One of the most common issues with raids in mmos is they become bullet sponges that hit like a truck.
Bullet sponges are not fun.
This. A lot of this, honestly.
Too much focus in the past has been on making one big baddie that soaks damage for 30 minutes and one-shots everybody but the main tank. Way back when, there wasn't a better option, as trying to spawn an army for a group of players to wade through would make any PC's FPS take a huge dump.
Technology is quickly surpassing that hurdle. Developers need to stop focusing on "and then a big bad BOSS MAN AT THE END!!" and start focusing on opening raid "boss" encounters up to something new and innovative. Games like Albion Online that enjoy relaxed graphics can certainly achieve a "us vs. an army of Orcs led by their Chieftain" instead of "clear these regular Orcs until you get to the chieftain's hut, then everybody pile on the Chieftain because he has 1000% more health than your tank and hits 500% harder than your nuking Mage."
The second makes me feel as if I'm a weakling, banding together because not a single player in the game is tough enough to go toe to toe with any "boss." Ironically, this very situation flies directly in the developer's own face when they build a solo quest line, alongside the aforementioned archaic raid system, that is geared towards making the player feels as if they're the "one true hero of the realm."
I would much prefer my "band of heroes" encounter a ruthless "band of outlaws," a group of named "mini-boss" mobs akin to my own group that provide a challenge to individual players as well as cooperating and forcing my team to cooperate in turn and respond to the tactics their band is using. Add to that the disposable minions to give the fight fluff and weight and make me and my group feel powerful... Much better. Raid bosses, as they're known now, need to take the backseat of the bus. New ideas should be replacing that scheme today.
You are missing the point. And if I speced incorrectly you could be killed by a 21 and it be impossible. AC didn't have power platforms. It was more to track your progress not a modifer. I explained this in a previous post. I know specifically I was slain merciless by lower level fire breathing mountain rats.
You aren't even arguing the point anymore. Fighting characters a few levels stronger than you is neligible to hard difficulty range or 2-3 on my difficulty chart. It's not hard to follow. Higher level than that you may need a group difficulty 4. Higher than that you might need multiple groups of your level 5. At a certain point characters higher level than you in most level based games it's impossible meaning you are gated out of the content.
Even before that most people aren't gathering multiple groups to kill small to no loot orexperience giving NPC. NPC you can't even accept quest for because your gated out of quest as well. Claiming that there 100s of levels of difficulty to a level 10 is just... uh. After a certain point it's just impossible whether it's +5 or +10 it's simply gated. The challenge is the same for a level 50 vs.a 10 as level 100 vs. a 10, impossible and it's gated.
To make this simpler again. Think of a boulder. One in your desired range strength you will be move movable. One heavier you might struggle with. One heavier than that it will take a group. One heavier than that it may take multiple groups. One so big it's impossible to move. One impossible to move rock isn't anymore challenging than next impossible to move rock even if its 8 times as big. It's just more imposing.
No, the fact that it wasn't impossible is exactly the point.
The fact that it wasn't impossible and it was just a little bit harder is exactly the point.
Also a mob isn't "impossible" because you choose not to even auto-attack it. (Which is exactly the same as your 'specced wrong' point: the fact that you can play like an idiot and lose doesn't make a mob impossible to beat.)
Our discussion literally started when I told you, "Horizontal progression is a step backwards in challenge management, actually". So I'm still arguing precisely the point I started with. You're the one constantly trying to move the discussion away from that point.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The thing with vertical progression is that it is not challenging. Lets frame it like this. Which is a more challenging profession:
A. Brain surgeon for 10 hours a week. B. Grocery bagger for 90 hours a week.
Obviously A is the more challenging job. The brain surgeon is doing a job that requires an insane amount of both skill and knowledge. The brain surgeon is almost certainly capable of bagging groceries for 90 hours a week, it's simply more tedious and frankly not worth their time.
While grinding advocates like to think of themselves as A in that they've invested the time to "earn" the better content, the fact is that getting super high level and insanely good gear is no more challenging than loading the groceries into the bag.
It's not about learning, it's not about bettering yourself, it's about repeating the same mind numbingly simple tasks over and over as the levels go "ding" "ding" "ding".
It reminds me of a scene in an old humourous video series (PurePwnage) where a hardcore RTS player talks about playing WoW. In the RTS he betters himself. He has to work on his skills. His strategies. His knowledge of the game. In WoW he betters his character and HE is ultimately left with nothing. Delete the character and everything he has worked for goes away.
So back to your original question. At level 5 fighting a level 10 character is more challenging than fighting a level 5. At level 20, it's easier to fight the 10 than fighting the 5 when you were level 5. Personally I'd love to play an MMO where player strength is pretty constant but NPC strength varies from stupid easy to ALMOST impossible. I would get so much more of a rush building MYSELF up to the level that I can take on insanely hard content through practice, strategy, and knowledge then building my CHARACTER up to that point by running through rotations on trash mobs and running from point A to point B to finish quests.
Creating the need for me to level creates no challenge. It only creates tedium.
Again, the mathematical proof that vertical progression increases the challenges available (and horizontal progression doesn't) is that:
You're level 10.
Game A only has level 10 mobs.
Game B has level 1-100 mobs.
Obviously Game B (vertical progression) offers the potential for considerably more challenge than Game A.
So your actual question should've been: What world offers more potential for challenge?
The world where grocery bagger is the only job?
Or the world where many jobs exist from bagger to surgeon?
It's really confusing how blatantly, mathematically, incontestably true this is, yet many posters seem to want to disagree.
There are a million other topics where disagreeing with someone online isn't done in the face of insurmountable mathematical proof. Go argue your opinion against threads that are about other opinions. In this particular case, we're discussing an objective fact and it's not going to budge just because a lot of posters are confused by the concepts (which they shouldn't be, because look at how simple the mathematical proof is!)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Again, the mathematical proof that vertical progression increases the challenges available (and horizontal progression doesn't) is that:
You're level 10.
Game A only has level 10 mobs.
Game B has level 1-100 mobs.
Obviously Game B (vertical progression) offers the potential for considerably more challenge than Game A.
Not a single person here is arguing against progression in strength of content. What we are arguing about is if allowing the PLAYER to progress in strength creates a more challenging game. So your "mathematical proof" is only defeating the strawman fallacy you've assigned to us. Not our actual arguments.
While comparing levels in different games is comparing apples to oranges let's set some constants for the sake of rational debate:
1. Enemies up to 10 levels higher than the player are potentially defeatable. Anything 11 levels or more above the player is literally impossible to beat. 2. Desirable challenge ends when an encounter becomes literally impossible to beat.
Assuming those remain constant lets again compare the two games, based on what people are ACTUALLY arguing:
Game A: All players are level 10. Opponents range from level 10 to 20. Game B: Players level from 1 to 100. Opponents range from 1 to 110.
Which is more challenging? Neither. No matter what level you are the range of desirable challenge goes from your level to 10 levels higher than it. Therefore both games are capable of the same level of challenge.
The main differences are:
1. In game A developers have a constant player strength to work for and therefore can create content that will always challenge every player equally. 2. There is less tedium required to get into game A. Any intentionally developed gating aside, you can go up against any challenge you have the PLAYER skill to take on.
The thing with vertical progression is that it is not challenging. Lets frame it like this. Which is a more challenging profession:
A. Brain surgeon for 10 hours a week. B. Grocery bagger for 90 hours a week.
Obviously A is the more challenging job. The brain surgeon is doing a job that requires an insane amount of both skill and knowledge. The brain surgeon is almost certainly capable of bagging groceries for 90 hours a week, it's simply more tedious and frankly not worth their time.
While grinding advocates like to think of themselves as A in that they've invested the time to "earn" the better content, the fact is that getting super high level and insanely good gear is no more challenging than loading the groceries into the bag.
It's not about learning, it's not about bettering yourself, it's about repeating the same mind numbingly simple tasks over and over as the levels go "ding" "ding" "ding".
It reminds me of a scene in an old humourous video series (PurePwnage) where a hardcore RTS player talks about playing WoW. In the RTS he betters himself. He has to work on his skills. His strategies. His knowledge of the game. In WoW he betters his character and HE is ultimately left with nothing. Delete the character and everything he has worked for goes away.
So back to your original question. At level 5 fighting a level 10 character is more challenging than fighting a level 5. At level 20, it's easier to fight the 10 than fighting the 5 when you were level 5. Personally I'd love to play an MMO where player strength is pretty constant but NPC strength varies from stupid easy to ALMOST impossible. I would get so much more of a rush building MYSELF up to the level that I can take on insanely hard content through practice, strategy, and knowledge then building my CHARACTER up to that point by running through rotations on trash mobs and running from point A to point B to finish quests.
Creating the need for me to level creates no challenge. It only creates tedium.
Again, the mathematical proof that vertical progression increases the challenges available (and horizontal progression doesn't) is that:
You're level 10.
Game A only has level 10 mobs.
Game B has level 1-100 mobs.
Obviously Game B (vertical progression) offers the potential for considerably more challenge than Game A.
So your actual question should've been: What world offers more potential for challenge?
The world where grocery bagger is the only job?
Or the world where many jobs exist from bagger to surgeon?
It's really confusing how blatantly, mathematically, incontestably true this is, yet many posters seem to want to disagree.
There are a million other topics where disagreeing with someone online isn't done in the face of insurmountable mathematical proof. Go argue your opinion against threads that are about other opinions. In this particular case, we're discussing an objective fact and it's not going to budge just because a lot of posters are confused by the concepts (which they shouldn't be, because look at how simple the mathematical proof is!)
There are multiple things you blatantly disregard in your posting so let's start at the beginning.
Most vertical progression-based games have an intended route for players to take, for mmorpg the most common is that you fight level-appropriate monsters. This means that developers intention is that you are expected to have a specific level and a certain quality before you take on monsters.
This means that at level 10 developers have designed the game in a fashion that you should fight level 10 monsters and not level 100 monsters.
The actual difficulty is how hard level-appropriate fights are. Most vertical progression games are much easier at lower level and as you progress further into the game the game becomes harder and harder. The reason for this is because players get better as they get further into the game. However, there are games like bethesda open world games that have a habit of making you so powerful that you outpower all challenges at the end of the game.
Difficulty is about how hard fights are to execute correctly and not just about mathematics. If all you have to do is rig the mathematics to make all fights easy its not a hard game.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Let it go, guys. He is unwilling to address any actual points we have been making, only the one he has stuck in his own mind that is set up to make his argument work. He is not prepared or able to answer our points.
You are missing the point. And if I speced incorrectly you could be killed by a 21 and it be impossible. AC didn't have power platforms. It was more to track your progress not a modifer. I explained this in a previous post. I know specifically I was slain merciless by lower level fire breathing mountain rats.
You aren't even arguing the point anymore. Fighting characters a few levels stronger than you is neligible to hard difficulty range or 2-3 on my difficulty chart. It's not hard to follow. Higher level than that you may need a group difficulty 4. Higher than that you might need multiple groups of your level 5. At a certain point characters higher level than you in most level based games it's impossible meaning you are gated out of the content.
Even before that most people aren't gathering multiple groups to kill small to no loot orexperience giving NPC. NPC you can't even accept quest for because your gated out of quest as well. Claiming that there 100s of levels of difficulty to a level 10 is just... uh. After a certain point it's just impossible whether it's +5 or +10 it's simply gated. The challenge is the same for a level 50 vs.a 10 as level 100 vs. a 10, impossible and it's gated.
To make this simpler again. Think of a boulder. One in your desired range strength you will be move movable. One heavier you might struggle with. One heavier than that it will take a group. One heavier than that it may take multiple groups. One so big it's impossible to move. One impossible to move rock isn't anymore challenging than next impossible to move rock even if its 8 times as big. It's just more imposing.
No, the fact that it wasn't impossible is exactly the point.
The fact that it wasn't impossible and it was just a little bit harder is exactly the point.
Also a mob isn't "impossible" because you choose not to even auto-attack it. (Which is exactly the same as your 'specced wrong' point: the fact that you can play like an idiot and lose doesn't make a mob impossible to beat.)
Our discussion literally started when I told you, "Horizontal progression is a step backwards in challenge management, actually". So I'm still arguing precisely the point I started with. You're the one constantly trying to move the discussion away from that point.
You're not proving any point. That what was the point. There is nothing you are stating that can't be in horizontal play. MORE than likely you will have player skill difficulty because you don't have levels. Meaning that the challenge of attacking higher level characters is the same in horizontal by having players fight against harder range of difficulty.
"Horizontal progression is a step backwards in challenge management, actually".
HOW!?!?! You have proven nothing. You have blinders on shaping the argument that challenge in horizontal can't have different ranges. It can. Challenge management is easier because you're not scaling and adjusting numbers for each level of content. You have baseline difficulty that never changes for each range of difficulty easy/normal/hard/elite/dungeon/raid/whatever.
problem is most pve players want easy game, that is easy pve.
too hard they rage quit. they want to win 100%
if u want make harder pve, make a raid /dungeon instance. pve carebears who want to win 100% of the time will stay away from that
yeah, but even raids/dungeons are getting easy. WoW dungeons you can solo on some classes. Raids are just following the raid leaders instructions, making it feel like a Bop It game. There is no strategy in WoW raids at all. All it is is following what someone else is doing, or the same mechanic over and over. GW2 is even easier than WoW, in terms of group content.
I used to love raids (Vanguard and Everquest being my favorite). But even raids are being made easy as hell compared to the classic style or older PVE MMOs.
Heck, unlike Vanguard/EQ/EQ2...there is NO crowd control at all in WoW's raids. Every raid mob is immune to slows, polymorphs and anything else that is crowd control. Its literally damage, tank and heals. That is it.
In vanguard, there was so much more strategy. Same with EQ. And pretty sure EQ2 as well.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
I honestly have never liked the common way raids work. Instances so predictable people watch online videos that lay out every single step they need to defeat them. If you've beaten the raid once you've beaten it 1000 times but you still actually do need to beat it 1000 times to get your max level raid gear. It's repetitive and boring IMO.
The group content I've seen that was the most fun was Runescape's dungeoneering. While elements of it are predictable to a degree, you don't know what enemies you will face going in, what non-combat skillsets it will be most useful to have, what the dungeon layout will be etc. While in Runescape you can literally max every single skill eventually if you applied this to a game where there were some levels of limitations on how many skills you could effectively use at once it would translate into the idea that there is no "best" build. And you could read up on more general strategies but there will never be a step-by-step walk through for you.
It's a concept deserving to be reapplied to a more serious game with a better combat system than Runescape.
Not a single person here is arguing against progression in strength of content. What we are arguing about is if allowing the PLAYER to progress in strength creates a more challenging game. So your "mathematical proof" is only defeating the strawman fallacy you've assigned to us. Not our actual arguments.
While comparing levels in different games is comparing apples to oranges let's set some constants for the sake of rational debate:
1. Enemies up to 10 levels higher than the player are potentially defeatable. Anything 11 levels or more above the player is literally impossible to beat. 2. Desirable challenge ends when an encounter becomes literally impossible to beat.
Assuming those remain constant lets again compare the two games, based on what people are ACTUALLY arguing:
Game A: All players are level 10. Opponents range from level 10 to 20. Game B: Players level from 1 to 100. Opponents range from 1 to 110.
Which is more challenging? Neither. No matter what level you are the range of desirable challenge goes from your level to 10 levels higher than it. Therefore both games are capable of the same level of challenge.
The main differences are:
1. In game A developers have a constant player strength to work for and therefore can create content that will always challenge every player equally. 2. There is less tedium required to get into game A. Any intentionally developed gating aside, you can go up against any challenge you have the PLAYER skill to take on.
Literally all of my posts have stemmed from the root point that Vermillion was wrong to imply horizontal progression improves the amount of challenge (which is the opposite of the truth).
If you're replying to me, you're replying to that discussion.
So no, I'm not making a straw man.
Your example assumes vertical progression games don't also scale enemy difficulty. I've pointed out that's a separate factor that all MMORPGs do. That means it's off-topic. It's not related to vertical vs. horizontal progression.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You're not proving any point. That what was the point. There is nothing you are stating that can't be in horizontal play. MORE than likely you will have player skill difficulty because you don't have levels. Meaning that the challenge of attacking higher level characters is the same in horizontal by having players fight against harder range of difficulty.
HOW!?!?! You have proven nothing. You have blinders on shaping the argument that challenge in horizontal can't have different ranges. It can. Challenge management is easier because you're not scaling and adjusting numbers for each level of content. You have baseline difficulty that never changes for each range of difficulty easy/normal/hard/elite/dungeon/raid/whatever.
You can't just fail to read someone's post and then ask how they've proven their proof, when they've shown you repeatedly, mathematically, how they're right and you're wrong.
That's ignorance. It's literal ignorance. Knowledge was communicated to you, and you ignored it.
The point was proven conclusively. Don't choose ignorance. Choose knowledge. Read and comprehend.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I say this like a broken record but horizontal progression can give the gaming world challenge. In fact you would probably need to have challenge to make differences in areas meaningful.
You have areas that are based on difficulty and you know adventuring in a hard area takes skill. For example you could have easy, medium, hard, group required, raid required areas.
Horizontal progression does have some vertical progression. It's just the character is baseline. Think of it as a fighting game where you start out with 4 moves and advancement unlocks those fighting moves. Your not getting more life. You just get more moves.
He offered it as an alternative to vertical progression and stated it as something with potential for a challenging experience. Never did he say that it was superior in it's ability to provide challenges nor did he say vertical progression can't provide a challenge. The "root of your post" seems to be a fabricated argument to begin with that you created when you responded to Ver, not from something Ver actually said.
Pretty sure that's what a straw man is.
Your argument that it's a reduction to the amount of challenge ends up being the pivotal point in dispute because instead of making a reasonable argument that the way challenge is implemented within a game can vary greatly and that both progression models have the capacity for displaying the same general variety in challenge for content, you make the considerably more subjective argument that a specific model is unquestionably better.
Also not sure what you're rambling in response to Ver about there....you never gave any "mathematical" proof nor did you give anything conclusive. Opinions are not facts.
Literally all of my posts have stemmed from the root point that Vermillion was wrong to imply horizontal progression improves the amount of challenge (which is the opposite of the truth).
Except Vermillion's posts are quite clearly addressing the idea of horizontal PLAYER progression.
You have areas that are based on difficulty and you know adventuring in a hard area takes skill. For example you could have easy, medium, hard, group required, raid required areas.
The ONLY reasonable take away from that statement is that Vermillion DOES seek the inclusion of NPC strength progression from easy, to medium to hard. The ONLY thing you can reasonably conclude then based on his statements is that he believes players should not progress in strength and NPCs do. You can either accept that is what is he saying, or be wrong. There is no other reasonable conclusion.
If you're replying to me, you're replying to that discussion.
So no, I'm not making a straw man.
Your example assumes vertical progression games don't also scale enemy difficulty. I've pointed out that's a separate factor that all MMORPGs do. That means it's off-topic. It's not related to vertical vs. horizontal progression.
Except again, you didn't read what was said:
Eldurian Gavriel Game A: All players are level 10. Opponents range from level 10 to 20.
Game B: Players level from 1 to 100. Opponents range from 1 to 110.
Which is more challenging? Neither. No matter what level you are the range of desirable challenge goes from your level to 10 levels higher than it. Therefore both games are capable of the same level of challenge.
How does that in ANY way assume vertical progression games don't scale to enemy difficulty? It straight up says they do. I simply go on to assert that if player progression doesn't scale, then developers can better create challenges catered to a specific power level. And assuming equal resources between game A and game B, that's absolutely true. Creating a good range of challenge levels that scales up 100 levels because all the old challenging content gets easier each time you level, will take a lot more time and effort than creating a good range of challenge levels that never has to scale based on artificial stat inflation AKA leveling/gearscore.
You can't just fail to read someone's post and then ask how they've proven their proof when they've shown you repeatedly... ...how they're right and you're wrong.
Then stop doing it.
Your entire argument style is putting words in other people's mouths and insisting they said things they didn't. You aren't addressing any of the real points being made, just skirting around them and building more straw men. It's time to throw in the towel man. You look like a fool to everyone but yourself at this point.
Can only speak of my feeling about it, but I do indeed want a HARD mmo, even dark souls hard. (Though preferably a little less for increased entertainment and less frustration.)
HOWEVER
I don't want "group hard" I want "solo hard", what this means is I want it to be hard as nails for "ME" to do something by myself in the game, but not to where the game is made so hard it requires me to group with other player to even have a chance to do "most" content.
These days games are made with piss-easy solo content, and then hard (because of modern human stupidity) group content. (usually in the form of raids.)
I guess what I want these days is a dark souls online game, with people around me doing their own thing, adding ambiance and life to a npc world. But not being forced to endure their stupidity in handling content.
Meh, mmos are a dead genre for me these days, but I still keep up with whats happening with them, sort of like a onlooker to a building burning down.
To find an intelligent person in a PUG is not that rare, but to find a PUG made up of "all" intelligent people is one of the rarest phenomenons in the known universe.
You keep laying the scenario out implying that levels make it more like level 10 vs level 110. In actuality encounters are designed as on par.
I'd be happy to explain more if you would simply give answers to the points I made... your scooter analogy again means you arent comparing even levels of player and mob, which is exactly the point. Fact is, Level is ultimately a number that allows Devs to tie it to a gate or grind.
Why would you bother posting if you were just going to be objectively wrong?
You're level 10.
In a game with all level 10 mobs, there is exactly one level of challenge: 0 (mobs who are neither above or below your level).
In a game with level 1-100 mobs, there are exactly 100 levels of challenge: -9 to +90 (mobs who are up to 9 levels below you or up to 90 levels above)
With the objective, mathematical reality posted, you and I both know you're objectively wrong. I'm sure that won't stop you from continuing to make bravado-filled posts where you pretend 2 + 2 = 5. But you and I both know you're wrong on this.
This is the root of your misunderstanding.
1) You are equating levels with power. That is wrong. 2) You are ignoring other methods of difficulty - mechanics, strategies, number of mobs etc. 3) You are assuming that regardless of level, all content is beatable. That is also wrong.
Expanding on point 3, there is a limit in all games as to how much of a power gap a single player can overcome. Ignoring mechanics, tactics etc and looking purely at power gaps:
Lets say level = power Lets say a player can overcome a 10 power difference (so a level 10 could beat a level 20, but a level 21 would be too much). In such a game, a level 10 has a difficulty scale of -9 (vs lvl1) to 10 (vs lvl20). All other content is deemed impossible so there is no challenge, just gated content.
In a horizontal game, it is only the player's power level that is fixed. Enemies can be scaled easier or harder. So, the player may be fixed at power 10, but developers can creates enemies anywhere from power 1 to power 20 and the player has a difficulty scale of -9 to 10.
This results in difficulty between horizontal and vertical being "objectively" the same.
This makes you objectively wrong. Again.
Maybe you just don't understand horizontal progression? Or difficulty in general?
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
You keep laying the scenario out implying that levels make it more like level 10 vs level 110. In actuality encounters are designed as on par.
I'd be happy to explain more if you would simply give answers to the points I made... your scooter analogy again means you arent comparing even levels of player and mob, which is exactly the point. Fact is, Level is ultimately a number that allows Devs to tie it to a gate or grind.
Why would you bother posting if you were just going to be objectively wrong?
You're level 10.
In a game with all level 10 mobs, there is exactly one level of challenge: 0 (mobs who are neither above or below your level).
In a game with level 1-100 mobs, there are exactly 100 levels of challenge: -9 to +90 (mobs who are up to 9 levels below you or up to 90 levels above)
With the objective, mathematical reality posted, you and I both know you're objectively wrong. I'm sure that won't stop you from continuing to make bravado-filled posts where you pretend 2 + 2 = 5. But you and I both know you're wrong on this.
This is the root of your misunderstanding.
1) You are equating levels with power. That is wrong. 2) You are ignoring other methods of difficulty - mechanics, strategies, number of mobs etc. 3) You are assuming that regardless of level, all content is beatable. That is also wrong.
Expanding on point 3, there is a limit in all games as to how much of a power gap a single player can overcome. Ignoring mechanics, tactics etc and looking purely at power gaps:
Lets say level = power Lets say a player can overcome a 10 power difference (so a level 10 could beat a level 20, but a level 21 would be too much). In such a game, a level 10 has a difficulty scale of -9 (vs lvl1) to 10 (vs lvl20). All other content is deemed impossible so there is no challenge, just gated content.
In a horizontal game, it is only the player's power level that is fixed. Enemies can be scaled easier or harder. So, the player may be fixed at power 10, but developers can creates enemies anywhere from power 1 to power 20 and the player has a difficulty scale of -9 to 10.
This results in difficulty between horizontal and vertical being "objectively" the same.
This makes you objectively wrong. Again.
Maybe you just don't understand horizontal progression? Or difficulty in general?
Do you believe a self proclaimed game developer doesn't know difficulty? Most other genre of games are horizontal in progression and find difficulty by raising the difficulty of the content without raising the power of the character.
There is more correlation with vertical progression in MMORPG of less challenge because many times you can only reach content of your level or less. Much content is easy outside of specific areas.
I say this like a broken record but horizontal progression can give the gaming world challenge. In fact you would probably need to have challenge to make differences in areas meaningful.
You have areas that are based on difficulty and you know adventuring in a hard area takes skill. For example you could have easy, medium, hard, group required, raid required areas.
Horizontal progression does have some vertical progression. It's just the character is baseline. Think of it as a fighting game where you start out with 4 moves and advancement unlocks those fighting moves. Your not getting more life. You just get more moves.
He offered it as an alternative to vertical progression and stated it as something with potential for a challenging experience. Never did he say that it was superior in it's ability to provide challenges nor did he say vertical progression can't provide a challenge. The "root of your post" seems to be a fabricated argument to begin with that you created when you responded to Ver, not from something Ver actually said.
Pretty sure that's what a straw man is.
Your argument that it's a reduction to the amount of challenge ends up being the pivotal point in dispute because instead of making a reasonable argument that the way challenge is implemented within a game can vary greatly and that both progression models have the capacity for displaying the same general variety in challenge for content, you make the considerably more subjective argument that a specific model is unquestionably better.
Also not sure what you're rambling in response to Ver about there....you never gave any "mathematical" proof nor did you give anything conclusive. Opinions are not facts.
His post starts out with something objectively untrue (as I've proven). Hence, the reason I pointed out that it was untrue.
Removing one vector by which a game can be more challenging (vertical progression) doesn't "give the gaming world challenge" as he claims. It removes challenge. Challenge is removed.
It's like a motorized scooter where someone claims removing the motor "can give the scootering world speed". Sure, you can still move with an unpowered scooter using other methods (pushing with your foot), but it's a rather dishonest presentation of the scooter's capabilities given that you objectively reduced the scooter's capability for movement.
Sure you can still achieve difficulty using other methods, but removing vertical progression objectively reduces a game's ability to provide challenge. It's wrong or dishonest to point out that it can "give the gaming world challenge".
The numeric challenge distance between a level 10 player and a level 100 monster is mathematical proof that vertical progression enables a form of challenge not found in horizontal progression games. With horizontal progression, the gap is zero levels. With vertical, the gap varies (depending on what level you happen to be). Meaning there is a non-zero increase to challenge with one, but zero challenge to the other. It's a mathematical proof, and it reflects the typical way horizontal progression games are implemented. To argue against it is to be wrong.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Your entire argument style is putting words in other people's mouths and insisting they said things they didn't. You aren't addressing any of the real points being made, just skirting around them and building more straw men. It's time to throw in the towel man. You look like a fool to everyone but yourself at this point.
He suggested horizontal progression would "give the gaming world challenge". I described how that's objectively wrong, or at best extremely misleading (since it's never horizontal progression itself that provides challenge in those games, even though games with horizontal progression can involve challenge from other sources.)
So no, I responded directly to his false claim and showed precisely why it was false.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You keep laying the scenario out implying that levels make it more like level 10 vs level 110. In actuality encounters are designed as on par.
I'd be happy to explain more if you would simply give answers to the points I made... your scooter analogy again means you arent comparing even levels of player and mob, which is exactly the point. Fact is, Level is ultimately a number that allows Devs to tie it to a gate or grind.
Why would you bother posting if you were just going to be objectively wrong?
You're level 10.
In a game with all level 10 mobs, there is exactly one level of challenge: 0 (mobs who are neither above or below your level).
In a game with level 1-100 mobs, there are exactly 100 levels of challenge: -9 to +90 (mobs who are up to 9 levels below you or up to 90 levels above)
With the objective, mathematical reality posted, you and I both know you're objectively wrong. I'm sure that won't stop you from continuing to make bravado-filled posts where you pretend 2 + 2 = 5. But you and I both know you're wrong on this.
This is the root of your misunderstanding.
1) You are equating levels with power. That is wrong. 2) You are ignoring other methods of difficulty - mechanics, strategies, number of mobs etc. 3) You are assuming that regardless of level, all content is beatable. That is also wrong.
Expanding on point 3, there is a limit in all games as to how much of a power gap a single player can overcome. Ignoring mechanics, tactics etc and looking purely at power gaps:
Lets say level = power Lets say a player can overcome a 10 power difference (so a level 10 could beat a level 20, but a level 21 would be too much). In such a game, a level 10 has a difficulty scale of -9 (vs lvl1) to 10 (vs lvl20). All other content is deemed impossible so there is no challenge, just gated content.
In a horizontal game, it is only the player's power level that is fixed. Enemies can be scaled easier or harder. So, the player may be fixed at power 10, but developers can creates enemies anywhere from power 1 to power 20 and the player has a difficulty scale of -9 to 10.
This results in difficulty between horizontal and vertical being "objectively" the same.
This makes you objectively wrong. Again.
Maybe you just don't understand horizontal progression? Or difficulty in general?
Do you believe a self proclaimed game developer doesn't know difficulty? Most other genre of games are horizontal in progression and find difficulty by raising the difficulty of the content without raising the power of the character.
There is more correlation with vertical progression in MMORPG of less challenge because many times you can only reach content of your level or less. Much content is easy outside of specific areas.
Well, difficulty level available to a player purely comes down to implementation. The only hard and fast rule is that with vertical progression, eventually majority of content ends up being trivial whilst in a horizontal system, majority of content remains at the same difficulty (hard stuff is always hard, because you can never gain power to make it trivial).
But yeh, the type of difficulty Axe is referring to is only one type of difficulty - comparing stats and having to reach a certain threshold of player potential in terms of outright dps / mitigation / healing. It ignores tactics, teamwork, plus support stuff like CC, debuffs etc.
Its all besides the point though. Bother horizontal and vertical progression systems can offer the same amounts of difficulty as one another, it all comes down to implementation. Both systems compare the players power to the enemies power as the starting point for difficulty, and both systems then adds skills / tactics / teamwork / scripted events etc to further set the difficulty.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
1) You are equating levels with power. That is wrong. 2) You are ignoring other methods of difficulty - mechanics, strategies, number of mobs etc. 3) You are assuming that regardless of level, all content is beatable. That is also wrong.
Expanding on point 3, there is a limit in all games as to how much of a power gap a single player can overcome. Ignoring mechanics, tactics etc and looking purely at power gaps:
Lets say level = power Lets say a player can overcome a 10 power difference (so a level 10 could beat a level 20, but a level 21 would be too much). In such a game, a level 10 has a difficulty scale of -9 (vs lvl1) to 10 (vs lvl20). All other content is deemed impossible so there is no challenge, just gated content.
In a horizontal game, it is only the player's power level that is fixed. Enemies can be scaled easier or harder. So, the player may be fixed at power 10, but developers can creates enemies anywhere from power 1 to power 20 and the player has a difficulty scale of -9 to 10.
This results in difficulty between horizontal and vertical being "objectively" the same.
This makes you objectively wrong. Again.
Maybe you just don't understand horizontal progression? Or difficulty in general?
1. Levels are power in 99% of games, and possibly 100% of RPGs. So your objection here is complete nonsense: atbest it's an ultra-minor technicality, and at worst it's flat-out wrong. (If you care not to be flat-out wrong feel free to name a lot of RPGs where levels aren't power. Otherwise we'll assume you're flat-out wrong.)
2. The discussion is horizontal vs. vertical progression. So yes, I am discussing horizontal vs. vertical and I'm not discussing things which aren't. A failure to separate the concepts is why so many others are wrong in this discussion.
The scooter analogy holds true: when discussing the mobility of powered vs. unpowered scooters, you're just examining the benefits of the engine. You can't say they have equal mobility, because they don't: the removal of the engine in one of them objectively removes one form of mobility.
We're discussing the scooter's motor. We're discussing horizontal vs. vertical progression. Being distracted by unrelated factors that happen to serve the same purpose doesn't let us understand the truth. (And this is why your closing example is wrong. You're like "but I can also push the scooter the same 20mph with my foot!" and I'm like..."So what? Removing the motor objectively reduces the mobility of the scooter still, and when you push in addition to using the motor you go faster than 20mph!")
3. Whether content is beatable is irrelevant. My claim is vertical progression is a vector for providing challenge. (Not that all challenge is beatable.)
Merely by pointing out unbeatable content exists you've proven my point.
While that's been my point at face value, I would refine it to "fun challenge", which is going to be a narrower band that varies by player. Every player's sweet spot of challenge is usually between -5 and +5 levels relative to your current level. In vertical progression you get all those degrees of challenge while leveling. In horizontal progression you don't; you get the one degree of challenge they give you and for most players it won't be perfect.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
1) You are equating levels with power. That is wrong. 2) You are ignoring other methods of difficulty - mechanics, strategies, number of mobs etc. 3) You are assuming that regardless of level, all content is beatable. That is also wrong.
Expanding on point 3, there is a limit in all games as to how much of a power gap a single player can overcome. Ignoring mechanics, tactics etc and looking purely at power gaps:
Lets say level = power Lets say a player can overcome a 10 power difference (so a level 10 could beat a level 20, but a level 21 would be too much). In such a game, a level 10 has a difficulty scale of -9 (vs lvl1) to 10 (vs lvl20). All other content is deemed impossible so there is no challenge, just gated content.
In a horizontal game, it is only the player's power level that is fixed. Enemies can be scaled easier or harder. So, the player may be fixed at power 10, but developers can creates enemies anywhere from power 1 to power 20 and the player has a difficulty scale of -9 to 10.
This results in difficulty between horizontal and vertical being "objectively" the same.
This makes you objectively wrong. Again.
Maybe you just don't understand horizontal progression? Or difficulty in general?
1. Levels are power in 99% of games, and possibly 100% of RPGs. So your objection here is complete nonsense: atbest it's an ultra-minor technicality, and at worst it's flat-out wrong. (If you care not to be flat-out wrong feel free to name a lot of RPGs where levels aren't power. Otherwise we'll assume you're flat-out wrong.)
2. The discussion is horizontal vs. vertical progression. So yes, I am discussing horizontal vs. vertical and I'm not discussing things which aren't. A failure to separate the concepts is why so many others are wrong in this discussion.
The scooter analogy holds true: when discussing the mobility of powered vs. unpowered scooters, you're just examining the benefits of the engine. You can't say they have equal mobility, because they don't: the removal of the engine in one of them objectively removes one form of mobility.
We're discussing the scooter's motor. We're discussing horizontal vs. vertical progression. Being distracted by unrelated factors that happen to serve the same purpose doesn't let us understand the truth. (And this is why your closing example is wrong. You're like "but I can also push the scooter the same 20mph with my foot!" and I'm like..."So what? Removing the motor objectively reduces the mobility of the scooter still, and when you push in addition to using the motor you go faster than 20mph!")
3. Whether content is beatable is irrelevant. My claim is vertical progression is a vector for providing challenge. (Not that all challenge is beatable.)
Merely by pointing out unbeatable content exists you've proven my point.
While that's been my point at face value, I would refine it to "fun challenge", which is going to be a narrower band that varies by player. Every player's sweet spot of challenge is usually between -5 and +5 levels relative to your current level. In vertical progression you get all those degrees of challenge while leveling. In horizontal progression you don't; you get the one degree of challenge they give you and for most players it won't be perfect.
/facepalm
I guess we've been playing different RPGs and MMOs then. Levels are usually the smallest part of actual player power, you tend to get very small increases in power with each new level, the majority of your power comes from new skills and new gear.
You're still missing the fundamental point though. Regardless of whether levels = power or not, the fundamental point is that you / game devs are comparing the player's power to the enemies power.
I honestly don't care whether power comes purely from your level, or a mix of level, skills and gear stats, or new traits or whatever. All of that is just convenient facing for the fundamental underlying power level.
Difficulty comes from comparing that power level (you) to the underlying power level of the enemy. If the enemy has more power, they're harder. If they have less power, they're easier.
That fundamental comparison of player power to enemy power is present in both horizontal and vertical progression systems, therefore the variety of difficulty is the same. Who cares if me, as the player, gains more power through leveling up? Regardless of my individual power level, the range of challenge is determined by the differential between me and the enemies in game that are beatable.
If an enemy is unbeatable, due to their power level being too high, that is not challenge. That it not difficulty. As @Vermillion_Raventhal stated, that is simply gated content. If there is no physical way to beat content, that content is not difficult: it is impossible. Look up the meaning of difficulty in this context - the dictionaries (and common usage) all allude to there being a solution.
So, in a horiztonal progession system, the player power level is fixed, but the enemy's power level can vary from extremely easy to extremely hard. Hell, you can add some impossible enemies if you want, just to make you feel better.
In a vertical progression system, the player's power level steadily increases whilst the enemy's power level can vary from extremely easy to extremely hard, with varying levels of impossible enemies dependant on your level.
In both, there are easy enemies and there are hard enemies. In both, the difficulty is determined by comparing player power to enemy power.
As for your final point, have you ever played a game which uses horizontal progression? You said:
"In horizontal progression you don't; you get the one degree of challenge they give you and for most players it won't be perfect"
This single sentence highlights your total lack of understanding of horizontal progression and difficulty! Just because the player's power is fixed, doesn't mean the enemy's power level is! I'll make a very, very basic example for you.
Player has 200 hp and 20 dps
Enemy 1 has 100 hp and 10 dps Enemy 2 has 200 hp and 20 dps Enemy 3 has 300 hp and 30 dps
The player and all three enemies are the same "level" because this is horizontal progression game. According to you, all three enemies are the same difficulty because there is only one setting. I disagree, I say that enemy 3 is the hardest and enemy 1 the easiest, because of how their relative power levels compare to me.
Do you agree with me - that difficulty is determined by power level - or do you disagree and think an enemy with 3x the health and dps is objectively the same difficulty?
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
While it is true in theory that a vertical progression game can have the same difficulty as a horizontal progression game it never really comes down to it in practice.
A great pair of examples are Halo and Diablo III. Each games has various difficulty modes you can play through the game on. In Halo you can start at the difficulty mode best suited for your player skill and if you go back through on a harder difficulty the game is legitimately harder. There are clear difference in the skill required for an easy, normal, heroic, and legendary playthrough.
In Diablo III you start at level 1 and can play back through on additional difficulty modes that are grouped by level. The game gets a bit harder with each playthrough but I never really felt pushed to the edge of my skills as a player. I eventually stopped doing additional playthroughs not because it was too hard to press on but because I was bored.
Could Diablo III have made itself as hard as Halo? Absolutely but that wasn't the game's focus. The focus was on scaling content to level. In order to have actually made the game as customizable to my PLAYER SKILL level as Halo, they would have had to create separate difficulty modes for each playthrough of each level range. Even a company as large and well funded as Blizzard doesn't have the time for that, and Diablo III isn't even an MMO. How much harder would it be to implement it so that you can face rewarding challenges at each level and each gearscore, pressing your player skill to whatever personal limits you have in a massively multiplayer setting? No wonder we don't have challenging MMOs anymore. Level based MMOs make it far more difficult to cater to more than one skillset of players. And the big companies have learned the skill level that will net them the most revenue is hyper-casuals.
1) You are equating levels with power. That is wrong. 2) You are ignoring other methods of difficulty - mechanics, strategies, number of mobs etc. 3) You are assuming that regardless of level, all content is beatable. That is also wrong.
Expanding on point 3, there is a limit in all games as to how much of a power gap a single player can overcome. Ignoring mechanics, tactics etc and looking purely at power gaps:
Lets say level = power Lets say a player can overcome a 10 power difference (so a level 10 could beat a level 20, but a level 21 would be too much). In such a game, a level 10 has a difficulty scale of -9 (vs lvl1) to 10 (vs lvl20). All other content is deemed impossible so there is no challenge, just gated content.
In a horizontal game, it is only the player's power level that is fixed. Enemies can be scaled easier or harder. So, the player may be fixed at power 10, but developers can creates enemies anywhere from power 1 to power 20 and the player has a difficulty scale of -9 to 10.
This results in difficulty between horizontal and vertical being "objectively" the same.
This makes you objectively wrong. Again.
Maybe you just don't understand horizontal progression? Or difficulty in general?
1. Levels are power in 99% of games, and possibly 100% of RPGs. So your objection here is complete nonsense: atbest it's an ultra-minor technicality, and at worst it's flat-out wrong. (If you care not to be flat-out wrong feel free to name a lot of RPGs where levels aren't power. Otherwise we'll assume you're flat-out wrong.)
2. The discussion is horizontal vs. vertical progression. So yes, I am discussing horizontal vs. vertical and I'm not discussing things which aren't. A failure to separate the concepts is why so many others are wrong in this discussion.
The scooter analogy holds true: when discussing the mobility of powered vs. unpowered scooters, you're just examining the benefits of the engine. You can't say they have equal mobility, because they don't: the removal of the engine in one of them objectively removes one form of mobility.
We're discussing the scooter's motor. We're discussing horizontal vs. vertical progression. Being distracted by unrelated factors that happen to serve the same purpose doesn't let us understand the truth. (And this is why your closing example is wrong. You're like "but I can also push the scooter the same 20mph with my foot!" and I'm like..."So what? Removing the motor objectively reduces the mobility of the scooter still, and when you push in addition to using the motor you go faster than 20mph!")
3. Whether content is beatable is irrelevant. My claim is vertical progression is a vector for providing challenge. (Not that all challenge is beatable.)
Merely by pointing out unbeatable content exists you've proven my point.
While that's been my point at face value, I would refine it to "fun challenge", which is going to be a narrower band that varies by player. Every player's sweet spot of challenge is usually between -5 and +5 levels relative to your current level. In vertical progression you get all those degrees of challenge while leveling. In horizontal progression you don't; you get the one degree of challenge they give you and for most players it won't be perfect.
/facepalm
I guess we've been playing different RPGs and MMOs then. Levels are usually the smallest part of actual player power, you tend to get very small increases in power with each new level, the majority of your power comes from new skills and new gear.
You're still missing the fundamental point though. Regardless of whether levels = power or not, the fundamental point is that you / game devs are comparing the player's power to the enemies power.
I honestly don't care whether power comes purely from your level, or a mix of level, skills and gear stats, or new traits or whatever. All of that is just convenient facing for the fundamental underlying power level.
Difficulty comes from comparing that power level (you) to the underlying power level of the enemy. If the enemy has more power, they're harder. If they have less power, they're easier.
That fundamental comparison of player power to enemy power is present in both horizontal and vertical progression systems, therefore the variety of difficulty is the same. Who cares if me, as the player, gains more power through leveling up? Regardless of my individual power level, the range of challenge is determined by the differential between me and the enemies in game that are beatable.
If an enemy is unbeatable, due to their power level being too high, that is not challenge. That it not difficulty. As @Vermillion_Raventhal stated, that is simply gated content. If there is no physical way to beat content, that content is not difficult: it is impossible. Look up the meaning of difficulty in this context - the dictionaries (and common usage) all allude to there being a solution.
So, in a horiztonal progession system, the player power level is fixed, but the enemy's power level can vary from extremely easy to extremely hard. Hell, you can add some impossible enemies if you want, just to make you feel better.
In a vertical progression system, the player's power level steadily increases whilst the enemy's power level can vary from extremely easy to extremely hard, with varying levels of impossible enemies dependant on your level.
In both, there are easy enemies and there are hard enemies. In both, the difficulty is determined by comparing player power to enemy power.
As for your final point, have you ever played a game which uses horizontal progression? You said:
"In horizontal progression you don't; you get the one degree of challenge they give you and for most players it won't be perfect"
This single sentence highlights your total lack of understanding of horizontal progression and difficulty! Just because the player's power is fixed, doesn't mean the enemy's power level is! I'll make a very, very basic example for you.
Player has 200 hp and 20 dps
Enemy 1 has 100 hp and 10 dps Enemy 2 has 200 hp and 20 dps Enemy 3 has 300 hp and 30 dps
The player and all three enemies are the same "level" because this is horizontal progression game. According to you, all three enemies are the same difficulty because there is only one setting. I disagree, I say that enemy 3 is the hardest and enemy 1 the easiest, because of how their relative power levels compare to me.
Do you agree with me - that difficulty is determined by power level - or do you disagree and think an enemy with 3x the health and dps is objectively the same difficulty?
His argument is that more impossible = more challenge. He's going down with that ship.
Comments
Too much focus in the past has been on making one big baddie that soaks damage for 30 minutes and one-shots everybody but the main tank. Way back when, there wasn't a better option, as trying to spawn an army for a group of players to wade through would make any PC's FPS take a huge dump.
Technology is quickly surpassing that hurdle. Developers need to stop focusing on "and then a big bad BOSS MAN AT THE END!!" and start focusing on opening raid "boss" encounters up to something new and innovative. Games like Albion Online that enjoy relaxed graphics can certainly achieve a "us vs. an army of Orcs led by their Chieftain" instead of "clear these regular Orcs until you get to the chieftain's hut, then everybody pile on the Chieftain because he has 1000% more health than your tank and hits 500% harder than your nuking Mage."
The second makes me feel as if I'm a weakling, banding together because not a single player in the game is tough enough to go toe to toe with any "boss." Ironically, this very situation flies directly in the developer's own face when they build a solo quest line, alongside the aforementioned archaic raid system, that is geared towards making the player feels as if they're the "one true hero of the realm."
I would much prefer my "band of heroes" encounter a ruthless "band of outlaws," a group of named "mini-boss" mobs akin to my own group that provide a challenge to individual players as well as cooperating and forcing my team to cooperate in turn and respond to the tactics their band is using. Add to that the disposable minions to give the fight fluff and weight and make me and my group feel powerful... Much better. Raid bosses, as they're known now, need to take the backseat of the bus. New ideas should be replacing that scheme today.
The fact that it wasn't impossible and it was just a little bit harder is exactly the point.
Also a mob isn't "impossible" because you choose not to even auto-attack it. (Which is exactly the same as your 'specced wrong' point: the fact that you can play like an idiot and lose doesn't make a mob impossible to beat.)
Our discussion literally started when I told you, "Horizontal progression is a step backwards in challenge management, actually". So I'm still arguing precisely the point I started with. You're the one constantly trying to move the discussion away from that point.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
- You're level 10.
- Game A only has level 10 mobs.
- Game B has level 1-100 mobs.
Obviously Game B (vertical progression) offers the potential for considerably more challenge than Game A.So your actual question should've been: What world offers more potential for challenge?
- The world where grocery bagger is the only job?
- Or the world where many jobs exist from bagger to surgeon?
It's really confusing how blatantly, mathematically, incontestably true this is, yet many posters seem to want to disagree.There are a million other topics where disagreeing with someone online isn't done in the face of insurmountable mathematical proof. Go argue your opinion against threads that are about other opinions. In this particular case, we're discussing an objective fact and it's not going to budge just because a lot of posters are confused by the concepts (which they shouldn't be, because look at how simple the mathematical proof is!)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
While comparing levels in different games is comparing apples to oranges let's set some constants for the sake of rational debate:
1. Enemies up to 10 levels higher than the player are potentially defeatable. Anything 11 levels or more above the player is literally impossible to beat.
2. Desirable challenge ends when an encounter becomes literally impossible to beat.
Assuming those remain constant lets again compare the two games, based on what people are ACTUALLY arguing:
Game A: All players are level 10. Opponents range from level 10 to 20.
Game B: Players level from 1 to 100. Opponents range from 1 to 110.
Which is more challenging? Neither. No matter what level you are the range of desirable challenge goes from your level to 10 levels higher than it. Therefore both games are capable of the same level of challenge.
The main differences are:
1. In game A developers have a constant player strength to work for and therefore can create content that will always challenge every player equally.
2. There is less tedium required to get into game A. Any intentionally developed gating aside, you can go up against any challenge you have the PLAYER skill to take on.
Most vertical progression-based games have an intended route for players to take, for mmorpg the most common is that you fight level-appropriate monsters. This means that developers intention is that you are expected to have a specific level and a certain quality before you take on monsters.
This means that at level 10 developers have designed the game in a fashion that you should fight level 10 monsters and not level 100 monsters.
The actual difficulty is how hard level-appropriate fights are. Most vertical progression games are much easier at lower level and as you progress further into the game the game becomes harder and harder. The reason for this is because players get better as they get further into the game. However, there are games like bethesda open world games that have a habit of making you so powerful that you outpower all challenges at the end of the game.
Difficulty is about how hard fights are to execute correctly and not just about mathematics. If all you have to do is rig the mathematics to make all fights easy its not a hard game.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
"Horizontal progression is a step backwards in challenge management, actually".
too hard they rage quit. they want to win 100%
if u want make harder pve, make a raid /dungeon instance. pve carebears who want to win 100% of the time will stay away from that
I used to love raids (Vanguard and Everquest being my favorite). But even raids are being made easy as hell compared to the classic style or older PVE MMOs.
Heck, unlike Vanguard/EQ/EQ2...there is NO crowd control at all in WoW's raids. Every raid mob is immune to slows, polymorphs and anything else that is crowd control. Its literally damage, tank and heals. That is it.
In vanguard, there was so much more strategy. Same with EQ. And pretty sure EQ2 as well.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
The group content I've seen that was the most fun was Runescape's dungeoneering. While elements of it are predictable to a degree, you don't know what enemies you will face going in, what non-combat skillsets it will be most useful to have, what the dungeon layout will be etc. While in Runescape you can literally max every single skill eventually if you applied this to a game where there were some levels of limitations on how many skills you could effectively use at once it would translate into the idea that there is no "best" build. And you could read up on more general strategies but there will never be a step-by-step walk through for you.
It's a concept deserving to be reapplied to a more serious game with a better combat system than Runescape.
If you're replying to me, you're replying to that discussion.
So no, I'm not making a straw man.
Your example assumes vertical progression games don't also scale enemy difficulty. I've pointed out that's a separate factor that all MMORPGs do. That means it's off-topic. It's not related to vertical vs. horizontal progression.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That's ignorance. It's literal ignorance. Knowledge was communicated to you, and you ignored it.
The point was proven conclusively. Don't choose ignorance. Choose knowledge. Read and comprehend.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Ver's original argument that you responded to was considerably less controversial than your own. His being this.
Pretty sure that's what a straw man is.
Your argument that it's a reduction to the amount of challenge ends up being the pivotal point in dispute because instead of making a reasonable argument that the way challenge is implemented within a game can vary greatly and that both progression models have the capacity for displaying the same general variety in challenge for content, you make the considerably more subjective argument that a specific model is unquestionably better.
Also not sure what you're rambling in response to Ver about there....you never gave any "mathematical" proof nor did you give anything conclusive. Opinions are not facts.
Except again, you didn't read what was said: How does that in ANY way assume vertical progression games don't scale to enemy difficulty? It straight up says they do. I simply go on to assert that if player progression doesn't scale, then developers can better create challenges catered to a specific power level. And assuming equal resources between game A and game B, that's absolutely true. Creating a good range of challenge levels that scales up 100 levels because all the old challenging content gets easier each time you level, will take a lot more time and effort than creating a good range of challenge levels that never has to scale based on artificial stat inflation AKA leveling/gearscore.
Your entire argument style is putting words in other people's mouths and insisting they said things they didn't. You aren't addressing any of the real points being made, just skirting around them and building more straw men. It's time to throw in the towel man. You look like a fool to everyone but yourself at this point.
HOWEVER
I don't want "group hard" I want "solo hard", what this means is I want it to be hard as nails for "ME" to do something by myself in the game, but not to where the game is made so hard it requires me to group with other player to even have a chance to do "most" content.
These days games are made with piss-easy solo content, and then hard (because of modern human stupidity) group content. (usually in the form of raids.)
I guess what I want these days is a dark souls online game, with people around me doing their own thing, adding ambiance and life to a npc world. But not being forced to endure their stupidity in handling content.
Meh, mmos are a dead genre for me these days, but I still keep up with whats happening with them, sort of like a onlooker to a building burning down.
To find an intelligent person in a PUG is not that rare, but to find a PUG made up of "all" intelligent people is one of the rarest phenomenons in the known universe.
1) You are equating levels with power. That is wrong.
2) You are ignoring other methods of difficulty - mechanics, strategies, number of mobs etc.
3) You are assuming that regardless of level, all content is beatable. That is also wrong.
Expanding on point 3, there is a limit in all games as to how much of a power gap a single player can overcome. Ignoring mechanics, tactics etc and looking purely at power gaps:
Lets say level = power
Lets say a player can overcome a 10 power difference (so a level 10 could beat a level 20, but a level 21 would be too much).
In such a game, a level 10 has a difficulty scale of -9 (vs lvl1) to 10 (vs lvl20). All other content is deemed impossible so there is no challenge, just gated content.
In a horizontal game, it is only the player's power level that is fixed. Enemies can be scaled easier or harder. So, the player may be fixed at power 10, but developers can creates enemies anywhere from power 1 to power 20 and the player has a difficulty scale of -9 to 10.
This results in difficulty between horizontal and vertical being "objectively" the same.
This makes you objectively wrong. Again.
Maybe you just don't understand horizontal progression? Or difficulty in general?
There is more correlation with vertical progression in MMORPG of less challenge because many times you can only reach content of your level or less. Much content is easy outside of specific areas.
Removing one vector by which a game can be more challenging (vertical progression) doesn't "give the gaming world challenge" as he claims. It removes challenge. Challenge is removed.
It's like a motorized scooter where someone claims removing the motor "can give the scootering world speed". Sure, you can still move with an unpowered scooter using other methods (pushing with your foot), but it's a rather dishonest presentation of the scooter's capabilities given that you objectively reduced the scooter's capability for movement.
Sure you can still achieve difficulty using other methods, but removing vertical progression objectively reduces a game's ability to provide challenge. It's wrong or dishonest to point out that it can "give the gaming world challenge".
The numeric challenge distance between a level 10 player and a level 100 monster is mathematical proof that vertical progression enables a form of challenge not found in horizontal progression games. With horizontal progression, the gap is zero levels. With vertical, the gap varies (depending on what level you happen to be). Meaning there is a non-zero increase to challenge with one, but zero challenge to the other. It's a mathematical proof, and it reflects the typical way horizontal progression games are implemented. To argue against it is to be wrong.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So no, I responded directly to his false claim and showed precisely why it was false.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
But yeh, the type of difficulty Axe is referring to is only one type of difficulty - comparing stats and having to reach a certain threshold of player potential in terms of outright dps / mitigation / healing. It ignores tactics, teamwork, plus support stuff like CC, debuffs etc.
Its all besides the point though. Bother horizontal and vertical progression systems can offer the same amounts of difficulty as one another, it all comes down to implementation. Both systems compare the players power to the enemies power as the starting point for difficulty, and both systems then adds skills / tactics / teamwork / scripted events etc to further set the difficulty.
2. The discussion is horizontal vs. vertical progression. So yes, I am discussing horizontal vs. vertical and I'm not discussing things which aren't. A failure to separate the concepts is why so many others are wrong in this discussion.
The scooter analogy holds true: when discussing the mobility of powered vs. unpowered scooters, you're just examining the benefits of the engine. You can't say they have equal mobility, because they don't: the removal of the engine in one of them objectively removes one form of mobility.
We're discussing the scooter's motor. We're discussing horizontal vs. vertical progression. Being distracted by unrelated factors that happen to serve the same purpose doesn't let us understand the truth. (And this is why your closing example is wrong. You're like "but I can also push the scooter the same 20mph with my foot!" and I'm like..."So what? Removing the motor objectively reduces the mobility of the scooter still, and when you push in addition to using the motor you go faster than 20mph!")
3. Whether content is beatable is irrelevant. My claim is vertical progression is a vector for providing challenge. (Not that all challenge is beatable.)
Merely by pointing out unbeatable content exists you've proven my point.
While that's been my point at face value, I would refine it to "fun challenge", which is going to be a narrower band that varies by player. Every player's sweet spot of challenge is usually between -5 and +5 levels relative to your current level. In vertical progression you get all those degrees of challenge while leveling. In horizontal progression you don't; you get the one degree of challenge they give you and for most players it won't be perfect.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I guess we've been playing different RPGs and MMOs then. Levels are usually the smallest part of actual player power, you tend to get very small increases in power with each new level, the majority of your power comes from new skills and new gear.
You're still missing the fundamental point though. Regardless of whether levels = power or not, the fundamental point is that you / game devs are comparing the player's power to the enemies power.
I honestly don't care whether power comes purely from your level, or a mix of level, skills and gear stats, or new traits or whatever. All of that is just convenient facing for the fundamental underlying power level.
Difficulty comes from comparing that power level (you) to the underlying power level of the enemy. If the enemy has more power, they're harder. If they have less power, they're easier.
That fundamental comparison of player power to enemy power is present in both horizontal and vertical progression systems, therefore the variety of difficulty is the same. Who cares if me, as the player, gains more power through leveling up? Regardless of my individual power level, the range of challenge is determined by the differential between me and the enemies in game that are beatable.
If an enemy is unbeatable, due to their power level being too high, that is not challenge. That it not difficulty. As @Vermillion_Raventhal stated, that is simply gated content. If there is no physical way to beat content, that content is not difficult: it is impossible. Look up the meaning of difficulty in this context - the dictionaries (and common usage) all allude to there being a solution.
So, in a horiztonal progession system, the player power level is fixed, but the enemy's power level can vary from extremely easy to extremely hard. Hell, you can add some impossible enemies if you want, just to make you feel better.
In a vertical progression system, the player's power level steadily increases whilst the enemy's power level can vary from extremely easy to extremely hard, with varying levels of impossible enemies dependant on your level.
In both, there are easy enemies and there are hard enemies.
In both, the difficulty is determined by comparing player power to enemy power.
As for your final point, have you ever played a game which uses horizontal progression? You said:
"In horizontal progression you don't; you get the one degree of challenge they give you and for most players it won't be perfect"
This single sentence highlights your total lack of understanding of horizontal progression and difficulty! Just because the player's power is fixed, doesn't mean the enemy's power level is! I'll make a very, very basic example for you.
Player has 200 hp and 20 dps
Enemy 1 has 100 hp and 10 dps
Enemy 2 has 200 hp and 20 dps
Enemy 3 has 300 hp and 30 dps
The player and all three enemies are the same "level" because this is horizontal progression game. According to you, all three enemies are the same difficulty because there is only one setting. I disagree, I say that enemy 3 is the hardest and enemy 1 the easiest, because of how their relative power levels compare to me.
Do you agree with me - that difficulty is determined by power level - or do you disagree and think an enemy with 3x the health and dps is objectively the same difficulty?
A great pair of examples are Halo and Diablo III. Each games has various difficulty modes you can play through the game on. In Halo you can start at the difficulty mode best suited for your player skill and if you go back through on a harder difficulty the game is legitimately harder. There are clear difference in the skill required for an easy, normal, heroic, and legendary playthrough.
In Diablo III you start at level 1 and can play back through on additional difficulty modes that are grouped by level. The game gets a bit harder with each playthrough but I never really felt pushed to the edge of my skills as a player. I eventually stopped doing additional playthroughs not because it was too hard to press on but because I was bored.
Could Diablo III have made itself as hard as Halo? Absolutely but that wasn't the game's focus. The focus was on scaling content to level. In order to have actually made the game as customizable to my PLAYER SKILL level as Halo, they would have had to create separate difficulty modes for each playthrough of each level range.
Even a company as large and well funded as Blizzard doesn't have the time for that, and Diablo III isn't even an MMO.
How much harder would it be to implement it so that you can face rewarding challenges at each level and each gearscore, pressing your player skill to whatever personal limits you have in a massively multiplayer setting?
No wonder we don't have challenging MMOs anymore. Level based MMOs make it far more difficult to cater to more than one skillset of players. And the big companies have learned the skill level that will net them the most revenue is hyper-casuals.