[Sept 18] Difficulty and Level Progression

"

gh0un wrote:

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.

You wrote it like that, so ofcourse I read it like that.

There is more:

"

gh0un wrote:

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).

That and 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.
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.

is saying the pretty much same thing.

If you are not saying that the devs have to spend double amount of time then I honestly have no idea of what you are saying.


Oh, and you have not yet adressed my responses to your reasoning that "if you don't play both difficulties you miss out on half the game".
Simple questions, do you think that a solo player is missing out on more than half the game?
Do you see the parallell between group scaling and difficulty settings?

"

gh0un wrote:

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.

I have to repeat myself when you ignore important points I that make.

The fact that you dont understand the concept of taking something out of context is amazing btw.

Its also amazing that you can reply with a wall of death to as small a post as anything.

"

gh0un wrote:

The fact that you dont understand the concept of taking something out of context is amazing btw.

Its also amazing that you can reply with a wall of death to as small a post as anything.

I am not taking anything out of context. You just can't admit that you were wrong. Atleast that is how I see it.
Maybe I am wrong and I just misunderstod you, but I have given you the chance to explain yourself but you are just being evasive and overly defensive so that only strenghten my belief that I did infact interpret your posts exactly as you had originally intended, and that you later realised how wrong you were.

If I really took what you sasid out of context then you should have no difficulty whatsoever to show that.
So why don't you?


lol, wall of death? If you don't have the attentionspan to read some paragraphed text don't blaim me for it.
Most of my posts are quotes anyways.

How many pages of Sickness' view vs Everyone Else can we amass?

Sickness
Dude
Nobody agrees with you
Drop it

"

Sickness wrote:

All players are not competetive. uote]

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

And the only way to offer a higher challenge, with rewards, without an influence on the standard competition, is to put this into a separated league - like it is announced to happen.

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

"

Sickness wrote:

All players are not competetive. uote]

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

And the only way to offer a higher challenge, with rewards, without an influence on the standard competition, is to put this into a separated league - like it is announced to happen.

Are you not reading? That it have an influence on "competition" is not a bad thing.

"

Sickness wrote:

Are you not reading? That it have an influence on "competition" is not a bad thing.

For the very last time, since you seem not willing to understand:

Competition needs a equal balanced base - EVERY INFLUENCE of this balance is not only BAD, it has to be LOCKED OUT.
Everybody would be forced to catch the rewarding advantages, and nobody wants this, for making the "normal" difficulty setting useless - everyone that wants to be competetive has to play the same rules, the same settings with the "same" rewards.

Add: I cant say it any more clear, so eod for me here.

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

For the very last time, since you seem not willing to understand:

Competition needs a equal balanced base - EVERY INFLUENCE of this balance is not only BAD, it has to be LOCKED OUT.
Everybody would be forced to catch the rewarding advantages, and nobody wants this, for making the "normal" difficulty setting useless - everyone that wants to be competetive has to play the same rules, the same settings with the "same" rewards.

Add: I cant say it any more clear, so eod for me here.

I understand that, but you ignore my response to it.
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.

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

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

Just leave it guys, everytime i look into this thread it is sickness who posted last (the same argument for the 100th time), its obvious he wants the last word on the matter.

Leave him the last word knowing that the idea is shit and wont be implemented anyways and move on.