Campaign Difficulty Progression

[tedmann12]

I am going to assume that this has been talked about somewhere, but I wanted to express some thoughts.

 

I understand that there is going to be a few different options of level scaling, which is great IMO.

 

My biggest hope for PoE 2 is that a true sense of challenge and difficulty stays present throughout the entire game. I feel as though cRPGs in general have a difficult time of achieving this for whatever reason. Often times the games can start out brutal but once you get geared up and figure out the game a bit, it becomes too easy.

 

This was an issue for me in pillars, DoS1 and 2, arcanum, honestly most all cRPGs I've played. Ultimately I lose interest in games if they become too easy. My hope is that through the game, there can be a few spots that the devs really focus on making very challenging. Not every single area, but a decent amount of areas that players are likely going to be encountering that are very challenging. The biggest motivator for me in these games are the very hard battles that wreck me. These inspire me to get new gear and strategies and come back to win.

 

Anyway, like I said, I am sure this has been discussed, but I just wanted to express my stance. Difficulty balance for me is one of, if not the, most important mechanic for PoE2.

[Wormerine]

Balancing open RPGs is a ticky thing. On one hand you don't want to make critical path too difficult as to not force sidequests is players aren't interested. However, if you do balance critical path to allow for straight playthrough, than someone who will do some or all the sidecontent will be way overleveled for the story. Even so its easy to do some tougher quests earlier and get ahead of the difficulty curve.

Deadfire obsidian offers couple options for scaling:

Scale everything,
Scale just critical path
+
scale only up (no downscaling)

Hopefully, it will help in giving players who want it constant challange.

[Katarack21]

Personally I really enjoy the early struggle and difficulty, followed by slow achievement, and eventually *steamrolling everything in my path like a god*.

[cheesevillain]

What difficulty do you like to play on, Tedman?

[tedmann12]

I started with hard and then switched to PoTD. 

 

The game was very hard for me early but by act 3 everything was pretty easy again. Although the upscaled expansion pack was quite challenging again.

 

I feel as though chapter 2 of Baldurs Gate 2 is the perfect way in which an open rpg can be structured. There were so many side quests available and you needed to accumulate X amount of gold doing whatever you want. Some were just too challenging right off the bat so you kind of naturally got forced to back away from those and find ones that were doable until you had enough gear or items to do the others.

 

I don't really know what I hope to see out of PoE 2, I just hope they are able to solve the difficulty problem that most crpg's run in to. I also have faith that they will. This seems to be a very skilled development team from what I have gathered.

[Andronidas]

I started with hard and then switched to PoTD. 

 

The game was very hard for me early but by act 3 everything was pretty easy again. Although the upscaled expansion pack was quite challenging again.

 

I feel as though chapter 2 of Baldurs Gate 2 is the perfect way in which an open rpg can be structured. There were so many side quests available and you needed to accumulate X amount of gold doing whatever you want. Some were just too challenging right off the bat so you kind of naturally got forced to back away from those and find ones that were doable until you had enough gear or items to do the others.

 

I don't really know what I hope to see out of PoE 2, I just hope they are able to solve the difficulty problem that most crpg's run in to. I also have faith that they will. This seems to be a very skilled development team from what I have gathered.

 

I agree, BG2 was constantly challenging for me as well. That may of course have to do with it being more linear in its ways, but I'd prefer linearity and depth over a too open world running the risk of meaningless/no challenge. In my eyes, the bar should always be set high, so that everyone can have a challenge. That way, those who can't hack it going main quest only would, as you said it, be forced to go back and do something different - or reduce the difficulty.

 

IMO the fun of these games, or any activity really, comes from (just barely) surmountable resistance - NOT by "having it your way" all of the time. It's like our modern life perception of freedom is a child-like idea i.e. "I do whatever I want, whenever I want it", but I think there is a deeper meaning of freedom, that eludes many in modern society, which is that, paradoxically, constriction or being bound to something/someone can be strangely liberating. For example, a real life example, being in a romantic relationship can free you from the stress/constant awareness of having to think of the other sex as "maybe potential partners", and gives you the ability to engage in different kinds of relationships with the other sex, that could maybe even make for a deeper understanding of the world for yourself.

 

Returning to the world of gaming, I think this is applicable too in the great example of BG2: SOA; the linearity of this CRPG lends itself to such a dense world, that even though your choices are ultimately constricted and arbitrary, the story is so focused, that you don't mind doing annoying tasks to earn money for saving Imoen, thus making it so you will probably have reached a proper level for the challenging path ahead. What I'm worrying is that Josh and the team in Pillars 2 (which I'm really looking forward to, don't get me wrong) will buy too much into the aforementioned infantile perception of freedom, that I suspect much of this community is too grown up to really care for in the long run, thus sacrificing the enjoyment of resistance in the game and ultimately, replayability.

[Sedrefilos]

I might go with critical path scaling but I'm not so sure yet. I usually like to play 'em as they are (no scaling at all) and take the challenge where is. I'm too weak, I'm too weak; if i'm too strong... well, then I'm too stong for them baddies    It's not like I started stronger

[Wormerine]

I might go with critical path scaling but I'm not so sure yet. I usually like to play 'em as they are (no scaling at all) and take the challenge where is. I'm too weak, I'm too weak; if i'm too strong... well, then I'm too stong for them baddies    It's not like I started stronger

I will go no scaling on first playthrough. I might scale everything up on 2nd and see if it works as advertised.

[Lephys]

*shrug*... There's a reason that tabletop DMs/GMs will keep checking monster manuals and roll up encounters that actually challenge your party in each play session.

 

Sure, it's nice to occasionally obliterate something because you're powerful, but how do you really test your power if you're not going up against something powerful? Eventually, it's no longer fun to slice through the 1000th piece of tissue paper with your katana.

 

With the exception of certain encounters, there's absolutely no reason for a set group of wolves or kobolds or what-have-you to permanently occupy a certain space. Your encountering of things in the wild is essentially completely random. You don't want to just happen to encounter 7 dragons roaming around 1 hour into the game, so why would you want to encounter 7 rats roaming around 70 hours into the game? It just doesn't make any sense, fundamentally. "I like to steamroll stuff later" doesn't logically work, because you could just have an optional place to go to slaughter deer all day or meteor strike all the bunnies to death. Unless you actually like for your opponents to present no challenge to you (in which case what is your power proving, once again, against something that wouldn't even require HALF your power to best?), there's no reason not to make some degree of adjustment to the foes you're facing throughout the game.

 

Especially against sentient/intelligent foes, one would think they'd adjust their force to your party. Some syndicate or something, for example, who wants to send assassins after you. Why would they just plan a year in advance who they're going to send, then send the same people no matter what? They'd probably go "Oh, it's a party of 5 mages... better send some people equipped for that." Or "Oh, they took down several ogres, I heard?! They're pretty serious... better hire 5 more men than usual." Etc.

[Sedrefilos]

Since the loot is not scaling with the difficulty I don't see why I should bother myself with difficult fights if there's no worthy reward. If it did, then yeah, scale 'em up all the way.

Now the critical path, because it's mostly about the story and not the loot, I want it to be tough. As one friend said, combat is also story.

 

In tabletop scaling goes along with reward unless the DM is a jerk

[Lephys]

A fair point, but it's still 2 different things that are related. Why should you even bother yourself with any fights -- with combat in general -- if it's not going to present you with a challenge? Why would anyone play Tetris if all it gave you were straight/bar pieces? You're no longer even playing a puzzle. You're just stacking up layers of bars and watching them vanish. Who's like "Yeahhhhhh... I like pushing the 'down' button and making the bars fall faster so they'll go ahead and disappear. I like overcoming nothing at all!"

 

Put a "Win the game" button at the start menu, between "New Game" and "Load Game," and watch people click it because it's so enjoyable.

 

At the very least, if someone didn't like participating in the combat at all, they'd just want an option to skip the combat. That makes sense. Wanting to partake in combat that basically doesn't require you to partake in it is a bit paradoxical.

 

So, yeah, rewards should increase as the difficulty does, but, aside from that, the difficulty should at least try to keep up with your power. No one wants to read a story in which Frodo backhands the Balrog off the stone bridge in the mines, and keeps walking, because he's the most powerful entity in the known universe, but for some reason all the bad guys don't seem to care and just attack him anyway and try to oppose him.

[Zap Gun For Hire]

A fair point, but it's still 2 different things that are related. Why should you even bother yourself with any fights -- with combat in general -- if it's not going to present you with a challenge? Why would anyone play Tetris if all it gave you were straight/bar pieces? You're no longer even playing a puzzle. You're just stacking up layers of bars and watching them vanish. Who's like "Yeahhhhhh... I like pushing the 'down' button and making the bars fall faster so they'll go ahead and disappear. I like overcoming nothing at all!"

 

Put a "Win the game" button at the start menu, between "New Game" and "Load Game," and watch people click it because it's so enjoyable.

 

At the very least, if someone didn't like participating in the combat at all, they'd just want an option to skip the combat. That makes sense. Wanting to partake in combat that basically doesn't require you to partake in it is a bit paradoxical.

 

So, yeah, rewards should increase as the difficulty does, but, aside from that, the difficulty should at least try to keep up with your power. No one wants to read a story in which Frodo backhands the Balrog off the stone bridge in the mines, and keeps walking, because he's the most powerful entity in the known universe, but for some reason all the bad guys don't seem to care and just attack him anyway and try to oppose him.

 

This has a really really REALLY simple answer: Different people get satisfaction out of different things.

 

Crazy ol' world, huh?

 

For some folks satisfaction is fighting tooth and nail, worrying about every hit yet emerging triumphant.

 

For other folks satisfaction is seeing just how high the fish will jump in the air when one shoots into the barrel.

 

(For others still, it's both, depending on the mood. )

 

The reason why the "I Win" button 'solution' you suggest doesn't work you don't get the satisfaction in seeing things get exploded on the screen.  No sense of "I am REALLY good at figuring this game out and watch as I carve destruction in my wake".  

 

There's a reason why that Conan quote about what is best in life is so popular after all.  In the end it comes down to power fantasy.  Nothing wrong with satisfying that itch as long as one is honest about it, I reckon. 

[Sedrefilos]

A fair point, but it's still 2 different things that are related. Why should you even bother yourself with any fights -- with combat in general -- if it's not going to present you with a challenge?

C'mon man... you're exaggerating :D

Difficulty and reward must go hand-in-hand in an rpg in my book. In any game that has progress in general. That's all

This isn't a side-scroller platform were you trying to overcome the obstacles in order to get to the end of the level

If I'm in an side area that has nothing to do with the sotry, spend 10 hours to make it through and at the end I get a used boot for reward... well that's 10 hours wasted of my life there.

[Lephys]

The reason why the "I Win" button 'solution' you suggest doesn't work you don't get the satisfaction in seeing things get exploded on the screen.

 

You say the "I win" button doesn't work, yet you just said that different people get satisfaction out of different things. So, you're telling me that getting satisfaction out of overcoming a lack of challenge is fun and acceptable (because you understand/like it, I guess?), but a Victory button isn't okay? Which is it? Either everything's okay because someone might like it, or certain things aren't okay despite people arbitrarily liking them.

 

 

 

 No sense of "I am REALLY good at figuring this game out and watch as I carve destruction in my wake". 

 

But what are you figuring out? How to push the "things die" button? If you invent a sport called "do anything," then you do anything (even nothing is something), and you go "YAY, I WIN!", then what's the point? Your choices and skill are taken out of the equation. You aren't solving anything, or figuring anything out. At that point, the only challenge would be actually losing combat encounters, as it would be a challenge to do so even if you just left everyone to AI everything to death.

 

You still don't comprehend the paradox. In the context of "I want to overcome stuff," you can't take away all the obstacles or challenges yet still derive enjoyment specifically from overcoming stuff.

[Zap Gun For Hire]

 No sense of "I am REALLY good at figuring this game out and watch as I carve destruction in my wake". 

 

But what are you figuring out? How to push the "things die" button? If you invent a sport called "do anything," then you do anything (even nothing is something), and you go "YAY, I WIN!", then what's the point? Your choices and skill are taken out of the equation. You aren't solving anything, or figuring anything out. At that point, the only challenge would be actually losing combat encounters, as it would be a challenge to do so even if you just left everyone to AI everything to death.

 

You still don't comprehend the paradox. In the context of "I want to overcome stuff," you can't take away all the obstacles or challenges yet still derive enjoyment specifically from overcoming stuff.

 

 

Bolded.  It's not that I don't comprehend the paradox.  I reject the notion entirely of it being a paradox. 

 

Jeff Vogel of Spiderweb software had some thoughts about this, or at least related thoughts on this matter (with more thoughts on the subject on a later post). I'll quote the meat of it here:

 

 

I would use a different term, one that isn't quite as insulting. I want to talk about what I call addiction-based game design. So, what is that?

 

Consider the many ways in which video games can be fun. For example, there is the adrenaline rush of fast action, using skill and dexterity to defeat a foe (shooters, sports games and Rock Band). There is the intellectual and emotional stimulation of a good story (Knights of the Old Republic or, to many, Grant Theft Auto). There's the brain engagement of solving a tricky puzzle (Braid, World of Goo, or adventure games like the Sam & Max series).

 

And then, there is that strange, visceral feeling of accomplishment obtained from character building and earning rewards. It is a strange phenomenon, best seen in massively multiplayer RPGs. These games are based on repetition - killing the same monsters, fighting through the same raids, doing PvP on the same battlegrounds, gathering and crafting the same recipes.

 

And, in return, players get little rewards. Statistics go up. Experience bars fill. You push a lever and a reward pellet comes out. There is the feeling that something has been accomplished, a sensation that is amazingly addictive. In EverQuest, when I gained a level or got a really good item, the feeling of achievement was palpable. For me, it was an actual, physical sensation. I kept playing because it gave me the satisfaction of achieving something, even when, of course, I wasn't. And this is what I mean by addiction-based game design.

 

It's a tricky thing to define, but I'll take a crack at it. A design is addiction-based to the degree that it encourages players to experience the same content again and again (often referred to as grinding) in return to obtain a series of rewards. These can be simple labels with no tangible effect (like an in-game title or some achievements), or they can be character improvements that give the ability to move on to a new location with a slightly different sort of grinding. I call this the grind/reward cycle, and it can keep players coming back to one game for years.

 

One key aspect of this design is that it gives many small rewards instead of a few big ones, so that the player is receiving constant positive reinforcement. A classic example is the style of skill improvement in World of Warcraft and EverQuest. When you gain a level, your skills don't go up five points. Instead, your maximum goes up that much, and then the skill itself increases with use, a point at a time. Splitting up the reward into many parts increased the number of reinforcements.

 

Similarly, in Lego Star Wars (and other games in the series), practically everything you do, from killing a foe to smashing open a door, results in your receiving studs (money) for buying rewards and characters. No matter what you are doing, the illusion of accomplishment is maintained.

 

Addiction-based design isn't a boolean, zero or one, true or false type of thing. Practically all successful games provide satisfying rewards to a player in return for long and skillful play - like unlocking new areas, making a stronger character, getting more stars in Guitar Hero. But some designs are built entirely around taking advantage players of being vulnerable to this sort of positive reinforcement. And, in the case of World of Warcraft, I am extremely susceptible... me and millions of others, which is why I now fearfully avoid it.

 

But, if a game uses rewards of any sort to entice you to experience highly repetitive content, you should see what it's trying to do and which of your buttons it's trying to press. If you don't mind, that's cool, but you should understand it.

 

Jeff Vogel has been designing cRPGs for over 20 years now, which is several eternities in the gaming world.  And while he isn't infallible in his opinions, I give his thoughts on game design extra weight simply because he HAS been around so long and survived as a self-proclaimed bottom feeder.

 

And his thoughts here about how in SOME of the rewards in cRPGs can be nothing more than elaborate way for a mouse to realize it gets food by pressing a button are pretty astute, IMO. 

 

Now Pillars has much more to offer than a gussied up Victory Button as you put it.  It, unlike MMRPGs, isn't based around the grind.  Players don't have to push the Victory Button to advance there characters.

 

But for those that want it it's still there.  It's that ol' power fantasy bit I mentioned in another post. To put it another way that constant drip drip drip of satisfaction from seeing something done, even if it isn't that hard to do it.  You might not see it as an accomplishment, but it's enough that others do.

 

=====

 

So why not cut out the middleman and make a game with nothing more than a Victory Button?  Well presuming you are actually serious about your question, it's the gussied up bells and whistles that help sell the illusion.  With out the bells and whistles it isn't as appealing to as many people.

 

Simple as that.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Zap Gun For Hire

[Lephys]

^ I understand all of that. None of it, unfortunately, knocks the idea of what I'm describing being a paradox. I'm not saying that you can't get a thrill out of pulling a lever and receiving a reward AND a thrill out of actually utilizing your brain to overcome a puzzle, in the same game. What I'm saying is, when you're cognitively thinking about what you want out of the game, you either want it to present you with challenges to overcome, or you don't. In the moment, you may go "YAY! I BEATED ENEMIES WITH UBER EASE!", but you cannot simultaneously be considering how you want a challenge out of combat. It is impossible. They are opposite thoughts.

 

Besides... all the examples he gives in that little segment are of MMORPGs. These games completely discourage you from fighting weakling stuff. The push is to fight stuff just long enough to improve (level up, equip new gear, etc.), then move on to the next thing that challenges you. So nothing about that says "Yes, I want all the challenge to eventually go away so that I can 'test out' my new powers on things that were already easily killable with my old powers."

[Arranvin]

It's not a zero sum situation like you're making it out to be. People can beat a fight with ease yet tell themselves that the reason that it was easy was because they're so skillful (be it at micro-managing their characters, building their characters well, making an effective team etc etc), and so still experience a sense of pride and accomplishment of overcome a difficult challenge. It's true that for most people an encounter that severely tests them will result in a greater sense of satisfaction and a challenge overcome than an encounter that could literally be left to the AI to handle, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for people to believe that they are overcoming a challenge and to derive satisfaction accordingly in the latter example.

[Wormerine]

There is a point to be made that solution can be satisfying without being challenging. A good example of that is Portal. A very enjoyable game, which makes you smart, but most of the puzzles are really easy. However, because game engages the player (while easy, puzzles are creative and fresh and game doesn't hand hold the player) the game stays fun. The bigger problem comes, when game is designed around certain rules but those rules aren't reinforced strong enough, so even if you play the game in a "wrong" way it still doesn't matter - the game doesn't really engage player with its mechanics.

And of course there is a satisfaction of "progress", clearing up map, increasing procentages, gaining lvls etc. Never got into those games.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Wormerine

[Katarack21]

My problem is that if the game stays equally challenging and difficult the whole time, I don't feel any sense of progress or advancement. I'm objectively more powerful fighting more powerful enemies, but I feel just as week as the beginning, and lose interest.

[Wormerine]

My problem is that if the game stays equally challenging and difficult the whole time, I don't feel any sense of progress or advancement. I'm objectively more powerful fighting more powerful enemies, but I feel just as week as the beginning, and lose interest.

I dont have the same issue If difficulty progression is done right.

 

I do encounter the same problem, If enemies stay the same but they are simply higher level.

 

While I prefer to face strong opposition in the late game (as a matter of fact I prefer when difficulty rises, not gets lower) it sucks if it feels that you fight same enemies over and over again. However, if you face groups enemies that you struggled to defeat before in smaller numbers, or had to outright avoid it can be super satisfying. One of my best RPG memories is facing Shadowbeast in Gothic. Shadowbeast lived deep in a forest, which you could go into at the very start of th game. Of course, one time I did take a shortcut through a forest and run into one. It was larger and more threatening than anything I saw till this point and pretty much killed me in one hit. I have been running away from it ever since. But now, many hours later, I am lvl 16 and I am talked with bringing horn of this thing. And so I set out to my doom. Still not a cakewalk, but now I could fight it and defeat it. Super satisfying.

[zealotstim]

I am going to assume that this has been talked about somewhere, but I wanted to express some thoughts.

 

I understand that there is going to be a few different options of level scaling, which is great IMO.

 

My biggest hope for PoE 2 is that a true sense of challenge and difficulty stays present throughout the entire game. I feel as though cRPGs in general have a difficult time of achieving this for whatever reason. Often times the games can start out brutal but once you get geared up and figure out the game a bit, it becomes too easy.

 

This was an issue for me in pillars, DoS1 and 2, arcanum, honestly most all cRPGs I've played. Ultimately I lose interest in games if they become too easy. My hope is that through the game, there can be a few spots that the devs really focus on making very challenging. Not every single area, but a decent amount of areas that players are likely going to be encountering that are very challenging. The biggest motivator for me in these games are the very hard battles that wreck me. These inspire me to get new gear and strategies and come back to win.

 

Anyway, like I said, I am sure this has been discussed, but I just wanted to express my stance. Difficulty balance for me is one of, if not the, most important mechanic for PoE2.

Totally agree, and I think there should be some mode where you say you are going to be completionist, and content scales accordingly. One reason stuff becomes so easy is because it isn't scaled to accommodate for the xp from all the side content.

[Katarack21]

 

I am going to assume that this has been talked about somewhere, but I wanted to express some thoughts.

 

I understand that there is going to be a few different options of level scaling, which is great IMO.

 

My biggest hope for PoE 2 is that a true sense of challenge and difficulty stays present throughout the entire game. I feel as though cRPGs in general have a difficult time of achieving this for whatever reason. Often times the games can start out brutal but once you get geared up and figure out the game a bit, it becomes too easy.

 

This was an issue for me in pillars, DoS1 and 2, arcanum, honestly most all cRPGs I've played. Ultimately I lose interest in games if they become too easy. My hope is that through the game, there can be a few spots that the devs really focus on making very challenging. Not every single area, but a decent amount of areas that players are likely going to be encountering that are very challenging. The biggest motivator for me in these games are the very hard battles that wreck me. These inspire me to get new gear and strategies and come back to win.

 

Anyway, like I said, I am sure this has been discussed, but I just wanted to express my stance. Difficulty balance for me is one of, if not the, most important mechanic for PoE2.

Totally agree, and I think there should be some mode where you say you are going to be completionist, and content scales accordingly. One reason stuff becomes so easy is because it isn't scaled to accommodate for the xp from all the side content.

 

That is a true statement, and I am one of those people who will clear *EVERYTHING* before finally doing this section of the main quest...then repeat.

[zealotstim]

Yeah, same here Katarack21.

[champy]

I am going to assume that this has been talked about somewhere, but I wanted to express some thoughts.

 

I understand that there is going to be a few different options of level scaling, which is great IMO.

 

My biggest hope for PoE 2 is that a true sense of challenge and difficulty stays present throughout the entire game. I feel as though cRPGs in general have a difficult time of achieving this for whatever reason. Often times the games can start out brutal but once you get geared up and figure out the game a bit, it becomes too easy.

 

This was an issue for me in pillars, DoS1 and 2, arcanum, honestly most all cRPGs I've played. Ultimately I lose interest in games if they become too easy. My hope is that through the game, there can be a few spots that the devs really focus on making very challenging. Not every single area, but a decent amount of areas that players are likely going to be encountering that are very challenging. The biggest motivator for me in these games are the very hard battles that wreck me. These inspire me to get new gear and strategies and come back to win.

 

Anyway, like I said, I am sure this has been discussed, but I just wanted to express my stance. Difficulty balance for me is one of, if not the, most important mechanic for PoE2.

 

As others have pointed out, it is nice to slowly become god like. 

 

For you, I recommend making your own challenges -- ie don't use a particular spell, or only use a certain weapon type. 

[Wormerine]

As others have pointed out, it is nice to slowly become god like. 

 

For you, I recommend making your own challenges -- ie don't use a particular spell, or only use a certain weapon type.

 

That doesn’t really make sense. Someone wanting a game to have a difficulty curve that takes into account players lvl, and making specific challenges by not playing the game correct way are not the same.