29 réponses à ce sujet

[SagaX]

Long time ago in ME3 forums I posted something like this: How would you like more the new Mass Effect's difficulty be based on? More "Character Level" oriented or "Player Skill" oriented??? Both types of difficulties can change the gameplay of any game.

 

Lets compare DragonAgeInquisition vs MassEffect3:

- DAI has a more "Character Level" oriented difficulty. ME3 has a more "Player Skill" oriented difficulty.

- On DAI if your character is not strong enough player can have a hard time, and if the player is over leveled even Nightmare is piece of cake. On ME3 if the player is not skilledfull enough the player has a hard time, but if the player is very skilled then the highest difficulty is a enjoyable challenge.

- Therefore "Character Level Difficulty" games makes you want to invest time in farming experience. "Player Skill Difficulty" games just go more straight into the story and less sidequesting and farming.

- On DAI's multiplayer, your character is BEATEN even on level 10 o higher! But on ME3 even on Level 1 on gold(and platinum for some) a player can be competent.

 

ME is a mix between action and RPG, and therefore it shares some parts of "Character Level Difficulty" and "Player Skill Difficulty" to make a "Player Skill Difficulty, with Level Powers that increase the player's efficiency, NOT his/her gaming skills".

 

So, now that I kind of define what I called "Character Level Difficulty" and "Player Skill Difficulty": ¿How would you like MassEffect Andromeda's difficulty system to be? ¿More oriented to Character Level or more oriented to Player Skill?

 

 

[The Elcor Spectre]

Player skill, always. I don't want to have an easier time on the hardest difficulty because I decided to grind a couple more hours than usual. 

[Element Zero]

ME2 and ME3 were fine. Did they feature aim-assist for the reflexively challenged, as ME did?

Honestly, a cool little anecdote about blending of player and character skill that jumps to mind is from Assassin's Creed Unity. You had to invest in a variety of skills, lockpicking being one of them. The lockpicking "mini game" required some eye-hand coordination from the player, as you had to time a button press. Upgrading the character's skill dramatically decreased the difficulty of this task. I thought the whole system fit the game beautifully, and was very well balanced. Others, who clearly weren't as skilled at well timed button pressing, complained long and loud, and the feature disappeared entirely from the next game.

I said all of that to say this: you'll never get a consensus answer to this question. Some like their skill as a player to be tested. Some like their RPGs to be a virtual simulation, with every single detail decided by character stats and abilities.

I know I do not like having to invest in shooting skills in ME1. Shepard is an N7 marine. He should already have mastered weaponry. I want to invest in cool, fun things, not in "Pistols", "Rifles", "Charm", "Intimidate", etc... Give me that stuff for free.

EDIT:

For the sake of clarity, where do I stand?

ME is a blend of RPG and TPS. I think the gameplay has reflected that, and should continue to do so. There are difficulty settings because some people are more skilled at gameplay. Some of us like to be challenged, and I think that should and will continue to be a thing. That doesn't mean that character skill isn't at work in such a case. Whose abilities are we players using to excel at the game? The protagonist's abilities, which we each and all earned through the same process of character advancement.

I'm not sure this addition to my post is written at all in a clear fashion, now that I've typed it. Oh, well. I'm in a rush. Hopefully you get the point. I think there must be balance, and ME2-3 had that, for the most part. We could add a few more skills, for sure, without disrupting the balance; but I don't want a return to the days of ME1.

[Cyonan]

I'd rather have player skill.

 

Mass Effect is a action/RPG hybrid and I don't want to trivialize the action half of that just because I did a few side quests and leveled up.

[KirkyX]

For Mass Effect? I'd go player skill--it's a shooter/RPG hybrid, after all, and shooters tend to be less fun when player skill is de-emphasised.

 

DA: O managed to balance both pretty well - sure, having properly-levelled characters was very important, and overlevelling could substantially diminish the importance of skill, but if you didn't know how to use your party's abilities effectively, or how to position each class on the field, you'd have a frustrating time at best - but I haven't gotten that same feeling from any Dragon Age since.

[AlanC9]

It's pretty much impossible to separate player skill from combat unless they throw out the existing combat system, isn't it?

@KirkyX: Meaning that the later DA games are too build-focused? I thought DA:O was a little weak on the build side for warriors and rogues, myself. mages were better, but in the AD&D spot-the-useless-abilities paradigm, which I've never much cared for

[Cyonan]

It's pretty much impossible to separate player skill from combat unless they throw out the existing combat system, isn't it?

 

I would argue it's just straight up impossible to 100% separate player skill from combat unless you remove their ability to control anything.

 

Even in something like D&D, player skill enters into it because you have to understand basic combat tactics.

 

Although if we're talking just the aspect of aiming at enemies then yeah, you'd need to pretty heavily revamp the existing combat system.

[SagaX]

I would argue it's just straight up impossible to 100% separate player skill from combat unless you remove their ability to control anything.

 

Even in something like D&D, player skill enters into it because you have to understand basic combat tactics.

 

Although if we're talking just the aspect of aiming at enemies then yeah, you'd need to pretty heavily revamp the existing combat system.

Thats one of the reasons because you why need to grind/farm in Character Level difficulty games: You CANT evade, your character has a %Evasion and it forces you/you need to increase it. You CANT defend, therefore you need to level up its HP or defense.

Comparing to the opposite type where you HAVE the control of the evasion and maneuvers and therefore dont need to spend time grinding/farming.

[Teabaggin Krogan]

Player skill for sure, I'm not a big fan of character skill gameplays like skyrim, fallout etc where being a high level character made the game so easy that it essentially plays itself. It's no fun if I'm fighting a huge dreaded monster and it dies because I accidentally sneezed on it since I'm too over leveled.

 

A player skill system makes the player progress with his character rather than being disconnected to their character's progress.  The player develops by understanding the game better and becoming better skilled at playing the game. A good game has a lot of depth to its system that encourages the player to better understand all the small details in it to keep getting better. It is something that is more rewarding and exciting to play Imho. 

[capn233]

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a bit of "regressive difficulty" as with the previous titles.  Enemy leveling didn't seem to ever really outpace player / squad leveling.

 

That said, the three incarnations were pretty different with the shape of these curves.  ME1 might have been the worst offender with Level 1 Insanity as pretty difficult (or tedious from some perspective) given that they had high HP, abilities like immunity and the player starts off weak.  By Level 20 the game has gotten a good deal easier, and by 40 it is drastically easier, pretty much until end game due to unlocking Level VII+ gear.

 

ME2 was probably the best relative to the others, but it was still more or less regressive.

[SKAR]

Long time ago in ME3 forums I posted something like this: How would you like more the new Mass Effect's difficulty be based on? More "Character Level" oriented or "Player Skill" oriented??? Both types of difficulties can change the gameplay of any game.

Lets compare DragonAgeInquisition vs MassEffect3:
- DAI has a more "Character Level" oriented difficulty. ME3 has a more "Player Skill" oriented difficulty.
- On DAI if your character is not strong enough player can have a hard time, and if the player is over leveled even Nightmare is piece of cake. On ME3 if the player is not skilledfull enough the player has a hard time, but if the player is very skilled then the highest difficulty is a enjoyable challenge.
- Therefore "Character Level Difficulty" games makes you want to invest time in farming experience. "Player Skill Difficulty" games just go more straight into the story and less sidequesting and farming.
- On DAI's multiplayer, your character is BEATEN even on level 10 o higher! But on ME3 even on Level 1 on gold(and platinum for some) a player can be competent.

ME is a mix between action and RPG, and therefore it shares some parts of "Character Level Difficulty" and "Player Skill Difficulty" to make a "Player Skill Difficulty, with Level Powers that increase the player's efficiency, NOT his/her gaming skills".

So, now that I kind of define what I called "Character Level Difficulty" and "Player Skill Difficulty": ¿How would you like MassEffect Andromeda's difficulty system to be? ¿More oriented to Character Level or more oriented to Player Skill?

Well I do like a good challenge. I also like completely obliterating enemies with relative ease. A challenging normal difficulty will do.

[Daemul]

Player skill, always. Character skill has no place in a shooter. 

[Mdizzletr0n]

For me personally, I lean more to character skill. But give me an aim assist option and I'll consider that a decent compromise.

[Sartoz]

ME2 and ME3 were fine. Did they feature aim-assist for the reflexively challenged, as ME did?

Honestly, a cool little anecdote about blending of player and character skill that jumps to mind is from Assassin's Creed Unity. You had to invest in a variety of skills, lockpicking being one of them. The lockpicking "mini game" required some eye-hand coordination from the player, as you had to time a button press. Upgrading the character's skill dramatically decreased the difficulty of this task. I thought the whole system fit the game beautifully, and was very well balanced. Others, who clearly weren't as skilled at well timed button pressing, complained long and loud, and the feature disappeared entirely from the next game.
 

Snip

                                                                                      <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

And here lies the crux of the matter. Player Skill.

 

Player Skill may look like the IQ Bell Curve (ie: Normal Distribution). If a game is designed to hit the centre of the curve (apex of the bell), then you reach the highest number of players in the market. The more off-centre you go, and the number of players can drop dramatically.

 

Since EA's intent is to maximize their market, games that require skill levels higher than avg. just won't do.  Kasumi's talent wasn't in hand-eye coordination but the understanding and skillful use of tech. 

 

Personally, I find level skills do well in a sci-fi setting.

[capn233]

So the difficulty settings cannot be used to cover a wide range of the curve?

[Cyonan]

                                                                                      <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

And here lies the crux of the matter. Player Skill.

 

Player Skill may look like the IQ Bell Curve (ie: Normal Distribution). If a game is designed to hit the centre of the curve (apex of the bell), then you reach the highest number of players in the market. The more off-centre you go, and the number of players can drop dramatically.

 

Since EA's intent is to maximize their market, games that require skill levels higher than avg. just won't do.  Kasumi's talent wasn't in hand-eye coordination but the understanding and skillful use of tech. 

 

Personally, I find level skills do well in a sci-fi setting.

 

That's what difficulty levels are for.

 

Normal difficulty should be trying to hit the middle of that curve while Insanity should be off to the side. The telemetry data from Mass Effect 3 noted that only 4% of players actually completed the game on Insanity, which means it's not necessary to balance that around the average player.

 

I can understand if they don't put a lot of work into making Insanity more challenging and just go the usual route of a stat increase for the enemy, but the whole problem of variance in skill level was something we solved decades ago.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's pretty much impossible to separate player skill from combat unless they throw out the existing combat system, isn't it?

Pause-to-aim.

The ME games have done a pretty good job of supporting the character skill approach.

Character skill is by far my preference.

[Sylvius the Mad]

For me personally, I lean more to character skill. But give me an aim assist option and I'll consider that a decent compromise.

Aim while paused. No skill at all.

[MrBSN2017]

It needs to stay the way it is. They really got it right with the combat system in ME3.

[Element Zero]

That's what difficulty levels are for.
 
Normal difficulty should be trying to hit the middle of that curve while Insanity should be off to the side. The telemetry data from Mass Effect 3 noted that only 4% of players actually completed the game on Insanity, which means it's not necessary to balance that around the average player.
 
I can understand if they don't put a lot of work into making Insanity more challenging and just go the usual route of a stat increase for the enemy, but the whole problem of variance in skill level was something we solved decades ago.

Exactly. "Normal" should be covering the majority. "Easy", or something similar, should be available for those who are strictly on board for the story. I'm not sure whether ME3's difficulty got it right. Insanity felt more like Veteran. I'm not saying that to be an elitist douche, either. I'm basing it upon the benchmarks set by the earlier games. (Only 4% played Insanity because they were intimidated. More would play, if they knew how easy it is.)

I felt like the damage give-and-take was okay. Enemies weren't bullet sponges; and you dropped pretty quickly if you did something foolish. The real problem was that the enemies weren't aggressive enough; and they simply lacked the tools to put up any real resistance against Shepard and crew. If MEA were to feature more intelligent, aggressive foes, and these forces were give more impressive offensive capabilities, I'd likely be a happy gamer.

The Twitter comments suggest that we will see a more difficult game, this time around. I hope it's more difficult because the enemies are smarter, faster and better equipped to fight us. I hope it's not harder simply because our enemies soak up more damage, and we soak less.

[Cyonan]

Exactly. "Normal" should be covering the majority. "Easy", or something similar, should be available for those who are strictly on board for the story. I'm not sure whether ME3's difficulty got it right. Insanity felt more like Veteran. I'm not saying that to be an elitist douche, either. I'm basing it upon the benchmarks set by the earlier games. (Only 4% played Insanity because they were intimidated. More would play, if they knew how easy it is.)

I felt like the damage give-and-take was okay. Enemies weren't bullet sponges; and you dropped pretty quickly if you did something foolish. The real problem was that the enemies weren't aggressive enough; and they simply lacked the tools to put up any real resistance against Shepard and crew. If MEA were to feature more intelligent, aggressive foes, and these forces were give more impressive offensive capabilities, I'd likely be a happy gamer.

The Twitter comments suggest that we will see a more difficult game, this time around. I hope it's more difficult because the enemies are smarter, faster and better equipped to fight us. I hope it's not harder simply because our enemies soak up more damage, and we soak less.

 

I agree that Insanity felt too easy. Especially after playing MP where Gold spawns more Phantoms in 10 waves than SP sends at you throughout the entire game.

 

I actually liked the way the Citadel DLC was going with their enemies. Each unit was distinctly different and wasn't just a pushover. I also liked the mirror match and think enemies should go back to using abilities a little bit more.

[Element Zero]

I agree on all counts. I kept thinking of mirror match during my previous post. I think the Citadel DLC is a good sign that their thinking was heading in a fun direction.

The new game will give them a chance to reset the board, so to speak. It could be that some of the new foes are very capable combatants, virtually on par with the player character (as in the mirror match). That could make for some fun encounters. I'm hoping better all around AI aggressiveness, interesting environments, and other things will all contribute, too. We will see.

[capn233]

More enemy abilities would be a good thing.  Not so sure it should stay quite as vanilla as "biotic projectile stagger power" and "tech projectile stagger power" as in mirror match.  Would be interesting to get some variety as per ME1 where some enemies had powers nearly identical to the ones you ran that were hitscan.  Like Sabotage and Damping.

[AlanC9]

I get the impression that Bio combat systems don't go through enough iterations before release; DLC battles are always a lot more interesting. Which I guess is kind of predictable, considering the way Bio games always change up combat.

[Sartoz]

So the difficulty settings cannot be used to cover a wide range of the curve?

                                                                                        <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

It does but with limitations.  Here is a pic of the curve: https://upload.wikim...diagram.svg.png

 

In our case the vertical line on the left represent players while the numbers on the horizontal line at the bottom represents difficulty settings.  From, zero, going left on the horizontal line means easier settings ( -1, -2 ... etc) while going right increases the difficulty.  Now, substitute the numbers 0.1 - 0.4 on the vertical line with 25, 50, 75 and 100 = number of players = you can substitute a percentage (ie: 25%, 50%...) or absolute numbers where 25 = 500K, 50 = 1M, 75 = 1.5M and 100 = 2M.

 

Zero represent the max number of players... just go up from zero and at the top of the curve go left to find the number. Notice that if you deviate  the difficulty level in either direction,  from zero, the number of players that use such a difficulty drops.  Going to either extreme, it severely drops.

 

So how to design a game that satisfy everyone? Perhaps a better question is "do we design a game that reaches the max number +/- some easy/difficulty percentages?". Followed by another question. "How to properly implement these settings?".  Personally, I take better tactical play by the AI  more satisfying.

 

Edit: here is a simple way to draw a bell curve: http://www.wikihow.c...aw-a-Bell-Curve