Various threads on this forum sometimes end up in a discussion of the apparent increasing difficulty of the game.

To be honest, I do actually think this is a problem - it's nice having hard sceanrios but if we just have had scenarios then we are going to alienate a lot of players, the sales will decrease and the game will stop.  Personally, I think FFG need to start bringing out some easier scenarios, what do you think?

The current mean average Difficulty Number of the scenarios (not including the PoD expansions or the first Hobbit deluxe which came without difficulty numbers) is just over 5.  If we drop the only 1 from the calcuations, the mean average is 5.3.  That might not seem like much but I personally think it's quite telling.  If we include the PoD expansions, the mean average leaps up to 5.4.  Surely I'm not the only one who thinks all of these means are too high?

The mode average (the one that appears the most often), for those who are interested, is 7.

Seven??  Seriously??  C'mon … that's obviously too high, surely?

Now I know, I know, a lot of people say that the difficulty numbers aren't that reliable a guide.  But I would still maintain that the game is pitched too high and alienates the less hardcore players.  I have no problem with difficult scenarios but I would like some variety, too.

I think you bring up good points.  I don't put much stock in the challenge ratings, however, as I really struggled with the Anduin encounter (a 4), but beat Rhosgobel (a 5) first try.  (I'm only playing solo).  Also, DG as everyone knows is a 7, but it should perhaps be a 10 from what I've read and the times I've tried--it really is much more difficult.

On the whole, I'd rather they skew the encounters on the hard side than easy, overall.  That way I can beat it using 4 heroes, solo (count threat of 3 highest) first, then try to do it standard with only 3, or maybe try 2-handed (haven't tried this yet).  Also, when I do finally beat the Encounter with 3 heroes solo it's an accomplishment.

I do wish they would throw in an easier one in, every now and again.

the problem with those stats is that difficulty ratings in this game are meaningless. i actually thought theyd given up putting them in after the hobbit, but aparently not

as a vetern player i find quests easier to win than perhaps the average player, but still enough of a challenge that i dont feel like they need to be harder

i guess im in the sweet spot.

this is indeed something that comes up often though, so i guess its something that ffg should, and probably are, taking into account

i guess the later on packs get the harder they get- just a way to sell packs

rich

I too lament the fact that some quests are just too hard to get through. I often ascribe this to the fact that the game is designed for two players, but I only play solo (that it can be played solo is, as often discussed, more accident than design). In terms of length of time playing, I suppose I'm a veteran of this game as well, though in terms of actual number of games played, I'm as fresh-faced as a fairly new player. This is partly because I am, at best, only a casual gamer, but also because the difficulty of this game can sometimes really turn me off, and I won't play it for months. (Watcher in the Water is the only game I have played that has caused me to swear so vociferously I could have burst a blood vessel or two). 

I wouldn't like to see easy quests, but I don't want the trauma of having to concede the game once the encounter cards are drawn during setup, either.

Skipping the unreliability of difficulty rating, I agree with the point you are trying to make.

Let's look at last few expansions we had:

Shadow and Flame, Battle at Laketown, The Hobbits, Heirs of Numenor.

Without a specific deck (Ori dwarf deck or Hama feint deck), Shadow and Flame is no cakewalk.

Battle at Laketown is argueably the most difficult scenario so far

The Hobbit quests weren't that difficult, but it is not easy neither, I think this expansion was a sweet spot

While I enjoy Heirs of Numenor with the new found love for tactics, the difficulty of all three scenarios are definitely higher than average.

I think this happened because we are inbetween cycles at the moment.

Shadow and Flame had to be difficult because it was end of a cycle (Return to Mirkwood was tough too)

Battle at Laketown was PoD so, again, it had to be tough.

The Hobbit Saga expansion was something new, but is not a regular thing (although I wouldn't mind regular releases of Saga expansions)

Heirs of Numenor had to be slightly more difficult than the last delux expansion due to the player card power creep.

However, I think once we get into the actual Against the Shadow cycle, the problem will resolve itself, as the first 2 adventure packs are usually mild in terms of difficulty.

I like what you say, Ellareth, about the difficulty increasing gradually over the course of an Encounter rotation (ie how Moria cycle hightens in difficulty up to Shadow and Flame).  It's a good model to follow, and gives a climax to a cycle, rather than just saying "btw, it's over now."

It's hard to fix any kind of difficulty to any Encounter, as they will be played so differently depending on circumstances.  A 4-player Escape from Dol Guldur will play very different from a solo.  Also, some quests are punishing, almost impossible, unless/until your deck is built to handle them, but if/when it has the right tools (like location control for the Emyn Muil Quest) they're a breeze and your deck will win almost every time.  How would you judge such Encounters?  (Yes, you can build a deck to go up against any Encounter, but many still remain difficult in solo even when you built to beat them).

It would help if we know what criteria FFG uses to establish it's challenge ratings; out of the blue, I'd say they probably rate them judging by a standard 2-player game. 

I suppose part of the problem could be said to be down to the way the game is distributed. If each cycle was instead a big-box expansion of six quests, it would have something for everyone and so we probably wouldn't complain so much. At least, I don't think I would. The core set has a difficult scenario, an easy one, and a middling one, but because the quests are single-issue things, I end up feeling like I've paid £12 for something I can't play with. Well, excepting the player cards, though they're only, what, a fifth of the cards in the pack? 

Deluxe expansion like Heirs of Numenor could have 1 easy, 1 medium and 1 hard quest, so there is something for "everyone".

kennoastic said:

True, but then advanced players might complain that there is only 1 real quest for them, and similarly new players might say there is only 1 quest that is suitable for them. I think the best solution is just to make quests more customizable. Include with the rules for each AP/expansion instructions for an easy mode ("remove these cards", or "ignore the effects on this quest stage"), normal mode, and hard mode ("add these hard cards", "add this effect to this quest stage"). I don't think it would be that difficult to do this as part of the design process, and would improve the experience and longevity of quests for everyone

Raven1015 said:

It's a good solution. But there will be someone complaining about buying cards they don't need because they never play easy/hard mode ;)

How about having extra rules on the quest and encounter cards? If there is room for it ofcourse… A quest card could have something like "Hard: All enemies have surge" or "Easy: At end of turn draw an extra card". An encounter could be for example "Hard: When revealed [this] engages the first player" and so on…

there is really alot of ways ffg could change the difficulty of the quests, but the point is, will they? will they put the extra amount of time into play testing each and every quest in each difficulty level.

you may be thinking, well, just adding 'gains surge' or 'draw 1 extra card' isnt going to add alot of design work, but weve seen several times how one minor mistake or oversight on ffgs behalf can send a game crazy hard or easy

personaly i dont see things changes for a long time yet, if at all.

rich

richsabre said:

I guess it depends on whether they think it is enough of an issue or if there is enough of an incentive to make those changes. For me personally, I'm pretty happy with the difficulty overall. I guess the issue is that we've heard of some new players getting turned off by the difficulty when first getting into the game. But beyond those stories, we don't really have any hard data on how new players feel about the game and difficulty, how many turn away from the game, etc. From what I've heard, this game is one of FFG's top sellers, so such changes probably don't seem like that big of a priority at the moment.

Is always easier to find negative opinons than positive opinions. We ear of those turned off players often, but we don't ear about turned on players often.

I'm happy with the difficulty level. Is really easy to soften quests removing baddest encounter cards, then I don't think we need "easy mode cards".

Agree, I strated gaming with AD&D, my 1st encouter with FFG was when AGoT TCG came out, a great game that they turned into a money sink hole. When it started to get huge powr creep, I being a not rich person, stopped playing. Then I played The Hobbit, LotR (the board game), and Arkham Asylum.  Those games are hard, and require thought, planning and cooperation beyond anything else I have ever played. I've played RPG's with great GM's that could make this happen but it's never been built into the game. If a co-op game isn't really hard, it's bad. AH is the best board game I have ever playedand the first too many times I played it I lost , then I scraped by, then I got an expac, then I lost, then I scraped by then etc.  If you want a  game you can play through go get your modern duty halo warfare call. If you want a game that gets easier and easier the better you get play your WOW and every other C"RPG" if you want a game that challenges you to make good decisions and interact with people play an FFG game. If you would quit a game becase it's "too hard" go home and play your games. but admit that you suck at games that you will get you ass kicked by bowser, and Mike Tyson, and a dirt bike track and a ghost named pinky.

I enjoy extremely difficult quests. Beating a quest the first or second try is seriously disappointing. True, you can always keep trying for a better score, instead of simply beating it. But, I get more enjoyment out of finally beating a really dificult quest than I do out of trying to improve my score on an easy one. 

divinityofnumber said:

This. You don't want to wait a month for a new quest only to destroy it on the very first try and have to wait a month again for a new one. It's funner if you have to work at it.

And as more and more cards are released for the game, old quests get easier as it is (for example, the core set and Mirkwood cycle quests are so easy now) so you don't want things too easy right off the bat.

I do though like the big box expansions when it's like an easy quest, medium quest, and a hard quest. Especially if they are planning to eventually add Nightmare add-in decks for ALL old quests.