"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
"
GeorgAnatoly wrote:
This could easily be countered with a MF penalty to the easier settings.
But then someone just breaks out the spreadsheets and figures out exactly at which breakpoints which difficulty levels give which players the most MF. It's actually just pure, raw math.
For example, check out my work from back in the day with 1.05 Monster Power in Diablo 3. The TL;DR is that if I watch what percentage of the time you move compared to the percentage of time you DPS, I can scientifically tell you which of those (old) Monster Power levels you'll farm best in.
And such a thing is irrelevant to the QoL for the noob. If you only had 3 total difficulty option, one easier, normal, one harder then it would be easy to mathematically make the easier difficulty generally equivalent over time, or maybe a little less so, to the normal difficulty. The harder difficulty would have a mf bonus that could easily be mathematically superior like you've described above but the catch is your character would have to over come some threshold of power/efficiency to make that true.
|
Posted byGeorgAnatoly#4189on May 29, 2014, 8:09:42 PM
|
|
The point is that it's too easy to min/max. You need to spice things up a bit — for example, changing all the math from one map run to another.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
|
Posted byScrotieMcB#2697on May 29, 2014, 8:23:11 PM
|
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
The point is that it's too easy to min/max. You need to spice things up a bit — for example, changing all the math from one map run to another.
I understand. And there shouldn't be a wild degree of that but some is allowable. I just feel like maybe you're making an assumption that it would be too easy to min/max. But then again finding the appropriate maths involved in leveling or farming or whatever for your build is part of the game as well and so is it expected to some degree for the player to figure those things out. Think to some of the videos Kripp did where he did the maths on what the most efficient map levels for a given level was (were?). It wouldn't have mattered if there were a difficulty system in place he still would have found those maths.
|
Posted byGeorgAnatoly#4189on May 29, 2014, 8:35:44 PM
|
"
GeorgAnatoly wrote:
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
The point is that it's too easy to min/max. You need to spice things up a bit — for example, changing all the math from one map run to another.
I understand. And there shouldn't be a wild degree of that but some is allowable. I just feel like maybe you're making an assumption that it would be too easy to min/max. But then again finding the appropriate maths involved in leveling or farming or whatever for your build is part of the game as well and so is it expected to some degree for the player to figure those things out. Think to some of the videos Kripp did where he did the maths on what the most efficient map levels for a given level was (were?). It wouldn't have mattered if there were a difficulty system in place he still would have found those maths.
As an example, in d3, you play the easiest highest difficulty you can. You don't play the one you can do, but barely. The benefits are non existent. You play what is the most efficient. This is the problem with difficulty sliders, and why I'm against them being implemented with anything *easier than how it is now*
|
Posted bySL4Y3R#7487on May 29, 2014, 8:48:39 PMBanned
|
"
SL4Y3R wrote:
As an example, in d3, you play the easiest highest difficulty you can. You don't play the one you can do, but barely. The benefits are non existent. You play what is the most efficient. This is the problem with difficulty sliders, and why I'm against them being implemented with anything *easier than how it is now*
SL4Y3R summoning tinko92 again :3 Let's see if he bites.
GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.
|
Posted byXavderion#3432on May 29, 2014, 8:51:27 PM
|
"
SL4Y3R wrote:
"
GeorgAnatoly wrote:
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
The point is that it's too easy to min/max. You need to spice things up a bit — for example, changing all the math from one map run to another.
I understand. And there shouldn't be a wild degree of that but some is allowable. I just feel like maybe you're making an assumption that it would be too easy to min/max. But then again finding the appropriate maths involved in leveling or farming or whatever for your build is part of the game as well and so is it expected to some degree for the player to figure those things out. Think to some of the videos Kripp did where he did the maths on what the most efficient map levels for a given level was (were?). It wouldn't have mattered if there were a difficulty system in place he still would have found those maths.
As an example, in d3, you play the easiest highest difficulty you can. You don't play the one you can do, but barely. The benefits are non existent. You play what is the most efficient. This is the problem with difficulty sliders, and why I'm against them being implemented with anything *easier than how it is now*
It's not like the logic is any different when the lowest difficulty is the same as the difficulty now. What you'd see is more fine-tuned min/max difficulty slider and less RNG difficulty slider... by which I mean blue, or perhaps even white, map runs would be even more commonplace than they are now.
It's a shit system regardless of where you zero it.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on May 29, 2014, 8:58:56 PM
|
Posted byScrotieMcB#2697on May 29, 2014, 8:58:36 PM
|
|
Hmm. I hadn't thought about that. But isn't this similar to how grouping is now? Meaning the more players you have, the less MF you're required to have?
|
Posted bySL4Y3R#7487on May 29, 2014, 9:22:02 PMBanned
|
"
SL4Y3R wrote:
Hmm. I hadn't thought about that. But isn't this similar to how grouping is now? Meaning the more players you have, the less MF you're required to have?
This is why I feel a difficulty slider should only apply to solo play. Also so it wouldn't split up the community.
|
Posted byGeorgAnatoly#4189on May 29, 2014, 9:27:10 PM
|
"
GeorgAnatoly wrote:
"
SL4Y3R wrote:
Hmm. I hadn't thought about that. But isn't this similar to how grouping is now? Meaning the more players you have, the less MF you're required to have?
This is why I feel a difficulty slider should only apply to solo play. Also so it wouldn't split up the community.
Solo play doesn't matter. He brings up a very good point in regards to maps that I haven't considered before. Making the difficulty max, but running white maps could drop better stuff than difficulty 0 with hard map mods.
+1 Scrotie
|
Posted bySL4Y3R#7487on May 29, 2014, 10:26:01 PMBanned
|
"
SL4Y3R wrote:
"
GeorgAnatoly wrote:
"
SL4Y3R wrote:
Hmm. I hadn't thought about that. But isn't this similar to how grouping is now? Meaning the more players you have, the less MF you're required to have?
This is why I feel a difficulty slider should only apply to solo play. Also so it wouldn't split up the community.
Solo play doesn't matter. He brings up a very good point in regards to maps that I haven't considered before. Making the difficulty max, but running white maps could drop better stuff than difficulty 0 with hard map mods.
+1 Scrotie
If this were going to be an issue it already would be right now. But again solo play matters to the noob which is who a difficulty slider should be aimed to help. And also the noob solo player doesn't care about maps.
|
Posted byGeorgAnatoly#4189on May 29, 2014, 10:33:02 PM
|
