People that say dungeons are too easy...

[PyurBlue]

Make all content difficult and I'll leave the game. I don't play this game for content like ex trials, savages or criterion. This content is completely irrelevant for me. Don't forget, FFXIV is supposed to be a theme park - there should be content for everyone. You get your hard content, I want to get my easy content. Everyone who says dungeons should be hard - are complacent. I don't see easy content as a 'steping stone' to harder content. I like it how it is and it should be kept like that.

For the most part I don't think people want to take away easy content. The issue is that almost anyone playing this game will have to play through dungeons. If they could be avoided, or if there were alternatives there would be less complaints. It's also not a binary divide between Savage and dungeons, some people want something in between as well.

[Boblawblah]

For the most part I don't think people want to take away easy content. The issue is that almost anyone playing this game will have to play through dungeons. If they could be avoided, or if there were alternatives there would be less complaints. It's also not a binary divide between Savage and dungeons, some people want something in between as well.

They stop asking for easy content to be harder. Ask for totally separate content that is midcore.

[PyurBlue]

They stop asking for easy content to be harder. Ask for totally separate content that is midcore.

I often comment about the consequences of changing the game on different player demographics. I'm not aiming to take anything away from you. It needs to be recognized that dungeons are a common content for all players though. When a there is a very wide range of player types in the same content, you might expect a large range of opinions on that content, and such is the case with dungeons. It still doesn't mean that dungeons as they are have to be replaced and I'd be very happy with a new alternative that with a higher difficulty curve, but with very real limitations on the developer side of things, I don't think it's unreasonable to at least propose rebalancing dungeons. If you disagree, voice your opinion or suggest your own ideas. My opinions are no more valuable than anyone else's.

[Boblawblah]

I often comment about the consequences of changing the game on different player demographics. I'm not aiming to take anything away from you. It needs to be recognized that dungeons are a common content for all players though. When a there is a very wide range of player types in the same content, you might expect a large range of opinions on that content, and such is the case with dungeons. It still doesn't mean that dungeons as they are have to be replaced and I'd be very happy with a new alternative that with a higher difficulty curve, but with very real limitations on the developer side of things, I don't think it's unreasonable to at least propose rebalancing dungeons. If you disagree, voice your opinion or suggest your own ideas. My opinions are no more valuable than anyone else's.

The problem I have with rebalancing to suit the midcore players is that for them to feel like they're getting a good challenging experience, you'd have to make dungeons 5 times harder than they are now, which would absolutely destroy your casual playerbase (people like me). When I hear people unironically saying that Sastasha is the same difficulty as The Dead Ends I shake my head because for someone like me, although I can get through both of them, from my point of view, they're night and day in terms of difficulty. I can't even imagine what the difficulty would be like if it suited the midcore population. I'd simply stop doing dungeons unless there was a very easy mode difficulty.

edit:

That said, I do appreciate people better than me but not wanting to get into hardcore raiding feeling like they don't have appropriate content to do. I do hope SE puts in some scaling content that the midcore people can chew on for a while.

[Renathras]

It's like I said a few pages back: Most people can stand a dungeon being easy the first time for the story. It's brand new, there's the spectacle of the event (stuff like the Garlemald train, for example), you have the notes to read in some of them, and so on. The problem comes from having to run them over and over for tomes since they're the most efficient way of getting them.

The solution isn't to make MSQ harder (as some have expressed and as I said, many people don't want to move to harder content, so using dungeons to "train" them isn't a valid argument, especially since there are better places to do that, like Eureka/Bozja/Deep Dungeons/Criterion), the solution is to make separate content that's just as efficient but more difficult so the players wanting harder things to do to get their tomes have that avenue. It's really that simple, and we already have it: Just make a Criterion roulette and tune the tome rewards to be comparable to the time investment were one to run Expert roulette instead.

Then if the people wanting hard things keep running Expert, they have only themselves to blame and we'll all know they didn't want harder content, they wanted to force other people into harder content, which is unacceptable. They will have their option there. Indeed, Criterion should REALLY be flexed a lot more since it's such a great system. They could even, going forward, have it be the MSQ dungeon is just one path (a specific one) in the patch dungeon, and the Criterion just have the pre-dungeon 3 paths room and the other two paths to work on, and those doing Criterion roulette instead of Expert roulette get that with a random assigned path. Basically double-dip the assets and content to get your different versions, MSQ (one path), Criterion (three paths, the standard solo/friends group thing now), Variant (the hard one, roulette will pick a path for you, quing regular lets your party pick the path they want), Savage (same as today). Devs can actually save some asset/dev time doing this, too.

Either way, the solution is to give people that want hard stuff other stuff to do, not to make MSQ harder.

[Shurrikhan]

Either way, the solution is to give people that want hard stuff other stuff to do, not to make MSQ harder.

I have to slightly disagree, depending on what we mean by "harder".

I don't think MSQ should be much more punishing (except where whole mechanics are merely a tickle), and certainly shouldn't be any less intuitive or even much more complicated in what places complexity exists. But, it should have at least a bit more opportunity for engagement, which may in some cases require things not being so negligible. And it definitely shouldn't forbid trash from becoming more than a mindless slog.

The occasional wipe.. is fine. That said, I would much rather have wipes to a boss respawn us right in front of that boss room. I also wouldn't mind letting anyone rez in those dungeons (a la pre-Savage V&D-Ds). Heck, I wouldn't mind seeing Echo (purged upon killing the given boss), if it came down to it.

Would also give several limbs (not necessarily my own, but surely the thought still counts) for proportionately greater reward for Minimum Item Level runs.

And, tbh, I'd love it with made the max ilvl for content equal to or barely greater than that content's drops, so we can actually have a decent experience both on content drop and months later, with less merely/purely gear-dependent gaps on content for which that gear makes no difference except in providing unnecessary/excessive speed (reward per minute already being tuned basically around min ilvl). Because I'm a sadist, I guess.

Criterion (three paths, the standard solo/friends group thing now), Variant (the hard one, roulette will pick a path for you, quing regular lets your party pick the path they want)

...Isn't this the opposite? I could have sworn the one with variable pathing is Variant. The one originally suggested to have a psuedo-scoring system based around certain criteria is... Criterion.

If what you want to spread is the branching paths system (what you're calling "Criterion" here but I thought was "Variant"), not the single-path harder mode, then it wouldn't be nearly so easy to implement over existing dungeons and would require sacrificing much of their aesthetic cohesion and uniqueness as they nearly "Aquapolis-ify" those environments.

The problem comes from having to run them over and over for tomes since they're the most efficient way of getting them.

And there's the kicker: Make its rewards per minute less OP (by bringing the grind time per week required through other content down or bringing Expert Roulette's up to their times required) and there's a lot less pressure on dungeon design and play, both, to degenerate with all possible haste. Heck, balance Hunts, too, and you might even have *gasp*, something much more closely approximating actual content choice even when playing with few hours per week while wanting to fully progress or otherwise having the efficiency-itchies.
_____________
A quick aside:

Wait...what?

Trash - when doing wall-to-wall pulls - is the only thing threatening in dungeons. Tanks have to be more spot on in their defensive CD cycling and when DPSers aren't pulling their weight, it's more noticeable and Tanks can run out of defensives and see their health go to danger zone extremely quickly on big pulls.

And is a wall-to-wall pull a single trash pack? Would you similarly be (still pretty easily) able to take on 3 bosses simultaneously?

Any why must three packs worth of trash collectively still have fewer mechanics/mechanical involvements than even a single (still fairly barren) boss? The only gameplay possible from them is entirely based on tuning relative to tank/healer sustain (since, yes, the DPS necessary is likewise dependent on the dynamics of tank/healer sustain -- aiming to kill before all resources are depleted), rather than offering anything original.

If the interest is in "doing more" with trash, then simply amping their tuning so that one is exposed to even less mechanical depth at a time clearly was not the intention.

[Renathras]

Even at level cap, dungeon trash is only about one step up from being the easiest thing to confront in this game.

Wait...what?

Trash - when doing wall-to-wall pulls - is the only thing threatening in dungeons. Tanks have to be more spot on in their defensive CD cycling and when DPSers aren't pulling their weight, it's more noticeable and Tanks can run out of defensives and see their health go to danger zone extremely quickly on big pulls.

Granted, this is just because of the unavoidable damage of a dozen enemies all beating on one person, but watch a Tank's health in a dungeon run sometime. You'll notice it being much more accordian-like on the trash pulls than the bosses in Expert roulette. Other than SPECIFICALLY tankbusters or the Tank standing in bad - that is, assuming in both cases the Tank is avoiding all avoidable damage - the Tanks' health will be going up and down a lot more wildly during the trash than any of the current bosses. Trash isn't interesting, but it's more deadly than bosses at this point. Take from that what you will.

As to the plausible - I disagree. The Devs have taken dungeons to the state they're in deliberately. It IS their intent. The proof is in the live-game: They literally added Criterion (with three difficulties) instead of increasing the difficulty of dungeons. They've already done the thing you are saying is less plausible than the thing you're asking to do, which is something they've explicitly done the opposite of.

Considering roulettes are how people gear who aren't doing Savages, you're not going to end up in a situation (at least not unless there's some huge shift that Yoshi P has given exactly zero indication of) where the roulette/MSQ dungeons are harder. Your best hope IS an additional roulette.

I have to slightly disagree, depending on what we mean by "harder".

Semantics. While "harder" is definitely an open-ended term, "harder than now" is pretty obvious. Additional complexity, damage, anything that reduces the odds of success vs the status quo. What IS a more complex concept to nail down is the one you used, "more opportunity for engagement". What does that MEAN? How do you do that in a way that a hyper-casual player WON'T see it as being harder? And WHY do you need that in MSQ dungeons SPECIFICALLY instead of in other content? Why SPECIFICALLY do MSQ dungeons/roulette need to be the thing changed?

"The occasional wipe.. is fine" - TO YOU. But not to everyone. (That said, I do agree resawning at the dungeon start and the "shortcut" always taking you to the prior boss room is kind of stupid.)

As for the side conversation: Criterion is the "base" version, right? That's what I was quing up and running solo earlier to unlock more of the paths alone. I've never done the Variant, though I notice the tab has only "Variant Raise" as the duty action...? So I assumed that was the medium one (as I haven't done any of those, I haven't unlocked the "Another" savage versions).

But as I say, which is harder to do per patch, make an entire dungeon and an entire SECOND dungeon with 3 difficulties, or make ONE dungeon with 4 difficulties? It seems to me the latter requires less work, since the "new" difficulty is on the bottom end and so would be the least dev resource intensive thing to do, not to mention save on asset, art, and mechanics designs of having to come up with things for the other dungeon. NOT ONLY THAT, it would actually mean if the casual player ever DID want to step up to the next difficulty, they would be familiar with some of the base mechanics (less punishing due to less damaging and longer time to identify and react to them), so this would actually help with that "casuals need to be taught mechanics so they can do harder stuff" thing.

.

As for the end:

That's my point. And no, you don't need to make things more painful for casual players. As I say, make other things worth the tomes on an equal basis per average time investment. If the "hardcore" players then do the Expert anyway because it's faster (and easier), then they forfeit the right to complain about it since they have the harder alternative and are choosing to avoid it themselves.