Rising difficulty

[Ledecor]

Simple discussion thread. Do you prefer rising difficulty in raids, such as SoO, or the old way, such as each boss having its own difficulty?

[RoughJustice]

"The other way" as in difficult and easy bosses out of order?

[Krazzorx]

"The other way" as in difficult and easy bosses out of order?

I can't tell if he means that (and who wouldn't prefer linear difficulty?) or if he means BC style where each raid had its own difficulty and only that one.

[Ledecor]

I can't tell if he means that (and who wouldn't prefer linear difficulty?) or if he means BC style where each raid had its own difficulty and only that one.

Yeah sorry for the confusion, this is what I meant :P changing it now

[Deleted]

I don't care

[TheWindWalker]

Rising. That's essentially the most "digestible" format. Grinding your faces off on Dogs for a month in MSV then easing all the way to Elegon only to spend a month on him to can be just friggin weird.

[Zia]

Without rising difficulty, people clear all instance in a week then repeat 21521452415 times every week.

Rising difficulty brings the feeling of heroism, progression, and effort/reward.

[Bullettime]

Rising. It was pretty dumb when optimizing progression to make jumps all over the instance week after week.

[lunchbox2042]

It depends if the raids are linear or if there's room for choosing which boss to kill next. If it's a linear raid then the difficulty needs to be linear but if you have a choice such as a second raid to go to or another boss within that raid to try, it doesn't really matter if difficulty is linear or not.

[crakerjack]

If you're implying multiple raid difficulties over one set difficulty... I don't have an opinion. I'd like to say one difficulty so we could stop segregating the playerbase based on skill, but I wouldn't want the one difficulty to be too easy. Since I know people are used to LFR, the one set difficulty would be hard to determine because I'd want something close to heroic if not heroic, while the average raider would want something along the lines of LFR. I just don't like easy games... I've never liked something that's easy. Skyrim? Beat it on Master... Kingdom Hearts? Beat it on hard. Each game i've beaten, i've beaten it on the hardest difficulty because that's IMO the best way to play a game. It's a fact that the more time/effort we put into something, the more rewarding it becomes. That's why a lot of people can't quit WoW, they've invested years of their time/effort into a character or two so when they think about abandoning it, it becomes difficult. That also explains why WoW had more subs than it did now, because the game was harder and everything was earned through effort/time. If someone thinks waiting in a city for a que, half-assing their way through a raid and obtaining epics is accomplishing something, then they're severely mistaken. People love their degrees that they worked for because they had to put effort into them... If something can be obtained through ease and no effort required, it's less likely to hold less value to the person than something that takes weeks of grinding. Don't believe me? Look at the declining subs.

[Bullettime]

^ Holy rant.

The point of their post was about the difficulty curve inside of raids. Siege largely has a rising difficulty to the end, where previous instances, notably Throne of Thunder, are all over the place. Easy, hard, hard, easy, hard, medium, etc with some of the easier bosses being towards the end and harder ones towards the start-middle.

[uncapitain]

Do mean you whether it's better to have one difficulty setting like in Classic/BC or multiple difficulty settings (lfr, normal, heroic, mythic)?

If so I think one difficulty is too little and 3-4 is too much. Having just one difficulty usually means either: 1. The bosses are too easy for the hardcore and too hard for the casual raiders or 2. each boss fight is a massive step up in difficulty.

However, it's a bit much when you first kill Garrosh on lfr to get some basic gear, then kill him on flex to gear up for raiding, then on normal, and then on heroic. Takes away from the fight when you kill a boss that many times before the "real" kill (heroic). I think two difficulties is the sweet spot.

- - - Updated - - -

If you're asking whether it's better to have each boss be harder than the previous or to have the difficulties fluctuate, then a varying difficulty curve is definitely better. It's much better to have the really hard bosses separated by easier fights, so it isn't just 8/12 on week 1 and then months for the last four.

[mcturnip]

I would say rising difficulty, but that goes beyond dungeons (more CC and planning). I wish we could go back to doing quests for keys and attunements. While it wasn't so much a strategic difficulty, it added an extra demension to the game. For me anyway.

[crakerjack]

^ Holy rant.

The point of their post was about the difficulty curve inside of raids. Siege largely has a rising difficulty to the end, where previous instances, notably Throne of Thunder, are all over the place. Easy, hard, hard, easy, hard, medium, etc with some of the easier bosses being towards the end and harder ones towards the start-middle.

rant and pant is all i do boiiiiiiiiiiiii

[Paula Deen]

Why would you want the ToT way? I am actually at a loss.

[ignitar]

I much prefered Vanilla/TBC's style of binary bosses, none of this hardmode stuff. As long as you had a semi competent raid you could clear every instance in decent time.

[wych]

I much prefered Vanilla/TBC's style of binary bosses, none of this hardmode stuff. As long as you had a semi competent raid you could clear every instance in decent time.

This really.

The fun of raiding doesn't come from flying through normal in a few weeks and farming the same bosses for 6 months.

It comes from a sense of progression, working to kill a boss you've been stuck on.

I remember the first time I got to see MH/BT, I was so excited and it felt special as i'd worked for it

[Rosstafa]

Rising difficulty, but I think SoO did it more in tiers rather than a normal, gradual increase.

Immerseus/Protectors - Easy
Norushen - Harder
Pride/Galakras/Juggernaut/Shamans - Easy
Nazgrim - Harder
Malkorok/Spoils - Easy
Thok - Hard
Siegecrafter/Klaxxi - Easy
Garrosh - Hard

There seems to be tiers almost, so you can kill two easier bosses before hitting a harder one. It's better that way in my opinion, because it means all the really tough bosses aren't at the end, but spread through the raid without making it feel irregular. ToT was not well scaled to begin with, so you had some hard bosses where they really shouldn't have been. SoO overall has spread the tough ones out nicely, while still maintaining an overall gradual increase in difficulty with the rest.

[Airwaves]

This really.

The fun of raiding doesn't come from flying through normal in a few weeks and farming the same bosses for 6 months.

It comes from a sense of progression, working to kill a boss you've been stuck on.

I remember the first time I got to see MH/BT, I was so excited and it felt special as i'd worked for it

WoW has changed but. After 10 years people don't bother to sick around and kill a brickwall boss. They get bored and quit. Blizzard knows this that is why they nerf things. Vanilla and BC style raids would not work with todays type of players.

[AeneasBK]

^ Holy rant.

The point of their post was about the difficulty curve inside of raids. Siege largely has a rising difficulty to the end, where previous instances, notably Throne of Thunder, are all over the place. Easy, hard, hard, easy, hard, medium, etc with some of the easier bosses being towards the end and harder ones towards the start-middle.

We literally one shot Consorts without even looking at strats. Horridon kept us busy from the 2nd raiding night to the last pull on the 6th.