Increasing difficulty in casual content ≠ Savage

Probably it will do some good, though SE has been a bit inconsistent with nerfs, recently they've seemed to hold their grounds more (ozma, nidhoog and shinryu comes to mind) but since they've already nerfed something in the past in response to players backlash (though I'll concede that it was to mitigate players leaving if an harder dungeon appared, hence why we have expert roulette in the first place) is a looming shadow imho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Remedi

Even one case is problematic, we have the same problem with tanks here, in a vertical progression setting you want to get stronger and stronger, since that's the fantasy they are after.

---

We have it with more than just tanks, but tanks are a felony level example. While I agree that a single case is problematic it's a pretty nuanced issue. I wish I had a good solution for it, but I don't.

I can tell you (as a PLD main), it FEELs so much worse in this game than it does WoW. I really don't like secondaries in either game. I really don't like secondaries at all. I think the goal of secondaries could probably be better used as functions/themes inside class abilities in both MMOs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KisaiTenshi

Realistically, the hardest content in the game should be the 4-player content (if not the solo combat content,) but instead it's the 8-player Savage content. Perhaps SE should consider making savage content 4-player content, and make storyline content 8-player content.

---

Why should 4 player content be the hardest? Cite specific reasons/examples/insight please.

Do you have any examples of mechanics that would be interested/challenging for a tank or healer in a 4 player party?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luin

Exactly what would change about like, Phantom Train or Chadarnook, if we made that a 4man? Absolutely nothing. You would need to scale the Prey damage down slightly because you wouldnt have offhealer shielding or healing after Prey for the next Rain but besides that, it's exactly the same, but with mechanics targeting 1/2 of the players. Lights target 1 instead of 2, and with the 1 tether. If tank is caught in a ghost, you wipe, because you failed the mechanic and you should wipe.

I cannot say the game has done a poor job teaching players to play the game, because that would imply that the game has even attempted to do so.

---

While I wholeheartedly agree on your last point, I'm not sure just translating Sigmascape savage to 4 man is as easy as you imply it is. Not to mention, the less people there are to make mistakes, the easier the content is as it dramatically cuts down learning time (all else equal) and thus shortens the life of the content.

I think a lot of things would need to change in the core combat system before we can make 4 man content both engaging and challenging. I think the limited way in which mechanics overlap is a core problem here.

O5S - 4 man would make that fight considerably easier (assuming incoming damage re-tuned for single healer). Think of how much more space you'd have for mechanics. The non-cheese strat would also be hilariously easy with just 4 people.

O6S - I suppose I can agree that not much would change here, but O6S isn't the most riveting experience as it stands now.

I'd be curious if you had any other good examples of how you could make engaging/challenging 4 man mechanics, within the existing design constraints, for tanks and healers specifically, but DPS if you have them too!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tridus

All tanks in Stormblood have some way of self-sustain and some way of buying more time with a cooldown. While a PLD would clearly be in the best spot because Clemency and Hallowed can buy all kinds of time (I mean, I've flat out healed O8N for almost a minute alone as a PLD after both healers got knocked off at the same time and needed to recover), all the tanks have something to do that isn't "just keep DPSing until I die and blame the healer." They can buy time for a healer to get out from the ghosts, as it doesn't take that long to kill one. DPS can actually avoid stuff until the healer is out, and if you've got a RDM who realizes they have Vercure, you're fine anyway.

I don't know why you like to exaggerate, but there's a gap between "everything instagibs you and wipes the party" and "it's literally impossible to fail this boss if you are awake."

---

While it literally pains me to defend Riyah - I am inclined to agree (IN THIS SPECIFIC instance only).

I don't see how you can design good engaging/challenging 4 man content within the current design constraints with respect to tanks/healers.

Using your example - translated to a 4 man savage O5S, if you needed to use a CD to cover a mistake, then you don't have a CD you need later for a tankbuster. If you can survive without a CD, then the mechanic doesn't matter. If you can Clemency the boss auto's to survive while healer is trapped, how do you offset/survive raidwide damage then? Can't clemency everyone, and you could vercure some, but it won't be enough. What if your comp (which contains 4 out of 15 now, instead of 8 out of 15) doesn't have one of those? What if it doesn't have either?

While I would love to explore this avenue, I'm not sure how good it can be without some sweeping changes to the core combat system (which I'm all for). The result that I am afraid of would be an even more binary healing and tanking paradigm that would likely drive me to switch roles or quit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KaivaC

I think what's being lost here is that the idea behind this post was to get 4mans to start pushing towards savage mechanics. Within the game system, you can introduce difficulty within doing savage stuff. Quite easily in fact. I'm saying this from a non raider perspective too. Again, within the game engine, the devs can easily make an entire dungeon nerf healing and tanking through persistent debuffs, just lower the damage that mobs do overall.

I would love to see a gimmick dungeon that is like ff9s Ipsen's Castle, in that lower ilvl makes it easier to actually get through the dungeon

---

Your idea to this in perpetuity, is to have persistent debuffs throughout an entire content form (so multiple dungeons, or whatever else 'savage' 4 man content ends up being by nerfing output and modifying incoming mob damage? That would probably feel more unintuitive and jarring than being synced down to Sastasha, not to mention is a pretty hamfisted implementation.

While I love FF9 and Ipsens castle, that type of gameplay would NOT translate well to an MMO at all.

Do you have some examples of what 4 man savage content could look like? Specific mechanics, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KaldeaSahaline

Why should 4 player content be the hardest? Cite specific reasons/examples/insight please.

Do you have any examples of mechanics that would be interested/challenging for a tank or healer in a 4 player party?

---

The more players there are, the greater chance of mistakes being made, and the more likeliness of "dead weight" so to speak. In a 4-player dungeon, you should not be able to "dead weight" anyone, but most of the 4-player content lets you lock someone out of the boss room, and still defeat the boss. So actual teamwork is required for a 4-player dungeon, and as we've seen in POTD, 4 healers or 4 tanks does not actually make the dungeon easier, it just creates a lack of defined roles, so you're more likely to fail by someone not doing their job. See "neither tank would switch out of tank stance" problems that content with two tanks has.

Realistically, the kind of "hard" mechanics you want to drop on a 4-player team are that which removes a player (eg fetters/gaol) from action if a major mechanic is ignored. eg fetter the tank, then the boss goes after the healer. Fetter the healer, tank can't free them, and the DPS has to free the healer. Fetter the DPS, the other DPS has to free them. If the tank or healer try to free a fettered DPS, then they neglect their roles, and create a failure situation. This is just one example of where the roles during a boss would need to be more rigidly enforced.

Why 4-player content is easy is because the healer's role is redundant for everyone, even the tank, by players having self-healing options and the auto-heal, as gear creep goes up. Unless Yoshi-P wants to redesign how HoT, self-healing and auto-healing works so that gear doesn't count in the calculation, this will always be the case. A tank should not be able to solo the boss while level-synced, yet that has been a thing since 2.0.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KaldeaSahaline

Why should 4 player content be the hardest? Cite specific reasons/examples/insight please.

---

Mechanic failure rates typically scale with player count because each player adds a potential point of failure. They can still make content that is extremely difficult to handle for large groups (e.g. ultimate), but the clear rates will be low and finding a group for it difficult because the target audience is a minority. It's not a terrible idea, but it won't have many players participating in it.

As player count scales down, the content difficulty can increase and still maintain the expected clear rate, while increasing player participation because it's easier to find a group. Theoretically, the most difficult content could be made for solo players but with the limited toolkit a single player has, there wouldn't be a lot for the designers to work with. The smallest party size seems like the sweet spot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KaldeaSahaline

While it literally pains me to defend Riyah - I am inclined to agree (IN THIS SPECIFIC instance only).

I don't see how you can design good engaging/challenging 4 man content within the current design constraints with respect to tanks/healers.

Using your example - translated to a 4 man savage O5S, if you needed to use a CD to cover a mistake, then you don't have a CD you need later for a tankbuster. If you can survive without a CD, then the mechanic doesn't matter. If you can Clemency the boss auto's to survive while healer is trapped, how do you offset/survive raidwide damage then? Can't clemency everyone, and you could vercure some, but it won't be enough. What if your comp (which contains 4 out of 15 now, instead of 8 out of 15) doesn't have one of those? What if it doesn't have either?

---

Well, the thing I was replying to was specifically the idea that in that case, if the healer gets put into a ghost then it's an automatic wipe. Which isn't true. People can do stuff. If it's tuned so high that there's no room for error than perhaps not, but there's a fairly wide gap between that and "it's literally impossible to fail this" that we had in 4.0 expert. I think there's plenty of room to close up the gap without it being "someone missed a thing, wipe it". Especially with the ghosts, where in a dungeon context you'd really just need to be able to buy time for the healer to get back and then carry on.

Tuning is always harder with less people because of the wider variables involved, but that's not really justification to say "everything has to be faceroll", which is what I was getting from Riyah.

I enjoy how the title of the thread says "increasing the difficulty of casual content does not equal Savage" and yet people are getting into debates on how to bring Savage into 4man instances.

The point is that it doesn't have to be savage.

There is a bredth of potential contnet between faceroll and Savage. Aim there, not at Savage.

I Remember first dungeons aoe to be nearly lethal as to that error did matter, kinda reminded me of cataclysm where standing in the [insert w/e fire/water/void zone you like] would mean death, it was fun and engaging, but they had to tone down because ppl simply kept complaining instead of manning up.

I mean I get it on release most mechanics were not as obvious, some even could be hidden by aoe effects, but they fixed that and yet still ppl complained. That said it wouldn't be such a problem here so why not? I like fractal hard, but the fact that flare star doesn't really need me moving to save myself is jarring

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoroMurasaki

I enjoy how the title of the thread says "increasing the difficulty of casual content does not equal Savage" and yet people are getting into debates on how to bring Savage into 4man instances.

The point is that it doesn't have to be savage.

There is a bredth of potential contnet between faceroll and Savage. Aim there, not at Savage.

---

That said, figuring out whether the best way to reach such a difficulty is to aim at Savage and then proceed just part of the way and smooth out the edges vs. aiming for something inherently different is a very relevant point of discussion.

I'd argue that the best midcore difficulty is one that targets competence, awareness, engagement, and tactics insofar as positioning, CD-syncing, and focus-targeting (almost) equally to Savage (or perhaps, in some cases, even more, as repeat runs of an exact script actually devalues such things), but with greatly deemphasized memorization -- if any at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KaldeaSahaline

snip

---

I wish I could describe specific mechanics without spending a page on each, but alas, there's little between full and concrete detail and scant formulaic summary.

I will attempt to do my best with the latter. If necessary, I'll then attempt the former, if I've time.

Quote:

---

I don't see how you can design good engaging/challenging 4 man content within the current design constraints with respect to tanks/healers.

---

While those constraints pain me even more than the staleness of encounter design they might force, I do think those restrictions are a bit overstated.

Let's consider briefly what a mechanic is, at least in XIV:
- A cue that signals viability of movement, or window-closure that punishes excess of movement, along an enforced route or set of routes.
- (Currently where "cheeseable" only) a point of group decision.

That's really it.

None of that needs to disappear with a 4-man. Where complexity is lost over the reduction in n network of players positioning around each other (which tends to be overstated unless preparation for the mechanic or mechanic prior failed to some degree), the latter can be emphasized.

Let's take the quoted example for example:

Quote:

---

Using your example - translated to a 4 man savage O5S, if you needed to use a CD to cover a mistake, then you don't have a CD you need later for a tankbuster. If you can survive without a CD, then the mechanic doesn't matter. If you can Clemency the boss auto's to survive while healer is trapped, how do you offset/survive raidwide damage then? Can't clemency everyone, and you could vercure some, but it won't be enough. What if your comp (which contains 4 out of 15 now, instead of 8 out of 15) doesn't have one of those? What if it doesn't have either?

---

What becomes necessary isn't actually one extreme of tuning or another, but rather that "third" option, whereby you can apply tuning over the fight -- such as from areas with cover that cost uptime (to everyone, ideally, not just melee), rather than merely over the one make-or-break moment. This is largely why strong DPS checks exist, especially where downtime has survival advantages; they give a huge variety of mechanical flexibility to work from as downtime becomes a gradual but very real form of danger in itself.

Rather than compromising the tuning towards either a true, unavoidable one-shot when lacking a given tool or negligible damage to compensate for that tool's likely absence, allowing a mechanic to be a one-shot avoidable by certain tools or by downtime when lacking those tools allows a wider array of compositions to contribute towards the fight without diminishing the overall difficulty.

Of course, here comes the anti-DPS-checks faction's torches and pitchforks... Because god forbid a mechanic not one-shot us outright or that we can actually stay focused on the fight whilst performing that mechanic correctly...

To attach some modicum of example, though, in major regards beyond party-wide mechanics...

Let's say you have a fight from which a given player may (or must) be snatched/separated, leaving the others to fend for themselves. Assuming a strong DPS check, this is of approximately equal risk overall, but the most notable examples will doubtless be the loss of healer or a tank. If you make each hit or frequent hard-hitting special instead a split AoE (iirc, there have been 3-4 examples of this in 8-mans already), then the party can survive the temporary loss of a tank and the impending chain-kills with proper heals on a "MT" dps and "OT" dps swaps, just as a party could survive the loss of healer if topped off prior through said swaps, and a party short of a DPS could pop an extra CD or two and go full tank/healer ham on the DPS check (which, as it is not the final enrage, is meant solely to force a point of decision and commitment thereto in order to add dynamics to the way the fight is handled, not in itself to test DPS throughput under normal conditions).

In summary, before I have to dash out the door, you keep mechanical threat high without destroying compositional choice or butchering a party for singular mistakes through:
- Mechanics which weigh survival vs. downtime (thus flexing the role of tank and healer)
- Core changes such as damage-splitting (further flexing the role of tank)
- Considering the space consumed by mechanics as a situational average of proportionate (e.g. the AoE splash radii around each of 4 players therefore being bigger than around each of 8, such that roughly the same portion of the room is covered) and the downtime and preemptive action required (e.g. the amount of (down)time necessary to move from to the safe area)

Quote:

---

I'm not sure how good it can be without some sweeping changes to the core combat system (which I'm all for)

---

"Workable" is my assumption. Probably just as workable as currently seen in the 8-man environment, even. Though, they could certainly be a whole lot better with said sweeping changes...

Firstly - let me clarify one point. With respects to the OP yes - I agree 100% you can make content more difficult without it being Savage difficulty. I've posted a few times earlier in this post, and even cited an example of a boss fight changed to fit that paradigm. However, we ended up getting off topic thanks to Riyah. While what he said was OT with respect to the OP. I still stand by the defense of his statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KisaiTenshi

The more players there are, the greater chance of mistakes being made, and the more likeliness of "dead weight" so to speak. In a 4-player dungeon, you should not be able to "dead weight" anyone

---

Agreed. I should have been more clear in my previous response. My intent was for you to identify why you personally think that making 4 man content the hardest content available (instead of their current decision of 8) would be better.

Quote:

---

Realistically, the kind of "hard" mechanics you want to drop on a 4-player team are that which removes a player (eg fetters/gaol) from action if a major mechanic is ignored. eg fetter the tank, then the boss goes after the healer. Fetter the healer, tank can't free them, and the DPS has to free the healer. Fetter the DPS, the other DPS has to free them. If the tank or healer try to free a fettered DPS, then they neglect their roles, and create a failure situation. This is just one example of where the roles during a boss would need to be more rigidly enforced.

---

In your example - what is the "failed major mechanic" that spawns the fetter? An example would be helpful to understand your concept.

Why couldn't a tank help free a gaoled/fettered healer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shihen

Mechanic failure rates typically scale with player count because each player adds a potential point of failure.

As player count scales down, the content difficulty can increase and still maintain the expected clear rate, while increasing player participation because it's easier to find a group. Theoretically, the most difficult content could be made for solo players but with the limited toolkit a single player has, there wouldn't be a lot for the designers to work with. The smallest party size seems like the sweet spot.

---

Agreed - I should have been more clear. See my response above to Kisa for more clarification.

That said - you actually kind of touched on something that further corroborates my statement. The limited toolkit significantly hampers the viability of "challenging/engaging" solo content. This parallels with my statement that 4 man suffers from the same issue (namely in the tank/healer department). This is why I mentioned earlier that I felt 8 man was the better choice than 4 man. What types of 4 man mechanics can you design that are engaging/fun to tanks/healers?

Examples would be helpful here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tridus

Well, the thing I was replying to was specifically the idea that in that case, if the healer gets put into a ghost then it's an automatic wipe. Which isn't true. People can do stuff. If it's tuned so high that there's no room for error than perhaps not, but there's a fairly wide gap between that and "it's literally impossible to fail this" that we had in 4.0 expert. I think there's plenty of room to close up the gap without it being "someone missed a thing, wipe it". Especially with the ghosts, where in a dungeon context you'd really just need to be able to buy time for the healer to get back and then carry on.

Tuning is always harder with less people because of the wider variables involved, but that's not really justification to say "everything has to be faceroll", which is what I was getting from Riyah.

---

That's kind of our point though. As you lessen the ability to layer mechanics because of less available targets per responsibility it becomes more binary. Normally you'd offset this with a more robust toolkit/decision making and choice, but that isn't an option in the current design constraints. If it was an option I would agree with you 100%.

I touched on this above - I agree 100% that you can make things harder without being savage. You've even seen my Motherbit example that I think accomplishes that philosophy quite well. However, Riyah in all his ridiculous exaggeration went OT and that is what we were responding too.

I still agree with his assessment that given the games design, it really isn't that feasible to create a fun savage equivalent in 4 man content without considerable changes due to tank/healer design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

None of that needs to disappear with a 4-man. Where complexity is lost over the reduction in n network of players positioning around each other (which tends to be overstated unless preparation for the mechanic or mechanic prior failed to some degree), the latter can be emphasized.

---

What latter? I think you didn't finish your thought here.

Quote:

---

Let's say you have a fight from which a given player may (or must) be snatched/separated, leaving the others to fend for themselves. Assuming a strong DPS check, this is of approximately equal risk overall, but the most notable examples will doubtless be the loss of healer or a tank. If you make each hit or frequent hard-hitting special instead a split AoE (iirc, there have been 3-4 examples of this in 8-mans already), then the party can survive the temporary loss of a tank and the impending chain-kills with proper heals on a "MT" dps and "OT" dps swaps, just as a party could survive the loss of healer if topped off prior through said swaps, and a party short of a DPS could pop an extra CD or two and go full tank/healer ham on the DPS check (which, as it is not the final enrage, is meant solely to force a point of decision and commitment thereto in order to add dynamics to the way the fight is handled, not in itself to test DPS throughput under normal conditions).

---

Your example mechanic is incredibly unclear (a result of your haste to get out the door I assume). I just don't think the jobs have the tools to do what you're entailing.

If a solo player gets grabbed what are they doing while they're detained? While a given player is detained what is happening elsewhere? How long is a player detained for? Does that impact change based on which role gets snagged?

DPS don't really have clean tools to swap threat, and if the damage is low enough that a healer can sustain it on them, how trivial would it be on the tank?

Control over DPS really doesn't exist in this game. It's very hard to conserve CDs, or pool resources.

I'd be interested if you could throw up a rough draft example encounter. As for guidelines - grab a random dungeon boss and make it into a savage equivalent encounter (yes I know this is OT). You can make a thread just for me I'll find/read it.