Enemy Difficulty through the Ages

[FupDup]

10 hours ago, tidge said:

Not that long ago...

 

I'm not one of the "make the game harder" people, but the part of the Council buffs that got complained about was how tanky/spongey they became, especially considering some of them could rez after you finally whittled down their health bars. Bullet sponges aren't challenging, just tedious and annoying. 

Edited Thursday at 02:28 AM by FupDup

[Glacier Peak]

23 minutes ago, FupDup said:

Bullet sponges aren't challenging, just tedious and annoying

Big sacks of HP are just no fun. I'm looking at you, Mole Machines!!!

[White Cobra]

From the close to “lowest common denominator” perspective of someone who loves playing the game but doesn’t really have any insight or understanding as to the “underlying numbers”, for me the different mob types and the difficulty sliders offer great opportunity to tailor the experience to match what I am looking for at any given time.  

On my main characters when soloing, I mostly play on +4 and then adapt team size to character resilience; on less well known characters I would start on default difficulty.

I tend to prefer “enemies” that have a more slow-scaling difficulty curve as opposed to those with “sudden death” or many “high annoyance” mechanics.

The most fun I have had in game in a long while came from doing one of the new repeatable KW missions against the new Skulls. The setting was +4 x5 and it was in one of the "new" warehouse maps, and I carelessly aggroed a whole side room that was much more populated than I had thought. The subsequent minutes of being swarmed and almost overwhelmed by enemies, but with a more slow-burning erosion of health that gave me a constant fighting chance was extremely fun and immersive, and almost took me back to those nostalgic days of 2004 patrolling KR and running into a bone daddy boss and his friends for the first time.

So – I hope this isn’t too poorly explained – but I just wanted to applaud the designer behind these new skulls as they are just perfect for someone with my (somewhat limited) skill profile!

[tidge]

8 hours ago, FupDup said:

I'm not one of the "make the game harder" people, but the part of the Council buffs that got complained about was how tanky/spongey they became, especially considering some of them could rez after you finally whittled down their health bars. Bullet sponges aren't challenging, just tedious and annoying. 

 

Live FREEM or Die.

[Skyhawke]

9 hours ago, Glacier Peak said:

Big sacks of HP are just no fun. I'm looking at you, Mole Machines!!!

 

Big Sacks of HP used to be my stripper name. 🕺🤸‍♂️

[Seed22]

23 hours ago, tidge said:

Not that long ago...

 

The archons werent challenging, but this meme, if you replace galaxy archons with HM, would be apt. HM isnt hard, I lead the new ITF HM 4 when it was released completely stoned and didnt even miss a beat.

 

You cant do that in difficult games or content. 

 

But the crowd for 4 star for the longest was this meme. 

 

I want to make the statement here, there is nothing content wise in this game that is difficult whatsoever from a mechanical standpoint. But the real difficulty? People. Literacy rates amongst those people specifically.

 

And those same people will then do like in the meme "is there nothing to challenge me?" 

 

Me? Now? Im more content just vibing and will run arcs at +1×8 most times to just stroll through em if the mood ever strikes me. 

Edited Thursday at 03:54 PM by Seed22

[Glacier Peak]

6 hours ago, Seed22 said:

just vibing

Yes!

[Major_Decoy]

10 hours ago, Skyhawke said:

 

Big Sacks of HP used to be my stripper name. 🕺🤸‍♂️

What's your stripper name now? Big Sacks of Endurance?

[golstat2003]

On 7/14/2025 at 4:04 AM, MoonSheep said:

it’s an unpopular opinion but i feel it’s true: IOs broke the game

IMO IOs gave the game a layer of complexity and variety it was sorely lacking prior to them existing. We agree to disagree.

[Glacier Peak]

4 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

IMO IOs gave the game a layer of complexity and variety it was sorely lacking prior to them existing. We agree to disagree.

Yeah I can agree - the closet thing would've been from HOs prior to the introduction of the Invention System. 

[Skyhawke]

3 hours ago, Major_Decoy said:

What's your stripper name now? Big Sacks of Endurance?

 

I see my reputation precedes me. 

Edited yesterday at 01:53 AM by Skyhawke

[Luminara]

On 7/14/2025 at 4:04 AM, MoonSheep said:

it’s an unpopular opinion but i feel it’s true: IOs broke the game

 

How we use IOs now was always the intended goal.  Both Cryptic and Paragon were convinced that the key to the game's longevity was lateral progression, allowing players to continue to develop their characters without level cap increases and content churn.  Seeing as we're here, now, playing the game and still talking about it after 20+ years, they were clearly on to something.

 

The enormous difficulty of acquiring IOs back then, though, seriously hindered their plans.  Hyperinflation skewed prices within days of IOs and the player market being added to the game, and they were positively sluggish in their response.  They spent the remainder of the game's live run adding things or making adjustments, then spending long periods just... waiting, hoping the problem would fix itself.  It never did, until HC picked up the gauntlet and made some major changes.

 

So did HC's changes "break the game"?  No, not really.  Easier access to converters/catalysts, bucketing in the market, these things definitely made IOs significantly more accessible, but all they really did was remove the hyperinflation barrier that kept most players from using them.  And they were right to do so, because as I said, this was always the plan.  We weren't supposed to be at the mercy of flippers who kept driving prices upward on cornered IOs and recipes.  Character growth wasn't supposed to be restricted to the wealthiest or luckiest.  Unchecked inflation wasn't supposed to be a control on IO accessibility.

 

If anything has broken the game, it's time.  We're all older now, we've had decades to play, plan out builds, refine strategies, perfect our characters.  We know so much more than we did back then.  We've been through every mission more times than we can count, and can do some of them in our sleep.  We've learned to use IOs effectively.  They didn't change, and they didn't break the game, we changed and we mastered the game.

[Glacier Peak]

22 minutes ago, Luminara said:

 

How we use IOs now was always the intended goal.  Both Cryptic and Paragon were convinced that the key to the game's longevity was lateral progression, allowing players to continue to develop their characters without level cap increases and content churn.  Seeing as we're here, now, playing the game and still talking about it after 20+ years, they were clearly on to something.

 

The enormous difficulty of acquiring IOs back then, though, seriously hindered their plans.  Hyperinflation skewed prices within days of IOs and the player market being added to the game, and they were positively sluggish in their response.  They spent the remainder of the game's live run adding things or making adjustments, then spending long periods just... waiting, hoping the problem would fix itself.  It never did, until HC picked up the gauntlet and made some major changes.

 

So did HC's changes "break the game"?  No, not really.  Easier access to converters/catalysts, bucketing in the market, these things definitely made IOs significantly more accessible, but all they really did was remove the hyperinflation barrier that kept most players from using them.  And they were right to do so, because as I said, this was always the plan.  We weren't supposed to be at the mercy of flippers who kept driving prices upward on cornered IOs and recipes.  Character growth wasn't supposed to be restricted to the wealthiest or luckiest.  Unchecked inflation wasn't supposed to be a control on IO accessibility.

 

If anything has broken the game, it's time.  We're all older now, we've had decades to play, plan out builds, refine strategies, perfect our characters.  We know so much more than we did back then.  We've been through every mission more times than we can count, and can do some of them in our sleep.  We've learned to use IOs effectively.  They didn't change, and they didn't break the game, we changed and we mastered the game.

This reminds me of the line about the person who mastered a thousand techniques was not to be feared, but the one who practiced one technique a thousand times was scary. 

[ivanhedgehog]

2 hours ago, Luminara said:

 

How we use IOs now was always the intended goal.  Both Cryptic and Paragon were convinced that the key to the game's longevity was lateral progression, allowing players to continue to develop their characters without level cap increases and content churn.  Seeing as we're here, now, playing the game and still talking about it after 20+ years, they were clearly on to something.

 

The enormous difficulty of acquiring IOs back then, though, seriously hindered their plans.  Hyperinflation skewed prices within days of IOs and the player market being added to the game, and they were positively sluggish in their response.  They spent the remainder of the game's live run adding things or making adjustments, then spending long periods just... waiting, hoping the problem would fix itself.  It never did, until HC picked up the gauntlet and made some major changes.

 

So did HC's changes "break the game"?  No, not really.  Easier access to converters/catalysts, bucketing in the market, these things definitely made IOs significantly more accessible, but all they really did was remove the hyperinflation barrier that kept most players from using them.  And they were right to do so, because as I said, this was always the plan.  We weren't supposed to be at the mercy of flippers who kept driving prices upward on cornered IOs and recipes.  Character growth wasn't supposed to be restricted to the wealthiest or luckiest.  Unchecked inflation wasn't supposed to be a control on IO accessibility.

 

If anything has broken the game, it's time.  We're all older now, we've had decades to play, plan out builds, refine strategies, perfect our characters.  We know so much more than we did back then.  We've been through every mission more times than we can count, and can do some of them in our sleep.  We've learned to use IOs effectively.  They didn't change, and they didn't break the game, we changed and we mastered the game.

This is a very good analysis of the subject. Thank you for putting it into words.

[Wavicle]

Allowing incarnate powers in non-incarnate content, and in below level 50 content, has been a much bigger problem for the game than IOs in my opinion.

 

probably only the alpha slot should apply from level 45 through level 49, the other incarnate powers should only be available in level 50+ content, and maybe even only in incarnate content.

[tidge]

8 hours ago, Luminara said:

So did HC's changes "break the game"?  No, not really.  Easier access to converters/catalysts, bucketing in the market, these things definitely made IOs significantly more accessible, but all they really did was remove the hyperinflation barrier that kept most players from using them.  And they were right to do so, because as I said, this was always the plan.  We weren't supposed to be at the mercy of flippers who kept driving prices upward on cornered IOs and recipes.  Character growth wasn't supposed to be restricted to the wealthiest or luckiest.  Unchecked inflation wasn't supposed to be a control on IO accessibility.

 

The greatest success in HC is IMO the easy availability of enhancements to all players, including the attention paid to keeping the market vibrant. The HO/DS portion is still subject to 'peculiarities', but between seeding and merit conversions we've got a really nice, anti-inflationary ability to acquire just about everything else. 20 merits for a Steadfast Protection recipe? Thanks!

 

Early in HC it seemed like folks were carrying over some ideas from Live w.r.t. Enhancements (gotta make farmers! gotta have Fire/Cold bonuses!)... IMO the real advantage of the IO pieces is that many ATs can improve their solo performance, making the game much more enjoyable. I used to hate leveling up Controllers/Defenders solo... but with easy access to %damage procs I can complete mission arcs in less than several hours.

 

4 hours ago, Wavicle said:

Allowing incarnate powers in non-incarnate content, and in below level 50 content, has been a much bigger problem for the game than IOs in my opinion.

 

probably only the alpha slot should apply from level 45 through level 49, the other incarnate powers should only be available in level 50+ content, and maybe even only in incarnate content.

 

I definitely agree that Incarnate powers shouldn't be available in level 45-50 content... and I'd include the Alpha slot too (although I agree it is less of a big deal, since we can change difficulty settings). I can understand why they sneak in (we don't have 45-49 only content), but anyone who has done 45-50 arcs with Incarnates can see just how much the Incarnate system breaks the risk/reward part of the core game.

 

[skoryy]

58 minutes ago, tidge said:

I definitely agree that Incarnate powers shouldn't be available in level 45-50 content... and I'd include the Alpha slot too (although I agree it is less of a big deal, since we can change difficulty settings). I can understand why they sneak in (we don't have 45-49 only content), but anyone who has done 45-50 arcs with Incarnates can see just how much the Incarnate system breaks the risk/reward part of the core game.

 

Incarnate content was the devs' answer to raids and raid gear, so it had to provide some benefit outside of raids. Otherwise, why raid? Raid gear was still useful outside of raids, so, sure, why not incarnates in regular content 45-50. Also remember that the only way to get incarnate salvage and unlocks at first was through incarnate raids. Dark Astoria came later for soloing. It wasn't meant to be this easy to achieve. The issue here is not a matter of incarnates being available at 45-50, its that now you can get raid-level stuff without doing raid-level content. 

[tidge]

38 minutes ago, skoryy said:

 

Incarnate content was the devs' answer to raids and raid gear, so it had to provide some benefit outside of raids. Otherwise, why raid? Raid gear was still useful outside of raids, so, sure, why not incarnates in regular content 45-50. Also remember that the only way to get incarnate salvage and unlocks at first was through incarnate raids. Dark Astoria came later for soloing. It wasn't meant to be this easy to achieve. The issue here is not a matter of incarnates being available at 45-50, its that now you can get raid-level stuff without doing raid-level content. 

 

100%. I certainly had reasons to dislike the Incarnate system on Live... it's more that HC's (good, well-motivated) efforts to open the gates to easy Incarnates that has IMO diluted the experience of 45-50 content. Writing for myself: I find doing content like a Maria Jenkins or finishing a Patron arc to be much more enjoyable solo before I've gotten any Incarnates, and definitely without teaming with Incarnates.

 

I also have something of a bête noire when it comes to Incarnate Lore pets: I can't get over folks that summon multiple instances (often with their multi-box accounts) to deal with something like an Adamastor summons... that second Lore will reduce time, but by no more than 1 minute (unless the player is a klutz) ... and the kicker is when those same players then complain that so-and-so didn't wait long enough for everyone to get into the zone before the GM was defeated. Um... you popped your multi-box Lores right on the GM...

[ZemX]

12 hours ago, Luminara said:

How we use IOs now was always the intended goal.  Both Cryptic and Paragon were convinced that the key to the game's longevity was lateral progression, allowing players to continue to develop their characters without level cap increases and content churn.  Seeing as we're here, now, playing the game and still talking about it after 20+ years, they were clearly on to something.

 

There's no telling where the game would be today if they had chosen differently though.  Adding a lateral progression system wasn't a bad idea.   HOW they did it, is where we may disagree.

 

When someone says something like "IOs broke the game" I assume they mean they broke balancing the game.  And they very much did do that.  The mistake I think they made (and I realize not everyone considers it a mistake) was abandoning the original notion of enhancements being multiplicative, or in other words, only improving on what you already were capable of doing.  IOs multiply via their enhancement strengths but also ADD via their set bonuses.  It's the latter bit that broke balance and blurred the entire concept of archetypes having defined roles.  It made teams less interesting and content more trivial.  Then Incarnates came along and did even more of that.

 

This is not me saying I wanted this to be a strict Holy Trinity game.   And really, it never was, even before IOs.  People were doing wild shit like trashing everything with 8-man Defender teams and the like.  The game's basic design still allowed a ton of freedom.  More than most.   The ATs didn't need to be made less distinct.  When you couldn't rely on dodging 95% of attacks on your squishy Blaster or Defender, you had to rely more on your powers and/or teammates.  That wasn't a bad thing.

 

Obviously water long run under and past the bridge. but I still wonder if set bonuses couldn't have been made multiplicative as well, with their effects ignoring ED limits partially, the way Incarnate Alpha works.  And Incarnate powers being AT-specific instead of just handing everyone a shield and a nuke.