Determining if the Game is Too Easy

[Luminara]

6 minutes ago, Monos King said:

The grind stalls progression. Hence the existence of the grind prevented as many complaints regarding how easy progression is.

 

It didn't prevent complaints, it delayed them.  That's all the grind ever accomplishes, or is intended to accomplish, a respite.

 

1 minute ago, Monos King said:

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.

 

That's already in the game, in the Praetorian (gold-side) content, and it achieves all of the goals you've outlined in those two sentences.

 

It's also the least played content.  Correlation, or causation?

[Shred Monkey]

Nerf team size.

 

(not really advocating for this... but if you play with teams at x8 with 3-5 man teams, it's a much better game imho.  Similarly, there's a sweet spot of soloing at +4x4 that makes missions still quick, but not ridiculously easy.)

 

 

Edited July 9, 2021 by Shred Monkey

[Monos King]

15 minutes ago, Luminara said:

It didn't prevent complaints, it delayed them.  That's all the grind ever accomplishes, or is intended to accomplish, a respite.

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.

 

16 minutes ago, Luminara said:

That's already in the game, in the Praetorian (gold-side) content, and it achieves all of the goals you've outlined in those two sentences.

 

It's also the least played content.  Correlation, or causation?

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.

[Monos King]

43 minutes ago, ZemX said:

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.

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. 

[oedipus_tex]

54 minutes ago, Cobalt Arachne said:

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 difficult; But we're always evaluating based on the feedback.

 

 

Speaks in PBS tone:

 

"The Plant Controllers of the realms, once confident, reassessed the value of Carrion Creepers upon meeting a Confuse protected boss with Fulcrum Shift."

[ZemX]

12 minutes ago, Monos King said:

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.

 

I'm not sure I do.  It looked to me like @Luminara's point was that the more complex, more involved, and more challenging content and enemies of Goldside simply aren't a draw for most players.  You then appear, to me at least, to be providing a second example of that same point.  Redside is newer and generally better content than original blueside, with a few more challenging enemies.  It's again less played.

 

It's not that there aren't people who value that kind of content.  I'm certainly one.  It's that there are few of us compared to the whole population.  What you see in global chat channels more than anything is people running repeatable easy content like fire farms in AE, DFBs in Atlas for newbies, and PI radios for easy enemies that can be wholesale stomped repeatedly for easy XP and leveling.  Mothership raids.  "Kill Most" ITFs.  We all see that stuff 10x more than anybody saying "Who wants to join a mission team in Night Ward!?"

 

I'm not saying don't try it.  I think the devs have the right "add, don't change" attitude here and if that's what you're saying too, I don't have a problem with it.  More options are better than fewer.   I just don't see it as solving some game-wide problem.  It will make people like me happy. 

 

The folks sitting inside the door of a fire farm won't even notice.

[Monos King]

5 minutes ago, ZemX said:

I'm not sure I do.  It looked to me like @Luminara's point was that the more complex, more involved, and more challenging content and enemies of Goldside simply aren't a draw for most players. 

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.

Edited July 9, 2021 by Monos King

[SwitchFade]

1. The game must be balanced around SO only, normal XP rate (no p2w boost) gameplay. Must. Load up a toon in this way and it is quite clear the game is paced well and not a zergfest.

 

2. The game has AE. It's not leaving, but it should NOT offer higher XP per hour than normal missions.

 

3. IOs should stay as accessible as they are. They should not be more accessible, the balance is fine. The IO tutorial, however, needs to be better.

 

4. There absolutely should be more incarnate content and perhaps even a +5 setting for all missions.

 

5. Insta-travel options have continued to proliferate. I have spoken often about how this will cause a culture change, with a trend towards less MMo. It's a reality now to some extent, but it has been reigned in a bit. One can choose to ignore the silly insta zone TP stuff and flyleaprun to base or tram, and just enjoy. If you're on a team that refuses to wait for me and go in mission, I find a new team.

 

6. Limit incarnate attacks so they only work in level 49 and higher content. Everyone spamming their incarnate superbanana attack at lvl 46 every group is a bit outlandish. I usully move on from those teams after one mission.

 

7. In the end, what will assure we all can play and enjoy is increasing the player base. This is tricky. Do we lose players by removing options? Do we lose players by adding options? There's a delicate balance there. I've never enjoyed power leveling to 50 before I even play. I love to rough plan a 32 build in mids, play and tweak to 32 through normal missions and keep going. When I hit 50, the ride was great.

 

It's is a social MMo for me, the actual playing on teams with other humans is what makes this great. I really don't care what level or mission, it's the fun of my character doing their thing on a team.

[Bill Z Bubba]

8 hours ago, Supertanker said:

The game's not easy, my character is just really powerful.

 

This is where I'm at. The game isn't too easy. The problem is that, due to balance issues and the introduction of various I Win buttons from the P2W vendor, *some* characters, build combos, etc, are so brokenly overpowered that they no longer fit within the game's perfectly acceptable difficulty levels. It's not the enemies or missions that are the problem.

[iBot]

Funny.  This sort of issue has been the bane of games since the invention of games.  The root cause of this is you will never come to a consensus of what is too easy or too difficult because it is completely subjective to the player.  What one player finds incredibly difficult another will master in short order and be bored again.  If you doubt it, look at how many WoW updates there have been over the years and how fast the player base finishes said content and then howls for more.

 

Personally, I'd much rather this team continue to do what they've been doing.  Stabilize the game which has mostly been accomplished.  Fix a few of the more annoying bugs which they are working on though it would be nice to finally exterminate the difficulty reset problem when entering a TF mission door.  Incrementally add new things to the game that aren't themselves radically breaking anything else in the game.  Do I wish we had unlimited resources and the entire universe to play in?  Sure.  We aren't going to get it.  So I'd much rather focus on things that can be accomplished like what it seems they are currently working on behind the scenes based on the dev post in this thread. 

[Luminara]

22 minutes ago, Monos King said:

Delayed them until what?

Until more content was released.  Content has to be created.  Creating content takes time.  Time spent doing nothing leads to players complaining (or leaving).  Thus, grind is traditionally included in content, which gives development teams time to create more content (with more grind) before players complain about a lack of content (or leave due to lack of content).  The vicious circle I spoke of previously.

 

Some grind slows down progression.  The gear grind, for example.  Games with gear grind typically require players to run through the recently released content numerous times in order to acquire all of the new gear.  There are other types of grind, which don't delay progression.  Let's imagine that @Piecemeal releases a new story arc tomorrow, and in that arc, there are five different endings, each with a different badge, plus a super special, really difficult to figure out sixth ending which unlocks a future story arc if you do everything exactly right.  That's grind, but it's not progression-delaying grind.

 

That's the purpose of grind.  That's all it's for.  It's a mechanic intended to give developers the time they need to make more content.  Sometimes it delays progression, sometimes it doesn't.  Grind never prevents players from complaining about a lack of content, because no amount of grind can do that.  Players always finish content before the next update, no matter how competent, well funded and expertly run the development team is.  A little well-placed and carefully designed grind can make the difference between players complaining the day after the content is released, or several weeks after.  Excessive grind also leads to complaints, so it's a narrow path to walk.

[Uun]

Just because you can make an OP character, doesn't mean you have to.

• I don't PL my characters. I level them up playing the game, mostly doing TFs and trials at natural level.
• Although I have billions of inf, I don't bankroll new characters so that they can purchase all the best IO sets as soon as they can be slotted. I seed new characters with 10 million and everything after that they earn with drops, merits and converter roulette.
• I don't try to build every character with soft-capped defense. I don't care if they can solo +4/x8. I build characters to so that they're valuable to a team, not to be unhittable. So what if they're defeated occasionally. I've got several brutes and tanks that are virtually indestructible, but I get bored soloing them and prefer if they have a role to play on a team. I do occasionally run the 801 AE missions, which are definitely challenging.

 

[Coyotedancer]

2 hours ago, Shred Monkey said:

Nerf team size.

 

(not really advocating for this... but if you play with teams at x8 with 3-5 man teams, it's a much better game imho.  Similarly, there's a sweet spot of soloing at +4x4 that makes missions still quick, but not ridiculously easy.)

 

 

 

The Monkey is wise. 

 

The game does have a very different tempo and feel when you running solo/duo or on a 3-4 member small team. If it feels too easy for you with an 8-character kill-squad, trying with a smaller group really might be worth a try. 

[Aurora_Girl]

41 minutes ago, Luminara said:

That's the purpose of grind.  That's all it's for.  It's a mechanic intended to give developers the time they need to make more content.  Sometimes it delays progression, sometimes it doesn't.  Grind never prevents players from complaining about a lack of content, because no amount of grind can do that.  Players always finish content before the next update, no matter how competent, well funded and expertly run the development team is.  A little well-placed and carefully designed grind can make the difference between players complaining the day after the content is released, or several weeks after.  Excessive grind also leads to complaints, so it's a narrow path to walk.

 

Emphasis mine.

 

Lumi's exactly right; we have to remember that in our special case, the devs aren't even being paid for the time they need to make more content (AFAIK), or at least not paid as a full-time professional software developer would be. While well-deserved criticism isn't absolutely anathema (WHY THE HELL DOES MY INSP TRAY KEEP MOVING AROUND MY UI EVERY TIME I ZONE INTO A MISSION FOR CHRIST'S SAKE), we maybe need to relax on the large-scale philosophical discussions regarding this game we all love because of the circumstances in which it exists. If that makes sense. 

Also, hey Lumi! Long time no forum-speak.

[Yomo Kimyata]

8 hours ago, Retrobytz said:

 

It's not so much that the game itself, or the process of becoming that powerful is easy.

It is the conscious choice of the player to take an easy route or challenging route to become powerful.

 

 

8 hours ago, Monos King said:

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.

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuphead

 

 

I've talked about intrinsic and extrinsic rewards before, but here I'd like to discuss intrinsic v. extrinsic constraints.

 

I'm all for various challenge modes, but the problem is that our human natures (or at least *your* human nature.  I'm a golden retriever.) lead us to maximize outcome given limited resources.  If I'm playing in Iron mode (no deaths allowed) and I die due to lag, I might say, "Well, that didn't count."  Or if I get ganked by a sniper while running to a mission, "Ogh, that didn't count either."  It's easy to violate an intrinsic constraint.  But if the game knows I want to play this character in Iron mode, it can say, "Nerp.  Time to make a new alt."  That's extrinsic.

 

One thing that I think would help others as well as myself is to institute various opt-in settings (maybe just the ones currently in Ouro, but hopefully more) for all game play.  This would be in Notoriety settings, ideally.  No temp powers?  Sure, and the game will enforce that for me to keep me from "accidentally" using them.  Yes, it would be my responsibility to inform people who join my team that we are playing with extrinsic constraints.

 

Overall, I feel that it's no so much that the game is too easy (I think it is) but that there are way too many tools that Live and, to a far greater extent, HC gave us to make things easier.  I understand Live's motivation to maximize profit, but HC's motivation is less clear.  I think it is to keep as many people *who play the way they want to play* around for as long a time as possible.  If they want to add an insta-50 button outside of Test, I would rant for a bit about how lazy kids are nowadays and how I had to practice Galaga for hours/days in order to get good enough to put "ASS" at the top of the high score list.  Then I would go back to my business, because it mostly doesn't affect me.  If they doubled damage on Judgement powers, however, that's affecting all of us and dumbing down an already dumbed down game.  I'd have a real issue with that.

[ZemX]

54 minutes ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

I understand Live's motivation to maximize profit, but HC's motivation is less clear.

 

No, I think you pretty much said it.  Whether for profit or not, the game still lives or dies by how many people are interested in playing it.  Sure, you could have a little personal server for just you and a few friends, but what fun is that compared to this?  Either way, your motive is to give the players enough of what they want so they'll stay.  

[oedipus_tex]

There are some well thought out posts here.

 

One thing I hope we can keep in mind when we talk about things being "too easy" is that what a lot of people mean by this is "too easy for one or two players to dominate the rest of the team." It's not just about it being too easy for the team overall, though that can be a concern.

 

While CoX has always had this issue to various degrees, it was the addition of the Level Shift mechanic that brought it to forefront. The Level Shift results in the a team layup like this:

• Level Shifted players are fighting enemies who are +3 to them
• The rest of the team, who are Sidekicked are fighting enemies who are +5 to them

 

The purple patch applied to each of these teammates has this effect:

• The players fighting the +3s do 65% of normal damage (an attack that would do 100 dam now does 65)
• The players fighting the +5s do 30% of normal damage (an attack that would do 100 dam now does 30)

 

 

Should Sidekicked team members really be doing less than half as much damage as the Sidekick'er? They've already got fewer powers to contribute to the fight. I don't think bumping them up a level is the solution either. 

[BZRKR]

4 minutes ago, oedipus_tex said:

There are some well thought out posts here.

 

One thing I hope we can keep in mind when we talk about things being "too easy" is that what a lot of people mean by this is "too easy for one or two players to dominate the rest of the team." It's not just about it being too easy for the team overall, though that can be a concern.

 

While CoX has always had this issue to various degrees, it was the addition of the Level Shift mechanic that brought it to forefront. The Level Shift results in the a team layup like this:

• Level Shifted players are fighting enemies who are +3 to them
• The rest of the team, who are Sidekicked are fighting enemies who are +5 to them

 

The purple patch applied to each of these teammates has this effect:

• The players fighting the +3s do 65% of normal damage (an attack that would do 100 dam now does 65)
• The players fighting the +5s do 30% of normal damage (an attack that would do 100 dam now does 30)

 

 

Should Sidekicked team members really be doing less than half as much damage as the Sidekick'er? They've already got fewer powers to contribute to the fight. I don't think bumping them up a level is the solution either. 

I get what you're saying, but isn't all of this something that each Team Leader can control? A character's level shift is displayed when you target them. When advertising for a team, you can say "No level shift, please" or "We will be running with +1 level shift only" or whatever. If someone is "dominating" a team you are on, and it bothers you, what is stopping you from leaving that team?

 

I'm trying to think of times where you have no control over the team makeup whatsoever, and mixed level shifts are likely, and at most I'm thinking Hamidon and the RWZ Mothership raid?

 

Is PUGing so badly unbalanced that we should change how the game works?

[Luminara]

2 hours ago, Aurora_Girl said:

Also, hey Lumi! Long time no forum-speak.

 

AG!  How long have you been lurking?  😄

[Aurora_Girl]

45 minutes ago, Luminara said:

 

AG!  How long have you been lurking?  😄

 

Not to derail the thread, but I'm on Excelsior and still a proud PinnBadges/BSOD member! Been playing on and off since HC came back. @Aurora Girl global as always. 🙂

 

We (Tsu, BillZ, et al) were talking on Discord last night about the 801 missions, and your name came up, so I figured I'd better hop on the forums again.

[PeregrineFalcon]

18 hours ago, Monos King said:

1) Countering different enemies abilities

2) Encountering large amounts of enemies
3) Learning how to deploy the abilities of the character itself

4) Learning how to best enhance 
5) Navigating certain maps
6) Learning the mechanics of certain missions

7) Learning how to optimally adhere to the methods of overcoming certain trials/TFs

Everything that you're about to read is just my opinion, not fact. Also, you can disagree with me without either of us being wrong.

 

1) Some groups don't have special abilities. For the ones that do it's the same level of challenge: find the one enemy in the spawn (sapper, medic, super stunner, etc) and kill him first.

2) Not really a problem. It can be easily solved with the difficulty slider and/or bringing a second aggro magnet.

3) This can certainly be an issue as there is virtually no in-game documentation about anything. The wiki helps, especially considering that there are player guides on it, but there's no reference in game to the existence of the wiki either.

4) Same as 3 above. There's no reference in-game regarding Enhancement Diversification.

5) That's a game playing skill that's intrinsic to all video games.

6) Same as 5 above. I don't know of any video game that explains the special mechanics of certain bosses. You learn it from other players, or from the wiki, same as all other video games.

7) Same as 5 and 6.

 

On subjects that were brought up later. If the game is too easy then that means that you're good at building and/or enhancing your characters. Go solo a Task Force or Incarnate Trial if you want more challenge.

 

Yes this game is mostly casual easy-mode. Most of us like that, that's why we play this game.

[Bill Z Bubba]

3 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Go solo a Task Force or Incarnate Trial if you want more challenge.

 

Just this morning I failed to solo a +4 MLTF. Again. #(*#$&(#*$&(*& Aeon.

[Galaxy Brain]

1 hour ago, BZRKR said:

I get what you're saying, but isn't all of this something that each Team Leader can control? A character's level shift is displayed when you target them. When advertising for a team, you can say "No level shift, please" or "We will be running with +1 level shift only" or whatever. If someone is "dominating" a team you are on, and it bothers you, what is stopping you from leaving that team?

 

I'm trying to think of times where you have no control over the team makeup whatsoever, and mixed level shifts are likely, and at most I'm thinking Hamidon and the RWZ Mothership raid?

 

Is PUGing so badly unbalanced that we should change how the game works?

 

Yes, you can control these factors to a degree... but if it is rampant to where the majority of teams you encounter have these unless you specifically seek out players who fit your style? That can be disheartening / the norm for the average.

[Coyotedancer]

You can always exemp and run with mid-level teams... That's what I built my support characters to do, since the end-game types don't really need them. 'No Judgements or Destiny buffs to worry about when you're going after the Envoy of Shadows or such.

[oedipus_tex]

40 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

If the game is too easy then that means that you're good at building and/or enhancing your characters. Go solo a Task Force or Incarnate Trial if you want more challenge.

 

 

If I wanted to solo I would do it on a private server, where I have full control to edit the game exactly the way I like. That can be fun for a while, but it's also not very dynamic without the cooperative players. 

 

I'm exited to see the changes that Arachne mentioned. City of Heroes does have a really good combat engine at its core, and there have been times in its history where the team game was solid. I'm hopeful we're getting some of that back.