[Sept 18] Difficulty and Level Progression

"

wyldmage wrote:

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.

But if the default option is just made harder it will alienate some new players and others who will find it too hard.

Options ftw I say.

"

wyldmage wrote:

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.

Segretating competetive and non-competetive players is not the same as segregating good players and not-so-good players.

If there was only one difficulty then the "The pro player" would "face trivial content" or the "not-so-good player" would "probably die". If the difficilty jump has to be massive to be approprietly challenging for the pro player then they can never be approprietly challenged by the same difficulty and this would inevitable.

I can see it leading to "good players playing with other good players" and "not-so-good players playing with other not-so-good players". But why is that bad?
I dunno about you, but I prefer to play with people who are about equally skilled and experienced (and geared) as I am. Then I don't feel obsolete and/or useless, and I'm not carrying people.

"

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.

I can argue for it. You have a smaller group of people with more similar preferences to balance for. That makes it easier.

Everything requires work by the devs.

"

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.

Yes, they pop up as a consequence of inadequate challenge when people have become bored of the trivial content.
But it's really nothing more than a band aid.

"

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.

Alot of people want the game to be harder.
Yes, I want to play the game as intended, and still be able to find challenge in it. I don't want to sacrifice what I love about RPGs in the first place just so I can play a non-trivial game.

And the fact remains, ALOT of people complain about games being to easy. If your band-aid solution really was so good we would never see that.

"

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.

Is there really a difference between "players who do best" and "best players"?
Players who do best wins in either system.

"

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.

My point is that the people who are best in the current difficulty would also be the one who are best in a harder difficulty. If people who would not be good enough to play on the harder difficulty can beat the players that are good enough for that then there is something wrong with the competition in the first place.

"

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?

It is unrelated to the current difficulty system! But it's still a difficulty system, so why shouldn't it be discussed here?

It fixes a shortcoming of the game, one you identified as: "The game isn't hard enough (or easy enough)", that's why they should implement it.

"

Sickness wrote:

Options ftw I say.

Except it isn't an option.
It is a "worse players do this, better players do this".
At that point, you might as well just make a seperate league for it. You could call one the default league, and the other the pro league.

"

Sickness wrote:

Segretating competetive and non-competetive players is not the same as segregating good players and not-so-good players.

If there was only one difficulty then the "The pro player" would "face trivial content" or the "not-so-good player" would "probably die". If the difficilty jump has to be massive to be approprietly challenging for the pro player then they can never be approprietly challenged by the same difficulty and this would inevitable.

This is wrong. A player who is used to the game ("Pro player") can play through the game and it is reasonably close in challenge as it would be if he was a total newb. The major factor in determing difficulty is loot luck.
If you have these 2 players play through the game for half an act, then group up, they will be reasonably close in power level.
By creating a higher-reward category for the pro player, he will be more powerful after the same amount of progression, which is why the "normal" content would then be trivial. Not because it would have been trivial to him at level 1.

"

Sickness wrote:

I can see it leading to "good players playing with other good players" and "not-so-good players playing with other not-so-good players". But why is that bad?
I dunno about you, but I prefer to play with people who are about equally skilled and experienced (and geared) as I am. Then I don't feel obsolete and/or useless, and I'm not carrying people.

I spend a decent chunk of time in-game helping people. And if I'm a similar level, I still benefit from loot and xp.
If I had been playing on Improved difficulty, I would have to group up with people who were far ahead of me in progression to get drops and xp (and since I'm not progressed that far, I would be unable to assist them).
Good players already group up with good players. It just takes them some time to figure out who is good and who isn't. Your system may increase the speed with which that determination can be made, but it would come at the high cost of creating a play-barrier between the two skill levels.

"

Sickness wrote:

I can argue for it. You have a smaller group of people with more similar preferences to balance for. That makes it easier.

Everything requires work by the devs.

No - you are still balancing the same amount of content.
There are still 2 acts.
There are still 5 classes.
There are still 4 difficulties.
The skill forest is the same.
The skill gems are the same.
The gear and mods available at any given level are the same.
Thus, the actual balancing work is the same.

"

Sickness wrote:

Yes, they pop up as a consequence of inadequate challenge when people have become bored of the trivial content.
But it's really nothing more than a band aid.

Inadequate challenge? Really?
Civilization!
Try beating that game on the hardest difficulty. Then realize that people invented the "one city" rule to enjoy a different/harder play style.
Other people decided to play the game with all enemies teamed up against them (but at a lower challenge level).
These "mods" are created because people want to customize the challenge, not because the company fails to make a game that can beat you up.

"

Sickness wrote:

Alot of people want the game to be harder.
Yes, I want to play the game as intended, and still be able to find challenge in it. I don't want to sacrifice what I love about RPGs in the first place just so I can play a non-trivial game.

And the fact remains, ALOT of people complain about games being to easy. If your band-aid solution really was so good we would never see that.

Find some more people, here in PoE, who agree with you, and get them to post in this thread.

"

Sickness wrote:

Is there really a difference between "players who do best" and "best players"?
Players who do best wins in either system.

Yes there is. The key here though is that for ladder races you MUST play on the higher difficulty. If you don't, you lose. Period. No chance.
That right there means that the ladder is changed.

"

Sickness wrote:

My point is that the people who are best in the current difficulty would also be the one who are best in a harder difficulty. If people who would not be good enough to play on the harder difficulty can beat the players that are good enough for that then there is something wrong with the competition in the first place.

No there isn't. Its because it is an equal playing field, and often times the margin of difference is tiny. When the Olympics happen, do we just give the Gold Medal to the athlete who holds the current world record? Or do we let them all compete to see who does the best? Sometimes someone who is a nobody in the world scheme wins a medal, defeating people who hold multiple records.

"

Sickness wrote:

It is unrelated to the current difficulty system! But it's still a difficulty system, so why shouldn't it be discussed here?

It fixes a shortcoming of the game, one you identified as: "The game isn't hard enough (or easy enough)", that's why they should implement it.

I disagree that it fixes anything. It creates more problems than it fixes.

"

wyldmage wrote:

Except it isn't an option.
It is a "worse players do this, better players do this".
At that point, you might as well just make a seperate league for it. You could call one the default league, and the other the pro league.

That is still an option.
It's problematic to create a seperate league for it unless you can transfer your characters from the normal difficulty leage to the pro difficulty league.

"

wyldmage wrote:

This is wrong. A player who is used to the game ("Pro player") can play through the game and it is reasonably close in challenge as it would be if he was a total newb. The major factor in determing difficulty is loot luck.
If you have these 2 players play through the game for half an act, then group up, they will be reasonably close in power level.

That analysis is wrong, and completely ignores "twinking".
The difference between a new player and an old player is often huge.

"

wyldmage wrote:

By creating a higher-reward category for the pro player, he will be more powerful after the same amount of progression, which is why the "normal" content would then be trivial. Not because it would have been trivial to him at level 1.

If you think that the extra reward from the higher difficulty would make normal content go from approrietly challenging to trivial then we are thinking compleltely different bonuses.
I am just thinking some extra item quantity.

"

wyldmage wrote:

Good players already group up with good players. It just takes them some time to figure out who is good and who isn't. Your system may increase the speed with which that determination can be made, but it would come at the high cost of creating a play-barrier between the two skill levels.

That "play-barrier" is not a negaive thing IMO.

"

wyldmage wrote:

No - you are still balancing the same amount of content.
There are still 2 acts.
There are still 5 classes.
There are still 4 difficulties.
The skill forest is the same.
The skill gems are the same.
The gear and mods available at any given level are the same.
Thus, the actual balancing work is the same.

Yeah, the same things to balance, but the hard part of balancing is not changing the numbers, it's to know what numbers to use. If target group for your balancing is more homogeneous it becomes easier to come up with that.

"

wyldmage wrote:

Inadequate challenge? Really?
Civilization!
Try beating that game on the hardest difficulty. Then realize that people invented the "one city" rule to enjoy a different/harder play style.
Other people decided to play the game with all enemies teamed up against them (but at a lower challenge level).
These "mods" are created because people want to customize the challenge, not because the company fails to make a game that can beat you up.

If people create rules to make the game harder it's because the game is not hard enough for them without those rules. I.E. Inadequate challenge. That is just following logic.

"

wyldmage wrote:

Yes there is. The key here though is that for ladder races you MUST play on the higher difficulty. If you don't, you lose. Period. No chance.
That right there means that the ladder is changed.

I don't see the difference, but I guess "players who do best" is what I mean.

The dynamics of the ladder doesn't change, the "players who do best" still win.

"

wyldmage wrote:

No there isn't. Its because it is an equal playing field, and often times the margin of difference is tiny. When the Olympics happen, do we just give the Gold Medal to the athlete who holds the current world record? Or do we let them all compete to see who does the best? Sometimes someone who is a nobody in the world scheme wins a medal, defeating people who hold multiple records.

You are completely missing my point: If a player is not good enough to play on the hard difficulty, then he is not good enough to compete with the players who can! Players who can play on the hard difficulty will also do better on the normal difficulty.

Just because someone who is a nobody in the world scheme wins a medal, doesn't mean he doesn't do better than the ones he beat. If he didn't, he wouldn't have won in the frist place!

"

wyldmage wrote:

I disagree that it fixes anything. It creates more problems than it fixes.

I disagree.

I just read that sickness said that he is willing to listen.
I started laughing until my ears started smoking.
There arent any bullier bullheads around than you, your self evaluation is pretty bad.

"

gh0un wrote:

I just read that sickness said that he is willing to listen.
I started laughing until my ears started smoking.
There arent any bullier bullheads around than you, your self evaluation is pretty bad.

"

Sickness wrote:

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.

It also "sucks" to play without equipment, or even without any weapon at all, and nevertheless its all tried by some (crazy) people... (that owns a very special definition of fun) ^^

"

Sickness wrote:

Who will be the winners now? The best players.
Who will be the winners in my proposed system? The best players.

Competition is not all about win, it also take place in lower dimensions - to get into the ranking at all, to get into the top-100, to be better than your friend or neighbour... you always have possibilities to set a goal, and you should havve a chance to reach it.

This is the core part of the problem which is mainly deranged by comparing (two) different reward setting in a shared ranking.

That I never reached even a top-10 ranking in a D2 ladder (and never will do so), doesnt mean I have no interest in my position or ongoing.

"

Sickness wrote:

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.

Failed, I'd say: the current setting has to be/become balanced too, or the extra balancing of your prpposed is useless; you could not set a well working balance upon a non-balanced one.

"

Mustang13 wrote:

i reg August 21, 2011 1:39 PM :( pls send me key

so you thought posting your shit under one of the most read thread assuming you will get a one ? Even if one has any extra key, after your message I've doubts anyone would ever want to send it to you.

"

Sickness wrote:

That "play-barrier" is not a negaive thing IMO.

You said a lot of crap, but this one takes you definitivly out.

The only "barrier" should be (only can be in a fair competition), the players abilities (skill, luck, effordable time...)

How broad, would you suggest, should this barrier be? maybe covering the whole average players?!

I, counting me to this average group, would never accept this - it would mean I were in the "top" of the loosers, "top" in a meaningless competition, and, if scaled on your perception, without any chance on the "real meaning" side.

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

It also "sucks" to play without equipment, or even without any weapon at all, and nevertheless its all tried by some (crazy) people... (that owns a very special definition of fun) ^^

Yeah, some people do stuff like that to be challenged. That doesn't mean the game should be balanced expecting that people will do stuff like that.

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

Competition is not all about win, it also take place in lower dimensions - to get into the ranking at all, to get into the top-100, to be better than your friend or neighbour... you always have possibilities to set a goal, and you should havve a chance to reach it.

This is the core part of the problem which is mainly deranged by comparing (two) different reward setting in a shared ranking.

That I never reached even a top-10 ranking in a D2 ladder (and never will do so), doesnt mean I have no interest in my position or ongoing.

But the ladder results WILL NOT CHANGE. Your place relative to others will not change just because there is a second difficulty. If your friend or neighbor is good enough to run on the harder difficulty but you aren't, then they would have beaten you anyways!

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

Failed, I'd say: the current setting has to be/become balanced too, or the extra balancing of your prpposed is useless; you could not set a well working balance upon a non-balanced one.

Yeah, the same things to balance, but the hard part of balancing is not changing the numbers, it's to know what numbers to use. If target group for your balancing is more homogeneous it becomes easier to come up with that.

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

The only "barrier" should be (only can be in a fair competition), the players abilities (skill, luck, effordable time...)

And that is exactly what it is!

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

I, counting me to this average group, would never accept this - it would mean I were in the "top" of the loosers, "top" in a meaningless competition, and, if scaled on your perception, without any chance on the "real meaning" side.

Again, if you are average you will end up in the middle of the ladder in any scenario. That's the definiton.