[Sept 18] Difficulty and Level Progression

You are dismissing arguments without properly arguing why they can be dismissed, thats not how it works.

They do have to balance it twice, because if they dont, the whole "two difficulty settings" is nothing more than a farce.

We have the choice between them putting thought into how to create a hard progressive game and implementing that idea, or them implementing a two difficulty setting system into which they put no thought into whatsoever?
You already lost the argument basically.

Basically subconsciously you agree that a two difficulty setting is nothing more than a farce into which developers shouldnt put too much thought into, but where should they put their thought into instead? Into properly balancing the real game? Why implement the two difficulty system in the first place then?

Im pretty sure now that you dont actually believe in your own words and just say whatever you can in order to convince others that your proposed idea is good.
Well you certainly didnt convince me and there is a high chance you didnt convince anyone else either.

So either they put thinking time into it at the expense of proper progressive content into which they could have put that thinking time instead, or they dont put thought into it which means its a farce anyways.
The latter one means your argument is lost instantly, and the first one means i am right and 50% of content is lost for most players (because they could have had other content instead which now is missing).

"

gh0un wrote:

You are dismissing arguments without properly arguing why they can be dismissed, thats not how it works.

They do have to balance it twice, because if they dont, the whole "two difficulty settings" is nothing more than a farce.

We have the choice between them putting thought into how to create a hard progressive game and implementing that idea, or them implementing a two difficulty setting system into which they put no thought into whatsoever?
You already lost the argument basically.

Ofcourse they have to balance it twice, I never said anything else. I said that they don't have to spend twice as much time on balancing.
There is a significant difference between the two.

If you are not going to use logic in your posts then don't bother posting at all.

"

gh0un wrote:

So either they put thinking time into it at the expense of proper progressive content into which they could have put that thinking time instead, or they dont put thought into it which means its a farce anyways.
The latter one means your argument is lost instantly, and the first one means i am right and 50% of content is lost for most players (because they could have had other content instead which now is missing).

You would have a point if 100% of the cost of creating new content went in to balancing.
That's obviously ridiculous.


Logic is a wonderful thing, you should try it.

"

Sickness wrote:

"

gh0un wrote:

So either they put thinking time into it at the expense of proper progressive content into which they could have put that thinking time instead, or they dont put thought into it which means its a farce anyways.
The latter one means your argument is lost instantly, and the first one means i am right and 50% of content is lost for most players (because they could have had other content instead which now is missing).

You would have a point if 100% of the cost of creating new content went in to balancing.
That's obviously ridiculous.


Logic is a wonderful thing, you should try it.

You see, this discussion was about changing difficulty to suit players, so naturally if we talk about thinking time in this context we are talking about thinking time that is devoted to that area of gameplay.

So any thinking time that would have been devoted to balancing new more difficult content, would instead be used on balancing the 2 difficulty settings content (which means the other content is cut) (unless they dont put thought into the 2 difficulty setting in which case its a farce like i already said), of which 50% wouldnt be seen by most players.

If 100% of balancing thinking time is devoted to something else, then i have a point, just like you said, and if you want to have a proper functioning 2 difficulty setting (that is NOT a farce) then you will have to devote 100% of that balance thinking time to it, and it alone.
Conclusion: i do have a point.

Logic is indeed a wonderful thing, too bad you think everyone other than you is stupid and dont actually think properly about what they write, out of spite that they dont like your idea.
You pretty much insult everyone in this thread by saying they are stupid, have no logic, and are ridiculous.

You need to chill out a little bit and stop to insult everyone that opposes your idea, even dismissing their ideas with insults instead of wit.

The first sign of resign is if you start countering arguments with insults instead of proper arguments, which you are doing to pretty much everyone in this thread.
You should know by now that insults dont lead anywhere.

"

Sickness wrote:

"

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?

Simply, that the ability to choose a higher difficulty than original intended, used by some players, forces other players (all that would be competetive) to choose this too, or they fall behind in all aspects, the new setting offers advantages for (exp, loot, ) If all players are forced to do so (and try to stay on a same competition level by this) the "old" ("normal") setting would become obsolete.

There is no way to balance this - as long as the setting gives a measurable, advantageous reward. And not even you would play it if there were not.

Your last post is really hard to follow, so instead I just summed up your claims.
Now that I know that you are actually serious I will be more respectful.


Here are your claims:

"

1. Balancing two difficulties in the 'two difficulty system' takes twice as much time for the devs as balancing one in the 'one difficulty system'.

That is wrong. It does not take twice as long, because once you have the of the difficulties balanced it is easier to go from there to get the next one done.

It may take a little longer, but twice as long? No. But every good thing takes some amount of time. (But I'm not even sure it would take more time at all!)
The end result is that more people are more satisfied with the difficulty of the game. That is a good thing.

No matter how much "thinking time" they put into a single difficulty, having more than one will still be better, as it can satisfy more people better.


Also, in the 'one difficulty system' it's much more important to find just the right balance that as many as possible are pleased with.


This does in no way mean that "they put no thought into it whatsoever". That is something you made up yourself, and then built an argument upon.

"

2. Balancing two difficulties means that the devs can only create 50% as much content.

That this one is false follows from the first. And why do you assume that they want to create new "content levels" in the first place? They are removing one! So you argument holds no water either way.

(I am assuming that you don't mean that the balance-devs could use the time to create twice as many band new areas, because that would be a ridiculous thing to say).

"

3.Having two difficulties will make players feel that they have missed half the game if they only play through it on one of the difficulties.

Really?
That is exacly like saying that solo players miss over 80% of the game becaue they don't get to experience it with scaled up mobs.
It is obviously an extremely far-fetched idea that I doubt you really believe.

"

4. Having two difficulties is bad because it means most players will only see 50% of the devs balance work

Why is this bad? It's the whole point of the system! That you are not forced into a "one fits all" difficulty setting that to many people will be either too hard or too easy. If there are two settings and you feel that one of them suits you will, then you have no interest in what the devs did with the other. You are not losing out on anything, but you gain the opportunity to play on a difficulty that you enjoy more.

Did I miss anything?

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

Simply, that the ability to choose a higher difficulty than original intended, used by some players, forces other players (all that would be competetive) to choose this too, or they fall behind in all aspects, the new setting offers advantages for (exp, loot, ) If all players are forced to do so (and try to stay on a same competition level by this) the "old" ("normal") setting would become obsolete.

All players are not competetive. And I really don't see the problem with giving an advantage to competetive players who choose to play on a harder difficulty. To me that just seems like a great thing.

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

There is no way to balance this - as long as the setting gives a measurable, advantageous reward. And not even you would play it if there were not.

There should indeed be extra reward, but as I said, I don't see the problem.

Having read my own "first claim" i can now safely say that in actuality you are the one that doesnt understands others points.
You just put something into my mouth i didnt say, because my point wasnt that it takes twice as much time, it just takes THE SAME TIME, of which 50% is lost in the two difficulty system.

You make wall of deaths that no one wants to read through, interpret others arguments the wrong way and start to counter the wrong interpretations, and you repeat yourself in every odd post.

Im tired of talking to someone that tries to get the last word on a matter no matter what the means (even if it means insulting others).

I will just say this:
The day your proposed system is going to be implemented, is the day pigs start flying.
No amount of wrong reasoning is going to make your proposal any good gamedesign, its a work around the fact that you werent able to balance your game properly, nothing else.

"

gh0un wrote:

Having read my own "first claim" i can now safely say that in actuality you are the one that doesnt understands others points.
You just put something into my mouth i didnt say, because my point wasnt that it takes twice as much time, it just takes THE SAME TIME, of which 50% is lost in the two difficulty system.

I am not putting words in your mouth.
Remember this?:

"

gh0un wrote:

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.

It might just be me, but "double the amount of time" is the same as "twice as much time".

"

gh0un wrote:

I will just say this:
The day your proposed system is going to be implemented, is the day pigs start flying.
No amount of wrong reasoning is going to make your proposal any good gamedesign, its a work around the fact that you werent able to balance your game properly, nothing else.

Maybe you shouldn't speak to quickly, considering that you can't even back up your own statements, but have to backpeddle and ignore my posts.

FYI, the type of system I am proposing is comming for endgame, so it's not so far fetched that it will catch on for the rest of the game. They alraedy have methods of scaling the difficulty in individal zones.

"

Sickness wrote:

"

gh0un wrote:

Having read my own "first claim" i can now safely say that in actuality you are the one that doesnt understands others points.
You just put something into my mouth i didnt say, because my point wasnt that it takes twice as much time, it just takes THE SAME TIME, of which 50% is lost in the two difficulty system.

I am not putting words in your mouth.
Remember this?:

"

gh0un wrote:

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.

It might just be me, but "double the amount of time" is the same as "twice as much time".

It does look like it if you read it like that, but its taken out of context and you know it yourself.
It takes double the amount of time when compared to NOT using a two difficulty system NOR using anything other.

When compared to balancing the normal game instead, it takes the same time, while missing out on 50% of the content however.

Dont play stupid. Thank you.

Im not backpeddling, im just tired of listening to garbage that isnt going to be implemented anyways.
Arguing with you is pointless because you keep talking until people get tired of talking to you, you repeat the same stuff in the same post like 3 times, its getting old.