That lost mission has been that way, I think Torrynt was just observing an example of the problem of multiple bosses in many missions.
Many ppl dont like being one shotted by bosses as you can tell, why not make a distincion (spelling?) between normal bosses and named bosses, many missions have named bosses, why not leave these at the current difficulty and make normal bosses at the old difficulty.
Or another way to put it, make another classification for bosses, normal bosses, named bosses, elite bosses. Put a few more named and elite bosses in the game so it retains some difficulty but your not going to have to fight them all the time (well pre Issue 3 bosses 1 shot too....).
Anyways, just a thought.
Thanks for the update.
Do let us know what's in the works, a "Here's what we're thinking about", not just "Here's what just went up on the test server". For me, and apparently for others, this is the most serious issue regarding City of Heroes.
And thank you very much for this discussion. Regardless of what the final result is, it's clear you're listening to us, and that does mean a lot.
My arcs are constantly shifting, just search for GadgetDon for the latest.
The world beware! I've started a blog
GadgetMania Under Attack: The Digg Lockout
I got a question for ya Kali, since you're making such a "strong" showing here on the point....
Prior to this Issue, Blasters were still the most played AT on the SOLO-Focussed Servers, 2-1 over Scrappers even, and would typically solo at a "Fast" rate from levels 20-40, much like Scrappers. Now they still do 90% of their missions "fast", but get bogged down to "Slow" when a boss fight is necessary, or have to use all of their INSP's and maybe even a retreat before they defeat a boss. ...Making the Mission range from "Medium" rate of soloing it, to "slow".
...And here I have several quotes about them from Cryptic and other guides:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Blaster can turn the tide of a conflict, but they need their friends to help them succeed."
"Ranged Support"
"A Blaster can solo successfully, if he remains aware of his situation at all times, but this archetype really comes into its own in groups"
(Infact every AT is listed for soloing potential, but the general tone is "but they're not made for it, they really do well in grouping instead".)
"Don't bite off more than you can chew. The number of enemies you can take on at one time depends on your archetype and power coices, but beware of large groups of foes.(1 Boss = 1.5 heroes) Look for white or blue enemies to engage;"
"Missions are a way to give the game Variety and Depth, they offer an alternative to meerly wandering the steeets..."
"Do be aware however that missions in a story arc tend to get more challenging as you progress. You'll probably want to assemble a team for the later missions of a storyline rather than tackle them solo".
"On a fight-by-fight basis, you actualy earn a bit less when teamed up than you do solo, but don't let that stop you -- If you're in a hard working team up, you'll almost certainly find that you're taking out far tougher foes at a greater rate than you could solo, meaning that overall you advance much faster as part of a team..."
"no one(blaster) can stand by himself for long"[/i]
What is it that you disagree with about on being penalized for soloing now? Most guides and the manual clearly state that only 1 AT is designed for soloing. Do you actually think we should be encouraged to solo the 4 Support builds too? Because the only way to enforce the descriptions here is through difficulty.
Particulary statements like this: "Whenever someone is tempted to say something obnoxious like this, can't you just pretend that we already know your point of view but don't care for it?"
Because it conspires with the descriptions here, to illustrate the exact point that WonderChris made which you called Obnoxious. Well I guess the manual and guides are Obnoxious too, and the Dev team's original plan must be obnoxious too. And begs the question even louder..... If anyone here feels hostile by the mere thought that they're "supposed to group" and it's FINALLY being enforced here, then what the hell exactly ARE they(and you) doing here? ...I mean you "don't care for it". So why make a big deal about? Why fight it when that's the way the game was always intended to work, and is finally working that way?
Hey I'll still build Soloers out of the Support AT's myself though, or try to, and if I fail, why should I NOT accept ridicule from players who told me I wasn't supposed to solo? ...It's just this simple... A superior player will find a way to overcome the difficulty anyway. And a Humble player will accept their role in a team.
...which only leaves one group left, and that's the guys who THINK they're real heroes, think they're really superior players and are too arrogant to accept a more humble role, but also fail to actually overcome the difficulty -- leaving them one thing to do... come here to blame their failure on somone else and make demmands that the world be changed to meet their expectations. ...And THOSE are the people that are targeted when someone says "then why are YOU here?". You seperate yourself from that arragant group of players, right? If so then you can overcome the generalizations too. ...see I'm just saying that there's nothing here to get annoyed over. 
...sorry if I wrote way too much just to point it out though 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Note: It's very important that you don't get something like this in the contact's mission selection window:
Go Rescue the hostages from the Freakshow!
and then get this once you selected the mission from your contact:
By the way, you'll need help, because you'll be facing Dreck!
[/ QUOTE ]
I got that! Or rather, one like it:
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, this happens quite a bit. I believe some of the early Lost, Hellion, Skull, Clockwork, and Vahz missions do it too. Once you've accepted the mission, you get: "Watch out for the (faction's boss mob) called (tough sounding name). He may be tough."
[/ QUOTE ]
Hehe, yeah, I see this quite a bit too. Don't even know you are going to face a boss until after you have already accepted the mission.
I really love the early Skull missions that you accept and then the contact finally says something like "Oh, by the way, there is this guy named Neck Snapper who has sent many a hero to the hospital. Watch out for him!".
Oh, yeah.... Thanks for warning me before I accepted the mission, lol 
[ QUOTE ]
The fact is: The game (and Bosses) get very easy for most AT's post 30. Once Conbtrollers have their pets, they do just fine. Sorry, but I don't think you can state that only the casual players are left. hell, every night, 4 of the 11 servers are in the yellow Post I3, when previously they were all in the green. Don't know about you, but with 1.5 weeks having passed, and the server load increasing, I would say most players are enjoying the changes, and have RETURNED to playing the game again.
[/ QUOTE ]
Armsman, firstly, there are a multitude of reasons why the servers have gone yellow again for the time being:
To check out I3, the new content, tanker changes, etc.
To check out/use the free respec (a biggie) and then take the retooled character out for as spin.
To see if the Winter Event is in play yet.
Hunt for the Ghost Ship, Octopus, Clockwork paladins that came with I3 to see what they are about.
To see how that mission slider works.
It's a HUGE assumption on your part to say that people are back because they like the boss buff changes.
Second, with the addition of the slider, all of those who prefer grouping and felt the higher level game was becoming too easy, the missions too easy, you all had a tool, a choice, to adjust the game for your preference, to make things tough enough to satisfy you.
What is being complained about is that for the rest of us, there is no choice offered. It's just tougher, like it or not, ready or not, and if you aren't a scrapper, a tanker, or a fairly narrow specialized other AT build that can deal with it, your soloing days are over. We are just saying the choice shouldn't have been taken away. Why are you having such a problem with players with a different preference having a choice? You want tougher bosses, tougher missions, use the new slider. We, and it's a fairly numerically significant 'we', can't. The slider doesn't go in the opposite direction.
If I can hazard an answer. Because there's the manual and the guide.
And then there's the way the game was promoted, reviewed, hyped, and most importantly for those that have been paying their money and playing for the last nine months since launch, the way the game has been playing prior to I3.
The game was promoted as solo friendly, it was part of what reviews hyped as original and different about the game and prior to I3 was supported enough to keep those who prefer soloing or a mixed playstyle satisfied.
As to the "Why are you here?", I think that roughly translates to "Why do insist on playing solo in an MMOG for cryin' out loud?" I think that's the argument she was saying is obnoxious. There have been enough very well articulated explanations for the solo or mixed (team when I wanna, solo when I wanna) playstyle posted in this thread that asking that question should be entirely unnecessary at this point.
[ QUOTE ]
and if you aren't a scrapper, a tanker, or a fairly narrow specialized other AT build that can deal with it, your soloing days are over. We are just saying the choice shouldn't have been taken away.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well let's face the facts too, these missions have always favored one kind of AT or build for soloing. ...So maybe we need to shift our focus towards new TYPES of missions. Give Tankers "Protect Squishy" missions to solo where all they have to do is Survive an Onslught. Give Controllers and Defenders Infiltrate missions, Protect/Heal tasks, and "Garrison duty" where they buff and heal NPC fighters. And give Blasters spread out missions with very light resistance and tons of objects to blow the sh** out of 
If things are going to change, then why not demmand some new changes that benefit ALL of our playstyles instead of demmanding a return to the same old crusty stuff we've already done way too much of.
For some of my characters, the boss changes are good. They make it more challenging...for others, they make it impossible (my poor FF/Rad defender use to be challenged by the old bosses...now, I won't even attempt to take em on)
But where the new changes have really affected the game is during the respec task force. I tried it with my level 26 Inv tanker, 1 SR Scrapper, 1 Regen Scrapper, 1 Kin/Energy Defender, and an Empath/Rad Defender. We were able to get thru most of the task force but right at the end, we ended up with 8 bosses in the final group. With 5 heroes and only 2 real damage dealers, how in the world were we to take on all those Jump Bots? I could take on two or three with the Empath healing me but that left 5 others roaming around the core using their AoE and wiping out the team. The poor SR Scrapper died 9 times in the evening....6 of them one-shot kills...mostly from when the Bots would explode on death. The increase in damage output really made that hit deadly...worse than Proximity bombs imo. I understand that there is a desire to make the game more challenging for others but I hope Statesman's suggestion includes a fix for the Terra Volta Trials also.
Pinnacle: 8-50s, Current: Reflex Arc (40 BS/Shield) & Lord Amsterdam (33 Arch/Nrg)
Triumph: 4-50s, Current: Grim Wolf (45 Ninja/Traps) & Israeli Avenger (45 Ice/Axe)
Virtue: 5-50s, Current: Dazzling Sunset (40 DB/WP)
Guardian: Current: Maori King (27 WP/DB)
[ QUOTE ]
What is it that you disagree with about on being penalized for soloing now? Most guides and the manual clearly state that only 1 AT is designed for soloing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Being pigeonholed into a single AT sucks, no matter what the manual says. Different ATs and powersets provide the only replayability the game has. (Admittedly, they are trying to change this by providing "too much content" for one character.)
[ QUOTE ]
Do you actually think we should be encouraged to solo the 4 Support builds too?
[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. Why shouldn't a Controller be able to solo, aside from "the manual says so"?
[ QUOTE ]
If things are going to change, then why not demmand some new changes that benefit ALL of our playstyles instead of demmanding a return to the same old crusty stuff we've already done way too much of.
[/ QUOTE ]
Because one is much more likely to happen in the short term than the other, and if I have to wait 3-6 months, I'd rather it be for the additional mission styles than to be able to do missions with my main again?
My characters at Virtueverse
Faces of the City
The problem with the new bosses isn't restricted to solo play. It affects all aspects of the game. Groups are more restricted in levels to include, and sidekicking is being turned into a rediculous feature.
Imagine being a -2 hero joining a group. You will be popping inspirations like mad and praying you don't get looked at funny by the many bosses that show up in group missions. I see group formation becoming more restrictive because of this. Why include a -2 tank in the group? The first boss he agro's will slap him to the dirt before we blink.
Sidekicking only guarantees that we'll have members that are at least -1. If your sidekick is over 10 levels below you, you'll be including a -2 hero in your group. The over 26 level difference break is now a joke. There's no reason to sk anyone into your group that will be -3 effective levels. They'll just be adding more bosses for the rest of the group to deal with.
boss = 1.5 heroes (but)
boss attack = .8 of a hero (not quite 1-shot kill but a close approximation to what I've seen)
2 shots= 1.6 heroes turfing it
I've yet to see an even-level boss being killed by 2 hits from any two heroes. These numbers don't quite add up. I'd actually like to see how many shots it takes to kill an even level boss. I'd bet that it would take around 4 heroes all firing to 2-shot any even-level boss.
This isn't hard values, but it's definitely what I've perceived in game. I'd be currious to see some of the more statistically inclined fix my generalizations with more hard numbers...
States ..perhaps you should have a weapon/trap/or trick to defeat the boss in solo missions .. a temporary power that can really help out the soloer ..... in ole pen and paper getting a foe to run away or abandon his/her task was consider a win.........
ArchRex Dojhrom x ?
* Sidus Loricatus: B-NRG2, S-BS/Reg, T-Fire/Ice, MM-Bots/FF, St-NRG2, Dom-Psi/NRG, Cor-Son/Traps, Cor-Ice/Kin, Ctrl-Fire/Kin, PB-LB/LA
* Arachnos Loricatus: Soldier, Widow
* Praetoria Loricatus: B-DP/Dev, Cor-Elec/Elec
[ QUOTE ]
That lost mission has been that way, I think Torrynt was just observing an example of the problem of multiple bosses in many missions.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was. It was tough enough at 11 and frankly impossible without help. I can't imagine it at 25+ with the boss improvements. However, I was posting more to show that bosses tend to crop up in many missions. That was just the latest one that I ran into.
Good points.
Lothart, if you don't mind, I'm going to reply to your PM in this post.
Answering my question of why Statesman and his gang felt it necessary to up the boss-damage, you replied that the game was getting too easy for many people and thus they'd run out of content in the high-end game.
Seems to me that the obvious solution then would be: make more content! NOT make the game harder and thereby excluding many ATs and builds from even getting to the high-end game.
I realize that making more content would mean to create more missions, zones, what have you. But, that doesn't have to be the case. One of the problems, as I see it, is the fact that one outlevels contacts. Perhaps the devs could make it so that a hero can NEVER outlevel his contacts. At 31 (scrapper) I have yet to run out of content. In fact, at the pace I'm going, and having done a lot of teaming over the past few weeks, I can only conclude I am actually SWAMPED with stuff to do, rather than running out of them. Right now, I have 6 (that's SIX) contacts I haven't even seen yet, because I'm still doing missions for old contacts! The other day I was doing a mission in Skyway with a team. We kind of messed up in the first room and all died a painful death. Upon going back to the mission from the hospital, I made a little detour to one of my contacts there to stock up on inspirations. I checked my map to see who was closest: Carla Brunelli. I went to see her, and lo and behold, she GAVE ME A MISSION! A level 15/16 Clockwork story arc I never finished, simply because I had too much stuff to do. I did two of her missions last night. Breezed through them in less than five minutes, since everything in the missions was level 15/16.
If the dev-team could somehow by-pass the outlevelling of contacts, one would always have stuff to do. Ran out of missions from new contacts? Go see an old contact to check if there's anything you've missed.
Seems like a better solution to the problem of running out of content.
For the record: I do understand the problem, and thank you for clarifying. I just think the way they dealt with this is not the right way.
[ QUOTE ]
What is it that you disagree with about on being penalized for soloing now? Most guides and the manual clearly state that only 1 AT is designed for soloing.
[/ QUOTE ]
People don't buy a game on the basis of the manual, which they can't see until they've actually bought the game. For that matter, people don't buy a game on the basis of what they see on the box. People buy games based on word of mouth and reviews. If they want to check things out further, they look on the forums for the game and see the kinds of experiences that people are reporting. This is particularly true of MMOGs, because of the dynamic nature of the games; everyone is aware that the documentation frequently bears only a passing resemblance to the actual live state of the game.
By all the reviews, word of mouth, and forum posts from the time the game was released up until I3 went up on the test servers, City of Heroes was an extremely solo-friendly game. The forums are, in fact, full of posts that tell you how much people solo, and how to make a good solo build -- indeed, it is far harder to find team-oriented builds in forum guides than it is to find solo ones.
Many people pay for their subscription in three-month chunks, or a year at a time. The folks who want or need to play solo a goodly amount of the time probably were attracted to the game by the fact that it was quite reasonable to solo all of the ATs, given the right build. They, fairly realistically, expect that the type of gameplay they enjoy doing will remain the type of gameplay that they continue to have access to throughout their subscription period. We're not talking about fringe styles of play here, either -- soloing a fairly squishy type is extremely commonplace, especially since a large percentage of the player base probably makes characters of each AT to try out the game in different ways. Limiting the solo game to strictly scrappers (and there are certainly some scrappers who have problems with the new bosses, regardless) means further harming CoH's already somewhat limited current depth -- and doing so unnecessarily.
I have been suggesting this kind of content that Benefits all ATs for awhile but few people want new content unless they can be joined at the hip with someone. Sorry I shouldn't say "few people", I should say half the people that responded to my Teamo, Solo, Water polo post.
As to Kali commenting on the guy who flamed me for no apparent reason he was totally off base.
This game was marketed as solo friendly. People bought the game thinking the goal and direction of the game was a solo friendly MMO. Slowly changes started happening in the game that encouraged grouping. I make a few posts saying what the intent of the design team is and express my dislike for there view and get flamed by people who don't know grinding for xp from Solo content. Some people think grinding is Solo content.
In my opinion most of the people who say if you play in an MMO you should expect to team are the worst Teammates because they have preconcieved notions of how an MMO team should work. They know their cookie cutter play style through and through and they don't want to change it. In my opinion the MMO=Teaming attitude is more of a hindrance than a benefit to this game.
Some people just don't understand how both styles of gameplay can be fun at different times regardless of AT. Sometimes I want to take that controller out and feel like a friggin hero without a team and before I am level 32. Sometimes I am looking for people to play with.
The current system is just another forced group (encouraged teaming with no viable option) MMO waiting to happen. 3 white minions = one hero at all levels is a concept that needs to be deep sixed.
Minions are minions are minions and it does not matter what level they are. They would like to give minions more powers and give LTs more powers as the levels increase to make it seem like you are fighting more powerfull minions. In my opinion that takes away the concept of the minion.
Minions you fight at level 50 could just as easily been bosses at level 30. Someone will say that that is the point. You are progressing to the point that something with powers at lower levels that you would consider a boss is now a minion to you.
Problem is it makes no sense story wise. It makes sense balance wise but storywise it blows goats.
Wow, I could just go on and on why the design currently stinks to high heaven and how some of Kali's thoughts on how conning should work give a more heroic feel to the game but no one has probably made it this far down the post anyway.
You know if Statesman wanted to encourage grouping he could have contacts give out cell numbers faster. That would allow people more flexibility in choosing missions amongst teammembers and would encourage grouping. If contacts gave you their number after the first time you talked to them that would be great and greatly improve life in Paragon.
Oh, well I guess you could do the boss thing too but I think the above is a step in the right direction.
[ QUOTE ]
City of Heroes was an extremely solo-friendly game.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's also always been more Group-Friendly than most games too. ...The problem of course being that Soloing has been much more convenient and more rewarding in general over Grouping...and definitely unchallenging to most skilled or experienced players who prepared for it.
We can argue all day whether it should continue to allow easy soloing, especially since they underestimated the dominance of Offense in this game allowing it to be the primary determining factor in soloability from 1-40 game. And everyone can scream at the top of their lungs that they don't want to be limtied to only 1 AT for easy soloing. ...but the entire game is still very young and wasn't even reflecting the original vision it's designer's held.
Now think of it this way... You have preconcieved notions too... for your heroes. They're your intellectual property, your fantasy, your dream and you Own 'em. And it doesn't seem fair to you if someone put limitations on them that break that functionality you had preconcieved. ....Well the Designers have their plans and they had it before you subscribed to this game. And they're leveling it up now, taking it through it's class-defining revalations, adding new powers they really want for it at the cost of sacrificing other powers that might have been what someone else wanted instead... Infact they might even be respecifying out those powers that someone else really wanted, but if it's getting them closer to THEIR concept, their fantasy and dream, then that's all that should matter since it's THEIR hero. ...And if they come to find out they don't like where they've ended up later, they can try that other direction. ...but before they can fully make that decision, they have to combine SEVERAL changes that might be a gamble or might not be what someone else would take. It's like anything built from the ground up, it's going to require a few leaps of faith because that hindsight was 20/20, even for the Veteran critics like yourself and me.
[ QUOTE ]
wasn't even reflecting the original vision it's designer's held.
[/ QUOTE ]
But the problem with the 'Vision'(tm) is that you are not selling a burger or a car or a snack bar. It's a world *dictated* by it's players and not by it's creators. Every company in the world does market research on what it's customers want, why should NCSoft be any different.
"Hey, people are buying our chocolate nut bar in droves. But a few people are spitting out the nuts and eating the chocolate."
"Well, make the nuts BIGGER then, so they can't eat around them."
"But they're still buying the bars.. and it's not affecting the guys who *do* eat the nuts?"
"So, I want *everyone* to eat the nuts, or not at all".
It should be *guided* by the devs, but seeing as everyone is a paying customer what the players want should be what the players get, not what the devs think they want. If Statesman is making the perfect game for him, great.. he can go off and code it and play it alone in his bedroom, however he is making a game for me, you and the thousands of other players here.
So far we have over 40 pages of literate, intelligent 'This change is the worst desicion ever, why not do it this way?' replies, he has had inordinate feedback explaining why people do not like this change, what it does and doesn't affect and concern that forced grouping is going to be *real* bad for the game. This is real, raw evolution of the game right here, not in a developers head. I'm sure if they said "Hey, let's have a level 60 monster smash through city hall every 2 mins and only the players who could get away in time get to keep their characters!", then I'm sure the same amount of people would absolutely love the idea as have admitted their appreciation for the boss changes. It's the nature of people.
At the end of the day, yes Hindsight is always 20/20 and right now, by revising the Vision(tm) of having forced teaming, hopefully they won't have to look back at all the people they lost who came here because the soloing is so good. Here's some food for thought:
If I could solo every Archetype to 50, I *would* solo every Archetype to 50 for the experience of playing all the fantastic character types. I would spend more time online, and that's more money for NCSoft. As is stands now, I'll end up soloing my one 'uber' character to 50 and then likely quit.. that's less money for NCSoft. They just need to do the maths.
Major difference _iLr_. The developers, in managing their hero (the game design/software), aren't paying $15 a month for the experience, we are. And perhaps to them it is not a business but you'd better believe that to Cryptic's and NCSoft's bottom line it is. NCSoft and/or Cryptic didn't pay for the development, promotion and distribution of the game primarily as a work of art (though I think in some ways it is artful and the devs are passionate about it), the suits paid for the existence of this game as a revenue generating proposition and if a specific change threatens to alienate and lose a significant portion of subscribers, they will care more for that than any artistic sensibilities.
All we are saying, fundamentally, is there used to be a meaningful choice for either soloing or grouping in the game and now with the boss buff there isn't. The slider gives your play preference a choice to toughen things up but many of us who like to frequently solo no longer have a choice. To continue we HAVE to group whether it fits our RL logistics or preferences or not. That's the source of the beef. Let both sides have the choice to play as they will.
[ QUOTE ]
I got a question for ya Kali, since you're making such a "strong" showing here on the point....
[/ QUOTE ]
I really don't have time or sympathy for people who start going off about how it's a "multiplayer game" so we should be willing to deal with being forced to "team up." The manual and the devs do not berate people for wanting to solo and for missing the point of the game, after all.
I have no idea what your comments about arrogance and humble roles relate to, but I do recall you once saying that people who prefer to solo are mentally unstable... Should I take your comments in that light?
My interest is in the game being fun, and the new bosses are only fun for some people - not coincidentally, the people playing builds that are already optimized for soloing.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
[ QUOTE ]
If things are going to change, then why not demmand some new changes that benefit ALL of our playstyles instead of demmanding a return to the same old crusty stuff we've already done way too much of.
[/ QUOTE ]
For what it's worth, I never championed the way things have been as being the best way for them to be. I have indicated the game is too easy from 25+, and I have indicated that I liked the addition of +1 enemies in missions from 25+, and wish they hadn't also appeared before 25. I have also indicated that I don't feel that the bosses accomplish what the devs wanted - people who could solo bosses before still can, and people who had trouble are mostly out of luck.
Right now, bosses are not significantly harder for my DM/DA scrapper to deal with than they were before issue 3, but it's so much fun watching my teammates who happen to be controllers, defenders, and blasters get one-shotted from sheer bad luck.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
I'll admit I haven't read all the pages of this thread ... too tired but I did want to throw my opinion in with the rest.
I do like the new boss changes, solo or teamed it adds a dangerous quality to teaming that was lacking before. Without the threat of death I am one of the ones that got quickly bored.
I regularly team up with a Defender and we are always saying how even on "invincibility" mode the missions are too easy. We actually get happy when there are a couple bosses next to each other in our missions.
Anyway these are just my opinions,
Jolly Green Giant
Grey Gargoyle
I thought the boss changes were only for lvl 25 and over and the lower lvl ones remained unchanged?
My low level alts (of which there are an almost infinite number) haven't really noticed any difference in bosses as yet.