Agree with the autor.

/signed

While it is a great idea it would probably cost alot to implement.

I am actually happy with the way the system works now, I am used to it and can play without thinking a year or so back things were different.

This is why I propose what I feel is a much simpler way to introduce a hard mode....using the current system in place.

Right now level sync caps your level at around 2 to 3 levels above the suggested level range for that planet. What I am suggesting is using that system to place a level reduction on your character inside that system, so you are downleveled even farther. This is how it would work.

Say a planet has a recommended level range of 10 to 15. The current system would allow you to level through the planet normally, then cap you two levels above the current recommended range, 17. What I am proposing is a setting that pushes that down a further 3 to 4 levels, either as a max level allowance OR a downlevel that is active as long as the setting is on.

So, a planet that has a range of 10-15 would adjust your level to, say 7 when you enter the planet, allow a range of 7 to 14 and cap you at 14 max.

This would increase your difficulty measurably, and adjustments can be made to find the lowest level possible, keeping mobs "orange" in threat without them reaching "red", or untouchable.

So, essentially the level window is simply shifted downward. Shut off the toggle and the leveling system goes back to normal.

So, in a nutshell....

Hard mode - a toggle that would allow you to turn on a difficulty setting. This setting would downlevel you a further 3 or 4 levels below your normal level under the level sync system as long as it is activated.

Not only does this provide much more challenging gameplay, it also would provide higher rewards if I am not mistaken automatically. I might be wrong about that last point, so someone can correct me if that is the case.

In either case it probably would not be that difficult to find a way to increase rewards using some kind of buff system, considering similar systems are already in place in the game (increased rewards for optional bonuses in H2+ content when grouped with up to 4 people for instance).

Pushing you down in level by 3 or 4 levels, IMO, would be a much simpler way to add a difficulty mode to the game.

As a separate addendum, I would make two more changes to the current system....

Implement a toggle that shuts off influence and presence, setting your companion at level 1 with no influence or presence buffs, just pure stats.

Push normal level sync operation to one level higher across the board, and reduce aggro range considerably so at the upper limit of level sync, say 3 levels above the highest mobs on the planet, aggro would be close to pre 4.0 grey levels.

Doing all three would allow the widest range of difficulty possible.

The hardest play possible....nightmare mode....where you play with no companion, hard mode activated.

Difficult mode....companion, but with influence disabled and hard mode active.

Normal mode....companion with influence disabled.

Easy mode....current gameplay, default.

I believe doing so would cover the vast majority of players and make the system almost perfect.

As a separate addendum, I would make two more changes to the current system....

 

Implement a toggle that shuts off influence and presence, setting your companion at level 1 with no influence or presence buffs, just pure stats.

 

Push normal level sync operation to one level higher across the board, and reduce aggro range considerably so at the upper limit of level sync, say 3 levels above the highest mobs on the planet, aggro would be close to pre 4.0 grey levels.

 

Doing all three would allow the widest range of difficulty possible.

The hardest play possible....nightmare mode....where you play with no companion, hard mode activated.

Difficult mode....companion, but with influence disabled and hard mode active.

Normal mode....companion with influence disabled.

Easy mode....current gameplay, default.

 

I believe doing so would cover the vast majority of players and make the system almost perfect.

And yet it still doesn't deal with the solo play imbalance between class/advanced class/discipline choice or the fact that the underlying reason for asking for a 'harder' level of content for levelling is better rewards.

The truth is that levelling rewards are pretty paltry compared to the farming of end game dailies and heroic 2s.

I really notice a hit to credit generation if I take a step back and go level a lowbie alt or run a character through KotFE.

This mitigates some of my concerns that higher rewards for more difficult levelling content would have a severe impact on the economy.

It's not the fact that some players want a challenge it's that they need to have a 'better' reward for having that improved skill. The trouble is it's grossly out of place in the generic planetary content that many people want to run through as fast as possible (maybe that should be the focus of difficulty... time challenge runs).

There are certain Advanced Classes that can breeze through content because they can stealth past the trash mobs and get straight to the meat of the mission.

There are certain Advanced Classes that can function perfectly fine without a companion because they can self heal, have universal crowd control and some good defensive cooldowns.

Why should you rewards players that have these Advanced Class options available over those that don't and rely heavily on a companion to provide survivability in the longer fights against champions.

There are many changes I think could be made to make the game provide challenging play. But I'm not sure focusing attention on the already existing levelling content is the way to go. If players really want a harder difficulty curve it's one they can set themselves and take the hit that they aren't going to get a better financial return on it..

This ties into another issue I'm starting to see. Players don't seem to view their own enjoyment as a reason for playing. It has to be more game tangible... more credits, bigger numbers for their gear. A more literal translation of the Skinner box. A need for validation that gamer A's abilities because they can clear content in 'hard' mode makes them a better person than those that can only manage 'easy'.

If you truly enjoyed a challenge you would be able to set your own bar, and knowing you could do it would be reward itself. A naked playthrough with no companion and no Advanced Class selected... waiting to see that up on You tube

Come on, Ratajack. You're trying to twist my position here from what it actually is.... loading it up with unnecessarily negatively connotated and frankly misrepresentative words, ignoring my concessions, and even flat out saying I want things that I don't (for instance the entire game to be redesigned...? Or that I want all PvE content to be more challenging [except I've explicitly stated I want the Easy Mode in my proposal to be just as easy as it is now] ....?). Why? Do you think I'm being disingenuous, and, rather then seeking a solution that can make everyone enjoy the game, I'm just unflinchingly rigid on only what solutions appeal to me and me only? And what of all of the countless concessions, compromises, admissions of "I like this proposal" and "I would be satisfied with this" etc. etc. ?These aren't genuine, but simply just my "latest attempts to mollify the majority??" Are you saying I'm not here to find a compromise, I'm here only to push for my desires and my desires alone and any evidence to the contrary is just me manipulating the masses or some such nonsense?

 

I normally try to respond to these posts in order but I feel like I need to address persistent strawmen like this.

 

How about now you respond to my direct response to your posts, rather then ignoring mine, then repeating exactly what you said that I already responded to before.

 

 

I'm labelling sections of this quote as Point A, B, and C, etc. to organize my responses to them.

 

 

POINT A: I'm not "simply" asking for a button to press to make the game more challenging. Why am I not doing this? Well, maybe read my rant in the OP under the dismissing companions argument, which is repeated several times in this thread, why "handicapping" yourself to squeeze artificial challenge out of something inherently challengeless is not compelling or fun. Have you read it? If so, do you still disagree? Great. Hopefully you can give me specific critiques of what I'm saying and why I'm wrong, so we can actually discuss specifics, rather then just saying "It's damaging to his psyche" in hopes to dismiss me out of hand without actually addressing specifics. Go to specific points in my posts, and posts reasons why they are trivial concerns that shouldn't be met by Bioware, don't just blankly assert it.

 

Now, why am I not suggesting Bioware "simply" make a button to press to make the game more inherently challenging? Trust me, I would propose it if it was realistic at all. I would LOVE FOR EASY MODE TO BE THE DEFAULT WITHIN MY PROPOSAL having the Hard Mode be an optional toggle increase mob strength across the board but only for players who want it. I would love this. But it's even less realistic and more ambitious then my original proposal. UNLESS the toggleable buff was the default position.... WHICH I AM OKAY WITH!!!!

 

POINT B This line, again? No. I don't want them to redesign the entire game. I want them to tweak mob strength. "Redesign the game"....? Like, create a whole new remake of SWTOR? No.... just tweaking mob strength. And I don't want all content to be more difficult for everyone..... that's why I'm proposing an easy mode buff that takes two seconds to toggle on, which I've even conceded as having it be toggled on BY DEFAULT.

 

In other words, I AM OKAY WITH HAVING EASY MODE BE THE DEFAULT.

 

But hey, if you're ignoring/misconstruing a lot of what I'm saying already, why not just ignore that concession too.

 

 

Point C: Oh yes, the burden of taking two seconds to click a toggle. Did I mention I'm okay with having the toggle be on by default? And also.... way to use the term "casual" and put it in quotes like I'm throwing that term out frequently and believe "casuals" are bad for some reason. I identify as a casual player myself, for god sakes.

 

 

 

Yes, and you're making it out like that desire is some bizarre and unrealistic desire to have. Is it really so much to ask that the mobs can be strong enough so we can feel challenge and not have to disable core gameplay mechanics (while also keeping the game easy for players who want it easy)?

 

Imagine if, lets say, in Fallout 4, the difficulty options, rather then increasing enemy strength, just disabled the use of medpacs in the game? Or disabled the ability to aim down sights, or use V.A.T.S., or use guns at all? Do you really think those difficulty options would lead to just as fun and engaging gameplay?

 

I will now use my sports analogy, in hopes you won't ignore it this time:

 

 

You want to play a challenging, compellingly close, competitive game of hockey. Only to show up to find the opposing team is comprised of five year olds. Of the following two scenarios, which seems like a fun and fulfilling gameplay experience:

 

A) Purposely using a half-length hockey stick, wearing no padding or equipment, not wearing skates, tying one arm behind your back, wearing a blind fold, and purposefully refusing to use your most effective tactics and strategies that you've been training on (forcing yourself to not use the "assistance features and boosts") to manufacture artificial difficulty in an otherwise challenge-less situation (the team of five year olds).

 

B) Choosing to play against adults, an innately challenging opposing team, which forces you to use all of your assets, and play the full game, incorporating all of its gameplay elements (skill with a stick, skill with skates, skill in tactics and strategy, skill with hand eye coordination, good teamwork, muscle strength and cardio, etc. etc. etc.) to triumph over a compellingly equal adversary.

 

If you chose option B, hopefully you understand why asking players to handicap themselves does not lead to compelling, entertaining gameplay. If you chose option A or saw no difference in the two.... well, I don't know if I can explain it any better (unless you let me know what your specific criticisms of my analogy are then we can go from there).

 

 

 

You see how its important to both have challenge, and include core gameplay elements in order to have a fun and engaging game?

 

One without the other doesn't really work as well.

 

 

 

So, when you express a concern at the "burden" and "inconvenience" of a toggle, and I agree and advocate for something that would make that "burden" and "inconvenience" so small its practically nonexistent.... that's just "my latest attempt to mollify the majority...." Yes I came up with that latest plot while twirling my villain's mustache, I can assure you.

 

Maybe I'm trying to "mollify the majority" because I care about the amount of fun people have in the game, and I want to do everything I can to ensure that the most amount of people have the most amount of fun in the game.

 

Do you have any actual substantive responses as to why this wouldn't make it incredibly convenient, and not inconvenient at all? Rather then just spinning it as some sleazy trick, maybe respond with specifics of how or why it doesn't solve the problem?

 

 

 

Okay, see if you can follow my logic here.

What I Think:

A debuff terminal -------> A good solution. I am okay with that solution.

My proposal ----------> A great solution. I think this solution is even better.

 

You see how I can both be okay with a debuff terminal, and also think my solution is more optimal?Thinking one thing is good, and thinking another is even better is not a contradiction.

 

 

 

 

 

Yay, this again. See one of my numerous responses to this wording. I hope then you formulate your own response that addresses my specific responses to your posts using this phrasing, and then we can go from there. For instance, its not all PvE content that's more difficult, just for Hard Mode players. And when you say "easier on my psyche", I say "more fulfilling gameplay for a decent portion of the player base at little to no cost for the rest of the playerbase".

 

TL;DR You're simultaneously over hyping the negatives of my proposal, painting it as a huge "burden" and "inconvenience" which would amount to all of 2 seconds (or 0 as I've already said I'm okay with the toggle being on by default), while also downplaying the importance of including the desires and tastes in entertainment of many players in the design as just "catering to their psyche's."

 

The point of my proposal is that it would create a large amount of entertainment for a whole section of the playerbase (which you can't just dismiss as their own weird little "psyche"), while providing little to no inconvenience to the majority (which you're trying to hyperbolize as some huge, unbearable burden).

You keep stating that you are ok with having the "casual, easy mode" toggle set as a default, but you STILL insist that BW has to "tweak" the strength of all the mobs across the board (REDESIGN THE ENTIRE PVE GAME) first, then apply the "buff" toggle for the "casual" rabble.

 

POINT B This line, again? No. I don't want them to redesign the entire game. I want them to tweak mob strength. "Redesign the game"....? Like, create a whole new remake of SWTOR? No.... just tweaking mob strength. And I don't want all content to be more difficult for everyone..... that's why I'm proposing an easy mode buff that takes two seconds to toggle on, which I've even conceded as having it be toggled on BY DEFAULT.

 

 

 

If not, then you are still convinced that Hard Mode should be the new 'Normal', and that everyone who wants to enjoy the game as it is now should opt in to an xp/credit/crystal cut and actively choose an easy mode. If that's your position, more power to you. Just understand what you're asking here, and why people might not be enthused. See my previous post.

 

 

 

The emboldended/underlined is where we're landing. You've convinced me.

 

Even here you want BW to "tweak" mob strength across the board, BEFORE applying the "casual" mode buff for the rabble.

A "debuff" could be added that would simply decrease a character's, and their companion's, damage and healing done, increase their damage taken. This could be toggled on for "hard mode" and it would "not have to disable core gameplay mechanics". A player would still have ALL of their abilities and their FULL ROTATION of skills. The player would still have their active companion with all of the companion skills. The player would still reap the rewards of having better performance from their companion with increased influence.

I have suggested this several time, but it is not good enough for you, apparently. Why?

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.

 

Why INSIST that BW REDESIGN THE ENTIRE PVE CONTENT ("tweak" mob strength across the board) before applying the "casual" mode buff for the rabble (which you have sooooo graciously conceded could be on by default) when it would be far easier and less costly for BW to simply add "debuff" that could be toggled on and off that would decrease a character's damage and healing done and increase damge taken (as well as that of their companion), unless it was to SALVE YOUR PSYCHE?

That does not even begin to address you insistence that the "hardcore" who choose to play in "hard mode" get better rewards than the "casual" rabble.

It has been said before, if the challenge is TRULY what you seek, then the harder challenge is its own reward. If you actually seek the higher rewards , then you are not TRULY seeking a harder challenge, only a way to lord yourself above the "casual rabble" via those higher rewards.

It has also been noted that BW has set the precedent for NOT giving higher rewards for choosing to play the same content at a higher "difficulty". One example being the 12XP.

This thread is no different than if it was about politics or religion; you just have to agree, to disagree. I don't find it too easy. The fact is I already know what I am doing. I haveva lot of presence because I have 13 level 65 toons and only a few of them haven't maxed out their companion conversation. I avoid mobs where possible, and at level 65 , I have access to all my abilities and utility points regard less of the fact that I am level synced to the planet; this is a substantial advantage. What constitutes a challenge is highly subjective. If you are a hardcore raider or pvper, you will have to fabricate your own challenge. I submit, to you, if a fairly competent player finds any aspect of the game challenging, then it is probably too hard.

All the content is repeatable so not sure why we fussing over difficulty.

This thread is no different than if it was about politics or religion; you just have to agree, to disagree. I don't find it too easy. The fact is I already know what I am doing. I haveva lot of presence because I have 13 level 65 toons and only a few of them haven't maxed out their companion conversation. I avoid mobs where possible, and at level 65 , I have access to all my abilities and utility points regard less of the fact that I am level synced to the planet; this is a substantial advantage. What constitutes a challenge is highly subjective. If you are a hardcore raider or pvper, you will have to fabricate your own challenge. I submit, to you, if a fairly competent player finds any aspect of the game challenging, then it is probably too hard.

 

All the content is repeatable so not sure why we fussing over difficulty.

I think many in this thread will agree that there is a minority that finds the game play experience to be too easy and not enough of a challenge.

It seems that at least several people support an option for players to increase the level of challenge in order to provide a more engaging game play experience for those players that find the current game too easy and want more challenge.

The major point of contention seems to be in how to implement such an optional increase to challenge.

While it seems to me that many of those favoring an optional way for players to increase their challenge for a more engaging game play experience would accept a simple "debuff" to increase challenge, at least one person practically insists that BW redesign PVE content by "tweaking" mob strength across the board because it is easier on his psyche not to be "handicapped".

*snip*

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.

And yet it still doesn't deal with the solo play imbalance between class/advanced class/discipline choice or the fact that the underlying reason for asking for a 'harder' level of content for levelling is better rewards.

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?

It's not the fact that some players want a challenge it's that they need to have a 'better' reward for having that improved skill.

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.

There are many changes I think could be made to make the game provide challenging play. But I'm not sure focusing attention on the already existing levelling content is the way to go. If players really want a harder difficulty curve it's one they can set themselves and take the hit that they aren't going to get a better financial return on it..

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!

If you truly enjoyed a challenge you would be able to set your own bar, and knowing you could do it would be reward itself.

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.

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.

Interesting that you never quoted my suggestion that the motivation is about a desire to validate your own superiority of clearing content in hard mode over those that clear it on easy

I don't wan to get into a word by word break down of posts again. I agree with you strongly on the underlying point that there is no significant solo player challenge in levelling content. I only differ on where I feel the devs would be better spending their resources.

If it's not about the credit reward, and it's not about the validation of skills, if it truly is just about seeing what you are able to achieve then I think it's up to the player to set their own handicaps while levelling. You feel that's insufficient and that's fine.

But...

You've not addressed the differences between Class/Advanced Class/Discipline and how you balance content to challenge the focused role (tank/heal/DPS) of the character.

My very first playthrough of the game was on a Shieldtech Discipline Powertech with Mako in healing stance as a companion. I didn't die once. The Class buff (5% endurance buff) never came into play because my health never got below 10%. It was a slow playthrough, I never realised how slow until I played a Sorcerer DPS, but not a difficult one.

My next playthrough on a Marauder in the Carnage discipline was a completely different experience. Fights may have gone quicker but always felt on a knife edge (not regular mobs but golds and silvers), regularly had to pop med packs, and even the healing companion struggled to keep me above half health at times.

What I'm trying to illustrate is that any sense of true difficulty that a player seeking challenge would want (and is against setting the challenge for themselves) is just too hard to set across the broad spectrum of how well the roles specialised for trinity play cope in the more general solo content.

I can't remember if it was this thread I mentioned it on but Guild Wars would set the content for a group of 4 characters (once you'd progressed to the main city Ascalon and beyond) if you wanted to play solo there were NPC (companions) to recruit at the entrance to the content, if you were grouped with friends they just took a place in the group of 4.

Personally I think that would work pretty well, and play to the strengths of existing single players RPGS such as Dragonage: Origins and the older crpgs. It's probably far too much to consider overhauling SWTOR pre-KotFE, but might bare serious potential for future seasons.

I think this discussion of difficulty also highlights the extreme waste of resources when developing a linear progression into an MMO. The main concept of an MMO is repeated play in a persistent world. While I applaud the devs efforts, at the time the story telling in SWTOR was some of the best Star Wars related content I'd experienced. But largely speaking a player was racing through levelling content once and then getting on the familiar treadmill of gear progression. Many players I know familiar with MMOs and the release of level cap increases decided to give up progression at end game as a waste of time. This throws them into playing through the previous content on alts with an ever growing toolset of game knowledge and legacy buffs and finding the experience mind numbingly tedious.

I think it's probably too late in the day to see any major reworking of difficulty gradients in the pre-40 content. But hopefully going forward the devs will take into account that many players seek a social environment, but not necessarily one where they are grouped with their friends at the same time.

Take a look at some other social game designs like Candy Crush. Here the PvP element is to surpass your friends achievements. They got a1 star on a level, try to beat them with 2 stars. They got 2 stars then get 3. I think you get the idea You don't compete directly but instead by comparison.

Let's go back to my previous example of a wave attack mechanic. Here you can see the difficulty challenge and then mark how well you compare to your friends performance. My friend got to wave 16 on their Pyrotech, I've been set a target to surpass.

You keep stating that you are ok with having the "casual, easy mode" toggle

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...

You keep stating that you are ok with having the "casual, easy mode" toggle set as a default, but you STILL insist that BW has to "tweak" the strength of all the mobs across the board (REDESIGN THE ENTIRE PVE GAME) first, then apply the "buff" toggle for the "casual" rabble.

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.

And not only that, but I would be happy if it was implemented. It would make the game better in my eyes.

I still like a debuff terminal, compared to what we have now. If that's all Bioware did, I would be very happy.

Again, I'm in support of a debuff terminal...

A debuff terminal -------> A good solution. I am okay with that solution.

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?

Even here you want BW to "tweak" mob strength across the board, BEFORE applying the "casual" mode buff for the rabble.

 

A "debuff" could be added that would simply decrease a character's, and their companion's, damage and healing done, increase their damage taken. This could be toggled on for "hard mode" and it would "not have to disable core gameplay mechanics". A player would still have ALL of their abilities and their FULL ROTATION of skills. The player would still have their active companion with all of the companion skills. The player would still reap the rewards of having better performance from their companion with increased influence.

 

I have suggested this several time, but it is not good enough for you, apparently. Why?

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.

Why INSIST that BW REDESIGN THE ENTIRE PVE CONTENT ("tweak" mob strength across the board) before applying the "casual" mode buff for the rabble (which you have sooooo graciously conceded could be on by default) when it would be far easier and less costly for BW to simply add "debuff" that could be toggled on and off that would decrease a character's damage and healing done and increase damge taken (as well as that of their companion), unless it was to SALVE YOUR PSYCHE?

 

That does not even begin to address you insistence that the "hardcore" who choose to play in "hard mode" get better rewards than the "casual" rabble.

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?

It has been said before, if the challenge is TRULY what you seek, then the harder challenge is its own reward. If you actually seek the higher rewards , then you are not TRULY seeking a harder challenge, only a way to lord yourself above the "casual rabble" via those higher rewards.

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.

It has also been noted that BW has set the precedent for NOT giving higher rewards for choosing to play the same content at a higher "difficulty". One example being the 12XP.

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.

 

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. catered to moderately well.

 

.

First a request - please stop putting in so many multi-quote, crazy-long replies. It's not that they are hard to follow so much as they are breaking up the whole flow of the discussion

Second - yes Ratajack is taking some liberties, I know most of us here understand you are trying to find middle ground for all concerned

The only thing I take issue with at this point is your assertion above on your solution that players that want it as is (and you are still using 'easy' despite what I said earlier) would be fully catered to. Well, no. If your assertion that players that want challenge are not being fully catered to by having a debuff toggle, then the opposite is true and players that want it as is would not be fully catered to by having a buff toggle under your system.

We are down to psychology here - we have been since the very beginning. There are many ways to introduce challenge in the game as it stands right now, but for some players that doesn't work. I understand that position. Those players want BW to make changes so they get the challenge they want without having to make changes themselves. Again, I understand the position. You want developer resources to be used to make some changes so that you don't need to.

Intentionally or not, your choice of words (and reluctance to change those words) is causing some antagonism that undermines the discussion (and I suspect is part of the reason some people are not being as understanding as you'd like). As I said previously, you don't see me talking about 'no-life' mode because I know it is antagonisitic, but you refuse to stop using 'easy mode' despite being told several times that it is not helping, that players that like things as they are feel it is insulting or demeaning. Again, I don't think that is your intent, but that is the result.

Overall though, I still think that LA's level sync based solution is simple, elegant and, above all, very cheap.

Intentionally or not, your choice of words (and reluctance to change those words) is causing some antagonism that undermines the discussion (and I suspect is part of the reason some people are not being as understanding as you'd like).

This is a thing many of the best players don't understand : Understanding mnechanics doesn't make one automatically a good teacher.

The choice of words is something VERY responsible for a "mood" or a "climate" of a speech, or a written text.

Most people don't care about that because they are not conscious enough to realize it. Only text professionals know that too well, how words can create a certain "climate".

This thread is no different than if it was about politics or religion; you just have to agree, to disagree. I don't find it too easy. The fact is I already know what I am doing. I haveva lot of presence because I have 13 level 65 toons and only a few of them haven't maxed out their companion conversation. I avoid mobs where possible, and at level 65 , I have access to all my abilities and utility points regard less of the fact that I am level synced to the planet; this is a substantial advantage. What constitutes a challenge is highly subjective. If you are a hardcore raider or pvper, you will have to fabricate your own challenge. I submit, to you, if a fairly competent player finds any aspect of the game challenging, then it is probably too hard.

 

All the content is repeatable so not sure why we fussing over difficulty.

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.

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.

That option for those that want that challenge is what many in this thread, including myself, are supporting.

What I am NOT supporting is the "tweaking" of mob strength across the board (redesign of all PVE content) and making "hard mode" the default with a "buff" toggle, even if that toggle is "on" by default, for no other reason than a "psychological perception" held by people who do not want to be "handicapped".

@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.

First a request - please stop putting in so many multi-quote, crazy-long replies. It's not that they are hard to follow so much as they are breaking up the whole flow of the discussion

 

Second - yes Ratajack is taking some liberties, I know most of us here understand you are trying to find middle ground for all concerned

 

The only thing I take issue with at this point is your assertion above on your solution that players that want it as is (and you are still using 'easy' despite what I said earlier) would be fully catered to. Well, no. If your assertion that players that want challenge are not being fully catered to by having a debuff toggle, then the opposite is true and players that want it as is would not be fully catered to by having a buff toggle under your system.

 

We are down to psychology here - we have been since the very beginning. There are many ways to introduce challenge in the game as it stands right now, but for some players that doesn't work. I understand that position. Those players want BW to make changes so they get the challenge they want without having to make changes themselves. Again, I understand the position. You want developer resources to be used to make some changes so that you don't need to.

 

Intentionally or not, your choice of words (and reluctance to change those words) is causing some antagonism that undermines the discussion (and I suspect is part of the reason some people are not being as understanding as you'd like). As I said previously, you don't see me talking about 'no-life' mode because I know it is antagonisitic, but you refuse to stop using 'easy mode' despite being told several times that it is not helping, that players that like things as they are feel it is insulting or demeaning. Again, I don't think that is your intent, but that is the result.

 

Overall though, I still think that LA's level sync based solution is simple, elegant and, above all, very cheap.

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.

I think many in this thread will agree that there is a minority that finds the game play experience to be too easy and not enough of a challenge.

 

It seems that at least several people support an option for players to increase the level of challenge in order to provide a more engaging game play experience for those players that find the current game too easy and want more challenge.

 

The major point of contention seems to be in how to implement such an optional increase to challenge.

 

While it seems to me that many of those favoring an optional way for players to increase their challenge for a more engaging game play experience would accept a simple "debuff" to increase challenge, at least one person practically insists that BW redesign PVE content by "tweaking" mob strength across the board because it is easier on his psyche not to be "handicapped".

I don't think it is a matter of majorities or minorities. A game with "one way only" gameplay is a mistake, even in a solo player version. If you have thousands of players everybody has its own feeling about how to enjoy the game through combat (or challenge). Bioware has showed that this game can handle a variety of coding looking for the "casuals" to enjoy a more smoother experience. In those changes, game has become easier and easier ( in 3.0 every npc was slightly nerfed, in 4.0 they have added a big amount of experience). All those changes are known code for Bioware. They just need to add a couple of options to get rid of the extra high experience, so players can level at their own pace. Bioware doesn't need to tell players how to progress in their stories. It is about progression content, not endgame content. Do you want a slower pace? Then dismiss the experience that formulas calculate for everyplayer by default. It is so simple. It is a matter of Bioware's will to reach the most possible players. Not reinventing the wheel. Code exists (in previous versions), just a few conditionals needed in the code.

Then go and play chapter bosses 3 or 4 levels below, and you will see some fun. With events and flashpoints experience rewards you grow on levels so fast that if you worth the story experience on top then you need to skip most of events and flashpoints to keep your underleveled status and, in my opinion, that is bad for the game for enough players (even being minority). It is so rewarding to beat chapter 3 bosses (lvl 50) being lvl 46 after a tough fight. Hero feeling at his best.

Just let people choose their choices to adjust the game (on story gameplay) for them easily.

 

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).

 

What about the players who "psychologically" feel that they should not have to made to feel like they can't handle the game's "default hard mode" and have to be given a "boost" just to survive, even if that "boost" is toggled on by "default"? Do you think that only those who desire a more challenging game experience can have "psychological perceptions" to which BW should cater?

Again, I think redesigning the entire PVE game (in your words "tweaking the mob strength across the board) so tht the MINORITY can have tgheir psyches salved, at the expense of the MAJORITY'S psyches is not the way to go about adding an optional increase in difficulty.

Interesting that you never quoted my suggestion that the motivation is about a desire to validate your own superiority of clearing content in hard mode over those that clear it on easy

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.

I don't wan to get into a word by word break down of posts again. I agree with you strongly on the underlying point that there is no significant solo player challenge in levelling content. I only differ on where I feel the devs would be better spending their resources.

 

If it's not about the credit reward, and it's not about the validation of skills, if it truly is just about seeing what you are able to achieve then I think it's up to the player to set their own handicaps while levelling. You feel that's insufficient and that's fine.

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).

But...

 

You've not addressed the differences between Class/Advanced Class/Discipline and how you balance content to challenge the focused role (tank/heal/DPS) of the character.

 

My very first playthrough of the game was on a Shieldtech Discipline Powertech with Mako in healing stance as a companion. I didn't die once. The Class buff (5% endurance buff) never came into play because my health never got below 10%. It was a slow playthrough, I never realised how slow until I played a Sorcerer DPS, but not a difficult one.

My next playthrough on a Marauder in the Carnage discipline was a completely different experience. Fights may have gone quicker but always felt on a knife edge (not regular mobs but golds and silvers), regularly had to pop med packs, and even the healing companion struggled to keep me above half health at times.

 

What I'm trying to illustrate is that any sense of true difficulty that a player seeking challenge would want (and is against setting the challenge for themselves) is just too hard to set across the broad spectrum of how well the roles specialised for trinity play cope in the more general solo content.

 

I can't remember if it was this thread I mentioned it on but Guild Wars would set the content for a group of 4 characters (once you'd progressed to the main city Ascalon and beyond) if you wanted to play solo there were NPC (companions) to recruit at the entrance to the content, if you were grouped with friends they just took a place in the group of 4.

Personally I think that would work pretty well, and play to the strengths of existing single players RPGS such as Dragonage: Origins and the older crpgs. It's probably far too much to consider overhauling SWTOR pre-KotFE, but might bare serious potential for future seasons.

 

I think this discussion of difficulty also highlights the extreme waste of resources when developing a linear progression into an MMO. The main concept of an MMO is repeated play in a persistent world. While I applaud the devs efforts, at the time the story telling in SWTOR was some of the best Star Wars related content I'd experienced. But largely speaking a player was racing through levelling content once and then getting on the familiar treadmill of gear progression. Many players I know familiar with MMOs and the release of level cap increases decided to give up progression at end game as a waste of time. This throws them into playing through the previous content on alts with an ever growing toolset of game knowledge and legacy buffs and finding the experience mind numbingly tedious.

 

I think it's probably too late in the day to see any major reworking of difficulty gradients in the pre-40 content. But hopefully going forward the devs will take into account that many players seek a social environment, but not necessarily one where they are grouped with their friends at the same time.

 

Take a look at some other social game designs like Candy Crush. Here the PvP element is to surpass your friends achievements. They got a1 star on a level, try to beat them with 2 stars. They got 2 stars then get 3. I think you get the idea You don't compete directly but instead by comparison.

Let's go back to my previous example of a wave attack mechanic. Here you can see the difficulty challenge and then mark how well you compare to your friends performance. My friend got to wave 16 on their Pyrotech, I've been set a target to surpass.

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.

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.

Sorry been away from keyboard for a week. I was just pointing out you'd chosen to quote me piecemeal and left out some of the content. I think bragging rights are one of the main drives in ego driven extrovert activities, I don't see why it shouldn't be deemed a possible drive for a solo introvert

So, if it's not about the credits, and it's not about bragging rights I really don't understand why you have such a hang up of just setting the challenge yourself.

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).

I think I can agree with you that we'll have to agree to disagree

There was an interesting postmortem on 'Age of Empires Online'

http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1019303/F2P-the-Wrong-Way-Age

Watch it if you get the chance, very interesting on how a big budget game can fail hard.

One of their biggest takeaway lessons was that you need to deliver more end game content/ level expansions, unfortunately by the time they'd learnt this lesson their population was too small to make it viable. People will only play the existing content so many times, what keeps them coming back is new stuff. New levels, new abilities, new maps. Not necessarily new ways of playing the old content.

I think the devs time would be better spent making new content that can provide role specific challenges rather than going over the old content to provide an element of challenge that the individual can set themselves.

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.

First of all Powertech and Marauder are Advanced Classes and not Classes. Secondly when you are talking about role it is as much about Discipline choice as it is about AC choice.

Some disciplines are far more capable in solo play than others (Marauder-Annihilation with it's limited self heals is far more viable than Carnage). Some ACs are far more capable than others (Mercenary with its 60sec Universal Crowd Control can take out a strong mob (that may be 50% of incoming damage) for the duration of a fight, not to mention their limited self heals makes them far more viable in solo play than a Powertech). Some Classes are more capable than others (Sith Inquisitor has the potential for all roles and far cooler animations than any other class )

This imbalance arises because of the demands the trinity system places on having specialisation in a group.

What I am suggesting is content that allows a solo player to practice the sort of rotations they will need to participate in group content. This is not a bad thing. In fact it is an element of game play I think would help draw in more players to group play in a manner that means they get less frustrated. I've known many players that never make the migration to group content because they are unsure of their abilities and do not want to waste others time.