Right, I've gone over this. Was the game easy at launch? Yes. Were the companions OP at launch? Sure. But does that excuse the game being even easier, and the companions even more OP? To point where the already dwindling amount of challenge has just been taken out behind the shed and slaughtered? No, it doesn't excuse it. Now, the argument that the game's target (and main) audience wants that to happen can excuse it to a certain extent, sure, but the "Game was always easy" one doesn't at all. Yes, okay, I won't dispute that people who don't want challenge are the majority, and the game is "for them" primarily. But does that mean that those who do want challenge should be excluded and not appealed to at all? No, I don't think it does. Difficulty options should be implemented to appeal to those who want challenge, so that everyone, the "casual" gamer and the "hardcore" one (not that I agree with those labels necessarily) can have fun, not just the "casual" one. So yes, the game is for "casuals." But that doesn't mean it has to only be for "casuals." I mean, sure, the main money source is with that audience, but why not also tap into another source of money while you're at it?

You were able to beat NPC's 8 levels ahead of you at launch? I have trouble believing that. But.... even if that was the case.... so what? So you had enough skill and enough good gear to take on challenging content.... that's not the issue here. The issue here is the (nonexistant) innate level of challenge in solo content of the same level. And you're wrong if you say it was just as easy at launch. Were you really able to stand still, wearing no gear, pressing no buttons, while a totally unmodified 2V-R8 solo'd a Heroic Boss? No, no you weren't. In order to beat Heroic Bosses of the same level by yourself, you couldn't stand still wearing no gear and pressing no buttons..... you had to press buttons with a good amount of skill, and have great gear, if you were able to solo them at all. I was at launch too. And yes, it wasn't the hardest game, sure, it was mostly easy, there was only a little bit of challenge here and there. But that's all it had/has to be. There's a huge difference between little challenge, and no challenge. The "game was always easy" argument ignores the fact that just because something was always easy, doesn't mean it can't get even easier. For instance: "The game was always boring, so it's okay that its more boring." The game was always broken, so its okay that it is more broken." You see how that's not really convincing? I'm okay with an easy game. I'm not okay with a game that has no challenge to speak of whatsoever. As for if they are or are not going to give us a harder option, maybe they will, maybe they won't. You could argue it's likely they won't and I wouldn't disagree, but so what? What we should be talking about is should they add it, not will they (as none of us can answer that), and I'd argue, yes, yes they should add a harder option for the portion of the playerbase who enjoy a bit of challenge (ie not having the game beat itself by default), so they can have fun with the game too.

I don't thnk I have many datacrons, but yeah, my presence score is likely pretty high (because of my legacy level, I think). But so what? I didn't ask for my presence score to suddenly shoot up into the stars, rendering the game completely challengeless. If your point is that Presence is the problem, then I'm totally okay with that. If all they did was reduce players presence scores so that their companions were no longer insanely OP, I'd be happy..... of course, the players who like having their companions OP wouldn't be, so it kind of defeats the purpose of making the change (to make more players happy). Now, why am I "too lazy to adjust my own experience".... and why do I refuse to use the "tools available?" Well, the answer is: I'm not. I am using the tools available to me. I am disabling all of my companion abilities while avoiding anything that gives them influence like the plague (which kind of makes the entire endgame Alliance pointless). I am purposefully avoiding XP at all costs so I don't overlevel. I am purposefully ignoring the entire crafting system, since it just makes me more OP. I am purposefully throwing away all of my medpacs, stims, and adrenals, because they give me a boost that just isn't needed. I am purposefully self-imposing arbitrary handicaps that involve abstaining from core gameplay elements in order to inject a speck of artificial challenge into the game (at the expense of said core gameplay elements). But it doesn't make for satisfying gameplay. If you'd like to read more on the subject, here's a bunch of words: Now, as for the level sync suggestion, yes, that is totally better then what there is now, and would support it being implemented and would love to use it in game. But in principle,it still leads to a less satisfying game for those who want challenge then my suggestion, because it still involves an arbitrarily self-imposed handicap, which demeans any challenge created. Now, it does so much, much less then all the gymnastics I have to do create some artificial challenge now, but it is far from ideal. My proposal leads to much more entertaining gameplay for those who want challenge without the need for handicaps, while not impairing the enjoyment of the game for those who don't. And yes, it would take more dev resources and time, I won't argue that. But it would lead to a more universally appealing game, with a larger amount player enjoyment. Now, does that make it automatically worth all the time and resources? Well, I can't say, because I don't know exactly how much it would take, but I think you are wrong to be so sure it isn't.

What, you don't find to be compelling, challenging, thrilling, and entertaining gameplay? You don't get a sense of accomplishment from that? Well, I think you (and I) are in the minority. Most people seem to like it. People don't like to have to press buttons in combat, they don't like to have to give the game user input (ie gameplay), and like to have the game beat itself by default.. And when combat was made every so slightly more challenging via a companion nerf, there was a huge outcry on the forums (much larger then what there was when the companions were buffed), indicative of a much larger audience in support of no challenge, then the audience in support of challenge. So, the only way we're likely going to have any sort of inherent challenge in solo content is via more player choice (difficulty options, for instance). What are the chances of Bioware going through the effort to implement a gameplay feature like that to appeal to a minority? Well, probably pretty small, especially when their design decisions over the past year and more have quite clearly been made to move the game in the direction opposite of what that minority likes, with little care or regard for them. So, I don't see why they'd start catering to that minority now. But yeah, I mourn the loss of all challenge and sense of accomplishment too. And people who are quick to point out "The game was always easy! There never was much challenge in the first place!" are equally quick to forget that there is a large, very consequential difference between little challenge (1.0), and no challenge (4.0).

Here's a bunch of words to explain why I don't think this is right. Anyway, yes, the lack of any challenge is unfortunate for those who want to be required to press buttons to win. I propose making mobs inherently more powerful, then offering a buff to players to appeal to both sides of the playerbase (those who want challenge without having to handicap, those who don't want challenge). It's a win for both. Is it practical, profitable, or even possible for Bioware? I don't know. But I think if it is any of those things, it should be done, as it would make a better game. Okay, I'm going back into my hole, now. I'll come out when another one of these threads is inevitably made.... EDIT: Never mind, already found another one.

Well, I don't think it is easy for just "experienced players".... as skill and experience aren't a requirement to win fights. Here's me defeating and while wearing no gear and using no abilities with a Rank 1 Influence Companion. So, it isn't easy just for "experienced players", it's easy for anyone with a Rank 1 Influence companion (which is everyone), as that means you don't have to press buttons to win (in other words, the game plays itself.... its impossible to lose). So, experience has nothing to do with it. The game really is just a "walkthrough," as you put it. Second, yes, a slider to nerf our gear wouldn't be ideal. As it is a self-imposed handicap. BUT it is better then having to purposefully dismiss our companion or limit what gear we wear, as at least it doesn't require us abstaining from core gameplay elements. But an even better solution, I think, is mine. Make the mobs themselves more challenging, and offer players a buff to make the game easier (its current level of difficulty).That way, players who want challenge can get it without having to handicap themselves, and players who want little to no challenge can have that as well.

Okay, I'll respond to it now. I think it is a misrepresentation, and one that isn't really based in evidence. I don't see where you get the idea I only want a Hard Mode so I can prove some sort of "superiority" over other players. Do I really strike you as someone who just wants to prove I'm really good at the game to other people? Did you miss the multiple times I've said things like "I'm a casual player" "I'm not very good at the game, decent at best" "I'm not interested in Ranked PvP, NiM Ops, etc." ? Also, I don't really see any grounds for accusing me of this in my proposal either. I'm not asking for something that publicly displays "This person is an uber l33t hardcore Hard Moder"..... there's no where in this that gives Hard Moders a unique title, or icon, or anything to display publicly at all what mode they're player. I mean, maybe there would be a debuff/buff Icon that you could search for on a player to find out if they're playing Normal or Hard Mode, but if that is a problem at all I'd be more then willing to make it invisible. Because, again, I don't care at all about "validating my superiority".... do whatever you have to do to make who is playing Hard Mode as hidden as possible. It's not about just about "seeing what I'm able to achieve" necessarily. It's more about just a basic sense of engagement and satisfaction in combat. And that comes from overcoming an inherent challenge.... a challenge I didn't just arbitrarily create through my own artificial, self-imposed handicaps. And yeah, I understand you don't understand why I don't feel arbitrary, self-imposed handicaps to make a challengeless enemy artificially challenging doesn't lead to all that satisfying, engaging, or fun gameplay. I've tried over and over to explain, but none of that persuades you, so I guess we'll have to leave it at that. One thing though that I'll say is that, even if you don't understand the why of how I don't find handicaps a satisfying gameplay element, hopefully you can at least grant me the benefit of the doubt, and assume that I'm not lying, and that when I tell you it isn't about a credit reward, or about "validating" myself, and that having a handicap does really impair my enjoyment, you assume I'm telling the truth, and at least support the principle that adding in an option that increases my entertainment without impairing others is a good thing (whether or not it is practical is another discussion). Okay, about the differences between advanced class/discipline and the balancing of different roles.... I guess I don't really see that as much of a problem. I mean, is any one advanced class or discipline really that much stronger then the others? So much so that a whole new gameplay system of difficulty gradients tailored for different roles is necessary? I mean, if one class (eg Powertech) is able to clear out content with so much more ease then another class (eg Marauder).... I feel that is more easily fixed by balancing those classes, rather then implementing a whole new system of varying difficulty levels for different classes. I mean, don't get me wrong, what you're proposing isn't necessarily a bad thing (if I understand it correctly), but it doesn't seem necessary or even worthwhile. So yeah, I mean I guess I don't see the extent to which classes are imbalanced being as big as you see it..... and if it is, I feel that is more easily solved by tweaking the actual classes to get something more balanced, rather then creating a whole new PvE system to accommodate those imbalances.

@Vhaegrant: I will get to you next, Sooty prompted me to change something in the OP so I felt I needed to address that first. Well, I can't promise I'm not going to continue to respond with crazy-long reponses.... I tend to be long winded and also don't want to purposefully not say something that I think needs to be said for the sake of space. That said, I can put in an effort to condense what I quote (to reduce the muti-quote asepect), and can try to put some more of my responses in Spoiler tags for the sake of space. Anyway.... how is the opposite true? How does adding in a buff toggled ON at default only "moderately cater" to those who want no challenge? They still get the same level of challenge at default, meaning they are inconvenienced to no extent. See, my claim that Ratajack's proposal only "moderately caters" to those who want challenge is backed up by the fact that it doesn't fully achieve their desire for an inherent challenge, as it does entail a handicap. And that limitation doesn't exist for the Normal () mode players. Therefore, the reasoning for my assertion, the "psychological" problem if you want to put it that way, exists in Ratajack's proposal in hampering the enjoyment of Hard Moders, but doesn't exist in my proposal. Therefore, I don't see why my proposal excludes Normal moders (who don't care about an inherent challenge, and who get Normal Mode as default) as much as Ratajack's proposal excludes Hard Moders (who don't receive the inherent challenge that doesn't force them to handicap themselves that they desire). But okay, onto my "antagonistic" language.... in other words, my repeated use of the word "Easy." I really don't understand how you can view "Easy" as as antagonistic as "No Life" mode, and also, I did acknowledge my willingness to change it from Easy to Normal back when you brought it up, so I don't think it's exactly fair to say I'm refusing to call it anything other then Easy. But okay, to back up my words, I'm changing the original suggestion in the OP from "Easy Mode" to "Normal Mode" in hopes to "mollify" you, as Ratajack would put it. While I don't understand the principles behind it (I really still don't get why the word "Easy" is so insulting..... basically every game that uses difficulty sliders use the terms "Very Easy, Easy, Hard," etc. It's not like I'm calling it "Baby Mode" or "No Skill Mode" or something ridiculous....) I don't want to be unnecessarily antagonistic, and I don't want to unintentionally alter the "climate" of the discussion from one of compromise to one of side picking, especially if I'm asking for support from people in another demographic in advocating for something that caters to my demographic. So, I'm changing any mention of "Easy Mode" to "Normal Mode" in the OP, and will try to do so from here on out. As for LA's suggestion, are you also on board with it increasing rewards? I mean I like it too..... my main problem with it is of course the feeling of "handicapping" myself, as opposed to an inherently challenging enemy, though I feel that objection loses some weight if the rewards are increased as he proposed, as that "handicap" becomes less arbitrary, self-imposed, and unsatisfying (cue all the "you're just in it for the money after all" people). And I won't argue it is simpler and easier to implement.... It would work for me.

No, I don't think we have to agree to disagree, at least not in the sense you're talking about. Sure, if this was a thread about which play style is better, challenge or no challenge, then yeah, that's a subjective opinon that really isn't going to change based on a debate or argument..... afterall, it's just what one person finds fun vs. what another person finds fun. But that's not really what this thread is about. It isn't about which play style is better, but rather which one(s) should the developers cater to (I think the answer is both), and to what extent for each. And THAT is something that is worth talking about, I think, as depending on what the answer is, and more importantly whether or not the devs act on that answer, a better or worse game could result. As for "if a fairly competent player finds any aspect of the game challenging, then it's probably too hard"..... Well, yeah, if it is that way for everyone and people don't have a way to circumnavigate that challenge so they aren't forced to play challenging content when they don't want to, it is probably "too hard" in the sense that it is more challenge then most players want. But if that challenge for a competent player was an option, which would be experienced only by players who want that level of challenge..... then no, it isn't "too hard." It's just right.

Now, hold up right up there.... take out the word casual, I don't call it "casual mode".... Why put something in quotes that I'm not saying? Oh right, it's to twist my position from what it actually is. I'm gonna label everytime you do this in bright red letters so people know I'm not actually saying this crap. I self identify as a casual player, for one, and I certainly haven't called anyone "rabble." Anyway... Yep, that's me. "INSISTING" to have it only my way, never anyone elses. I am unflinchingly rigid, never yielding to any other suggestions or giving them any credit. You've perfectly assessed the nature of my posts here. Pay no attention to these following quotes from this very thread where I am doing the opposite of insisting it has to be my way, and am indeed admitting other people's suggestions would be satisfactory, good, great, and sometimes even better then my own, going so far as to change my position as someone has convinced me they have a better one. Here is me, in response to your posts, "insisting" your solution is wrong, and Bioware must tweak all Mobs across the board. Oh wait.... wait a second. No... that's not what's happening at all. I'm actually agreeing with you, and saying that I AM IN SUPPORT OF YOUR PROPOSAL! Now sure, I still believe mine would make for net more satisfying gameplay for players, but I am so far away from "insisting" it has to be my way and my way only that I really cannot believe that you genuinely think that that is what I'm doing here. Sure, I'm advocating for my own proposal, but am I really "insisting" it has to be that way? Throughout all of my concessions, admissions of parts of my proposal's optional nature, admissions that your solution is in fact a good, one, edits to my original proposal based on other poster's convincing me there was a better way, frequent remarks of support and advocacy of other people's solutions, creating an addendum full of other people's solutions, you still think I am "INSISTING" it HAS to be my way and my way only? Seriously? Okay. Let me try this just.... one.... more.... time.... I AM OKAY WITH YOUR PROPOSAL! I LIKE YOUR PROPOSAL! I WOULD BE HAPPY IF YOUR PROPOSAL GOT IMPLEMENTED IN THE GAME! IT IS A GOOD PROPOSAL! I'll even go further. You say it is "not good enough for me".... well, you know what? It pretty much is. If Bioware actually implemented that in the game..... I certainly wouldn't be making as big a deal here on forums about the game being too easy as I am now. I'd be pretty satisfied, honestly. Now, you ask me why I think my current proposal is better. You ask me why I a debuff terminal isn't enough to 100%, totally satisfy me. Well, the good news for you is that, if you actually want to learn the answer to this question, I've already posted it time and time again on this thread. The answer is that having to handicap myself does not lead to as engaging and satisfying gameplay as having to overcome an innately challenging enemy. Now yes, a debuff terminal would mean all of those things (Influence is relevant, I get to use all of my skills, I don't have to dismiss my companion etc.). And that's why I LIKE IT. Unfortunately, though, having to go to a debuff terminal, to make my stats (which I get from gear) less effective (thus lowering the point of wearing good gear), is still a handicap to make an inherently challengeless, Kindergarten enemy artifically challenging in contrast to my own self-lowered aptitude. It still leads to less satisfying and engaging gameplay then having to use all of your assets to raise yourself up over an inherently challenging adversary. Meanwhile, my solution doesn't affect "Easy moders" in any negative way, as the game would still stay the same level of ease for them. So, it's more of a true win-win, while yours is more of a win-mostly win. Let me put is this way: The Game As it is Right Now Players who want an inherent challenge ------->catered to barely at all. Players who want little to no challenge ----------> catered to fully. Your Solution: Players who want an inherent challenge ------> catered to moderately well. Players who want little to no challenge ---------> catered to fully My Solution: Players who want an inherent challenge ---------> catered to almost fully. Players who want little to no challenge -------> catered to fully. So, it's not that your solution is unacceptable, in fact, it's really good and a definite improvement over the game currently. It just doesn't appeal to players who want an inherent challenge as much as I believe mine would. NOW, that said, in practical terms, your solution is easier to implement then mine, which I'm not arguing, and which might make it. a stronger proposal overall. But in principle, I still believe mine makes for a more satisfying game design that will get the most amount of entertainment from the playerbase. All stuff I've replied to. Though its worth repeating that I don't really appreciate you trying to convey that I view people who like less challenge as "casual rabble" and that people who enjoy a bit of challenge are the "hardcore" elite. But me explaining to you what my actual views are in the past hasn't stopped you before, so why would it stop you now? Yes, this argument. The "Your optional caveat mostly hidden in spoiler tags and repeatedly stressed as strictly optional and disposable exposes that the entire rest of the thread dedicated to why challenge is important for engaging and fun gameplay for some people was all just a ruse so that you can get more credits " argument. NOTE: That is a rough paraphrase, of course. It's been addressed again and again, so, I'll try the all caps, big text, bright colors approach. CHALLENGE IS ITS OWN REWARD FOR ME! I AM OKAY WITH NOT GETTING MORE REWARDS FOR DOING MORE CHALLENGING CONTENT!! Yes, challenge is it's own reward. That's why I am okay with scrapping the increased rewards option. My idea that offering slight incentives for game cohesion, common sense time/resources input vs. reward output, and the sake of Group Finder, makes the proposal slightly better doesn't mean that I don't find challenge to be rewarding. In other words, just because I think incentivizing challenging content is good, doesn't mean I think challenging content without incentives isn't good too. Yes, but that is an anomaly. They, as well as the MMO genre as a whole, as set many more precedents that playing higher difficulty content does yield higher rewards. Examples: Ranked PvP NiM Operations Hard Mode Flashpoints Heroic Space Missions Heroic 4's vs. Heroic 2's Heroics vs. Solo Side Quests etc.

Added this to the Addendum in second post in thread. Thanks for the contributions, and let me know if there's anything you want me to add to your proposal there. What makes you think it is the underlying reason? Like this was all just a plot to get richer? Here are some key points of evidence you may have overlooked: -My insistence in the OP that increased rewards was a strictly optional part of my proposal, and one that I'm more then willing to scrap if the rest got implemented. -My repeated statements that this was intended to be very very slight, more so to compensate the increased time and resources player Hard Mode requires or at the very most to put a small incentive to try out Harder content, rather then to make anyone drastically richer. -My repeated insistence of these two facts, and my concession of this optional caveat to everyone who takes issue with it. Seriously, why do so many people assume, despite all the evidence, that I'm lying about my desires and motivations, and that all of my attempts to show that this part of the proposal is optional and less important is me just trying to deceive everyone from my 'master plot' of getting richer then other players? Again.... no, that's really not it. Sure, I still think that would be nice and I think it's a good thing to reward players for doing something that takes more time and resources.... but that is totally secondary to my desire for an innately challenging enemy. Just take a look at my OP. Which seems to be the bigger issue at hand for me.... whether there should be a harder difficulty mode, or whether said difficulty mode should give increased rewards? I'll give you a hint: It's the one that dominates the whole thread in bright flashing colors, and not the one that is labeled repeatedly as "OPTIONAL CAVEAT" and mostly hidden under a spoiler tag. So, I'm fine addressing the pros and cons of giving players increased rewards for Hard Mode, but please stop mischaracterizing my position, and just asserting that my secret motive all along was just increased rewards, not challenge, ignoring all of the evidence and my frequent direct objections as disingenuous. Well, first, the leveling content (eg the class story) is really the heart of the game, and one of its major selling points. There are many players (myself included) who don't have much time or interest to invest into the game to do things like Ranked PvP, NiM Ops, or even much Endgame at all, including Flashpoints, Dailies, etc. And even the players who do play all of those things, also play the levelling content as well. Everyone plays through the levelling content.... It's the most core part of the game. And that's why it is important to have it appeal, in addition to players who don't like a challenge, to players who do like a challenge. As for setting our difficulty ourselves..... Are you talking about the already existing ways that we can handicap ourselves? If so, that's already been addressed as why it isn't a satisfying solution. And it has nothing with "not getting a better financial return." If you are not talking about the various avenues for self-handicap that exist in the game, and are talking about a way to increase challenge more conventionally (eg my proposal), albeit without increased rewards.... then sign me up! I am on board! Why? Because what I really care about is increased inherent challenge, not more rewards. I'm willing to scrap the latter to achieve the former, because, once again, it's not all about more money! Yeah. It is a reward itself. That's why I'm okay ditching the money part. The problem is, challenge created by myself via self-handicap to make an inherently challengeless, Kindergarten enemy challenging in contrast is not a reward in of itself. I want inherent challenge I have to raise myself up by using all of my assets to triumph over. That is the reward. Not artificial challenge created by me lowering myself down.

Well yeah, of course once players reach a certain level of mastery over the game, it will never be truly as difficult as it could be when they were still learning. However, just because the game won't be as hard as when players had no experience or knowledge in the game, that doesn't mean it can't be hard at all. The game can still offer a good amount of difficulty, if the stats of the mobs are high enough and/or the fight mechanics are complex enough. So, difficulty options are still very important. I mean, I've been playing the game a while, and while I don't consider myself an expert on the game, I'm not terrible and I can still engineer (via dismissing companions, and other handicaps) fights that give me a lot of challenge. So, challenge can be achieved even for "experienced" players, it's just a shame I have to handicap myself and abstain from gameplay features to obtain it. Well, I think these suggestions could definitely offer some difficulty, but I believe they'd both be more time/resources/work to implement, as they'd entail designing new content, as opposed to just tweaking mob stats. And the second suggestion would only offer challenge in that one new part of solo content.... the rest of the leveling combat and solo content would still be mind numbingly easy with no option for those who want challenge to get it.

Yes, my severe, close minded, creativity limiting 'rules' of "Don't break the most integral part of Star Wars lore." I'm not reading Lord of the Rings to learn about the Necklaces of Power, I'm not reading/watching ASoIF/Game of Thrones to see a random Army of Valkyrie slaughter everyone, and I'm not playing a Star Wars game to see a third side of the force be invented and then go on to dominate the Light and Dark Side. And every single Star Wars story doesn't necessarily have to be the same old Light vs. Dark conflict every single time. I'd be fine with a story that offers a new take, explores further, or even challenges, albeit in a more subtle way, the Light Side vs. Dark Side paradigm, (something like KOTOR 2, for instance) or even has nothing much to do with it.... But it can't totally contradict that conflict/paradigm. It can't be something that essentially erases it and makes it seem pointless. You say it doesn't make the paradigm irrelevant. Well, for one, that dichotomy no longer exists. Now there is a new side of the Force, neither Light or Dark. What now is the point of the Light Side and the Dark Side of the force if you can become even more powerful without either? All of Darth Sidious' and Yoda's musings on the force are now disproven. Sorry Yoda, but there is something more powerful then the Light Side. The Zakuul side. And by the way, maybe I did go into it with an open mind, and didn't like it anyway. And now the Dark Side and the Light Sides of the force are "fan service"? Fan service, baggage..... a Mary Sue (even though it isn't even a character).... any other terms you'd like to throw on it?

Oh, okay. I thought you were talking about fixing group finder as a relevant part of difficulty in Solo content. But what you've proposed here is a whole other separate proposal that deals with another aspect of the game then my proposal. So while I'm not against it (in fact, it sounds like a fine idea to me ) it just doesn't necessarily need to be a part of my original proposal, because it's kind of unrelated. Well, no, I think that is an exaggeration. Having a No Combat Mode wouldn't change the entire game to something absolutely fundamentally different. Sure, it takes out one huge component of it, but it's still SWTOR at its core. So, I think a more apt analogy wouldn't be changing Chess to Checkers, but rather asking for Chess, just without the pawns. Sure, it takes out a huge part of the game, but it doesn't change the entire game to something totally different. Well, that's all fair enough, if you buy into the initial premise that adding in No Combat Mode radically alters the core nature of the game, and would in fact make "everyone unhappy." But again, I don't really buy into that premise. I mean, how exactly would offering players an ability to skip past mobs in Story Content break the game? Or ruin it for anyone else? As for whether it's practical or profitable, I don't know. I don't really think either of us can say. But again it is an optional part of my proposal, and I included it to try to appeal to as many player groups as possible. I understand its the most far fetched part of it, and it it the least practical, but I still think it makes the proposal overall stronger, at least on principle. Well, okay. But to be fair, the "No Combat Mode" doesn't hand them everything the game has to offer. It just lets them get to the story (the part of the game they enjoy the most) slightly faster. And again I say, the time to be against the game handing players everything is already past. I mean, when the game hands players the ability to instantly generate a level 60.... what exactly is there left to hand the players? Anything that the ease of a "No Combat Mode" could demean is already pretty much demeaned by the ability to instantly generate a 60. If you're worried about "No Combat Mode" leading to leveling being too fast and easy.... there's already a much more egregious offender in the building. I'd still argue it's a handicap. Just because a handicap lowers you to where you're "supposed to be" doesn't mean it isn't a handicap. All a handicap is is something that lowers your overall ability to something lower then it is right now. So if you are a level 30 doing level 20 quests, and a "Hard Mode" Level Sync would lower you to level 18 rather then level 22, that is still a handicap, as it is lowering your ability to something lower then it is right now, regardless of whether you're "supposed to be" level 18 or not. "This isn't a handicap. Because a handicap would imply that you are in fact much stronger and are merely lowering yourself to meet the challenge. " Except... that is exactly what Level Sync is doing. When Level Sync takes you down from level 30 to 18..... that is lowering yourself from a much stronger place to a much weaker place. You are much stronger as a level 30, and when level sync lowers you to 18, it's lowering yourself to meet the challenge. I don't understand how it isn't. I mean..... how is Level Sync NOT lowering you from a much stronger place (Level 30) to a much weaker place (Level 18) to meet the challenge (~Level 20) !? But yes, offering options to make Level Sync more severe is more efficient in creating just straight challenging content, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily better, because again, it forces the player to reduce his own aptitude (handicap) to make an inherently challengeless enemy challenging, rather then just giving the player an inherently challenging enemy. For instance, you know what's even more efficient then asking the devs to tweak level sync to get a challenge? Dismissing your companion. Or wearing limited gear. Etc. These are even more efficient ways to get challenge, but, as I think we'd both agree, that doesn't mean they're better, because the challenge they are creating isn't 'genuine', so to speak. It's artificial, and thus less satisfying/engaging/fun.

Wait, did you just call the entirety of the Republic, the Sith Order, the Empire, the Jedi Order, and the Light and Dark Side of the force a "Mary Sue"? And as for your question, no, by making the Jedi and Sith and the Light Side and Dark Side irrelevant and seem like total pushovers.... no, that doesn't make them more interesting. What's interesting about them is that they are the two most powerful forces in the galaxy, fighting for the fate of trillions.... and now they are shown to be nearly totally powerless compared to the "Zakuul Side" or whatever its name is. If the "Zakuul Side" is so strong, where is it in the rest of the entirety of Star Wars lore? If there is another side of the Force that can topple both the Dark Side and Light Side, why doesn't it come up ever again? Imagination is one thing, totally ignoring the core aspects of the mythos your story takes place in is another.