In Defense of Difficulty

[darklogrus]

Uh, no. That game had no vision and barely any work done when it was revealed. That is why it failed.

I mean what are you going to be working on if theres no vision or direction for the game.

[cparle87]

Everyone's progression is over after a while.

I don't know where you're seeing this difference in progression from.
In fact, people doing the highest end difficulty have way less opportunities to progress after a while.

If you are a hardcore mythic raider who does M+20 and above your only possible progression is a luckly vault item or a lucky drop from that 1 boss.

As a lower difficulty player your progression is only limited by your willingness to try out harder difficulties in whatever you're doing.
Once you decide to be better progression is guaranteed.

This has always been the case.
In fact, earlier versions of WoW did not even give you any progression paths if you were unwilling to enter any kind of instanced content.

Out-door world progression is even at the highest it's ever been.
You max out the pocopoc tree and then you get normal raid level gear from dailies. You can have higher than normal raid level gear without ever stepping foot in any kind of instanced content fairly easily.
Never before could you achieve this.

You don't even need to max out the tree to be 6/6 cypher level. I still had another 6-8 talents to buy when I got it.

[LordVargK]

May I remind all the Souls fans here that ask for more difficult or punishing gameplay that the Maw exists?

That zone basically had the same form of punishment as a Souls game (before 9.1). And see how popular that zone is...

Also one should not ask the question if the open world should be harder, but why.

[cparle87]

What an absolute joke of a person.

What did I even expect, 10 years badge, just the usual.

Just ignore NineSpine, I did. He'll just throw logical fallacy after logical fallacy at you, claim he's not making an argument just asking a question, accuse you of being fallacious, then refuse to cite the evidence of his posts expecting you to find it to prove yourself wrong.

[Kyriani]

All I can say is that back in Wrath and Cata I could queue up for heroics, save up badges/points, and get deterministic raid ilvl gear for several slots, with no RNG BS. I could also craft deterministic boe raid ilvl gear for certain slots without having to raid if I didn't want to (even if I had to buy raid drop mats to do so). I miss that. I miss being able to queue for content, get in, have a good time, get out, and have something to show for it. I miss having an alternative route to somewhat close to normal raid ilvl player power that wasn't necessarily fast, or optimal, but still put me in the relative ballpark of normal mode raiders (of the time).

Nowadays, there's a larger gap between the tippy top and anyone who doesn't engage in the non-queueable "big three" (mythic+, rated pvp, and raids). Zerith Mortis is the first sign I've seen that the devs might start thinking about players like me who would prefer not to engage in the "big three". The fact that I can (eventually) get normal raid ilvl gear (for most slots), and even tier (albeit at 246 if I want better than LFR level), makes 9.2 at least somewhat palatable to me. It's not perfect by any means, but I hope it's an indication of what's to come in 10.0.

The only issue I have with 9.2 right now is that Blizzard is still gatekeeping weapons and trinkets. They don't allow us to use the ilvl increasing reagents when crafting weapons. Armor? Sure. Weapons? Nope. If you don't do the big three you're stuck with a 226 weapon from the anima vendor, a 229 boe ZM world drop, 236 drops from rares (which are at the mercy of the RNG), and while I have never seen one personally, I am told there can be 246 weapons from world quests and the desert rares in ZM. At the very least I wish the new "make this item ilvl 233" crafting reagent could be used for weapon crafts. Not only because I would use it for alts, but also because it's kinda not fair that only armor can be improved like that.

[MoanaLisa]

I mean what are you going to be working on if theres no vision or direction for the game.

User feedback which generally doesn't end well. It's how a lot of games go awry when developers abandon their own vision for a game to placate the whims of their customers. You can't have missed how many people over the years think they're better designers than Blizzard or want to vote on every feature as to whether it goes in or not. Letting your customers design the game is usually the end.

It sometimes happens with long-running games where the same people have run it for a long while. At some point inspiration runs out and new content becomes a game of moving deck chairs around. Sound familiar?

EDIT: One more thing. If it sounds like I'm implying that successful game developers should ignore a lot of customer feedback I clearly am. I do think that one of the significant issues with the current game is that collectively they've let their customers guide them into decisions where they abandoned their original design altogether. Cataclysm and their reaction to the first six months of people leaving is probably the clearest example of that. Sometimes it's required as a business thing. But once it starts, it usually spreads until the cart is driving the horse. There's an argument to be made that WoW is deep in the throes of this despite the constant bickering that they don't listen. They do and often results don't show up until the next expansion a year or so down the line.

Another example I think is that Blizzard used to pride itself on iterating on systems until they had them right. Now they simply abandon them because people hate the initial roll-outs. Throw-away systems, throw-away content, expansions that, in fact, act more like standalone sequels than a coherent whole.

[Alkizon]

I would hope that the problems with this are obvious. How many people would want to work in this environment? I know several mobile game developers, and they all hate it with a passion - they desperately want to work with companies that make “real” games, aka games where they are targeting a specific audience with a specific vision.

In fact, you aren't talking here about current case at all. Well, if summarize, then it's more appropriate to insert this fragment here:

Well, in order to devalue and shake word "greedy" little, let me replace it with less economic one "selfish". In theory, there is nothing particularly bad in this and polarity in this sense hasn't changed as such, even someone can correctly notice same typicality of “it was also like that before”, but let’s turn it around in a way that we already discussed once: if they used to make comfortable and honest game for "themselves as players" back then, so now they do for "themselves as devs". This is "selfish" part.

It isn't something new if I'll put here question "For what particular audience do they make this game, whom do they want to attract here?", and then will answer "Everyone! regardless of the fact that those in structure aren't TA". This is "greed" part. Let's look at it in more detail in order to understand why I put it at first to be more prevailing one. Here are 2 quotes of people saying essentially obvious things related to this part that complement each other:
- 1 -

decide finally, who do you work for, you can't please everyone, or...ither..., so you just play off of players with each other and this is one of main reasons why community is toxic.

- 2 -

Don't forget: the more you fight each other instead of being friends and negotiating for solving real problems - the richer AсtiBlizzard become. Forgive old men, if something goes wrong, we aren't your enemies; remember the basics..

Let's look at process itself.
You've been sold a bill of goods (while idiologically taking into account preferences of both (conditionally) parties of conflict) before next expansion - with this first step they forming heterogeneous/conflicting "nutrient mass" from audience/community, which can then be operated on as root cause. When porridge begins to brew, "active" elements mix and begin to "interact violently", firstly more with devs rather than each other, so time comes for second step - distraction: devs pretend being softer and more flexible through "gradual retreat" imitation. Result is in slight upsurge of enthusiasm/ardor, as ostentatious and feigned demonstration of weakness transfers anger of conflict's sides to each other. Imaginary “hope to gain influence/control/power over situation” for further development appears on one of sides (make no mistake, devs don’t lose any control over situation, because retreat is thought out in advance and is designed to drag out, they don’t lose anything, since none of the systems lives in current design forever), but this naturally doesn't happen. All this ultimately passes into third step "we learned from mistakes". Its results and subsequent actions depend on length of second step, with which they form a cyclic sequence. Announcement of the new expansion is fourth and final addictive step, giving next threshold of imaginary "hope for a better future", even if so far without your control. New expansion cancels all devs' concessions, as well as achievements of both sides, thereby marking triumph of first ones: world reborns in fire, first day of new world is coming and... everything repeats again

You can find out about rest stuff, for example, from links such as this one and maybe this, in short, anything like this here:

I posted some IMO material to relatively common game questions (not concerning models) during discussions after Classic announcement:
1. General game design philosophy (&couple of words about armor types) +/+/+(+)+(+/+/+)+(more 2 msg after, so not my merit)

[chiddie]

Am I the only one who thinks that the main issue is not the content’s difficulty but being actually able to TRY OUT that content without wasting hours looking for a group?

WoW’s main flaw is that it’s a MMORPG where grouping for activities is harder than do the activities themselves.

[Hawg]

Looks at steam charts.

Here is the neat part about your argument. It doesn't pan out I reality....maybe in f2p but there isn't a game sold for money that doesn't have some level of challenge to it even minecraft.

I didn't say there should be no "hard" content, I said the difficulty needs to be balanced with fun. Games that are "hard" just for the sake of being "hard" do not have staying power.

As for the Steam charts, that shows what people buy, does it show if the people who buy continue to play? I have 94 games in my Steam library, only 9 of those have more than 20 hours played.

[Osmeric]

User feedback which generally doesn't end well. It's how a lot of games go awry when developers abandon their own vision for a game to placate the whims of their customers.

And then there's the failure mode where they stick to their vision and march the game off a cliff. A developer has to be both true to their vision, and understand how their customers as a group will react to the vision.

The executive who decides if the devs continue to be employed doesn't have to stick to the devs' visions, though.

[Jessicka]

Maybe read the post? I am defending the current WoW developers vision for the game, even if it is not my vision. They clearly want to make a game like it is now - a game where the RWF is important and there is a lot of very difficult content. A game where it takes the biggest nerds in the world a month to clear the Jailer. A game that does not make as much money as it conceivably could because it is not trying to be everything for everyone.

This is a rebuttal to the endless nonsense we get on these forums from people who apparently want Activision executives to take a more active role in game development and water down the game to where the highest difficulty is normal mode.

They're making both that game where it takes the most dedicated players a month to clear the hardest difficulty. AND one that more casual players can enjoy.

Those are not mutually exclusive things. Although, it does seem that the casual side, given the drop off in popularity of WoW in the media on and on this very website, is the side that's suffering, while you, as an advocate for 'hard', are the one playing victim? It really feels like those chasing Mythic+ and Mythic raids are generally the ones who are happy, while everyone else is stuck collecting 12 wingnuts for 27 rep.

[Jujudrood]

Blizzard/Activision doesn't develop to a specific vision or anything other than "what will be profitable at the lowest cost".

They are the Applebee's of the gaming world.
Every now and then one of their menu items hit and you're like "damn, nice!", and sometimes they run specials where they will actually cook a steak the "real" way, but mostly it's just frozen/freeze-dried items thrown on a quick flattop (or worse, in a microwave) and served to the public because it's quick, it's cheap, and it does the trick for those who go there and don't mind eating nuked food that has barely a hint of flavor.

Blizz often gets credit for the internet boom of the 00's, introducing the mainstream gaming world to the "new" MMO scene (a scene that's been around for a while as a niche), but that was like catching lightning in a bottle and it won't ever happen again.
They know that, so they will continue to serve their slightly-better-than microwave dinners, somewhat cold but not quite cold enough beer, and people will continue to be patrons, allowing Blizzard/Activision to rake in easy cash.

[Celement]

Mario Golf is a joke difficulty wise. New Super Mario Bros is notoriously easy. Theres a reason I picked that one and not Odyssey.

FF7 has a classic mode that's a total joke steamroll. Octopath I died once while playing.

I agree that a lot of this rests on the line between game and visual novel and all that, but MMOs have very often rested in a weird place as well where a lot of what they are about isn't the gameplay.

Mario golf and mario crush wows difficulty curve arguably up to and including normal raids not just leveling. You can actually die in those games without contrived restrictions.

FF7... I've only played the orginal not the remake I understand that it is currently only on the first chapter? It's a grayish area in my mind for that reason. I don't think mmos should be cut the same slack a visual novel is or we are judging wow by its story and good lord...

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't say there should be no "hard" content, I said the difficulty needs to be balanced with fun. Games that are "hard" just for the sake of being "hard" do not have staying power.

As for the Steam charts, that shows what people buy, does it show if the people who buy continue to play? I have 94 games in my Steam library, only 9 of those have more than 20 hours played.

It actively only shows current users it's the inverse of how many bought vs retained.

[MrFawlty]

If they returned the game to a suitable difficulty level they wouldnt need all these silly systems to try and keep people playing.

[Jessicka]

If you define casual gamers as "players that like dumb world quests with no story and no gearing progression" that might be more reasonable. Probably that is the meme the devs think casual gamers are. Fact is, even casual gamers want gearing progression, want challenges, even if not on "unfair" difficulty, and compensatable with gearing progression. Many casual gamers want that outside of schedules and premade groups as many play solo or in couples / families / groups of friends with 3-4 people, without having to use group finders to have to play with strangers.

Currently, blizzard only adresses a small casual audience as like they adress a small premade group on schedule audience. And nothing inbetween. They adress two minorities, without ever noticing that the group of casual gamers includes way more than players that want no progress or any kind of challenge. Cosmetics alone, contrary to the devs belief, will not make millions of players stay for longer than a few weeks. It needs full fledged gearing progression for everyone.

Only an elitist jerk and idiot could really believe that gearing progression is for competetive players only who like unfair challenging premade group play. That different difficulties with gearing progression are only for the top players. Games like Diablo show that gearing could be an as suitable path as like skill to go up from normal to hell difficulty. Solo players make a large group in MMORPGs, so do couples and small groups of friends. That is what "playing with friends" should be about, and surely not about throwing 25 random players into a raiding gameplay with watered down difficulty to nothing.

PVE and matchmaking do not allow challenging gameplay. Small groups or solo gameplay could allow challenging gameplay very well. As like mythic+1-15 there should be world content 1-15, and solo/small group player instanced content 1-15 offering gearing progression to be able to master higher difficulties. That would not only adress the small group of casual gamers that love to send millions of turtles into the water.

Not sure if you're arguing, those are points I made in the second paragraph that you didn't quote.

Although, it does seem that the casual side, given the drop off in popularity of WoW in the media on and on this very website, is the side that's suffering

Whatever they're doing for casual players isn't appealing to casual players. It's hard to argue though that they're not trying. It does seem weird people are arguing WoW isn't hard enough though, given the developers have always catered to and provided for players who wanted that; the continuing problem they have is that they forget to put in steps between 'easy' and 'hard'. It's not a binary argument, and a binary solution won't ever be forthcoming.

[mysticx]

People keep trotting out "Elden ring" as this sort of "See? Difficult games can sell too!"-argument, but i ask of you: How many of the people who bought it played it for more than an hour? More than four hours?

Contrary to "Elden ring", WoW doesn't make all the money off selling the game itself (Sure, they make a lot, but that is mostly a brief burst on release), but by selling playtime (In other words, subscriptions), and people who hit a wall and decide "Forget this, i'm going to play something else!" stop buying playtime.

Sure, WoW should have difficult content, the plod to world first this season shows that Blizz covered that quite well, but there should also be progression for players who see progression wipefests and go "No, thanks" to that, hugely difficult raids might be the developers' "Vision", but as in every business, if your vision doesn't keep interest of a lot of people, you're not going to be in business for long.

[Glorious Leader]

The pretense that the developers are artists and should have their "vision" respected is laughable.

[ek0zu]

I don't think that there is a single developer who does not want his/her game to played by everyone. Being a WoW developer might be a very difficult job to do, but i am completely sure that it is a dream job for many many many people.

[Grax]

Am I the only one who thinks that the main issue is not the content’s difficulty but being actually able to TRY OUT that content without wasting hours looking for a group?

WoW’s main flaw is that it’s a MMORPG where grouping for activities is harder than do the activities themselves.

This is the issue. WoW either needs to be "the accessible mmo" it originally was or it needs to commit to being the "hard" mmo it thinks it wants to be. Attempting to cater to everyone only dilutes whatever "developer vision" there is.

Finding groups wouldn't be quite so difficult if the playerbase wasn't being spread over four difficulty levels and the resulting class warfare that creates.

[Osmeric]

This is the issue. WoW either needs to be "the accessible mmo" it originally was or it needs to commit to being the "hard" mmo it thinks it wants to be. Attempting to cater to everyone only dilutes whatever "developer vision" there is.

And as Ghostcrawler observed, there's no business case for a hardcore-only MMO with WoW's production values. So it's either lose those production values, cater to the non-hardcore, or shut down.