[Sept 18] Difficulty and Level Progression

"

Sickness wrote:

"

overpowdered wrote:

You realy don't get it??

More loot ->Easier Game ->Less Effort
->YOU don't DESERVE the loot because the game is NOT HARD.

No, it's you who don't get it.

More loot makes the game easier.
Harder mobs makes the game harder.

So, you want a "harder" game mode.
That drops more loot that counters how hard it is.
So its not any harder overall.
Just more work for the developers.

Count the number of your posts in this thread, versus whoever has the 2nd most, and versus the total.
I don't think you'll get that hint, so here it is clearly again.

Nobody agrees with you.
You are arguing with everyone.
You are spamming the thread.
Your argument is full of holes you refuse to acknowledge.
PLEASE, just stop.

"

Sarganym wrote:

Si.

If you want the game to be harder play a harder build, just sayin. Don't use a jackhammer when a hammer works just fine.

That is a really bad way to deal with difficulty. People generally don't like to have to tie one hand behind their back when they play just to be challanged.
People love to min/max and come up with new and better builds.

"

Sarganym wrote:

Also I'm not sure how you think hardmode = /players x mode. One would TOTALLY segregate play, and if a hardmode were to be implemented, it'd be in an overarching LEAGUE (Thus segregating play) not determined at every instance doorway.

What I am proposing is pretty much exactly like /players X mode.
You seem to have some preconceived notion of what "hardmode" is, and that is your problem.
You can't put your own meaning to my words and then base your arguments on that.

So if you think of my suggestion as a "/players x" type of system you'll see that there is no logical reason to think that they'd have to put in a seperate league.

"

Sarganym wrote:

Live with the fact that most of the people here disagree with you, if you can't understand why because you're too blind to your own zealous cause, then so be it.

I'm not blind all. The problem in this thread is that some people are attacking their own distorted view of what I am suggesting. You are not alone in this.

A few pages back someone said "/players x is good, but your suggestion is shit". But the fact is that what I am suggestion is just like a "/players x" system in every relevant aspect. That we are now talking about a "hardmode" comes from AN EXAMPLE I used of having a "normal" and a "hard" setting, directly comparable to /players 1 and /player 2.

"

Sarganym wrote:

Have you ever rushed? If you just blitz the hell out of quests you'll be 4-5 levels underleveled - Hard mode.

Being a better player means you know how to exploit the most out of being underlevelled and dealing with the high-risk high-reward play.

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

"

wyldmage wrote:

"

Sickness wrote:

"

overpowdered wrote:

You realy don't get it??

More loot ->Easier Game ->Less Effort
->YOU don't DESERVE the loot because the game is NOT HARD.

No, it's you who don't get it.

More loot makes the game easier.
Harder mobs makes the game harder.

So, you want a "harder" game mode.
That drops more loot that counters how hard it is.
So its not any harder overall.
Just more work for the developers.

Are you so desperate to argue against me that you pick out two lines from a paragraph and then make an argument that THE PART OF THE PARAGRAPH YOU IGNORED refutes?

Here it is again:
Those are controled varaibles that GGG can EASILY set to make sure that the extra loot does not reduce the difficulty more than the harder mobs is increasing the diffiuclity.


So you are strictly wrong, it is harder overall.

"

Sickness wrote:

Everyone who wants to be competetive will simply have to play on the harder difficulty, then they do play by the same rules, settings and same rewards.

And thats exactly what I (try to) say since the beginning of this discussion:

It will (would) make the 'normal' difficulty obsolete - cause this game, this system build up on experience and ladders, is ALL ABOUT to be competetive.

The same way, as you dont want to play alone with your own rules, nobody wants to play a meaningless league without competition (ok, nobody is a bit exaggerated - there will be people without interest in this, like the people who play non-ladder in D2 or simply total casuals, but this would be a very minority)

"

Sickness wrote:

Everyone is not competetive, so the "normal" difficulty would not be useless!

Yeah, the could serve as cannon fodder... ^^ (listfillers from the bottom of the ladder)

"

Sickness wrote:

Why can't you tell me why this is bad?

Cause you cant set up different rules in one shared league - part it or forget it.

"

Sickness wrote:

The "This is bad, I'm not gonna explain why but if you don't understand it you're an idiot. EOD" attitude is just ridiculous.

Ok, I was just tired from trying to explain me again and again...

"

Sarganym wrote:

It's either beanie-baby hard mode or get pwned in the arse hard mode.

Intentional or not, but that is a logical fallacy. A false dichotomy to be precise.

And I again ask you to drop your preconceived notion of what a "hard mode" is.

"

Sickness wrote:

People generally don't like to have to tie one hand behind their back when they play just to be challanged.

So they decide to face 4-handed foes instead? :-D
I can see no real difference between a play against harder enemies, and to play a weaker (or more challenging/more difficult to play) build.

"

Sickness wrote:

People love to min/max and come up with new and better builds.

People complain that they cant easiliy make new builds from scratch due respeccing... people tend to be lazy.

"

Sickness wrote:

What I am proposing is pretty much exactly like /players X mode.

And there were good reasons, still valid, to make this only be an option in single player. (or with multi account fake group play; adding your own mules)

"

Sickness wrote:

you'll see that there is no logical reason to think that they'd have to put in a seperate league.

One more time: The reward in loot has influences in the economy of such a league, and the reward in increased experience influences the competition/ladder system.
Different rewarded leagues cant be joined for this!

"

Sickness wrote:

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

Its not about ability, its just about possibility -
If there is an exploit, it will be used to own advantages (even if not "neccessary) by most (all?) of the players, so the only way to prevent this is to make sure there are as less exploitable situations in the game as possible.

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

And thats exactly what I (try to) say since the beginning of this discussion:

It will (would) make the 'normal' difficulty obsolete - cause this game, this system build up on experience and ladders, is ALL ABOUT to be competetive.

What I am trying to tell you is that "normal" would only become obsolete if everyone played to compete in the ladders. But we both know that's not true!

This game is not ALL ABOUT competing in the ladders. Alot of people, me included, could not care less about their position in the ladders.

I played for over a month before I even knew there was a ladder! and I have never looked at it since, because it doesn't interest me the slightest. The ladder does not affect my gameplay at all.

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

The same way, as you dont want to play alone with your own rules, nobody wants to play a meaningless league without competition (ok, nobody is a bit exaggerated - there will be people without interest in this, like the people who play non-ladder in D2 or simply total casuals, but this would be a very minority)

'Nobody' is an extreme exaggeration.
D2 has ladder-exclusive content so to say that everyone who played ladder in D2 cared about competing in the ladders is simply wrong. I know that I didn't, and nor did my friends who played it.

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

Yeah, the could serve as cannon fodder... ^^ (listfillers from the bottom of the ladder)

Exactly like it is now, you mean?

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

Cause you cant set up different rules in one shared league - part it or forget it.

But you are wrong. For the reasons stated above.

Players X does not segregate the community, sir, that's the point of it. If you create hard modes in this game, which would likely NOT be instanced, they'd be leagues which would segregate the community further.

"

That is a really bad way to deal with difficulty. People generally don't like to have to tie one hand behind their back when they play just to be challanged.
People love to min/max and come up with new and better builds.

This runs under the assumption that what I was telling you to do was a bad build, it's not, it's a harder build because it is glass cannon, or has lower damage output because it has some sort of utility. What I'm saying IS come up with new and better builds!

Creating new difficulties at an instanced level solves nothing if you offer rewards for playing at a harder difficulty. It will segregate the community and imbalance the game, is that what you want? Dealing with difficulty at the instance level is such a terrible idea because people will just exploit the shit out of it, much like playing the game the hard way sounds like an exploit to you (rushing).

You never answered my question either, have you ACTUALLY tried to rush the game before?

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

So they decide to face 4-handed foes instead? :-D
I can see no real difference between a play against harder enemies, and to play a weaker (or more challenging/more difficult to play) build.

The difference is that making a weak character is the opposite of what an RPG is about. It's the opposite of what people like to do. Telling people "if you want challenge: don't play the game the way you like it" is a bad idea.
Why should people have to weigh the benefits of creating a good character and playing a game that provide apropriate challenge and be forced to comprimise?

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

And there were good reasons, still valid, to make this only be an option in single player. (or with multi account fake group play; adding your own mules)

You seem to be the only one so far who understand what I am really suggesting.

However, my previous post refutes your arguments against it.

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

Its not about ability, its just about possibility -
If there is an exploit, it will be used to own advantages (even if not "neccessary) by most (all?) of the players, so the only way to prevent this is to make sure there are as less exploitable situations in the game as possible.

What does this have to do with what you quoted?