The Solution to the "Game is Too Easy Crisis"

[DenariusJay]

No. I don't think you get it.

 

Okay, there are two players. They both have only ONE hour to play. They decide to do their Alliance grinds.

 

Player A - does it on easy. Player A runs Korriban, DK, Balmorrah, and an additional 3 H2s on Nar Shada.

 

Player B - does it on hard. Player B runs Korriban, DK, and 4 H2s on Balmorrah.

 

The Hour is up. Both Player A and Player B have to log off.

 

Player A by choosing 'easy' has gained more rewards for their hour, than Player B who chose 'hard'. Making Easy the best option.

 

But if rewards for 'hard' are increased, then in that same hour, both players would get approximately EQUAL rewards.

 

Why equal though? There needs to be an incentive to do anything in hard mode other then to say in guild chat "i did this on hard mode yo, like, give me a e-parade or something, dawg" - this is where the conundrum comes in; if hard mode gave more rewards (which it should, cuz its harder, right?) but was too hard for the guy who wants easy - he cries for nerfs and then eventually hard mode becomes easy so no one gets left behind. Hard mode eventually becomes easy mode in the long run anyway; which after 4 years, is essentially what has happened to this game. It's the never ending circle of things being hard only to eventually be easy to help people catch up - alot of MMO's are going through this btw - the MMO I came from, FFXIV makes you grind ridiculously hard content when its first released , only to inevitably be nerfed into oblivion 6 months later to allow resubscribed players to catch up.

[Dashtardly]

I was thinking about implementation again. Which unfortunately gets away from the end user requirement of "I want variable user-selected difficulty" while playing the game. But, perhaps exploring implementation options could be used to help explore and identify related requirements and issues.

 

Currently, each planet has a single instance. As more and more players quest on the planet, the server's work load reaches some threshold and the game server spawns a second instance and new players that come to that planet end up on the new instance (and thus don't affect the quality of play for those players in the other instance since system responsiveness does not degrade any further). Players are able to switch between instances (and need to - for example, I am grouped up with my friend but I'm already on planet X but when my friend comes he ends up on instance #2 and we can't play together until we are both in the same instance).

 

So, without knowing what the resource burden is for running multiple planetary instances are (or what the capacity limits are for those instances), why not simply have pre-made planetary instances of various difficulty levels? The default instance choice would be the current level of difficulty. If I want more, I switch instances. This may be a simpler/cheaper implementation for BW.

 

I can imagine a problem caused by having a difficulty level setting if I have a more difficult level setting and I spawn a group of mobs and someone else joins in who is at a lower difficulty level setting (e.g., the lower difficulty level setting player gets killed by the spawned "harder" level setting mobs) . By making the choice instance wide this particular problem is avoided.

 

Having a difficulty level setting by instance selection would also mean that it may be possible to implement a single planet this way and BW could monitor how many people are in which instances to get an idea of how much this feature is desired/wanted by the player community. To expand on this - to modify the game so that difficulty level is everywhere they would have to modify and test some amount of code and there's no way to preview how many people actually use/like the feature. If done by instance, they could implement a single "harder" planetary instance to use for metrics to help make a decision to implement on more planets based on the percentage of the community that is selecting it (and how that changes over time - i.e., a number of people might choose it just to try it once and then go back to the regular instance.

 

Another side question related to having a difficulty level setting is when is it available? How much experience/knowledge of the game should be expected to make a reasonably informed decision? Should someone starting their very first character be able to make this choice? Should it be available once they reach the star base/fleet where they also need to make advanced class decision? Should it be available once they complete a class story?

 

I think if an instance based difficulty level system was implemented that the starting planets would be the only ones to have a single difficulty level instance choice (i.e., cannot choose more difficult). This would allow new players to not get frustrated or abandon the game because they accidentally got into a more difficult level and weren't prepared/expecting it and that after they have learned a little bit about the game that they would be able to make a more informed choice.

[Myracarrah]

Why equal though? There needs to be an incentive to do anything in hard mode other then to say in guild chat "i did this on hard mode yo, like, give me a e-parade or something, dawg" - this is where the conundrum comes in; if hard mode gave more rewards (which it should, cuz its harder, right?) but was too hard for the guy who wants easy - he cries for nerfs and then eventually hard mode becomes easy so no one gets left behind. Hard mode eventually becomes easy mode in the long run anyway; which after 4 years, is essentially what has happened to this game. It's the never ending circle of things being hard only to eventually be easy to help people catch up - alot of MMO's are going through this btw - the MMO I came from, FFXIV makes you grind ridiculously hard content when its first released , only to inevitably be nerfed into oblivion 6 months later to allow resubscribed players to catch up.

 

It needs to even out to, at the very least, equal. In my example Player A (playing on easy) would do more H2s, more bonuses, and get more credits, more alliance crates, more faction than Player B (who was running in hard mode). The way to fix that so that it evened out (at the very least) would be to increase Player Bs rewards.

 

Now I wouldn't object to Player B getting obviously BIGGER better rewards, but for me it isn't a requirement. I just want to break even. Anything after that is added bonus.

[RahaylaCora]

No. I don't think you get it.

 

Okay, there are two players. They both have only ONE hour to play. They decide to do their Alliance grinds.

 

Player A - does it on easy. Player A runs Korriban, DK, Balmorrah, and an additional 3 H2s on Nar Shada.

 

Player B - does it on hard. Player B runs Korriban, DK, and 4 H2s on Balmorrah.

 

The Hour is up. Both Player A and Player B have to log off.

 

Player A by choosing 'easy' has gained more rewards for their hour, than Player B who chose 'hard'. Making Easy the best option.

 

But if rewards for 'hard' are increased, then in that same hour, both players would get approximately EQUAL rewards.

Player A doesn't know Player B and doesn't care about his game and rewards. Player B doesn't know Player A and doesn't care about his game and rewards. Both chose how to play for fun. Both had the option to choose. That is the important part: choices.

[Chessack]

So, without knowing what the resource burden is for running multiple planetary instances are (or what the capacity limits are for those instances), why not simply have pre-made planetary instances of various difficulty levels? The default instance choice would be the current level of difficulty. If I want more, I switch instances. This may be a simpler/cheaper implementation for BW.

 

I really love this idea. I don't know how hard it would be to implement, but at least as a player, I think this would be great. They need to make it easy to change instances, so that if you enter one that is the wrong difficulty, you can just swap out. Maybe at each shuttle stop?

[devincor]

No. I don't think you get it.

 

Okay, there are two players. They both have only ONE hour to play. They decide to do their Alliance grinds.

 

Player A - does it on easy. Player A runs Korriban, DK, Balmorrah, and an additional 3 H2s on Nar Shada.

 

Player B - does it on hard. Player B runs Korriban, DK, and 4 H2s on Balmorrah.

 

The Hour is up. Both Player A and Player B have to log off.

 

Player A by choosing 'easy' has gained more rewards for their hour, than Player B who chose 'hard'. Making Easy the best option.

 

But if rewards for 'hard' are increased, then in that same hour, both players would get approximately EQUAL rewards.

 

The problem with your scenario is exactly the point those against increased rewards are making.

 

First, you are talking about grinding. Grinding is all about accomplishing your end goal: the rewards, the end result. It has NOTHING to do with the challenge of the content.

 

Added to that, the perceived "equal" challenge difficulty (which is already a problem) will not be the same for all classes and players. So do you adjust the reward based on how hard it was for each class? Does a Commando/Guardian who had to slug it out with every mob and kill the boss get the same reward as the scoundrel/shadow that stealthed to the boss and wiped him faster? How is the reward value considered for the time and resources spent then?

Edited January 17, 2016 by devincor

[RahaylaCora]

The problem with your scenario is exactly the point those against increased rewards are making.

 

First, you are talking about grinding. Grinding is all about accomplishing your end goal: the rewards, the end result. It has NOTHING to do with the challenge of the content.

 

Added to that, the perceived "equal" challenge difficulty (which is already a problem) will not be the same for all classes and players. So do you adjust the reward based on how hard it was for each class? Does a Commando/Guardian who had to slug it out with every mob and kill the boss get the same reward as the scoundrel/shadow that stealthed to the boss and wiped him faster get the same reward? How is the reward value considered for the time and resources spent then?

Am I talking about grinding? LOL. It is about a SOLO GAME, not a competition between players. Choices to face the game on an easy or more difficult way. Nobody cares how other players play their game in SOLO GAME. Grinding is another concept, and playing the class story (and side missions) is not grinding.

[devincor]

Am I talking about grinding? LOL. It is about a SOLO GAME, not a competition between players. Choices to face the game on an easy or more difficult way. Nobody cares how other players play their game in SOLO GAME. Grinding is another concept, and playing the class story (and side missions) is not grinding.

 

Myracarrah was talking about the Alliance Grind, not the class story, which is why I said her scenario doesn't work.

 

Besides the choices you make do affect other players. With increased rewards for harder content you are adding more currency into the economy of the game. This further increases inflation of GTN sold items. It does have an affect on others.

[Ratajack]

So... again it comes down to the question of "Have you read through all the OP's post and his responses?" Because based on this post I don't believe you have. Here's why -

 

The OP has stated that the default of EASY (or call it difficultly level 1.0 for those people offended by applying labels and assumptions) is in fact the preferred solution however the OP recognized (but also assumed) that for BW developers to implement the kind of changes being advocated that the cheapest/fastest/most reliable way to implement said changes was to change the default level to "MORE Difficult" and to provide the "I want it LESS difficult" button.

 

It would be just as easy to put in a "I want it MORE difficult" button that does not affect the strength of the mobs, but REDUCES the "strength" of your character.

 

It would apply a debuff to those that want more challenge as opposed to applying a buff to those that want less challenge. The strength of the mobs would not change either way. The ONLY difference would be in the numbers of players that have to visit the terminal to get the buff or the debuff.

 

The OP's way would cater to the "hardcore" minority while forcing the "casual" majority to have to visit the terminal for the buff.

 

Let's not forget that in the case of a player forgetting to visit the terminal, or having to reapply the buff or debuff, it would be more beneficial, IMO, for the "hardcore" player to find themselves in an easier fight than normal, than it would for the "casual" player to find themselves suddenly being in over their heads.

[Ratajack]

No. I don't think you get it.

 

Okay, there are two players. They both have only ONE hour to play. They decide to do their Alliance grinds.

 

Player A - does it on easy. Player A runs Korriban, DK, Balmorrah, and an additional 3 H2s on Nar Shada.

 

Player B - does it on hard. Player B runs Korriban, DK, and 4 H2s on Balmorrah.

 

The Hour is up. Both Player A and Player B have to log off.

 

Player A by choosing 'easy' has gained more rewards for their hour, than Player B who chose 'hard'. Making Easy the best option.

 

But if rewards for 'hard' are increased, then in that same hour, both players would get approximately EQUAL rewards.

 

Is it about the challenge or the rewards?

 

If it is about the challenge, then the challenge IS the reward.

 

If it is about the loot, about flexing your e-peen, about being able to lord yourself above the "rabble", then it really isn't about the challenge, is it?

[avatarearth]

/signed

[devincor]

Since Influence Rank is seemly rolled over into Presence, rather than a retooling of the mobs and worlds instances maybe they could offer a free vendored debuff stim that drops your Presence to 0 for a few hours? That should provide the necessary challenge (at least "nerf" the companion way down.)

 

0 might be too low, I'm not sure what it should be, just using that as an example (maybe set it to the level base of the stat for the particular instance/planet?).

[Myracarrah]

Is it about the challenge or the rewards?

 

If it is about the challenge, then the challenge IS the reward.

 

If it is about the loot, about flexing your e-peen, about being able to lord yourself above the "rabble", then it really isn't about the challenge, is it?

 

Am I asking for some super-special-awesomesauce-hey-look-at-me! reward? Nope. Fairly sure that was never my intention. I am saying you shouldn't be penalized for running in Hard Mode, you should end up equal to someone running at Easy Mode. Would I cry if somehow Bioware gave me Hard mode and better rewards? Nope. Pretty sure I wouldn't.

 

The game already has this type of system in place. For example, raiders. StoryMode, HardMode, and NiM all used to reward differing tiers of gear (yes there was some overlap) but if you wanted to put the extra hour (often two) in on your raid, and be more diligent about your gear checks, min/max, and rotations you were given a higher reward. When it was decided that NiM loot would be less than HM loot, there was quite a bit of outcry over the matter.

 

PvPers. They were given interesting skins of armor. Stats pertaining to them. Different mounts. Different decorations. All so those who wanted to spend their time PVPing (instead of running Weeklies) would be rewarded in a similar manner. How do you think PVPers would react if that awesome Red sniper trench coat was suddenly available to everyone? Or how about if Bioware decided that by running Weeklies that everyone would get top expertise gear?

 

Space Combat. Imagine if running rails missions gave better rewards than GSF? GSF has a high learning curve, it takes some serious dedication to get your ship geared up enough to perform well. But hey, anyone doing a space mission should get the same ship gear?

 

Difficulty is it's own fun. That doesn't mean anyone wishing to do something harder in game should get less than people running things easier.

[Myracarrah]

The problem with your scenario is exactly the point those against increased rewards are making.

 

First, you are talking about grinding. Grinding is all about accomplishing your end goal: the rewards, the end result. It has NOTHING to do with the challenge of the content.

 

Added to that, the perceived "equal" challenge difficulty (which is already a problem) will not be the same for all classes and players. So do you adjust the reward based on how hard it was for each class? Does a Commando/Guardian who had to slug it out with every mob and kill the boss get the same reward as the scoundrel/shadow that stealthed to the boss and wiped him faster? How is the reward value considered for the time and resources spent then?

 

Now we are reaching. Grinding is grinding. It is the end game of pretty much every MMO out there. Grind gear to raid. Grind raids for more gear. Grind gear to access harder content. Grind faction. Grind money.

 

And yes the level grind, the Alliance grind, the gear grind, the money grind, all pertain to the challenge of the content. Because to accomplish any of those grinds, you must do... content.

 

As for difficulty per class? Sure my tank Sin takes longer to fight than my Marauder. She also takes less damage. She has an even better chance at winning than my Marauder. Heck she has CCs the mara doesn't have. Stealth for bypassing trash. My other melee DPS (Operative) has better CCs and stealth as well, so she will finish the zone probably the fastest out of all my toons. My ranged DSP (sorc) can't take a hit. Good thing she has bubbles and CCs.

Merc Healer? Swap her up to DPS stance, keep bubble in place, clear trash almost as fast as the Operative and Mara. Swap back to heal stance for boss fights, and pretty much it's a guaranteed win.

 

Each class already has pros and cons. It would be up to you to determine which class of character you would want to run in which difficulty setting.

[Ratajack]

Now we are reaching. Grinding is grinding. It is the end game of pretty much every MMO out there. Grind gear to raid. Grind raids for more gear. Grind gear to access harder content. Grind faction. Grind money.

 

And yes the level grind, the Alliance grind, the gear grind, the money grind, all pertain to the challenge of the content. Because to accomplish any of those grinds, you must do... content.

 

As for difficulty per class? Sure my tank Sin takes longer to fight than my Marauder. She also takes less damage. She has an even better chance at winning than my Marauder. Heck she has CCs the mara doesn't have. Stealth for bypassing trash. My other melee DPS (Operative) has better CCs and stealth as well, so she will finish the zone probably the fastest out of all my toons. My ranged DSP (sorc) can't take a hit. Good thing she has bubbles and CCs.

Merc Healer? Swap her up to DPS stance, keep bubble in place, clear trash almost as fast as the Operative and Mara. Swap back to heal stance for boss fights, and pretty much it's a guaranteed win.

 

Each class already has pros and cons. It would be up to you to determine which class of character you would want to run in which difficulty setting.

 

I thought you wanted to reward a harder challenge with more rewards?

 

You want MORE than the "rabble", but you want the same rewards as someone who plays a class that inherently may prove to be more challenge?

 

Here's a thought.

 

BW can leave the game exactly as it is and not have to spend any development dollars to redo all the H2's so they can ALL be instanced with at least three separate types of instances for each and every H2, then try to determine three different levels of rewards and worry about all the balancing that those tasks would entail.

 

Players already have the ability to increase their difficulty, if they so desire.

 

The fact that Johnny doesn't want "handicap" himself does not equate to BW having to set the game to "hardcore", elitist jerk mode by default and requiring the "rabble" to make a special effort to get a buff just so they can survive, while at the same time providing that same "hardcore" minority with even MORE to lord over the "rabble".

 

I'm starting to think that the crux of all these cries from the "hardcore" minority for BW to increase the difficulty actually boil down to the fact that even though Johnny CAN set his own difficulty mode, he doesn't get all those extra pixels to lord over the "rabble" if HE increases his difficulty and not BW.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Ratajack

[Swissbob]

I don't think you actually believe this though. You've commented several times in the thread on this and each time you have, unintentionally I'm positive, taken a position that players that want it the way it is now want it 'easy' with a clear implication that that makes them in some way inferior. The choice of the words used in the OP support this (using 'easy mode' rather than 'normal' or 'default'), as do comments where you feel players that want it harder shouldn't need to be 'handicapped'.

 

 

I'm not calling it "default" because it wouldn't be the default setting. (Again, for practical, ease of implementation purposes). As for why I call it "Easy".... well, because that's the whole point of the mode. It is to reduce the challenge. The point of the mode is to make the game easier, and "EASY MODE" communicates that much more then "Normal Mode" or any other name.

 

As for whatever I "truly believe." Okay... I mean I can't prove to you that I'm not lying, and that I do actually believe any one play style isn't inherently better or worse then another. You just kind of have to take my word for it. All I can say is yes, I have been very open about which play style I personally prefer. And sometimes, when I'm expressing that preference, I may also express confusion, and sometimes even frustration, at people who have a differing play style, (frustration mainly coming from the fact that they are being catered to and I am being excluded) but that doesn't mean, deep down, I don't realize that their play style isn't inferior. It's just different.

 

Its the same way someone can go on a rant about how they don't understand someone's opinion, but will turn around and defend their right to express that opinion: I will explain why I personally play the way I do, and why I don't understand why someone else plays in a way I find totally boring, but I will still defend the person's right to have the game cater to them.... especially if I'm then turning around and asking for their support to have the game cater to me as well.

 

(EDIT: Or perhaps a more apt analogy would be person ranting about a religion they don't believe in, but then also acknowledges that people of that religion are entitled to their own beliefs, and that their own beliefs aren't inherently superior or inferior.)

 

So, I don't get why people play a certain way. But I believe them when they say that's how they have fun (why wouldn't I?), and realize that it isn't "inferior" to my own preferences. Just different. And I'm hoping/asking others to do the same with me and my preferences.

 

 

Look at it this way, as a supporter of the current setup, would you be ok with me calling what you want 'tedious mode' or 'no-life mode'? For people with nothing better to do than grind out boring so-called content, because that is pretty much what it would be for me.

 

Woah.... really? You think "Easy Mode" is as biased and loaded in tone as "Tedious Mode" and "No Life" Mode? I didn't realize "easy" was as universally derogatory as "tedious" and "no life."

 

If the word "easy" is really as inflammatory as you believe.... I am more then willing to change it to something else. "Normal Mode" is fine. Any other suggestions? I'm open to ideas.

 

You've been honest about your personal stance on this and I think that is actually the decisive factor in the choice of terminology and preferences on solutions. You don't want to have a debuff to make things harder, but you want players that want it as is to accept a buff. I'm not sure why you think the former would take more effort, as the latter also involves rebalancing (again) the entire open world setup. And if it turns out that new hard default isn't enough, potentially being expected to do it all again. If you want the devs to seriously consider adding any kind of option regarding difficulty, you need to accept that its going to have to be in the form of a debuff or LA's level sync cap idea.

 

The Hard Mode being the default would take less effort because it would only be ONE rebalance of the entire open world setup. If Hard Mode was the optional toggle, it would have to somehow rebalance the entire open world setup for EVERY Hard Mode player, but not at all for all of the Easy Mode players. How would Bioware even do this? And even if they could, how would it NOT take more time and resources for the devs to implement?

 

Well, I don't think I NEED to accept it would have to be a debuff. Is it more likely to involve a debuff? Yeah. Sure. But unless you have proof that never, under any possible circumstances, would Bioware ever implement something like my proposal, I don't see why I NEED to accept it.

 

Would I be happy if Bioware implemented LA's level sync idea? Sure. I would. And I've made it perfectly clear time and time again that I'm in support of it, or something similar. Why should I stop, in addition to advocating for his proposal, advocate for a proposal I think would make the game even better, even if it is a little more ambitious/unrealistic?

Edited January 18, 2016 by Swissbob

[devincor]

Now we are reaching. Grinding is grinding. It is the end game of pretty much every MMO out there. Grind gear to raid. Grind raids for more gear. Grind gear to access harder content. Grind faction. Grind money.

 

And yes the level grind, the Alliance grind, the gear grind, the money grind, all pertain to the challenge of the content. Because to accomplish any of those grinds, you must do... content..

 

It's not reaching. Your end game gear grind is around 97% group activity in majority of MMO's. Yes, you must do the content of the grind for the REWARD, no one grinds content for the fun of it ("the Challenge"). In 15+ years of playing MMO's I have not heard once a player say "this 6 week grind to get the item I need isn't challenging enough." No one loves grinding. It is a neccessary evil of MMO's used to bottleneck and slow down players so development can get the next content out. There is no incentive for the developer to reward you faster to complete the grind if they cannot produce content fast enough.

 

As for difficulty per class?..<snip>. It would be up to you to determine which class of character you would want to run in which difficulty setting.

 

Just to be clear, you are ok with a stealth scoundrel bypassing the majority of a hard mode challenging activity to kill the boss in 3 minutess and getting the same reward as the commando that will take 15 minutes to clear the way there and kill the boss?

[Ratajack]

The Hard Mode being the default would take less effort because it would only be ONE rebalance of the entire open world setup. If Hard Mode was the optional toggle, it would have to somehow rebalance the entire open world setup for EVERY Hard Mode player, but not at all for all of the Easy Mode players. How would Bioware even do this? And even if they could, how would it NOT take more time and resources for the devs to implement?

 

Well, I don't think I NEED to accept it would have to be a debuff. Is it more likely to involve a debuff? Yeah. Sure. But unless you have proof that never, under any possible circumstances, would Bioware ever implement something like my proposal, I don't see why I NEED to accept it.

 

Would I be happy if Bioware implemented LA's level sync idea? Sure. I would. And I've made it perfectly clear time and time again that I'm in support of it, or something similar. Why should I stop, in addition to advocating for his proposal, advocate for a proposal I think would make the game even better, even if it is a little more ambitious/unrealistic?

 

The "hard mode" could be just as easy to code as a debuff as "easy mode" could be to code as buff.

 

If the "easy mode" buff simply increases a player's damage and healing and that of their companion and ONLY affects the player and their companion then a debuff could work in a similar way, only in reverse. The debuff would simply decrease a player's damage and healing and that of their companion.

 

Players and their companions would still retain ALL skills, etc.

 

It could possibly even be set up to stack in increments of 10% for example. Click the terminal twice and your damage and healing and that of your companion are reduced by 20%.

 

It could possibly even be set up with two terminals, one for the player character and one for the companion, if you find that a companion is too powerful. You could possibly set your character's damage and healing reduction to 10% and that of your companion to 30%, for example.

 

As I said earlier, neither a buff for "easy" mode option nor a debuff for "hardcore" mode option would need to have any affect on the mobs strength, health or damage.

 

Once again, I think the only REAL difference in having "hard mode" as the default with the "casual" majority having to seek out a buff and having the "easy mode" as the default and the "hardcore" having to seek out a debuff would be the number of players affected by needing to seek out the buff or debuff. That is not to say there are not PERCEPTUAL differences, but that is ALL they are--PERCEPTUAL differences.

 

If the goal is to truly have a more challenging experience, then what difference would it make, functionally, if a "hardcore" player's character were debuffed versus a "casual" player's character being buffed?

 

Setting the default to "hardcore" mode would require that the majority seek out a buff simply to survive. Setting the default to "casual" or "easy" mode would only require the "hardcore" minority seek out a debuff if they wish to have more of a challenge.

 

This would "cater" to both parties, allowing both parties to have the gaming experience they desire. It does put the onus on the minority to seek out that debuff. That said, if the minority wish to see the game changed so they can be "catered to", then they should be willing to expend the little effort to seek out the debuff for the increased challenge, IMO.

[Myracarrah]

If you can figure out how to keep stealthers or Flavor of the Month classes from running content faster than everyone else, then I would love to read it. If you set content on a timer (more time it takes the more reward you get) it would be abused by people who decide to AFK just to get a bit more time on their counter.

 

I get it. Some people think Level Sync is fine. They think running content as an easy face roll is fine. They think that removing your companions and your gear is the best way to challenge yourself in solo content. And some people think that there are ways Bioware could put challenge into the game. Swissbob had excellent ideas. Lord Artemis had some excellent ideas as well.

 

Instead of thinking 'you just want harder content so you can get more rewards than me!'. Try to understand that as content stands it's not engaging. It's boring to some. And they would like an opportunity to play the game without having to tie one hand behind their back, and strip their char of their gear.

 

Maybe instead of trolling a thoughtful Original Post, and some interesting well thought out conversation, you can add to it. Why do you believe that players should not push themselves out of their comfort zone, and try to excel in their game play?

[Ratajack]

If you can figure out how to keep stealthers or Flavor of the Month classes from running content faster than everyone else, then I would love to read it. If you set content on a timer (more time it takes the more reward you get) it would be abused by people who decide to AFK just to get a bit more time on their counter.

 

I get it. Some people think Level Sync is fine. They think running content as an easy face roll is fine. They think that removing your companions and your gear is the best way to challenge yourself in solo content. And some people think that there are ways Bioware could put challenge into the game. Swissbob had excellent ideas. Lord Artemis had some excellent ideas as well.

 

Instead of thinking 'you just want harder content so you can get more rewards than me!'. Try to understand that as content stands it's not engaging. It's boring to some. And they would like an opportunity to play the game without having to tie one hand behind their back, and strip their char of their gear.

 

Maybe instead of trolling a thoughtful Original Post, and some interesting well thought out conversation, you can add to it. Why do you believe that players should not push themselves out of their comfort zone, and try to excel in their game play?

 

Why does it seem that the "thoughtful Original Post" boils down to "change the game to cater to the 'hardcore' " and "Oh, by the way, let's allow the 'rabble' to go out of their way to obtain a buff (if they can't hack it with the big boys) so that they can simply survive." ?

 

You even go so far as to put forth the concept that the "casual" should "push themselves out of their comfort zone, and try to excel in their game play". Why not come right out and say what seems to be written between the lines--that the "casual" should L2P?

 

Would providing a "debuff" terminal for the "hardcore" minority to increase their challenge, while still allowing them to use their companion and to maintain all of their skills, etc. be "forcing them to tie one hand behind their back or strip their character of their gear"?

Edited January 18, 2016 by Ratajack

[Myracarrah]

I wouldn't mind a debuff terminal. I wouldn't mind a buff terminal. I wouldn't mind if they just tailored a couple of Instances. Heck, I can go without extra goodies and rewards (would be nice if I got them, but that's not a deal breaker to me).

 

I do understand that running around with a Makeb style "SUPER" buff on would become something like a badge of shame for some. And I don't want that for other players.

 

As for learning to play, it's a game, I thought learning to play the game was part of the whole gaming experience. I am not saying 'Easy Mode is for bads!' because it isn't. Easy Mode is for people with time constraints, or who are here for the story. Or who are new to gaming (and more specifically this game). Hard Mode is so crazy people who want to challenge themselves, don't have to que up for an Op. Quite frankly I am all Raided out. That doesn't mean I don't want challenge, it just means I don't want raiding drama (yes there is such a thing as raiding drama).

 

I don't even want my ideas of Hard Mode to ruin the game for anyone else. However this Easy Mode ruins combat for several people on this thread alone. Which is why difficulty settings need to be Optional, how they are implimented (if they are ever implimented)... that's a whole different thing.

[devincor]

Myracarrah, my first post in this topic (#5) says I agree with him. Just don't ask for an increase in reward.

 

In my post a few before this (#112) I offer my suggestion on how to possible get a challenge with developer help by asking for a vendor bought debuff for your presence stat rather than ask for them to redesign content. This would seem to be a faster and easier thing to do (slightly similar to the opt out of 12x xp debuff i would guess, but I'm not a coder so not sure) then to have to go activity by activity to make custom changes to each event.

 

I'm not trolling, I'm on the side of adding challenge. I want it to be fair for all though and not an "reward expressway" for vets just because they can.

[Swissbob]

"I want to claim to want a challenge, but I don't want to give up the EZ MODE that influence gives me."

 

No. It's much less that, and much more this:

 

"I want an inherently challenging enemy that requires me to use all of my assets (INFLUENCE IS ONE OF THESE) to beat."

 

It's not that I secretly want easy mode, and am just twirling my super villain mustache over here while I troll with a thread (that I've dedicated hours of my time to) that advocates for a way for me to avoid easy mode. It's that I want an inherently challenging enemy that I DON"T have to forsake entire game systems to just to make challenging.

 

So I'll say once again.... I want an inherently challenging adversary whom I have to use all of my assets (Companion Influence included) to triumph over.

Saying this somehow means I don't actually want challenge is somewhere between a strawman and a red herring.

 

So, I don't want Companion Influence to give me an Easy Mode, rather, I want instead be a tool in my toolkit to give me a slight edge over a truly challenging adversary.

 

It would be just as easy to provide a terminal which would give a debuff to those desiring more challenge.

 

Yes, it would be just as easy. In fact, it would be even easier, as it wouldn't require a big re balance of open world mob strength. And not only that, but I would be happy if it was implemented. It would make the game better in my eyes.

 

But unfortunately, it does not solve a core issue here. And that core issue is the necessity of players to handicap themselves in order to make an artificial challenge. It demeans any challenge created and makes it, well, less meaningful, and therefore less engaging, satisfying, and fun.

 

 

It makes no logical sense to ask the majority to go to a terminal to gain a buff simply so they can survive. It makes much more sense to me to ask the MINORITY, those claiming to want a challenge to visit that terminal to gain a debuff.

 

 

If that offends you psychologically, think of it as your opponents are getting stronger and not you getting weaker.

 

As Obi-Wan said, it's all about perspective.

 

Well, it does make logical sense if it results in more entertained playerbase.... which I think it does. Players who want challenge have their entertainment more impaired by having to handicap themselves, then players who want it easy have their entertainment impaired by having to buff themselves.

 

As for asking the majority to go through all of the work of going to a terminal just to survive..... don't make it a terminal. Make it something much more mobile, that can be toggled at any point, in which the game quite clearly displays in BRIGHT FLASHY COLORS how to turn on and off, so it is no trouble at all for easy moders to make the game the way they want it to be.

 

As for "think of it as your opponents are getting stronger and not you getting weaker".... Trust me. I'm trying. I'm trying right now when I dismiss my companion, or limit what abilities he can use, or what gear I can use, or what XP I can get.... and let me tell you. It's hard. It's hard to think of it as my opponents getting stronger rather then me getting weaker, when I quite clearly know its the exact opposite of that. I'm painfully aware of what is really going on behind the scenes, and it is really quite difficult to do the mental jujitsu needed to somehow think of it the exact opposite of how it really is.

 

So.... telling me to just think away my own psychology does not really solve anything.

 

Once again, I think the only REAL difference in having "hard mode" as the default with the "casual" majority having to seek out a buff and having the "easy mode" as the default and the "hardcore" having to seek out a debuff would be the number of players affected by needing to seek out the buff or debuff. That is not to say there are not PERCEPTUAL differences, but that is ALL they are--PERCEPTUAL differences.

 

If the goal is to truly have a more challenging experience, then what difference would it make, functionally, if a "hardcore" player's character were debuffed versus a "casual" player's character being buffed?

 

Yes, they are perceptual differences, but those perceptual differences are really, really important. What the player is perceiving and thinking and feeling is really important, in fact more important, then the way the numbers are reacting behind the screen and in the machine.

 

What difference does it make, functionally? Not that much of one. But what difference does it make in the mind of the player? I'd argue a big one. And that's important.

 

Setting the default to "hardcore" mode would require that the majority seek out a buff simply to survive. Setting the default to "casual" or "easy" mode would only require the "hardcore" minority seek out a debuff if they wish to have more of a challenge.

 

This would "cater" to both parties, allowing both parties to have the gaming experience they desire. It does put the onus on the minority to seek out that debuff. That said, if the minority wish to see the game changed so they can be "catered to", then they should be willing to expend the little effort to seek out the debuff for the increased challenge, IMO.

 

How much effort, really, is expended in toggling an item or setting? Those few seconds of "inconvenience" for the majority is far outweighed by the drastically more fulfilling, engaging, and therefore entertaining gameplay for a minority that would result in raising the innate level of challenge presented by the mobs, rather then forcing players to debuff themselves to get an artificial sense of challenge.

 

As for the last sentence.... of course I/we are willing to put a little effort to find the challenge we seek. I'm doing that right now, by dismissing my companion, handicapping myself, and arguing for months on the forums. It's not that we don't want to put effort in.... that's just wrong. Its that we don't want to have to debuff ourselves.

 

Debuff, handicap, lowering ourselves artificially in any way = a problem.

 

Putting in effort = not a problem.

 

All that said, I'll say again: I still like a debuff terminal, compared to what we have now. If that's all Bioware did, I would be very happy. But I still think my proposal creates overall more fulfilling and entertaining gameplay for many, many players.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Swissbob

[Ratajack]

I wouldn't mind a debuff terminal. I wouldn't mind a buff terminal. I wouldn't mind if they just tailored a couple of Instances. Heck, I can go without extra goodies and rewards (would be nice if I got them, but that's not a deal breaker to me).

 

I do understand that running around with a Makeb style "SUPER" buff on would become something like a badge of shame for some. And I don't want that for other players.

 

As for learning to play, it's a game, I thought learning to play the game was part of the whole gaming experience. I am not saying 'Easy Mode is for bads!' because it isn't. Easy Mode is for people with time constraints, or who are here for the story. Or who are new to gaming (and more specifically this game). Hard Mode is so crazy people who want to challenge themselves, don't have to que up for an Op. Quite frankly I am all Raided out. That doesn't mean I don't want challenge, it just means I don't want raiding drama (yes there is such a thing as raiding drama).

 

I don't even want my ideas of Hard Mode to ruin the game for anyone else. However this Easy Mode ruins combat for several people on this thread alone. Which is why difficulty settings need to be Optional, how they are implimented (if they are ever implimented)... that's a whole different thing.

 

While I am in favor of level sync remaining as it is and not "optional", I think adding a debuff terminal to better accommodate the desire for a more challenging experience that some have expressed could benefit the game.

[Ratajack]

No. It's much less that, and much more this:

 

"I want an inherently challenging enemy that requires me to use all of my assets (INFLUENCE IS ONE OF THESE) to beat."

 

It's not that I secretly want easy mode, and am just twirling my super villain mustache over here while I troll with a thread (that I've dedicated hours of my time to) that advocates for a way for me to avoid easy mode. It's that I want an inherently challenging enemy that I DON"T have to forsake entire game systems to just to make challenging.

 

So I'll say once again.... I want an inherently challenging adversary whom I have to use all of my assets (Companion Influence included) to triumph over.

Saying this somehow means I don't actually want challenge is somewhere between a strawman and a red herring.

 

So, I don't want Companion Influence to give me an Easy Mode, rather, I want instead be a tool in my toolkit to give me a slight edge over a truly challenging adversary.

 

 

 

Yes, it would be just as easy. In fact, it would be even easier, as it wouldn't require a big re balance of open world mob strength. And not only that, but I would be happy if it was implemented. It would make the game better in my eyes.

 

But unfortunately, it does not solve a core issue here. And that core issue is the necessity of players to handicap themselves in order to make an artificial challenge. It demeans any challenge created and makes it, well, less meaningful, and therefore less engaging, satisfying, and fun.

 

 

 

 

Well, it does make logical sense if it results in more entertained playerbase.... which I think it does. Players who want challenge have their entertainment more impaired by having to handicap themselves, then players who want it easy have their entertainment impaired by having to buff themselves.

 

As for asking the majority to go through all of the work of going to a terminal just to survive..... don't make it a terminal. Make it something much more mobile, that can be toggled at any point, in which the game quite clearly displays in BRIGHT FLASHY COLORS how to turn on and off, so it is no trouble at all for easy moders to make the game the way they want it to be.

 

As for "think of it as your opponents are getting stronger and not you getting weaker".... Trust me. I'm trying. I'm trying right now when I dismiss my companion, or limit what abilities he can use, or what gear I can use, or what XP I can get.... and let me tell you. It's hard. It's hard to think of it as my opponents getting stronger rather then me getting weaker, when I quite clearly know its the exact opposite of that. I'm painfully aware of what is really going on behind the scenes, and it is really quite difficult to do the mental jujitsu needed to somehow think of it the exact opposite of how it really is.

 

So.... telling me to just think away my own psychology does not really solve anything.

 

 

 

Yes, they are perceptual differences, but those perceptual differences are really, really important. What the player is perceiving and thinking and feeling is really important, in fact more important, then the way the numbers are reacting behind the screen and in the machine.

 

What difference does it make, functionally? Not that much of one. But what difference does it make in the mind of the player? I'd argue a big one. And that's important.

 

 

 

How much effort, really, is expended in toggling an item or setting? Those few seconds of "inconvenience" for the majority is far outweighed by the drastically more fulfilling, engaging, and therefore entertaining gameplay for a minority that would result in raising the innate level of challenge presented by the mobs, rather then forcing players to debuff themselves to get an artificial sense of challenge.

 

As for the last sentence.... of course I/we are willing to put a little effort to find the challenge we seek. I'm doing that right now, by dismissing my companion, handicapping myself, and arguing for months on the forums. It's not that we don't want to put effort in.... that's just wrong. Its that we don't want to have to debuff ourselves.

 

Debuff, handicap, lowering ourselves artificially in any way = a problem.

 

Putting in effort = not a problem.

 

All that said, I'll say again: I still like a debuff terminal, compared to what we have now. If that's all Bioware did, I would be very happy. But I still think my proposal creates overall more fulfilling and entertaining gameplay for many, many players.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you want the devs to redesign the game so that you don't have to be "handicapped" and inconvenience what is likely the majority of the players to salve your psyche?

 

While making the mobs tougher so you don't have to "handicap" yourself might make the game more engaging for you and other "hardcore" players, the inconvenience would also likely make the game MUCH LESS engaging and enjoyable for the majority.

 

Is your psyche really worth inconveniencing the majority?

 

I would support a debuff toggle to provide a more challenging experience for the "hardcore", but not a "hard mode" as a default. I do not see changing the game to cater to the minority at the expense of the majority as a logical, or even viable, option. That is just my opinion.