Remnants of Skystone Difficulty/Reward System

Making this thread for those who were discussing it in the chat.

Scaling difficulty should not be implemented, the current difficulty setting on RoS is good for all players equally, a scaling system would only reward players not as good as the other players the same way, while also hindering the ability for the “better” players to play.

Challenge is good, making the game easier for other people and letting them turn it back to the normal difficulty at whim is not.

Scaling difficulty as an optional feature does what exactly? It gives bad players a chance to beat the game. While one can argue that anyone can if they level enough, that assumes that the players in question are good enough to beat the game at any level. It can be argued that level 40 should be able to beat anything, but I fail to see why that would matter what the level is, if one can not beat something at level 40 even after months of trying and planning by the logic of the non-scalers they should get better, which isn’t something that one can normally just do if they keep failing to do so.

People seem to complain that somehow easier modes should give fewer rewards, for this I must as why that would be the case. Where does it help to use the feature? In single player where absolutely no one else would be affected and thus it wouldn’t matter. One can argue that they would be able to get more spores if they lost a lot and then could buy more things. however by the time one gets all of the trophies they should be able to buy just about everything anyway, and if people get more spores in relation to amount spent over better players then obviously the difficulty needs to be adjusted. to say that they will get more is only true in situations where the system is done poorly.

Also it would not carry over into multiplayer, thus only those with skill would have a chance to get on the leaderboard this is because everyone is equal in terms of level and equipment in multiplayer. Multiplayer is the only situation where another player would be against the scaling difficulty person. obviously weapons would need to be reverted to default, as it would be a skill thing. Thus it should not affect multiplayer and should definitely be optional.

Scaling difficulty should not be implemented, the current difficulty setting on RoS is good for all players equally, a scaling system would only reward players not as good as the other players the same way, while also hindering the ability for the “better” players to play.

This is horrible logic, yes same thing, but not the same skill. it is not easy to get better at a game that keeps killing you almost instantly how exactly do you propose that they go about doing that. Also in what situation does it matter how much they get rewarded? people without it would know that they were better…I honest see no reason where it matters, it doesn’t help them in any situation that would actually matter outside of singleplayer.

Essentially, the difficulty of the overall game is the difficulty of the easiest possible setting, if there is no material incentive to set it to something harder.

You’re basically advocating making the game easier, just because.

Originally posted by Jabor:

Essentially, the difficulty of the overall game is the difficulty of the easiest possible setting, if there is no material incentive to set it to something harder.

You’re basically advocating making the game easier, just because.

I fail to see how this is a problem. The game is far from easy as it is. In what situation does it matter if a player wants an easier game? where does this matter? and further more why does it affect you? Those without problems with the game are more likely to be against scaling difficulty since they didn’t need it to beat the game, but they instantly assume that everyone is equal or has the potential to become equal. If not equal then at least able to win within the confines of the game. It is technically plausible to spend a year collecting enough food for a really bad player to beat the game but there comes a point where it would become ridiculous. You can assume that in general it would be the case but said assumption may or may not be correct. However I do know that people will be bad at the game, many hopelessly so.

The big question: is 4 hours equal to 4 hours that do the same thing and have the same difficulty as each other, or does the nature of an easier game make the player with an “easier game” deserve less, a good question really, I can see both points.

I think a scaling difficulty is a good idea for single-player, but when it’s co-op, it should either a)have a preset difficulty or b) have the difficulty be corresponding to the highest level member.

I find that I don’t really enjoy games that are too difficult when just starting, and too easy at higher levels, it takes some away from replayability. Drops should also be dependent on level.

So every game should be of Spongebob Squarepants difficulty?

Awal you make the assumption that single player is in no way linked to multiplayer, which is incorrect.

1. Scaling difficulty does cater to people of varying skill levels, sure. Are you saying that that it does no good for people to try something difficult over and over again because the failure won’t help bring about any skill improvement? I think it depends on the difficulty in question. Improvement usually comes when you push yourself to become comfortable with something previously outside of your comfort zone. You learn by making mistakes and, consequently, learning not to make the same mistakes twice. If the difficulty is overwhelmingly hard by default, then I could see there being a case for lowering the overall difficulty of the game or adding a scaled difficulty setting. But also, you need to consider your play style. Did you choose a class you weren’t the best with? Are you eating enough food? Are you a patient fighter or do you just try to run into monsters head-on without much strategy?

2. However, since there isn’t a huge outcry over the difficulty, I don’t think it should be nerfed. If a scaled difficulty option were implemented, though, I do think that easier modes should give you fewer rewards. It should take an unskilled player longer to get a certain reward than it should for a skilled player. Usually there should be some sort of driving incentive to push yourself/challenge yourself, and if there is no upside to a harder mode, then it’s going to turn the more dedicated players sour. Look at Sonny 2, as Kyru had pointed out in the chat. You could access Zone 7 by playing the game under the hardest conditions. Access to later zones were removed more and more depending on how much easier you made the game. There was an incentive to learn how to play the game well and to really dig into the strategy of the battle system and master the difficulty. Would the extra-special after-credits ending on Halo 3 make you feel equally accomplished if you could see it on anything other than Legendary mode?

How then does single player link to multiplayer in a way that can not be unlinked? equal equipment should be standard in multiplayer, skill should be the only real factor of importance.

We do not yet know whether or not Etherium Tubes will be usable in Co-op. If this is the case then it will be easier for those playing on an easier difficulty setting to farm the materials for tubes. This is why there needs to be a difference in drops between easier and harder settings. Those who play on the harder settings deserve more reward.

Floats and avatars, and in fact everything except co-op plaques, are pretty much about wealth gained in single player.

If there is no difference to things awarded on “toddler easy” and “hardcore hard”, then the game basically turns into a tedious grindfest on easy simply because that’s the fastest way to get everything.

I just whispered Flip with the collective ideas here, some apply to scaling some to set difficulty, I highly expect that either % decrease of rewards or nothing will be done. Just to keep you updated.

Lets not forget, anything that makes it easier to obtain “stuff” devalues Kreds and the whole microtransaction setup.

I really don’t see a problem with the difficulty as it is. If you’re having a hard time, you can farm out spores on slugrats, buy more health items, and be a few levels higher than the more skilled player would have been, then go do the same task.

Also, a game like this, with a focus supposedly on the multiplayer, has to be geared toward the assumption that everyone will be playing at level 40 on a long enough timeline. On a long enough timeline, absolutely everyone who is going to be trying to complete in the game for the high scores, are going to be level 40. I think that the solution is pretty simple, really. Just enable a feature for level 40’s to have a “hardcore” version of co-op that awards rarer materials for tube crafting and/or gives a higher score than the normal mode. The players who are going to be racing for the top spot on the leaderboard are going to be the ones that are powering to level 40. Adding this difficulty feature (really make it truly hard, in all respects) would give the hardcore players something to strive for, while not hurting the more casual players in any way. The hardcore players are going to be leading the scoreboards anyway. This will give them something further to strive for, while still allowing the casual players to enjoy the entirety of the game.

EDIT: @Meshjsl: As of right now, the crafting goods aren’t purchasable for kreds anyway, so awarding tube supplies wouldn’t hurt their economic system at all.

If tubes are usable in co-op, the casual players won’t be the ones spending hours farming for the rarer materials to make the best tubes just for one co-op attempt: the hardcore players are. So it would make sense to reward the hardcore players who successfully complete the harder co-op runs with better materials for tubes. It keeps the end game for them competitive, where the more casual players wouldn’t really have those harder-to-get tubes anyway due to the nature of their play.

I’m speaking from someone who before RoS was abysmal at pretty much all platformers. I got onto the game because I unreservedly love everything steampunk and the visuals, storyline, and design of the whole game is just great.

Any difficulty system would only change the HP/damage of enemies and frankly that’s never been a problem for me. With a tiny bit of thought most attacks are avoidable. The difficulty (for me at least) has been navigating the levels, avoiding snares and dealing with multiple enemies. Lowering damage only means your HP lasts a bit longer when you are hit, but if you want increase your HP then you should just use a healing item. Decreasing damage doesn’t help dodging attacks which is what the game strategy is about. Slowing down enemies will actually help unskilled players, but I doubt that can be done effectively.

My one gripe with difficulty is that healing items are too expensive, especially at the start when you only get a handful of items given to you. Items are easier to hoard later on but if a save point is close I’ll often purposefully die because replacing a health item is too expensive. On that note I think the relative inconsequentialness of dying is a good thing for unskilled players, the only drawback is that you have to go through the same rooms again BUT you get healed for free. Perhaps a way to balance out difficulty is to include more save points (especially in FF).

Edit: Slightly OT but I think when Kreds get implemented they should convert to a certain number of spores. Charging 1 Kred for both a +60 healing item and a +300 healing item seems fairly ridiculous.

Is it just me, or does it takes 3 months to get everyone into beta?

I haven’t yet played Skystone enough to weigh in on this discussion, but I just wanted to quote a couple of general things that Jabor said for emphasis:

Originally posted by Jabor:

Essentially, the difficulty of the overall game is the difficulty of the easiest possible setting, if there is no material incentive to set it to something harder.

Originally posted by Jabor:

If there is no difference to things awarded on “toddler easy” and “hardcore hard”, then the game basically turns into a tedious grindfest on easy simply because that’s the fastest way to get everything.

I agree with these statements 100%. The psychological principles that apply in multiplayer games (or games tied in with communities) are very different from single-player games.

If there’s ever a badge on Kongregate that allows the player to complete it on any difficulty setting, I always balance it around the easiest setting, because that’s realistically what people are going to do in order the reach that goal (unless there’s another badge on a harder difficulty setting, and they want to get both in a single run through).

I agree with Frabjous. It’s not the enemies that are all that challenging, with a few exceptions (looking at you, Swampfoot!) it’s the platforming. You could nerf the platforming by dynamically removing some obstacles maybe, but I don’t think that would be a satisfactory solution – you may be robbing the player of the satisfaction of finally beating a challenging room. If difficulty is really a problem, I’d rather do something like offer an item that allows you to float through a room easily, but make it very expensive, so that it can be used if the player just can’t make it through but not as a practical crutch for the rest of the game. In my opinion, I wouldn’t want the whole game to think I suck and nerf the rest of the challenges just because I was stuck on one room.

Originally posted by googoolyeye:

I think a scaling difficulty is a good idea for single-player, but when it’s co-op, it should either a)have a preset difficulty or b) have the difficulty be corresponding to the highest level member.

I agree with that 100% (up to point A). Point B fails because a level 1 can coop with a level 40. That would suck.

Originally posted by cpasley:

I agree with Frabjous. It’s not the enemies that are all that challenging, with a few exceptions (looking at you, Swampfoot!) it’s the platforming. You could nerf the platforming by dynamically removing some obstacles maybe, but I don’t think that would be a satisfactory solution – you may be robbing the player of the satisfaction of finally beating a challenging room. If difficulty is really a problem, I’d rather do something like offer an item that allows you to float through a room easily, but make it very expensive, so that it can be used if the player just can’t make it through but not as a practical crutch for the rest of the game. In my opinion, I wouldn’t want the whole game to think I suck and nerf the rest of the challenges just because I was stuck on one room.

I did not read the whole thread, but I don’t think they meant for a single room. I think they meant the game as a whole when on single player or co-op. If they were talking about one room, here is my take. You are stuck in a room. PRACTICE. Don’t try once and give up. Look for a way to complete the room and move on. Ass stated by Jabor, we don’t want “toddler easy”. Having an item that allows you to float through a room would be the easy way out. In most of the games I have played, you don’t give up 200 coins to move on to the next room without doing the tasks in said room.

Platforming is very important in this kind of game. I have noticed certain areas which required careful maneuvers in order to move on. That is the kind of thing I want to see.

In response to your first statement, Cpasley:

Originally posted by meshjsl:

Lets not forget, anything that makes it easier to obtain “stuff” devalues Kreds (edit: and ruins the fun of the game).

I still don’t have an email to play skystone beta. Why does it take so long?

Originally posted by polobow:

I still don’t have an email to play skystone beta. Why does it take so long?

Because you weren’t selected for this round?

Have patience, perhaps you will be in for the next round.

@cpasley I wasn’t advocating items to skip rooms (although an item that allows you to materialise in any room might be interesting/useful), just pointing out that scaling with respect to enemies won’t actually make the game easier. I personally wouldn’t want to ease up on the platforming because you only really need to “beat” a room once and after that you know how to get past it. And it’s a nice feeling figuring out that strategy for a room or an enemy (was overjoyed the first time I killed a swampfoot) and you always get better with each try.