion of "feelings" ...what, Sir, is your end goal?  

 

37 minutes ago, Monos King said:

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.

 

[Snarky]

I am more irritated than entertained.  I lump you firmly in the category of people that post in LFG looking for a team to join a Reichsman TF and then crank it to +4 after everyone joins. Maybe I am wrong, but I sense a certain predisposition towards one side of "should we change this?" in your writing.  That you firmly have declined to own as your goal.

 

You are entertaining the discussion. I suppose I am involved. I do not feel entertained.

 

To me the divide is as wide as the ability to do this thing. How would a volunteer staff who are already working projects to the best of their ability dramatically alter the game. As an experiment. To see if it goes well. Why would they do it? Because someone started a thread that entertained discussion?

 

Homecoming gave us back a large chunk of who we want to be. You are entertaining a discussion about a huge change to that. I am firmly in the camp of Noooooo. I think I am done posting here for a while. Good evening.

[Monos King]

2 minutes ago, Snarky said:

Maybe I am wrong, but I sense a certain predisposition towards one side of "should we change this?" in your writing.  That you firmly have declined to own as your goal.

 

52 minutes ago, Monos King said:

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.

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.

[oedipus_tex]

I think describing the game as "too easy" doesn't entirely capture what people are asking for.

 

My most basic expectation of a video game RPG is that when I push, it pushes back. The game will allow me to get powerful in interesting ways, then turn up with enemies who have dangerous counters to my abilities.

 

The issue for me is not that we beat down enemies too fast necessarily or that people get too many rewards. It's that the way we engage these enemies is its own tedium. Judgment is a nuke with 90 second recharge with no requirements other than that it is recharged and you have the endurance to cast it. It hits 40 targets.

 

I haven't become a better player, I just have powers that are stronger and enemies have no way to counter. 

Edited July 9, 2021 by oedipus_tex

[Monos King]

Just now, oedipus_tex said:

The issue for me is not that we beat down enemies too fast necessarily or that people get too many rewards. It's that the way we engage these enemies is its own tedium. Judgment is a nuke with 90 second recharge nuke with no requirements other than that it is recharged and you have the endurance to cast it. It hits 40 targets.

 

I haven't become a better player, I just have powers that are stronger and enemies have no way to counter. 

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.

[BZRKR]

It's fine.

 

Right now, I think that the thing that bothers me most in HC is that bug that happens when you invite a team into an instanced MSR, and someone on the team doesn't have the badge, and then that team leader cannot be invited without zoning and/or relogging. That tells me that the whole power/progression/challenge discussion isn't all that important to me.

 

However, I like the "More is More" approach to addressing issues like this, so yes, let's ask for more content and more difficult content. I think that the HC devs are better off working on content (woo hoo Piecemeal!!!) and costume options than anything beyond what their data says is a problematic outlier.

[Luminara]

10 hours ago, Monos King said:

The game used to have an inherent balancing factor, which made progression difficult (or at the least require investment) but didn't change the accessibility of challenge. This was how difficult it was to to acquire incarnates and IOs.

 

The difficulty of acquiring IOs was entirely due to the abhorrent state of the economy, not a deliberately set balance point.  By the time the Invention system was released, players had been stockpiling inf* for years, across multiple characters, simply because they had nothing to do with their wealth.  This was what drove IO prices to nigh unreachable levels, creating the perceived progression limitation.  The economy was broken, and something being broken is never a balancing factor.

 

Yes, the HC team has made some IO sets more readily available than they would otherwise be, but players always used alternatives to those sets with little (or no) loss in overall character efficiency when they couldn't acquire the "best".  Being able to pick up some PvP IOs/recipes without paying 1.5-2x the inf* cap, or having the option to buy 5x full purple IO sets for 60% of the price for a single purple recipe on the original servers, didn't remove balance, it repaired the oversight on Cryptic's part when they allowed players to stockpile inf* for years and gave them nothing to spend it on.

 

I linked several articles written by Emmert in another post recently (check my post history, or find them on the wiki, i'm not digging to find them), in which he outlines Cryptic's design goals and hopes for the game.  He very clearly states that they always wanted Co* to be a casual-friendly game, something people could log into for a short time, do what they wanted to do, then log out and feel that they'd made progress.  The state of the economy on the original servers, thus the artificially restricted availability of IOs across the board, was an obstacle to that vision, not part of the design, and it's only now, nearly two decades later, that we're playing the game as it was envisioned.

 

If the ease of IO acquisition makes the game too easy now, it's indicative that that was the intent, not that having a healthy economy has disrupted the planned progression.

 

And as far as the Incarnate stuff is concerned, if you're suggesting that a grind might improve the game by slowing down Incarnate ability acquisition, grinding isn't progression, it's stalling progression.  It's putting the players on a hamster wheel until you can find a way to engage them again, and it goes against everything this game was designed to do and represents.  It's also pointless, because, in the end, it'll only slow down progression for a very short time.  There's still nothing to do once those Incarnate abilities are unlocked and fully kitted out, once your players step off the hamster wheel.  You've got nothing planned to engage them when they complete the grind, so you've got nothing to justify the grind itself.  It's forcing players to run in place for the sake of forcing them to run in place, and in the end, all it will accomplish is delaying Incarnate completion by a few days, at which point the people who complained about having nothing to do because it was too easy will start complaining again.  That's not a solution, it's extending the diameter of the vicious circle by a couple of inches and hoping it'll make everything sunshine and roses.

[Monos King]

1 minute ago, Luminara said:

And as far as the Incarnate stuff is concerned, if you're suggesting that a grind might improve the game by slowing down Incarnate ability acquisition, grinding isn't progression, it's stalling progression.  It's putting the players on a hamster wheel until you can find a way to engage them again, and it goes against everything this game was designed to do and represents.

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.

[Cobalt Arachne]

7 hours ago, Monos King said:

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.

I'm happy to say that with the next batch of new content, we're aiming to do just this using some new methods of dynamic enemy definitions and power assignment.

The new content should be able to be played sub-50 (under enhanced), 50+0 (SOs), or 50+ (IO incarnates) and will change to accommodate and challenge the players depending on their preference for the game. This should enable all player types to enjoy it how they prefer, be it leveling an alt, feeling powerful on their built character, or facing an intense challenge.

Reading a lot of what's being said I think people will be happy with what's coming.

This is controlled via the levels at which the enemies spawn, with enemies at 52+ being given additional powers to make them more dangerous to built incarnate players; Players who wish to play the content at max level and not deal with challenge or the additional mechanics will be able to simply set the difficulty to +0.

That being said, there are currently no plans to retroactively adjust or change previously-existing content's difficulty; But we're always evaluating based on the feedback.

[ZemX]

3 minutes ago, Monos King said:

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.

 

Enemies like this already exist and most people actively avoid them if they can.  I once asked why it was so much more common for people to run radio teams than tips teams, given the tip missions seemed so much more interesting to me.  The answer I got?  "It's not as easy to control what enemies you get."
 

And that tracks my experience.  I see plenty of people advertising for "Council PI Radio" teams.   About nobody saying, "Come join my Carnie radio team!  Find out which of your teammates has no psi protection!"

 

As far as I can tell, the problem with your whole proposition here is that this sort of challenge is not what people are seeking.  Pre-50, people seem to be looking for one thing only: Getting to 50.  The only place new and interesting challenge content will be welcomed by all is at the Incarnate level, I'm afraid.

[nightroarer]

11 hours ago, Snarky said:

To boil this down to the basics…

 

please reply.  Do you think it is 

 

A) Rabbit season

or

B) Duck season

Yes, yes I do.

[Blackbird71]

2 hours ago, Monos King said:

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.

 

But who is "not everyone"?  What do you feel?  Stop trying to speak for this nebulous undefined group of others and state your own goal, intent, and opinion.  Otherwise, this is just a troll discussion.

 

You're stirring up crap that has been discussed to death a hundred times over; I could fill a stable with all the dead horses that have been beaten over this topic.  And it never goes anywhere, always descending into separating players into two different opposing camps based on how they prefer to play the game, and it ends up as a fight over who gets to have things their way.

Edited July 9, 2021 by Blackbird71