[Sept 18] Difficulty and Level Progression

"

Sickness wrote:

"

Sarganym wrote:

Because it makes the game a lot more challenging and if you were playing more competitively you'd see that the challenge already exists and there isn't much need to tweak normal mode difficulty.

And I sure as hell hope someone as concerned with challenging play is playing hardcore in all of this.

I like how you ignore 90% of my post.


Again:"You shouldn't have to exploit or play a very specific way just to be able to be challenged."

I shouldn't have to suffer through your terrible, exploitable, oversighted difficulty implementation to enjoy the game I like.

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

"

Sickness wrote:

If a build makes the game harder, then it is by definition a worse build.

A build, which makes it harder to prove its viable (bow witch? only as named example), is an increased challenge by itself. If its not able tro prove, it may be worse; but to try should be the fun part of the game.

Even if you count this as a point pro respec :-D
a game with such an immense amount of free decisions cries just for trying and experimentation... and the more time you can offer, the more options and tries do you get as reward.

This guy gets it, what's so difficult for you to understand?

Sarganym, unlike you I AM willing to listen. But do you really expect me to change my mind by listening to people who didn't understand what I was saying in the first place?

Do you expect me to change my mind because there are a few very vocal trolls who only post to say how stupid I am?

Do you expect me to change my mind when you post logical fallacies and ignore 90% of what I say?

"

Sarganym wrote:

This guy gets it, what's so difficult for you to understand?

His post does not contradict anything I have said. I understand it, and I agree with it.

"

Sarganym wrote:

I shouldn't have to suffer through your terrible, exploitable, oversighted difficulty implementation to enjoy the game I like.

Winner argument right there.

Please just stop trolling.

"

Sarganym wrote:

You refuse to admit that your concept would work without buffing loot drops, why?

I have said that buffing loot is not neccesary!
I just don't think it's a bad thing to do. There is a huge difference between "only works with extra loot" and "better with extra loot".

Your side is claiming that if you buff loot, all the increased difficulity is nullified. I am just stating the obvious that it depends on how much the loot is buffed and how much the difficulty is increased.
Well, obvious to me anyways.

"

Sickness wrote:

"

Sarganym wrote:

You refuse to admit that your concept would work without buffing loot drops, why?

I have said that buffing loot is not neccesary!
I just don't think it's a bad thing to do. There is a huge difference between "only works with extra loot" and "better with extra loot".

Your side is claiming that if you buff loot, all the increased difficulity is nullified. I am just stating the obvious that it depends on how much the loot is buffed and how much the difficulty is increased.
Well, obvious to me anyways.

Sickness, why don't you, instead of arguing about how nobody understands what you mean, CLEARLY outline all the details that your plan would entail?

Because it sounds like what you want:
1) Retains current difficulty settings
2) Adds an alternate higher difficulty in all zones all difficulties.
3) Increases the rewards for playing on these higher difficulties.
4) Is available in every league.

If my understanding of that is correct:

It forces any competitive player to play at the higher difficulty.
It segregates competitive/non-competitive players who are otherwise at equal progression.
It requires additional balancing (to make sure loot/challenge remains relevant).
It provides no increase in challenge that cannot be carried out by simply playing a harder playstyle (I currently have a challenge up to play through Chaos without passives if someone else covers the Regrets, as a challenge and to prove that it is doable).
It doesn't solve the "leecher" conundrum, because people capable of playing the higher difficulty will just STILL add leeches to it for even MORE loot and rewards.
It completely changes the dynamics of ladder races, because the winners WILL be people who played the higher difficulty option without dieing. Therefore everyone has to play that difficulty if they want a chance at prizes.
It fails to solve any of the actual downsides of a repeated increasing-difficulty style game, because it not only keeps those difficulties in the game, but also doesn't compensate for any actual or perceived shortcomings except for "the game isn't hard enough".

"

wyldmage wrote:

It sounds like what you want:
1) Retains current difficulty settings
2) Adds an alternate higher difficulty in all zones all difficulties.
3) Increases the rewards for playing on these higher difficulties.
4) Is available in every league.

That is correct

"

wyldmage wrote:

If my understanding of that is correct:

It forces any competitive player to play at the higher difficulty.

By design, yes.

"

wyldmage wrote:

It segregates competitive/non-competitive players who are otherwise at equal progression.

Why? Just because you don't compete in the ladder doesn't mean you won't play on the harder difficulty setting.

"

wyldmage wrote:

It requires additional balancing (to make sure loot/challenge remains relevant).

Yes. But it's important to note that balancing a difficulty (well, there is only one) in the current system is harder than balancing a difficulty in the proposed system.

"

wyldmage wrote:

It provides no increase in challenge that cannot be carried out by simply playing a harder playstyle (I currently have a challenge up to play through Chaos without passives if someone else covers the Regrets, as a challenge and to prove that it is doable).

A harder playstyle might be mutually exclusive from your prefered playstyle.
Not spending any passive for example, that would suck! They are there for a reason, after all.

One can always argue that players should make the game difficult for themselves. But it is very flawed.

People generally want to make their builds strong, it's a core part of RPGs.
Balancing the difficulty by expecting players to tie their hand behind their back never works.
If it did, no one would ever complain that any game is too easy. But that's not the case is it?

"

wyldmage wrote:

It doesn't solve the "leecher" conundrum, because people capable of playing the higher difficulty will just STILL add leeches to it for even MORE loot and rewards.

You can't really fault a system for not solving a problem it was never intended to solve.

In anycase, if it was implemented as "/players x" then it would solve it.

"

wyldmage wrote:

It completely changes the dynamics of ladder races, because the winners WILL be people who played the higher difficulty option without dieing. Therefore everyone has to play that difficulty if they want a chance at prizes.

It doesn't change the dynamics of the ladder races at all. Think about it.
Who will be the winners now? The best players.
Who will be the winners in my proposed system? The best players.

I honestly don't see the problem.

"

wyldmage wrote:

It fails to solve any of the actual downsides of a repeated increasing-difficulty style game, because it not only keeps those difficulties in the game, but also doesn't compensate for any actual or perceived shortcomings except for "the game isn't hard enough".

Again, you can't fault a system for not solving a problem it was never intended to solve.

"The game isn't hard enough" (or easy enough) is a serious issue. If it solves that, then the drawbacks have to be pretty big for it to be a bad idea.


I appreciate the post.

"

Sickness wrote:

"

wyldmage wrote:

If my understanding of that is correct:
It forces any competitive player to play at the higher difficulty.

By design, yes.

You see this as acceptable. I do not. If you are going to add an "optional" system that is effectively required, then the default option should just be made harder.

"

Sickness wrote:

"

wyldmage wrote:

It segregates competitive/non-competitive players who are otherwise at equal progression.

Why? Just because you don't compete in the ladder doesn't mean you won't play on the harder difficulty setting.

Consider this:
Pro player plays through Act 1 until Brutus on increased difficulty.
Casual players plays the same zones on normal.
Casual player asks around looking for group. Grouping is pointless at this point because Pro Player would be facing trivial content, or Casual Player would be facing such a massive difficulty jump that they probably would just die.
So the two groups become segregated during their play-throughs.

"

Sickness wrote:

"

wyldmage wrote:

It requires additional balancing (to make sure loot/challenge remains relevant).

Yes. But it's important to note that balancing a difficulty (well, there is only one) in the current system is harder than balancing a difficulty in the proposed system.

Prove it. Also, even if it *is* easier (which I disagree with), it still is MORE balancing to be done, which means more work, which means less other stuff getting worked on.

"

Sickness wrote:

"

wyldmage wrote:

It provides no increase in challenge that cannot be carried out by simply playing a harder playstyle (I currently have a challenge up to play through Chaos without passives if someone else covers the Regrets, as a challenge and to prove that it is doable).

A harder playstyle might be mutually exclusive from your prefered playstyle.
Not spending any passive for example, that would suck! They are there for a reason, after all.

One can always argue that players should make the game difficult for themselves. But it is very flawed.

People generally want to make their builds strong, it's a core part of RPGs.
Balancing the difficulty by expecting players to tie their hand behind their back never works.
If it did, no one would ever complain that any game is too easy. But that's not the case is it?

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it flawed. It is a common "game mode" in tons of games. Just go to gamefaqs and you will see many examples of self-limiting play styles that people adopt.

It can and does work. And the game is already balanced around the expected power level. So if you are breezing through it, that is because you have a good build and good loot. Rejoice in it. If you are one of half a percent of players that want a harder game, the options are available to you to make the game more challenging. You just refuse to take them, and want other options created.

"

Sickness wrote:

"

wyldmage wrote:

It completely changes the dynamics of ladder races, because the winners WILL be people who played the higher difficulty option without dieing. Therefore everyone has to play that difficulty if they want a chance at prizes.

It doesn't change the dynamics of the ladder races at all. Think about it.
Who will be the winners now? The best players.
Who will be the winners in my proposed system? The best players.

I honestly don't see the problem.

Right now, a player new to ladder races can play at the base difficulty and do well. I played with 3 friends, and we finished in 7th, 8th and woulda-been-6th-if-he-didn't-die places. First ladder race I'd done. So no, the "best" players don't always win. Normal players can win too. They just do the best that time.
But my point is that currently, everyone in the ladder operates on an even playing field. You have to fight or run through the same zones on the same difficulties. You have the same loot probabilities.
With your system, there would be a 2nd higher-tier ladder race being ran at the same time. It would offer increased risk, but with increased reward. Which means that EVERYONE who wanted to win would have to play on that mode.
Which changes the entire dynamic of that ladder race. It isn't about who wins. It is about who CAN win.

"

Sickness wrote:

"

wyldmage wrote:

It fails to solve any of the actual downsides of a repeated increasing-difficulty style game, because it not only keeps those difficulties in the game, but also doesn't compensate for any actual or perceived shortcomings except for "the game isn't hard enough".

Again, you can't fault a system for not solving a problem it was never intended to solve.

"The game isn't hard enough" (or easy enough) is a serious issue. If it solves that, then the drawbacks have to be pretty big for it to be a bad idea.

I appreciate the post.

If it isn't intended to fix any of the shortcomings of the current difficulty setting, then WHY IMPLEMENT IT? And why discuss it in the "difficulty and progression" thread?

"

Sickness wrote:

Sarganym, unlike you I AM willing to listen. But do you really expect me to change my mind by listening to people who didn't understand what I was saying in the first place?

Do you expect me to change my mind because there are a few very vocal trolls who only post to say how stupid I am?

Do you expect me to change my mind when you post logical fallacies and ignore 90% of what I say?

What I expect, is for you to be able to take into some consideration what others are saying.

What I expect, is for your to understand that this forum is not your soapbox.

What I expect, is that we can use these forums to have amicable conversation, but pages 4-14 of this particular thread have been nothing but constant bickering and back and forth flaming, because you so vehemently will not accept anyone's alterations or speculation with regard to your idea as viable.