[Sept 18] Difficulty and Level Progression

"

Sickness wrote:

Hard mode is not supposed to be for higher level characters than normal.

How does lower resistances in merciless make my game harder on cruel?
Or in other words, how does making the game harder at high level make the game harder at lower levels?

The answer is that it doesn't. So no matter how many of the current type of "difficulty levels" (which should hereafter be called content levels) you add the problem will always remain. You cannot get around it.

You will find that there is a good reason to have my proposed system.

Wait so hold on all this rattling on you did about how nobody understood you amazing idea and that it was this amazing concept is in fact the same idea ive seen done in a ton of MMOs?? Numerous Asian MMOs ive played and most famously Age of Conan. Where when you entered a dungeon you selected either Hard or Normal. This has also been done in DC Universe online, Guild Wars and many other big MMOs. Its not a new or unique or clever concept its something im sure GGG are very familiar with and theres probably a good reason they havent added it already.

Despite what you seem to think, you aren't the only person here whos ever played a computer game before. And this system is precisely the system I described when I pointed out its flaws (from having experienced it directly in many games) and then you said that was relevant cause I hadnt understood your concept... when actually I had, honestly Im starting to think you a deliberately being argumentative now.

"

Sickness wrote:

Either way, saying that something is bad bechause it's a "MMO mechanic" is rediculous. First of all, you don't even understand what it is I am proposing, secondly you have to look at the mechanic itself, where the inspiration comes from is completely irrelevant.

When did I say it was BAD?? Nowhere, stop being so bloody defensive. I merely said it was neither suitable or needed in POE.

"

Sickness wrote:

Okay, let me try to explain it in another way then, because you clearly are not getting it.
My proposed system would make it so that you can on any given level choose to do a zone on a harder difficulty. Not extremely much harder so that you need higher level characters, only harder so that it challenges good characters (build, gear and player skill) at that particular level.
So you see, this is nothing at all like adding another 'content level'.

If you have played DDO then you should know exactly what I am talking about.

I dont need to have played DDO its a concept thats been in tons of MMOs not to mention its basically as simplistic as any old school 'difficulty setting' just implemented locally onto specific areas/dungeons rather than globally over the whole game. Its not anything new or innovative or even very good.

And I still maintain Id much rather have another content level or playthrough than that watered down idea which to me holds no merit.

Take a game like borderlands which is an FPSRPG based around looting, that had it so that at max level (or level cap) once you completed the last playthrough/content level then the game scaled all of its content to be set permanently to you current level with certain areas and foes being scaled 4 levels above you. You could then go wherever you wanted within that new content level and experience extremely tough gameplay without any need for difficulty settings. A similar thing has been done with Diablo 3 where they now have a 4th difficulty which essentially scales the whole game to the highest level for max level players.

As for players of a lower level requiring more challenge, surely thats a moot point. The nature of these games means they wont spend more than a day or two at that level anyway so its seems rather pointless developing a whole potentially exploitable new mechanic just to make their progress to the level cap a little more challenging.

"

Sickness wrote:

From the endgame thread:

"

Chris wrote:

.....the new system will offer greater control of how challenging the players want it to be. Some players have built characters that have substantially higher damage output than other players, and we'll make sure that these characters have a challenging place to play.

Greater control over how challenging the players want it to be is exactly what I am talking about.

No you just talking about a simplistic 'normal/hard' setting when you enter an area. I believe Chris is talking about ideas alot more subtle and nuanced than that. Something like (for instance) the Diablo 2 console command which allowed you to make the game artificially think more players were playing than actually were, so a solo player could take on 4 player content. That im cool with but a flat out normal/hard mode... no its crude and not needed.

"Oh im having trouble here in an area where my toon has trouble /select normal mode"
"Ah now im in a place where my character excels /select hard mode"

Sorry aside from the other issues people have mentioned its just to easy/cheap to exploit imo, and this is from direct experience having played games with precisely that system.

"

Sickness wrote:

Yes indeed, it's the same for every game. But does that mean they shouldn't do anything about it?? That's silly!

Did you not understand my wider point? That all games my there nature have this issue, its not that you shouldnt solve it, more that you cant. Honestly how do you not see that? Unless you suggesting a difficulty upgrade that came with no extra rewards which I cant see many people wanting to play. But so long as the rewards scale with the rise in challenge those players will not only soon become accustomed and easily able to deal with that new level of challenge but will become even further removed from the 'normal' non hard mode playing populace.

"

Sickness wrote:

No I understand that perfectly well, it's just you who don't understand my suggestion. If you did you would see that it wouldn't change the core concept of PoE that you hold so precious (and rightfully so).

Oh I really do, its not exactly a new idea. Its just you have presented it in about 3 or 4 different ways now arguing with people who pointed out its flaws and saying they didnt get it, when in fact they got exactly what you meant ages ago. I never said it would change the core concept just that its not needed and there are better solutions.

"

Sickness wrote:

It would solve some of their problems.
Do you know why we have 4 content levels right now? It's because people complained that the game was too easy. But as I explained earlier, another content level does not make the previous ones any harder!
They made some content level harder, but then alot of people complained that it was too hard, so they had to make it easier. Ofcourse that made people complain that it was too easy.
They are still struggling to find the right balance. My suggestion would make that hell of a lot easier, and the resulting balance would be twice as satisfactory for the playerbase.

You do realise that currently they are lacking a whole other act dont you?? You do realise this is a beta? Your addressing the problem of not enough challenging content as though GGG have announced they have no plans to add anything else. The people who complained are just people who played the content quicker than GGG anticipated. GGG Have now said that the addition of a whole other act and rise in challenge for the 3rd playthrough is their top priority before open beta. Lets wait and see how that goes before condeming the game as 'too easy' cause currently we just cant make that call, we are playing probably around 50% of the final content.

You say they are struggling but its only you really who seems to have massive issues with it that I see consistently complaining. GGG have admitted the current balance isnt right mainly cause playthrough 4 was never supposed to be there and not having act 3 totally skews the whole experience. And 'hard mode' dungeons wouldnt solve anything, except further segregating the haves and have nots very quickly.

Sorry but the idea just isnt very clever or original. Certainly not enough for you to be arguing with this many people about it (you are rather a lone voice)

Dont want to butt in into your discussion too much (because i didnt read all your arguments), i will say this however.

A system where you can choose a difficulty setting for a particular area, and then change it again for another area (to suit your needs) is bad gamedesign, boring, and way too simplistic.

It was bad in older games and it is still bad in recent titles.
Im not gonna say anymore than that because RodHull already made good on that as far as i can see.

"

RodHull wrote:

Wait so hold on all this rattling on you did about how nobody understood you amazing idea and that it was this amazing concept is in fact the same idea ive seen done in a ton of MMOs?? Numerous Asian MMOs ive played and most famously Age of Conan. Where when you entered a dungeon you selected either Hard or Normal. This has also been done in DC Universe online, Guild Wars and many other big MMOs. Its not a new or unique or clever concept its something im sure GGG are very familiar with and theres probably a good reason they havent added it already.

Despite what you seem to think, you aren't the only person here whos ever played a computer game before. And this system is precisely the system I described when I pointed out its flaws (from having experienced it directly in many games) and then you said that was relevant cause I hadnt understood your concept... when actually I had, honestly Im starting to think you a deliberately being argumentative now.

I never claimed that it was a new concept. Everyone so far that has been against it has been so mainly because they think it replaces the current "content levels", and that makes it perfectly clear that they (you included) did not understand it.

"

RodHull wrote:

And I still maintain Id much rather have another content level or playthrough than that watered down idea which to me holds no merit.

Again, another content level is A COMPLETELY SEPERATE ISSUE.
"I would rather have cheesecake than a new content level."

They are not mutually exclusive, and quite frankly have nothing to do with eachother.

"

RodHull wrote:

As for players of a lower level requiring more challenge, surely thats a moot point. The nature of these games means they wont spend more than a day or two at that level anyway so its seems rather pointless developing a whole potentially exploitable new mechanic just to make their progress to the level cap a little more challenging

Really? REALLY? I have never seen such inconsitency in a poster before. You are really trying too hard here.

Let me remind you:

"

zriL wrote:

I want to add this, people here tend to focus too much on endgame. Personnally, I will spend more time rerolling character or ladder rushing than grinding in chaos.

"

RodHull wrote:

I think more people who will end up playing this game long term ARE exactly like Zril.

Making leveling a better experience is not a bad thing. Given the very good and open character customization this game, and the limited respec, has alot of people will make alot of characters, even if their main focus is on the endgame.

"

RodHull wrote:

No you just talking about a simplistic 'normal/hard' setting when you enter an area. I believe Chris is talking about ideas alot more subtle and nuanced than that. Something like (for instance) the Diablo 2 console command which allowed you to make the game artificially think more players were playing than actually were, so a solo player could take on 4 player content. That im cool with but a flat out normal/hard mode... no its crude and not needed.

The normal/hard was an EXAMPLE. It's the idea of more control of the difficulty that I am trying to get across. I fully support the "/player X" command, infact I have gone through great lengths arguing for it in a thread not too long ago.

But I din't get it, why is "/players x" good, but normal/hard not? You must surely see that it's not different from having the commands /players 1 and /players 2.
More is better ofcourse, but why is 2 worse than 1?

"

RodHull wrote:

Sorry aside from the other issues people have mentioned its just to easy/cheap to exploit imo, and this is from direct experience having played games with precisely that system.

What exploits?? That you decrease the difficulty if you are struggling and increase it if you are just breezing through the content is not an exploit, it's and intended effect. And why would "/players x" be any different?? Consistency please!

"

RodHull wrote:

Did you not understand my wider point? That all games my there nature have this issue, its not that you shouldnt solve it, more that you cant. Honestly how do you not see that? Unless you suggesting a difficulty upgrade that came with no extra rewards which I cant see many people wanting to play. But so long as the rewards scale with the rise in challenge those players will not only soon become accustomed and easily able to deal with that new level of challenge but will become even further removed from the 'normal' non hard mode playing populace.

You can't remove the problem, but you can still do something about it.
You are being hypocritical if you support "/players x", because all problems exists in that system aswell.

"

RodHull wrote:

Oh I really do, its not exactly a new idea. Its just you have presented it in about 3 or 4 different ways now arguing with people who pointed out its flaws and saying they didnt get it, when in fact they got exactly what you meant ages ago. I never said it would change the core concept just that its not needed and there are better solutions.

What solution would be better exactly?

"

RodHull wrote:

You do realise that currently they are lacking a whole other act dont you?? You do realise this is a beta? Your addressing the problem of not enough challenging content as though GGG have announced they have no plans to add anything else. The people who complained are just people who played the content quicker than GGG anticipated. GGG Have now said that the addition of a whole other act and rise in challenge for the 3rd playthrough is their top priority before open beta. Lets wait and see how that goes before condeming the game as 'too easy' cause currently we just cant make that call, we are playing probably around 50% of the final content.

You say they are struggling but its only you really who seems to have massive issues with it that I see consistently complaining. GGG have admitted the current balance isnt right mainly cause playthrough 4 was never supposed to be there and not having act 3 totally skews the whole experience. And 'hard mode' dungeons wouldnt solve anything, except further segregating the haves and have nots very quickly.

Everything in that part was based on an dev interview. They are struggling with finding the right balance.

"

RodHull wrote:

Sorry but the idea just isnt very clever or original. Certainly not enough for you to be arguing with this many people about it (you are rather a lone voice)

The three of you have not exactly made any good arguments against it yet. All you have done is shown that you don't undersand it and are not willing to either.

"

gh0un wrote:

Dont want to butt in into your discussion too much (because i didnt read all your arguments), i will say this however.

A system where you can choose a difficulty setting for a particular area, and then change it again for another area (to suit your needs) is bad gamedesign, boring, and way too simplistic.

It was bad in older games and it is still bad in recent titles.
Im not gonna say anymore than that because RodHull already made good on that as far as i can see.

Why is it bad?
All RodHull has done is to say that he is against a 2 difficulty system, but is for a 4 difficulty system.
And frankly, given his arguments, that doesn't make ANY sense at all.

I think it's pretty clear that some people have differing opinions on this... No point constantly going back and forth and stating the same opinions over and over, it isn't constructive and (90% of the people who visit this thread) won't read your walls of text.

Not saying you can't debate things, but eventually you just need to drop it. I can argue with my mother until I am blue in the face about how it makes 0 sense to make her cat's wear sweaters, but dammit.. she won't hear it.

Drop it Rod, Sickness isn't worth it.

"

Sickness wrote:

"

gh0un wrote:

Dont want to butt in into your discussion too much (because i didnt read all your arguments), i will say this however.

A system where you can choose a difficulty setting for a particular area, and then change it again for another area (to suit your needs) is bad gamedesign, boring, and way too simplistic.

It was bad in older games and it is still bad in recent titles.
Im not gonna say anymore than that because RodHull already made good on that as far as i can see.

Why is it bad?
All RodHull has done is to say that he is against a 2 difficulty system, but is for a 4 difficulty system.
And frankly, given his arguments, that doesn't make ANY sense at all.

Lets just focus on one subject at a time (creating walls of text that consist of several arguments at once is not a good basis for a good discussion).

Its bad due to several reasons, but i will only present one for now, in order to keep the discussion centered.

The first one is, that players potentially miss out on 50% of the games content, even though developers put in double the amount of time for balancing it.
Regardless of how many difficulty levels the game offers in the end, if you can choose between two difficulties for each difficulty level, that essentially doubles the amount of content a particular iteration of a game offers.

Lets say the two settings comprise of Easy and Hardcore.
If you decide to do act 1 on normal difficulty, with the setting on Easy, by the end of the act, you will be so strong (characterwise) that it is useless to try and do act 1 normal on hardcore aswell, because it will basically be a cakewalk.
50% of act 1 content on normal is just lost for you.

If you do it the other way around, act 1 normal on hardcore first, you will have lost the easy content.

This wouldnt be too bad if it wasnt for the fact that developers put in double the amount of time in order to balance the two different difficulty settings, but they do put in that time, just to have players never see 50% of their creation, period (this issue will last until the very end).

Not everyone is keen about creating the same class with the same skillbuild again in order to gain access to the other half of the game and even if they do, its just not the same.


Another reason is inconsequential gameflow, but as i said, i rather focus on one issue first.

They don't have to spend double time balancing it, because balancing becomes easier when there are two difficulties.

It doesn't double the content. It doesn't create ANY new content. Same level area with slighly stronger mobs does not equal new content by any stretch of the imagnination. That would be like saying there are 6 * 4 iterations of every area because the monsters are stronger when you are in a party.
Even if you still want to call it new content, there is nothing wrong with not playing through it all.
Do you feel like you miss out on 5/6th of the game when you solo?
Do players that only solo never see 83% of the devs creation?

I don't think so. You do see how silly that is, right?

"

Sickness wrote:

Everyone so far that has been against it has been so mainly because they think it replaces the current "content levels"

Its not about replacing existing content, or existing content levels (whatever this means); its about replacing the existing difficulty level - for demanding all players to act equal to players which use it, to be competetive.

The 'players X' cheat at D2 was only acceptable and viable, cause it was only available in pure single player where nobody else is affected but you - and thats simply not the case in an online game which is meant to compete.

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

Its not about replacing existing content, or existing content levels (whatever this means); its about replacing the existing difficulty level -

Content levels = normal/cruel/ruthless/merciless. I.E. the current difficulty levels.
I am not asking for them to be replaced.

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

for demanding all players to act equal to players which use it, to be competetive.

What do you mean?

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

The 'players X' cheat at D2 was only acceptable and viable, cause it was only available in pure single player where nobody else is affected but you - and thats simply not the case in an online game which is meant to compete.

Yet the loudest opponent to my suggestions thinks that /players X would be fine.
Funny how that works.

However, I don't see why /players x would somehow automatically disrupt competition.