If YOU were to make a game, would YOU care about difficulty?

TLCstormz

Personally speaking, I would.

Which is why I cannot fathom D3 or whoever not caring that MANY people (not all) find the difficulty in this game (without the proper tools) to be insufferable / unwarranted / unfair / off-putting / rage inducing.

I know people who have broken phones because of this game.
I know people who have quit this game.
I know people who have put THOUSANDS of dollars into this game.
I know children who cry because of this game (namely my students).
And I know people who wipe continually on PvE nodes and PvP opponents, even though your team is 20 -30 levels higher than the enemy's (namely me).

ALL because of the difficulty.

So, if YOU were making your own video game, would YOU care about the difficulty of it for the Average Joe, school aged student, Jane Doe, etc?

.......and before the bravado and egos come in to say "get bettr knewb" and the similar silly things, please keep in mind that if you are creating a video game, it is the customer, who has already paid for (or at least downloaded) your product, and their satisfaction that should be the focus of your product.

LXSandman

Difficulty is a challenging concept to get correct. How do you set the difficulty at a sufficient level that new players starting can get an enjoyable experience, but at the same time veterans are not bored to the point where there is no challenge - aka they leave.

I would argue that the true difficulty in this game is not the actual play, but it's the setup. You will find that at the upper levels of PVP there is no team you can't beat.... It's just a matter of wanting to beat them (aka can you beat them fast enough to be worth it). Crazy RNG cascades aside, there is really nothing difficult about the game.

What is difficult is actually surviving a shield hop. I think it's insane that you can play a match worth 30 points and lose 200. The problem with this game is that the "Difficult" parts of it are all bizarre design decisions.

Scaling in PVE can be hard, but if you build up a diverse roster then almost any node can be worked out and a strategy determined. That's the FUN part of this game. Losing hundreds of points in PVP with no recourse is the UNFUN part of this game imo.

GuntherBlobel

There's a few places you can read about skill vs. money games. Here's something I quickly found on Google:
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminSho ... Tricks.php

Whether you're playing MPQ or Candy Crush, the idea is the same. They start out as a game of (simple) skill, but quickly move toward a difficulty that increasingly requires purchasable shields, boosts, tokens, whatever... to keep going. Many people will quit or play "casually", but a small number will pay and pay. Hopefully, they're happy customers.

If you're going to play MPQ (or Candy Crush) you gotta understand the F2P model. If you want to make games, you gotta understand to F2P model.

If you were lead design of MPQ, you would be thinking about about how to make the game difficult enough to make that 2.2% pay.

MPQ is still running, so they seem to have set the difficulty well enough.

Unknown

If I were to create a game, I would have difficulty settings so that every player can get the right amount of enjoyment out of the game. However I mostly play turn based strategy; this is the only F2P I play on a regular basis.

I imagine incorporating difficulty settings into a F2P game would remove a lot of the incentive to pay to get ahead. Still, I'd still like to see difficulty tiers instituted, the greater the difficulty, the greater the rewards.

babinro

Generally speaking, I think one of the MAJOR failings in game design these days comes from a fear of providing the player options to customize their game experience.

I think just about every game should be like Don't Starve, Civilization 5, or any EA Sports game. These games give players options to customize the game play rules and have tons of sliders for players to make the game mindlessly easy to practically impossible.

That's my comment in general....these rules obviously can't apply to COMPETITIVE PVP games like MPQ because of obvious unfair reasons.

The way I'd apply this philosophy to MPQ would be to offer a wider array of events for all player types. For example I'd run multiple DDQ style non-competitive events with set difficulty level PvE's. Have one event with most nodes ranging from level 5-50 for the 1* players, have another ranging from 30-75 for the 2* transitioner, have another ranging from 50-100 for the 2* established player and so on. All events would run simultaneously and have rewards suitable for that progression part of the game. These rewards would naturally be less enticing than those in truly competitive events like traditional pvp and pve's but they'd still exist for those who just want to relax and use different characters.

Pylgrim

Also, there's the fact that some people /enjoy/ being challenged? If you asked me without looking at reality, I'd say that every person playing a game is that kind of person, as a game is system created to provide challenges in a controlled environment whose only reward, more often than not, is the satisfaction of overcoming that challenge and/or overcoming it better than other people playing it. Having it being otherwise in reality never ceases to be baffling to me: That modern day videogames are littered with tutorials, that devs put in-game hinting mechanisms if not outright walkthroughs for difficult parts, that people jump into the forums to either complain or demand explanation and help after the first try or first few minutes of "feeling stuck". All these things invariably cause my jaw to drop in disbelief and a bit of rage.

Yes sometimes challenges are so difficult that they are infuriating and frustrating. Some people may even break their controllers/devices (though I'd say that the issue with them is lack of self control and awareness of the value of things and not a demonstrable flaw in the game). But it is precisely those challenges the ones that keep you coming back for more. You try and try until you have become better than the challenge itself. Or it may happen that you arrive to the realisation that the challenge is simply out of your league, but that's something you only realise once it after you've tried your genuine best. Such occurrence is not a flaw in the game either, it is simply not meant for you; not everybody has the same reflexes, strategical acumen, eye-hand coordination, etc. and that's fine!

I personally don't think that MPQ is particularly challenging. There is a significant luck component to it, but not (as some people seem to think) as a necessity to win but rather as the one thing preventing it from becoming a definite solvable equation. Once you have a good team and a solid understanding of the way their powers combine and interact with the opponent's powers, and you deeply understand the match-3 mechanics and are able to tell that, for example, a match 4 is not always the default move when available, etc. you'd never lose if it wasn't for ridiculous and unfair cascades. It is infuriating, yes, and as some others have said, the system should be more forgiving in the punishment for a loss since they're mostly luck-related. But I'd rather have a game in which I may randomly lose from time to time, encouraging me to be as efficient and careful as humanly possible to greatly diminish the chances of it happening, that an unchallenging chore that is always the same and which gives me 0 satisfaction from winning over and over by doing exactly the same.

atomzed

LXSandman wrote:

You will find that at the upper levels of PVP there is no team you can't beat.... It's just a matter of wanting to beat them (aka can you beat them fast enough to be worth it). Crazy RNG cascades aside, there is really nothing difficult about the game.

Fully agree on this part.

What is difficult is actually surviving a shield hop. I think it's insane that you can play a match worth 30 points and lose 200. The problem with this game is that the "Difficult" parts of it are all bizarre design decisions.

I attribute this to the competition design of the pvp. They need something to differentiate people, so scores and shield come into play to differentiate it.

I am personally fine with the pvp aspects, but I don't enjoy the competitive aspects of pve. Hence I am in a alliance which has no pve requirements.

GurlBYE

babinro wrote:

Generally speaking, I think one of the MAJOR failings in game design these days comes from a fear of providing the player options to customize their game experience.

I think just about every game should be like Don't Starve, Civilization 5, or any EA Sports game. These games give players options to customize the game play rules and have tons of sliders for players to make the game mindlessly easy to practically impossible.

That's my comment in general....these rules obviously can't apply to COMPETITIVE PVP games like MPQ because of obvious unfair reasons.

MPQ has been the worst example I've seen of a competitive game thus far. ea sports game and fighters, and pretty much most other games give more control.
In pvp your defense is grinding/leveling/whaling up teams that people feel are more annoying to fight then worth their time. You use tedium instead of strategy.
There are few impossible teams(if any), just few teams you can beat before being beat while playing after a while.
The pvp in this game is certainly not a beacon on the hill for pvp content.
_____

The issue with this thread is that the game isn't difficult, its stacked against you to inspire you to use as many paid options as possible in order to negate some luck based aspects.

Puzzle base games at base level are luck based.
Every 'difficulty' based thing is carefully crafted around the purchase of health packs or boosts to negate luck based factors.
Scaling enemies, tile only based attacks that have the potential to be entirely unmatchable. it's kind of more of a rat wheel to provide some sort of feeling of accomplishment when your luck does beat the odds

even the card packs follow this instead of us earning them or earning experience to apply to cards of our choice.

Unfortunately the gameplay for me is kind of one of the weaker parts of the game. I actually enjoy fighting the characters more then the goons on average
hate how silly and uncompetitive pvp is from a match making perspective (people with 3 star and 4 star rosters mixed with people just starting the game with unique rewards in pvp) Hate fighting the same 4 characters (wolverine/daken seem to squeeze into E=most pve nodes) competing with others for pve awards, where people who earned more covers in pvp kinda have an advantage.

The issue isn't difficulty but the issue is that you can totally play the game for 3 hours or 5 minutes and make equivalent daily progress due to at base level the game being based around 'randomness'

Unknown

For me the difficulty problem is (and other people have brought up in different threads) that the same old things get more difficult *because* you get stronger. This doesn't make a lot of sense.

It used to be (in the golden age of RPG gaming) that you'd always strive to level up your characters, get better gear, etc so that you could get stronger...so that you could move on and tackle a *new* more challenging part of the game for bigger rewards, than would in turn level you up, give you better gear, etc. It wasn't that the area of the game you already did suddenly scaled up along with you to the point that there was no reason to level up at all. I think this is the most frustrating thing for many players, and sadly it's not a problem unique to MPQ.

Apart from the fact that it's enjoyable to see and obtain new characters, levelling & getting stronger can actually hurt your success rate because of the scaling. Look at the popular thread where someone's afraid to level their 4*'s because it'll put him up against more difficult opponents. Sadly he seems justified in this fear. So what's the point of making the 4* transition then?

What needs to be done, is remove the scaling that paradoxically is a disincentive to bettering yourself. There should instead be progressive-difficulty areas of the game that you simply can't win at without better teams, and everyone should strive to improve their roster so that they can eventually reach these. Many people won't want to take the long way to get there and will pay, so the company gets the $$ they want while the player base gets rewarded for their efforts.

dr tinykittylove

Magisse wrote:

For me the difficulty problem is (and other people have brought up in different threads) that the same old things get more difficult *because* you get stronger. This doesn't make a lot of sense.
...
Apart from the fact that it's enjoyable to see and obtain new characters, levelling & getting stronger can actually hurt your success rate because of the scaling. Look at the popular thread where someone's afraid to level their 4*'s because it'll put him up against more difficult opponents. Sadly he seems justified in this fear. So what's the point of making the 4* transition then?

What needs to be done, is remove the scaling that paradoxically is a disincentive to bettering yourself. There should instead be progressive-difficulty areas of the game that you simply can't win at without better teams, and everyone should strive to improve their roster so that they can eventually reach these. Many people won't want to take the long way to get there and will pay, so the company gets the $$ they want while the player base gets rewarded for their efforts.

What the game seems to have been moving towards is developing a wide, level roster, contrary to the old system where you maxed 2 guys and went to pvp-town and ignored everyone else.

Now the more high-level characters you have, the better. I think the fear of pve scaling is a little overblown by the pve-focused players who keep their rosters capped at 94 or 100. Scaling doesn't hurt so bad when all your characters can be mixed up to handle things as appropriate - after I'd built up a strong roster, when community scaling was on, I had no real difficulty taking on the high 300s as necessary, where I used to just give up on things like Heroics when my roster was lower levelled, and I am less wary of taking on buffed maxed 4*s in pvp even before the weekly buffs for 3*s.

And I wouldn't give up my collection of 4*s for anything. They're fun to play, and very efficient even without buffs.

Unknown

Magisse wrote:

For me the difficulty problem is (and other people have brought up in different threads) that the same old things get more difficult *because* you get stronger. This doesn't make a lot of sense.

It used to be (in the golden age of RPG gaming) that you'd always strive to level up your characters, get better gear, etc so that you could get stronger...so that you could move on and tackle a *new* more challenging part of the game for bigger rewards, than would in turn level you up, give you better gear, etc. It wasn't that the area of the game you already did suddenly scaled up along with you to the point that there was no reason to level up at all. I think this is the most frustrating thing for many players, and sadly it's not a problem unique to MPQ.

Apart from the fact that it's enjoyable to see and obtain new characters, levelling & getting stronger can actually hurt your success rate because of the scaling. Look at the popular thread where someone's afraid to level their 4*'s because it'll put him up against more difficult opponents. Sadly he seems justified in this fear. So what's the point of making the 4* transition then?

What needs to be done, is remove the scaling that paradoxically is a disincentive to bettering yourself. There should instead be progressive-difficulty areas of the game that you simply can't win at without better teams, and everyone should strive to improve their roster so that they can eventually reach these. Many people won't want to take the long way to get there and will pay, so the company gets the $$ they want while the player base gets rewarded for their efforts.

You're far too kind. It doesn't "not make lot of sense," it's ridiculous on an almost other-worldly scale.

For the record, the description you gave of the "golden age of RPG gaming" isn't reserved to some period way back in the day. The premise holds true for each and every one of well over 100 games on my phone at this very moment, as well as 100+ console games I currently own and play.

It's not some old-fashioned notion, it's common sense. As you get better and stronger, things should get easier.

DBC

nwman

Yes, but too easy is worse than too hard.

I don't find this game too difficult, however bad luck can make it that way, and bringing the wrong team to a battle can make it that way.

Analyze who you are fighting against and Health provided bring the correct counter team.

Example. Fighting goons, obw or falcon or just a fast hard hitting team.

I know everyone basically knows that but some aren't as obvious. There is a good hard and soft counter thread to each character / skill set. It is very useful. It's in the tips section.

Pylgrim

Drummerboycroy wrote:

Magisse wrote:

For me the difficulty problem is (and other people have brought up in different threads) that the same old things get more difficult *because* you get stronger. This doesn't make a lot of sense.

It used to be (in the golden age of RPG gaming) that you'd always strive to level up your characters, get better gear, etc so that you could get stronger...so that you could move on and tackle a *new* more challenging part of the game for bigger rewards, than would in turn level you up, give you better gear, etc. It wasn't that the area of the game you already did suddenly scaled up along with you to the point that there was no reason to level up at all. I think this is the most frustrating thing for many players, and sadly it's not a problem unique to MPQ.

Apart from the fact that it's enjoyable to see and obtain new characters, levelling & getting stronger can actually hurt your success rate because of the scaling. Look at the popular thread where someone's afraid to level their 4*'s because it'll put him up against more difficult opponents. Sadly he seems justified in this fear. So what's the point of making the 4* transition then?

What needs to be done, is remove the scaling that paradoxically is a disincentive to bettering yourself. There should instead be progressive-difficulty areas of the game that you simply can't win at without better teams, and everyone should strive to improve their roster so that they can eventually reach these. Many people won't want to take the long way to get there and will pay, so the company gets the $$ they want while the player base gets rewarded for their efforts.

You're far too kind. It doesn't "not make lot of sense," it's ridiculous on an almost other-worldly scale.

For the record, the description you gave of the "golden age of RPG gaming" isn't reserved to some period way back in the day. The premise holds true for each and every one of well over 100 games on my phone at this very moment, as well as 100+ console games I currently own and play.

It's not some old-fashioned notion, it's common sense. As you get better and stronger, things should get easier.

DBC

Should them? So both the first boss that you attack with your 10-damage wooden stick, and the last boss that you face with your 999999+ damage megaultimate diamond sword should have 100 HP so you feel like your efforts throughout the game have made your battling easier? I don't know about you, but whenever the last boss fight is not the hardest fight in the game, or at least one of the three hardest, I feel very cheated.

Unknown

Pylgrim wrote:

Drummerboycroy wrote:

Magisse wrote:

For me the difficulty problem is (and other people have brought up in different threads) that the same old things get more difficult *because* you get stronger. This doesn't make a lot of sense.

It used to be (in the golden age of RPG gaming) that you'd always strive to level up your characters, get better gear, etc so that you could get stronger...so that you could move on and tackle a *new* more challenging part of the game for bigger rewards, than would in turn level you up, give you better gear, etc. It wasn't that the area of the game you already did suddenly scaled up along with you to the point that there was no reason to level up at all. I think this is the most frustrating thing for many players, and sadly it's not a problem unique to MPQ.

Apart from the fact that it's enjoyable to see and obtain new characters, levelling & getting stronger can actually hurt your success rate because of the scaling. Look at the popular thread where someone's afraid to level their 4*'s because it'll put him up against more difficult opponents. Sadly he seems justified in this fear. So what's the point of making the 4* transition then?

What needs to be done, is remove the scaling that paradoxically is a disincentive to bettering yourself. There should instead be progressive-difficulty areas of the game that you simply can't win at without better teams, and everyone should strive to improve their roster so that they can eventually reach these. Many people won't want to take the long way to get there and will pay, so the company gets the $$ they want while the player base gets rewarded for their efforts.

You're far too kind. It doesn't "not make lot of sense," it's ridiculous on an almost other-worldly scale.

For the record, the description you gave of the "golden age of RPG gaming" isn't reserved to some period way back in the day. The premise holds true for each and every one of well over 100 games on my phone at this very moment, as well as 100+ console games I currently own and play.

It's not some old-fashioned notion, it's common sense. As you get better and stronger, things should get easier.

DBC

Should them? So both the first boss that you attack with your 10-damage wooden stick, and the last boss that you face with your 999999+ damage megaultimate diamond sword should have 100 HP so you feel like your efforts throughout the game have made your battling easier? I don't know about you, but whenever the last boss fight is not the hardest fight in the game, or at least one of the three hardest, I feel very cheated.

Here's the problem though, you're not fighting a "first boss" or a "last boss," you're fighting THE EXACT SAME CHARACTERS, and they get stronger EVERY SINGLE TIME you get stronger.

I realize that on some level this isn't exactly rocket science, and yet these days this forum apparently largely serves as a place where people complain about the obvious, while others find ways to rationalize why it's OK.

I don't mean any disrespect, and I frankly don't know why I still bother, except perhaps to give all my Line, Group Me, and Facebook buds who once played MPQ new reasons to laugh at me for refusing to move on, but I guess I keep hoping common sense will someday rule.

They did it with DDQ and Ant-Man, so I know they have the ability to build compelling and satisfying games, I just wish they had more desire... but then, they're apparently making money, and money rules all.

DBC

Unknown

Pylgrim wrote:

Drummerboycroy wrote:

Magisse wrote:

For me the difficulty problem is (and other people have brought up in different threads) that the same old things get more difficult *because* you get stronger. This doesn't make a lot of sense.

It used to be (in the golden age of RPG gaming) that you'd always strive to level up your characters, get better gear, etc so that you could get stronger...so that you could move on and tackle a *new* more challenging part of the game for bigger rewards, than would in turn level you up, give you better gear, etc. It wasn't that the area of the game you already did suddenly scaled up along with you to the point that there was no reason to level up at all. I think this is the most frustrating thing for many players, and sadly it's not a problem unique to MPQ.

Apart from the fact that it's enjoyable to see and obtain new characters, levelling & getting stronger can actually hurt your success rate because of the scaling. Look at the popular thread where someone's afraid to level their 4*'s because it'll put him up against more difficult opponents. Sadly he seems justified in this fear. So what's the point of making the 4* transition then?

What needs to be done, is remove the scaling that paradoxically is a disincentive to bettering yourself. There should instead be progressive-difficulty areas of the game that you simply can't win at without better teams, and everyone should strive to improve their roster so that they can eventually reach these. Many people won't want to take the long way to get there and will pay, so the company gets the $$ they want while the player base gets rewarded for their efforts.

You're far too kind. It doesn't "not make lot of sense," it's ridiculous on an almost other-worldly scale.

For the record, the description you gave of the "golden age of RPG gaming" isn't reserved to some period way back in the day. The premise holds true for each and every one of well over 100 games on my phone at this very moment, as well as 100+ console games I currently own and play.

It's not some old-fashioned notion, it's common sense. As you get better and stronger, things should get easier.

DBC

Should them? So both the first boss that you attack with your 10-damage wooden stick, and the last boss that you face with your 999999+ damage megaultimate diamond sword should have 100 HP so you feel like your efforts throughout the game have made your battling easier? I don't know about you, but whenever the last boss fight is not the hardest fight in the game, or at least one of the three hardest, I feel very cheated.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. That last game boss should definitely be the biggest challenge, but if you go back to areas you've already done (which this game is) they shouldn't feel like you're still hitting with your wooden stick.

Especially since your rewards are decided by how well you do compared to other people who still *are* using wooden sticks.

Pylgrim

Drummerboycroy wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

Drummerboycroy wrote:

Magisse wrote:

For me the difficulty problem is (and other people have brought up in different threads) that the same old things get more difficult *because* you get stronger. This doesn't make a lot of sense.

It used to be (in the golden age of RPG gaming) that you'd always strive to level up your characters, get better gear, etc so that you could get stronger...so that you could move on and tackle a *new* more challenging part of the game for bigger rewards, than would in turn level you up, give you better gear, etc. It wasn't that the area of the game you already did suddenly scaled up along with you to the point that there was no reason to level up at all. I think this is the most frustrating thing for many players, and sadly it's not a problem unique to MPQ.

Apart from the fact that it's enjoyable to see and obtain new characters, levelling & getting stronger can actually hurt your success rate because of the scaling. Look at the popular thread where someone's afraid to level their 4*'s because it'll put him up against more difficult opponents. Sadly he seems justified in this fear. So what's the point of making the 4* transition then?

What needs to be done, is remove the scaling that paradoxically is a disincentive to bettering yourself. There should instead be progressive-difficulty areas of the game that you simply can't win at without better teams, and everyone should strive to improve their roster so that they can eventually reach these. Many people won't want to take the long way to get there and will pay, so the company gets the $$ they want while the player base gets rewarded for their efforts.

You're far too kind. It doesn't "not make lot of sense," it's ridiculous on an almost other-worldly scale.

For the record, the description you gave of the "golden age of RPG gaming" isn't reserved to some period way back in the day. The premise holds true for each and every one of well over 100 games on my phone at this very moment, as well as 100+ console games I currently own and play.

It's not some old-fashioned notion, it's common sense. As you get better and stronger, things should get easier.

DBC

Should them? So both the first boss that you attack with your 10-damage wooden stick, and the last boss that you face with your 999999+ damage megaultimate diamond sword should have 100 HP so you feel like your efforts throughout the game have made your battling easier? I don't know about you, but whenever the last boss fight is not the hardest fight in the game, or at least one of the three hardest, I feel very cheated.

Here's the problem though, you're not fighting a "first boss" or a "last boss," you're fighting THE EXACT SAME CHARACTERS, and they get stronger EVERY SINGLE TIME you get stronger.

I realize that on some level this isn't exactly rocket science, and yet these days this forum apparently largely serves as a place where people complain about the obvious, while others find ways to rationalize why it's OK.

I don't mean any disrespect, and I frankly don't know why I still bother, except perhaps to give all my Line, Group Me, and Facebook buds who once played MPQ new reasons to laugh at me for refusing to move on, but I guess I keep hoping common sense will someday rule.

They did it with DDQ and Ant-Man, so I know they have the ability to build compelling and satisfying games, I just wish they had more desire... but then, they're apparently making money, and money rules all.

DBC

DDQ and Ant-man are recent developments. Hell, Ant-man is but a week old and you are already saying that they do nothing and that it's all money, blah, blah. If any this is a time to give props not to complain that they don't do even more.

Besides, this is a competitive, multiplayer game, so it's less than an RPG where there is a a carefully designed progression curve and more like Magic: The Gathering or LoL, where increasing your playing skill and your resources simply allow you to move into increasingly higher levels of competition, ad as such, of difficulty. Sadly, MPQ doesn't have true PvP (but that's more a problem of architecture, rather than of design) so that curve has to be simulated by giving the AI improved resources to match your progress. Or would you enjoy using your 270 4*s to beat all the time enemies at the level of the prologue chapters? If you don't like the increase in difficulty as you moved from 2* to 3* tier and then to 4*, you shouldn't have liked it either when you moved from 1* to 2* tier.

Magisse wrote:

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. That last game boss should definitely be the biggest challenge, but if you go back to areas you've already done (which this game is) they shouldn't feel like you're still hitting with your wooden stick.

Especially since your rewards are decided by how well you do compared to other people who still *are* using wooden sticks.

Strictly following your parallel, "going back to previous areas" would be comparable in MPQ to playing the prologue again, or more relevantly, DDQ. But as I said above, the RPG metaphor can only be applied so much to the type of game MPQ is.

Heartburn

Pylgrim wrote:

Strictly following your parallel, "going back to previous areas" would be comparable in MPQ to playing the prologue again, or more relevantly, DDQ. But as I said above, the RPG metaphor can only be applied so much to the type of game MPQ is.

not quite. the prologue would be the tutorial like stage in the very beginning. this game is event based. in his analogy it would be if you played the hulk event again you would do generally better cause the enemies are easier now that your team is stronger and more diverse. which may happen but may not be true as now the enemies are stronger too. best test would be a static (no levels changing) gauntlet type of event. but we don't even have that. like you pointed out it is hard to compare apples to oranges. but it makes no sense that low level and high level players participate in the same event and fight over the same rewards that mainly only the lower level guy really needs to progress further with the game in a significant way as the 3 silver tokens are still progression but in an insignificant way. we need to offer a challenge or cosmic level option for more developed rosters a place to go fight for rewards they need like 4*s or extra HP and ISO.

Unknown

LXSandman wrote:

Difficulty is a challenging concept to get correct. How do you set the difficulty at a sufficient level that new players starting can get an enjoyable experience, but at the same time veterans are not bored to the point where there is no challenge - aka they leave.

That's easy. You put the different tiers of players in different brackets and you tune the difficulty. Right now I am pursued in my main bracket (Thick as Thieves) by 4 players who don't even have a maxed character. I can tell they are having a more fun than me because they are relentless. I instead have to fight overscaled teams with abilities that can KO in one hit.

Unknown

no...there's plenty of ways to make the game more difficult without having the game standard be ridiculous. Speed runs, playing with level 1 characters, etc.

Any game I design would be accessible so kids/old people/disabled folks could play it with ease.

Pylgrim

Heartburn wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

Strictly following your parallel, "going back to previous areas" would be comparable in MPQ to playing the prologue again, or more relevantly, DDQ. But as I said above, the RPG metaphor can only be applied so much to the type of game MPQ is.

not quite. the prologue would be the tutorial like stage in the very beginning. this game is event based. in his analogy it would be if you played the hulk event again you would do generally better cause the enemies are easier now that your team is stronger and more diverse. which may happen but may not be true as now the enemies are stronger too. best test would be a static (no levels changing) gauntlet type of event. but we don't even have that. like you pointed out it is hard to compare apples to oranges. but it makes no sense that low level and high level players participate in the same event and fight over the same rewards that mainly only the lower level guy really needs to progress further with the game in a significant way as the 3 silver tokens are still progression but in an insignificant way. we need to offer a challenge or cosmic level option for more developed rosters a place to go fight for rewards they need like 4*s or extra HP and ISO.

However, the next time you do the Hulk event, you'd be playing for new rewards to pile on top the ones you've been getting since the previous time. The event itself may be rehashed, but in the big scheme of your personal progression, it is actually a new " dungeon" or whatever, and as such it scales to be challenging to you in the point you are at the moment. I will agree there's room for improvement especially when it comes to compartmentalise players of different levels in distinct zones, but scaling is a mechanic that makes sense, and within the limitations of the system is able to replicate the increase in difficulty you'd experience as you become better in true PvP games.

Speaking of compartmentalisation, that has it's detractors as well, you know? People who feel entitled to be able to play ALL the content in the game and feel outraged by the existence of a skill/roster restricted area. Just see how people complain about not being able to go past certain point in the Gauntlet when it simply goes beyond what their rosters can possibly achieve.

GothicKratos

I'll apologize beforehand if this wasn't what you were implying, but....

raisinbman wrote:

Any game I design would be accessible so kids/old people/disabled folks could play it with ease.

What the what? It's not accessible to those folks? How? I mean, maybe Evelyn is gifted by the MPQ Gods, but she plays perfectly fine and she's four, just as well as she plays My Talking Angela or Tap Titans or Stick Hero or any of the other mobile games she plays on her tablet/our phones.

====

As for the topic at hand, if you mean 'If you were designing MPQ, would you care [...]', then I would lean toward no. I wouldn't concentrate on evolving difficulty, I would create sets of milestones and obstacles to overcome (harder nodes, different node types, different tiers of characters, etc etc etc).

If we're genuinely talking about creating games in an overall sense, I'd say it depends on the game's genre. An FPS? No, probably not, I'd focus on having functional multiplayer content (both online and offline), over functional difficulty. If I'm making a traditional RPG, well, in that case, there's a pretty specific difficulty curve to follow, so I'd do that. Am I trying to make the next Dark Souls? Shooter Hell/Bullet Storm? Difficulty can mean a lot of things. Fire Emblem? Baroque? Lunar? Final Fantasy II?

Point being, if you want to talk about difficulty, we have to talk about the different types of difficulty and why they fall into each type of game and why different types work and don't work. There are very few games that are difficult because of reasons other than what are called "artificial difficulty" (think Final Fantasy mega-bosses - it makes you feel like it's an accomplishment by slapping big numbers on a big dragon) or "manufactured difficultly" (think Fire Emblem stacking the deck from the get go with 10:1 battlefields - they pit you in situations that you are not in the odds of winning to begin with), and a lot of people even argue that games like Dark Souls are not "truly" difficult because the obstacle is simply learning mechanics and patterns, then the game is no longer difficult, but a matter of enacting that knowledge (and then there's the argument of whether or not that is "skill" or simply a battle of knowledge and/or reflexes - and applying that same argument to games like Street Fighter and Call of Duty).