Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
([zen3001])

Does anyone actually play the easier difficulties?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Cynical said:

And I'm tired of seeing players so entitled that they expect to beat a map without saves on their first attempt despite not having any skill.  No, the entire community isn't going to slow down because you suck.  Git gud.

 

No one said one must beat the map saveless on the first run though, but there's a difference between saving on the map, and save scumming. Also, I'm reasonably confident what he tried to say was that mappers should simply be considerate to other players, nothing else.

 

7 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

So? Monster count isn't the only source of difficulty, and the fact that you pull off extremely dirty napkin math in order to make a point has disqualified your opinion on the matter for me personally. And yeah, cutting more than half the monsters in congestion based fights is the very definition of gutting.

 

Also correct, and monster count doesn't always mean something in terms of difficulty. There's A LOT of ways to make a map difficult by using the environment and layout efficiently. But cutting monsters can simply mean less grinding in some sections sometimes. Personally, having a unidirectional wave of say, 400 Imps in an open area of a map on UV and the said wave is removed on HMP does not imply the difficulty has been lowered, but rather the map has been gutted, by removing something that didn't affect the experience in a noticeable way but instead just saves some time when playing (and maybe a bunch of rockets, but you likely get enough anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 7/6/2019 at 6:16 PM, DoomSpud said:

In no way have I made out that I am more elite than anyone else or that anyone else is wrong. 

 

On 7/6/2019 at 12:48 PM, DoomSpud said:

what's the point of even playing if you're going to remove half the enemies and have enough health and ammo to never die? What challenge is there in that? It's no different to putting on God Mode if you're going to tip the whole game in the players favour (which the lower difficulties do). Hell, why not just use "-nomonsters" and walk around on your own? I hear that helps with not dying...

sorry to tell you but Hurt Me Plenty =/= God Mode + nomonsters

 

10 hours ago, Cynical said:

And I'm tired of seeing players so entitled that they expect to beat a map without saves on their first attempt despite not having any skill.  No, the entire community isn't going to slow down because you suck.  Git gud.

Didn't think the Dark Souls Elitist GIT GUD mentality would also leak in to the Doom Community in some way. No one here is saying that all maps should be beatable in one try...

Edited by jazzmaster9

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, tchkb said:

Fact 3: most veteran Doom players either don't play non-UV difficulties at all or just don't take them seriously - either something to play casually or a way to quickly learn the levels.

Anything significantly harder than Plutonia will be aimed principally at those players and will have a great deal of effort put into honing its UV gameplay. However, this difficulty will shut off majority of Doom's players - they could still play it, but only on ITYTD and/or with a lot of save scumming, which ain't exactly fun - quite a big loss since plenty of this stuff can have very appealing visual design (hi Sunder) and/or gameplay ideas. And here we run into three major problems:

 

 

Well said, this is indeed a major issue with many modern projects. They often contain gameplay mechanics some players may be fundamentally uncomfortable with.
 

And going to the lower difficulties may lower the number of stronger enemies but doesn't really change much of the setup, it's often a bit easier to play but still a lot harder than UV on more classic maps. The reason for this has been laid out by several people in this thread and it's the biggest misconception around: Thinking that playing on the lower skills "misses out" some of the intended design! If the lower skills are mentally approached like this, there is no chance of really balancing a mod properly.

 

Regarding your third point:

 

I think what is needed is capable testers who have some skill in gameplay design that are being allowed to set up the lower skill levels to their personal liking - without interference by the main mappers - the only condition being to leave UV alone. I would never expect people with extremely high playing skills to be able to tone down their maps themselves because it goes totally counter to their way of playing and what they consider 'hard' or 'easy'.

Of course such testers need to be treated with the necessary respect then, and not what happened to me several years ago when giving feedback on skill issues: Being entirely dismissed for "not understanding the intent of the mod" and crap like that. If lower skills are being approached like that they will inevitably suck.

 

In terms of specific design choices there's two in particular I take exception with:

 

- considering the Former Humans a waste of time and not worth bothering. Yes, they are mainly cannon fodder, but using a larger number of these often provides far more interesting gameplay than filling the entire map with stronger enemies that have to be killed one at a time and often result in very grinding gameplay.

- For me personally the biggest issue with many modern mods is how they treat the Revenant as a lower tier enemy and use it in a way that should be reserved to the real lower tier enemies, especially the Imp. Here's the issue with this: Due to the highly damaging homing missiles, fighting packs of Revenants is not fun if you do not possess perfect control skills. (Note to the Doom Gods: MOST PEOPLE DO NOT!!!) One tiny mistake and you are dead. So the end result is indeed save scumming - because otherwise there's simply no chance getting through those Revenant infested areas. which renders playing the game a mostly pointless exercise . The most recent victim of this was "Hurt". Great map overall, looks absolutely terrific, but even on "HNTR" the amount of Revenants being encountered early in the game before the arsenal is properly built up is so ridiculously high that I just quit and deleted it. Sorry, no fun for me. Maybe I'll retry later with a monster replacement mod that puts something less annoying in their place.

 

In recent years my most used mod 'enhancer' has been a little Dehacked patch which disables the Revenant missile's homing feature.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Graf Zahl said:

In recent years my most used mod 'enhancer' has been a little Dehacked patch which disables the Revenant missile's homing feature.

I'm not sure what this mod "enhances", when it removes one of the two things that makes revenants unique and defines their position in the combat chain. And you're wondering why your feedback on gameplay gets dismissed by mappers? I wouldn't be so surprised about that if I was you.

 

And seeing how you behaved yourself when lilith.pk3 got released on the ZDoom forums, I'd argue that you're not exactly in a position to demand respectful treatment from anybody.

And regarding testers adjusting settings to their liking but leaving UV alone: Forget that. It's like 20 times faster to tell the mapper where the problems are, and letting them do the changes (should they agree), than it is for somebody to understand how the map is constructed in order to make any changes properly. And then there's of course the mapper's idea of what the map is supposed to be about, and before I let anybody fumble around in my maps I'd make pretty damn sure that the ideas and concepts in it are being respected when changes are made by these supposed testers.

 

If all you want is to modify maps so you can play them, do that for yourself. Simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Graf Zahl said:

Of course such testers need to be treated with the necessary respect then, and not what happened to me several years ago when giving feedback on skill issues: Being entirely dismissed for "not understanding the intent of the mod" and crap like that. If lower skills are being approached like that they will inevitably suck.

 

Oh what? Really?

 

I mean, I can understand that the author(s) have a vision for the wads they are making and that should be respected and always taken into consideration, but that being said, I don't think there's any valid reason or excuse to be dismissed like that for trying to provide feedback.

 

If I would get pushed away like that when trying to provide feedback for a wad on the grounds that "I don't get it", rest assured I would never give the said author feedback again (which they probably don't care about in the first place anyway, and a post/similar reaction to that makes it clear as day to me that they have no intention to listen to what I have to say whatsoever).

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Graf Zahl said:

*Stuff*

 

I agree with most of the things u said. Especially that the author should give some consideration to what the testers have to say.

 

However....

1 hour ago, Graf Zahl said:

In recent years my most used mod 'enhancer' has been a little Dehacked patch which disables the Revenant missile's homing feature.

 

If someone is using a mod to change their game and alter the intended experience, then the map authors have the right to either listen or dismiss the suggestions of the said tester.

 

Also

2 hours ago, Graf Zahl said:

The most recent victim of this was "Hurt". Great map overall, looks absolutely terrific, but even on "HNTR" the amount of Revenants being encountered early in the game before the arsenal is properly built up is so ridiculously high that I just quit and deleted it. Sorry, no fun for me. Maybe I'll retry later with a monster replacement mod that puts something less annoying in their place.

 

The revenants in Hurt that are encountered early on are weak melee-only revenants. The regular revenants don't start appearing until player has ATLEAST an SSG and a chaingun. And I am talking about UV here. So HNTR would atleast provide these weapons too before throwing regular revenants into combat.

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/8/2019 at 6:14 PM, yakfak said:

i agree with what ribbiks wrote and have a really similar approach

 

You're not kidding! This Spidersilk stuff is gonzo and Very Cool. I missed this in previous years, somehow. Nice find. I should search whole textfiles for mentions of "Alfonzo" more often.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, DoomSpud said:


Yeah I've noticed not many around here have a sense of humour or can take a joke...

 

Yeah I've noticed not many around here have a sense of humor or can tell a joke. You'll learn phrasing and timing one day tho.

Share this post


Link to post

I've tried implementing difficulties, not implementing difficulties, making custom difficulties that completely change the game and experimenting with difficulty. I often scale from UV by removing enemies, but I've tried altering composition to keep the monster count at a set number, or boosting player power relative to enemies. People don't play my stuff, though, so I don't know what works and what doesn't.

 

As a player, I'm a UV guy. This is driven by my understanding of the IWAD difficulty implementation and my own difficulty implementation. However, a lot of modern map sets aren't much fun on UV, so I just don't play them, or save scum, or outright cheat using "resurrect". I guess it's a "full experience" thing, as many have said here. I should use lower difficulties by default, as I'm impatient with Doom after so long playing it and don't expect to get any better.

 

I think I still want base game difficulty, aside from in my own stuff where I know it well and expect a challenge anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Cynical said:

 

 

And I'm tired of seeing players so entitled that they expect to beat a map without saves on their first attempt despite not having any skill.  No, the entire community isn't going to slow down because you suck.  Git gud.

I'm saying have the option. Get good won't get people from outside the community to play your wad if you think only really really really hard difficulty is the only option.  That was my point.

Get good should be what your wad does anyway during the course of it. But main focus shouldn't be its so hard you'll pull your hair out on the first try. I'm fine with it if you say it in big bold letters, that this will be hard. But then there's also the fact that there are many ways of making it hard. Some ways are just cheap and frustrating as fuck.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, pulkmees said:

I'm saying have the option. Get good won't get people from outside the community to play your wad if you think only really really really hard difficulty is the only option.  That was my point.

Get good should be what your wad does anyway during the course of it. But main focus shouldn't be its so hard you'll pull your hair out on the first try. I'm fine with it if you say it in big bold letters, that this will be hard. But then there's also the fact that there are many ways of making it hard. Some ways are just cheap and frustrating as fuck.

Quite a lot of "should bes" here, and frankly I'm not sure what to make of this.

 

From personal experience, people are eager to call something "unfair" or "bullshit" just because they were unable to beat a fight right away. So, every time I see these words thrown around, I'd like it much better if people put that into perspective a bit, instead of hoping mappers can magically make any sense of a "non-content statement".

You keep forgetting that people like cynical and me who only build (slightly niche) maps every so often, as well as "dedicated mappers" don't get paid for any of the work. We have no "customers" to cater to. Having said that, there is no reason why a map has to cater to "player group A and B and C and D", when it can instead be simply its own thing, with a smaller audience admittedly, but who cares?

Nobody is mapping only for altruistic reasons, and people who say they do are pretentious asshats as far as I'm concerned. Everybody who makes maps builds them primarily for themselves to begin with. Maybe they enjoy the creative process, maybe they want to experiment, maybe they want to just have something new to play... And the fact that said mappers can even be assed to put in several difficulty settings every so often, which is unpaid work is something that a lot of "customers" seem to take for granted, or expect it as part of an "imaginary standard. Kinda gross, if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

From personal experience, people are eager to call something "unfair" or "bullshit" just because they were unable to beat a fight right away. So, every time I see these words thrown around, I'd like it much better if people put that into perspective a bit, instead of hoping mappers can magically make any sense of a "non-content statement".

 

I agree here 100%, as that's something I myself have noticed as well. Stuff similar to the effect of "Huh, I don't seem capable of beating this/it's too much hassle, therefore it must be BS." Okay, sure.

 

This is why every time shit hits the fan when I'm playing a wad (which is more often than not, lol) I try to look at it as objective as I can and try to understand the point it's trying to get across rather than taking the other route and call it garbage just because I suck. It's not the wad's fault that it's beyond me (or I'm being a dumbass and miss something obvious, which is also more often than not).

 

13 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Nobody is mapping only for altruistic reasons, and people who say they do are pretentious asshats as far as I'm concerned. Everybody who makes maps builds them primarily for themselves to begin with.

 

I think the reverse is also true as far as I'm aware (at least that's what some people claim), which is kinda strange if you ask me. Building a wad you're unlikely to play much, if at all after it's done? Not sure how that works.

 

17 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

And the fact that said mappers can even be assed to put in several difficulty settings every so often, which is unpaid work

 

Well, I do get that it's unpaid work, but I also think that this card has been played to death at this point. It's nice to have them, and their existence in a PWAD is not mandatory by any means, but my guess is mappers who want to implement difficulty settings will probably do it anyway. If they choose against it, then so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, seed said:

 

I think the reverse is also true as far as I'm aware (at least that's what some people claim), which is kinda strange if you ask me. Building a wad you're unlikely to play much, if at all after it's done? Not sure how that works

Like I said, maybe they just enjoy the creative process of it... But regardless of however many angles you take here, mapping isn't something you do unless you personally enjoy doing it for one reason or another, at least not long term.

 

4 minutes ago, seed said:

Well, I do get that it's unpaid work, but I also think that this card has been played to death at this point

Hard disagree. I've seen people throw statements like "mappers should do this, and avoid that" and "good level design is so and so" (with all kinds of subjective justifications, all passed off as "objective") far too many times to be so naive as to think that there's no entitlement involved. And this happens especially when difficulty settings are the hot topic.

Share this post


Link to post

This has made me consider that I've designed recent maps to be more difficult than I myself am sometimes not capable of dealing with, specifically on UV. Because UV should be hard, not the standard many people perceive it to be. Doom actually only has 3 skills levels. ITYTD and Nightmare are the same as Easy and Hard in regards to thing density, they just have special modifiers to item and monster behavior. It's like people perceive Nightmare as the true hard difficulty and UV as the not so hard difficulty. But Nightmare was designed to be unfair and as such is never considered.

 

Is it really something as simple as the menu layout of the difficulty options that skews peoples perceptions? You think "Nightmare is scary, I want to play on something easier." then on UV you're "What the hell this is too hard!". Because UV is HARD and Nightmare is UNFAIR. Would things be different if they were labeled that way? Makes you think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On ‎7‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 7:11 AM, Ribbiks said:

I sympathize with the view that playing on skill 2/3 is missing out on the full or intended experience, for several reasons:
- Most pwads are not well honed to be fun on every setting.
- Designing around UV then cleaving out monsters is the most common way difficulties are done
- For easier wads the lower settings are often empty and unsatisfying

- Design sensibilities from iwads --> present span such a wide range of difficulty, and there's such a huge amount of user-made content, that perhaps it's easier to hold the skill setting constant and discard the wad if it's not your cup of tea. Our time on this planet is finite and not everyone wants to invest that time into every mapset.

 

Putting work into difficulty settings is often laborious and unrewarding, with little feedback if they were ever used or if anyone appreciated the subtler changes. Sometimes it's worth it, sometimes it's not, depends on the specific project and its intended audience. Assuming you're motivated to do a good job at it (or want to impress the 0.01% of players who will play your map on multiple settings), here are some fun ideas for how to mix up difficulty settings, beyond just cutting or changing mobs:

  • change teleport destinations: add extra areas or make the player do things in a different order
  • rethink weaponry: maybe on hmp it's a RL-centric map, maybe on UV it's ssg/zerk
  • rethink progression: move keys around, maybe an area that's mandatory on UV to get a key is now an optional area on HMP that gets your armor/weapons instead.
  • change fight mechanics: maybe you have less blocking pillars to deal with AVs on the UV version of a fight, or timed arenas advance at faster rates, etc.
  • add/remove movement related challenges: maybe UV has some platforming sections, but on lower difficulties some "helper" platforms are added to the mix which make it more forgiving. maybe UV has inescapable pits, but HMP has teleporters that let you out, etc
  • add/remove environmental threats: e.g. -5% dmg floor on HMP, -10% on UV. Maybe one difficulty uses fast crushers, another slow.
  • add/remove navigational elements: maybe you have a complex/obtuse layout, on lower settings you could add some glowing lights or other landmarks to coax the player into discovering how to progress more quickly.

For the record I mostly play on skill 2/3, and will check out multiple settings if I really like something. It's rather rare that the gameplay of a pwad aligns with my interests so I have no qualms missing the "full experience" if it lets me scope out the visuals and etc with less meat in the way.

It's almost as if you know something about map design.

 

Really good points. So much more creative than I would have come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Quite a lot of "should bes" here, and frankly I'm not sure what to make of this.

 

From personal experience, people are eager to call something "unfair" or "bullshit" just because they were unable to beat a fight right away. So, every time I see these words thrown around, I'd like it much better if people put that into perspective a bit, instead of hoping mappers can magically make any sense of a "non-content statement".

What's wrong with having the option ? Games do this. Dying over and over again in Super Meat Boy and Hotline Miami might be fun, but those games are built around that mechanic TO make it fun. And I'm being honest here. I'm specifically talking about fights(also difficulties) involving either a combination of too much luck, skill ONLY a 20 year doom veteran would have and otherwise having VERY few ways to beat it. There needs to be SOME effort put into smoothing out the difficulty for newcomers. How is it entitled to think wads would have this after how long this community has been around ? I get it if you go screaming at the mapper after ragequitting, that'sa dick move, but otherwise...

The more specific the solution is the less people will solve it. Fine if that's the sacrifice you've made, mappers call. Is it worth it to make it only for a select group of people though? All that effort...

 

Yes, this is unpaid work, people do this as a hobby. But if you can add the option and want to do it and have the time to do it then why not. I'm just tired of playing wads where the focus was to make it hard. Gorgeous architecture, vistas, texture use, but too hard. After the 11th one it wears out your patience.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, pulkmees said:

I'm saying have the option. Get good won't get people from outside the community to play your wad if you think only really really really hard difficulty is the only option.  That was my point.

Get good should be what your wad does anyway during the course of it. But main focus shouldn't be its so hard you'll pull your hair out on the first try. I'm fine with it if you say it in big bold letters, that this will be hard. But then there's also the fact that there are many ways of making it hard. Some ways are just cheap and frustrating as fuck.

I have three difficulty levels to work with.  Only three.

 

If I'm making something at beyond "'classic hard' HR/AV/Scythe/DVII/Going Down/Unholy Realms/Plutonium Winds/etc." levels of difficulty, then that means I need one difficulty level for my "max/intended" difficulty, and one for the "classic hard" difficulty (which is really non-negotiable, given how popular that level of difficulty is).  That means I've got one difficulty level to cover everyone from "can't beat E1M1 on Skill 1" to "solid with the IWADs, but not comfortable with Alien Vendetta Ep. 2 and 3".  No way to cover all of that in one skill level.  I've got to choose, and given that no one is looking for PWADs until they've beaten the IWADs, I aim for "have made it through Plutonia on UV".

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, pulkmees said:

There is a sweetspot difficulty.

No. It never existed, it never will exist. It's highly subjective in the first place, and I'm not gonna elaborate this any further. Get that weird idea out of your head.

 

4 minutes ago, pulkmees said:

What's wrong with having the option ?

It's additional effort, and more often than not this effort ends up feeling like wasted time, because some random person's sweetspot didn't get hit, and they end up being vocal about it, because they got left out. It's always a pick your poison kind of deal when it comes to harder stuff, and that's not gonna change.

Having said that, providing the option is nice and all, if the mapper wants to work that out, but if they don't: C'est la vie. You have more options in the form of other PWADs than you'll ever have time to play. I suggest checking those out in case a mapper doesn't attempt to cater to your individual needs and preferences.
 

10 minutes ago, pulkmees said:

I'm specifically talking about fights(also difficulties) involving either a combination of too much luck, skill ONLY a 20 year doom veteran would have and otherwise having VERY few ways to beat it.

So? You want mappers to make these fights such that it doesn't matter how you play, you wanna just win by default when holding down "fire"? Sorry, "hard" genre isn't for you, because playing by the map's rules is part and parcel of challenge and slaughter maps. Deal with it, move on with life. I'm not even gonna get into the "luck part" here, because you didn't care to provide an exact example, so there is no basis on which anything can be discussed.

 

14 minutes ago, pulkmees said:

There needs to be SOME effort put into smoothing out the difficulty for newcomers.

Also no. I've yet to hear a good reason why a "niche product", aimed at doomers at high levels of play, needs to cater to newcomers. You didn't provide any reason whatsoever, and instead just claim it needs to be done, because you need it that way. Not good enough.
 

16 minutes ago, pulkmees said:

How is it entitled to think wads would have this after how long this community has been around ?

How long this community has been around is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/8/2019 at 7:09 PM, DuckReconMajor said:

Here's a question: has anyone dropped down to HMP and beaten the level, only to find out difficulty settings weren't implemented?

First time I blindly played MAP32: Go 2 It from Plutonia, I did so on HNTR and beat it first try without dying, didn't find it particularly difficult despite taking 1h30min to beat. Later I found out it's exactly the same level on UV...

Share this post


Link to post

Difficulty settings are always appreciated. But yes it is ultimately up to the mapper how hard they want their map to be. It's silly to ask a mapper to cater to novices when they're designing their map to be balls to the wall difficult. The problem that comes with that is it alienates a portion of the audience. But that's an issue a mapper must consider when making the map. Does the author try to be inclusive as possible or do they pursue their unfiltered vision of what they want the map to be? If the mapper is decisive in that choice, who are we to criticize? 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

No. It never existed, it never will exist. It's highly subjective in the first place, and I'm not gonna elaborate this any further. Get that weird idea out of your head.

How do other games do it then ? You can't fathom playing as someone with lesser skill ? Missing more shots, not figuring out puzzles as fast, not knowing patterns, getting lost ? It's subjective, but not highly. Companies do it with loads of playtesters. We do it with less or by ourselves. Means we have to make more of an effort.

 

7 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

It's additional effort, and more often than not this effort ends up feeling like wasted time, because some random person's sweetspot didn't get hit, and they end up being vocal about it, because they got left out. It's always a pick your poison kind of deal when it comes to harder stuff, and that's not gonna change.

Having said that, providing the option is nice and all, if the mapper wants to work that out, but if they don't: C'est la vie. You have more options in the form of other PWADs than you'll ever have time to play. I suggest checking those out in case a mapper doesn't attempt to cater to your individual needs and preferences-

How is it wasted time if more people play it? That's what it gives you. For me it's a waste if only 12 people end up playing it. Gorgeous well textured maps for 12 people.

 

8 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

So? You want mappers to make these fights such that it doesn't matter how you play, you wanna just win by default when holding down "fire"? Sorry, "hard" genre isn't for you, because playing by the map's rules is part and parcel of challenge and slaughter maps. Deal with it, move on with life. I'm not even gonna get into the "luck part" here, because you didn't care to provide an exact example, so there is no basis on which anything can be discussed.

No, that's not what I said or meant. I didn't mean handholding. I specifically described fights or difficulties that are not fun for newcomers. Also now we are apparently in the giving examples stage of this argument. I thought we were generalizing as this is a general issue imo. Everyone does their own thing in their own wad, but after 11 wads the same issue keeps popping up.(And any wads worth playing happen to be hard as well). This should be taken into account as new mappers make maps. I'm saying this as advice. How is this unreasonable ? Nothing has ever pissed you off in any game or wad that was cheap or luck based ? 

25 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Also no. I've yet to hear a good reason why a "niche product", aimed at doomers at high levels of play, needs to cater to newcomers. You didn't provide any reason whatsoever, and instead just claim it needs to be done, because you need it that way. Not good enough.

Well yeah if the whole point of the wad is that, then yeah, no reason to cater to them indeed. But then that's why I'm asking if that effort is worth it for ONLY that niche audience ?

 

57 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

How long this community has been around is irrelevant.

Why ? Enough time has passed for some guidelines and standards to emerge. Means by this point when people make maps they should take it into consideration. If everyone has a fuck you attitude all the time, new people won't play anything new any more. I mean people have and are still coming here, but I think for other reasons. Again I'm not saying make a total crowdpleaser. You don't NEED to do anything, I'm saying it as advice. But I do mean that having it would make it worth the effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, pulkmees said:

I'm specifically talking about fights(also difficulties) involving either a combination of too much luck, skill ONLY a 20 year doom veteran would have and otherwise having VERY few ways to beat it. There needs to be SOME effort put into smoothing out the difficulty for newcomers.

 

Isn't that what the non-UV difficulty settings are for? How often do you attempt "hard" maps on ITYTD?

 

27 minutes ago, pulkmees said:

For me it's a waste if only 12 people end up playing it. Gorgeous well textured maps for 12 people.

 

Awfully judgemental over there of how others value their time and work.

 

27 minutes ago, pulkmees said:

Also now we are apparently in the giving examples stage of this argument. I thought we were generalizing as this is a general issue imo.

 

It is a general issue, sure, but there is no proof to say you even know what you're talking about, especially when most of the time people complain about rng in games, particularly in doom, (for non-speedruns) they are either flat out wrong or exaggerating the impact of rng. 

 

If somebody were to make the statement that it is statistically more likely that you didnt understand the solutions to the encounters you deemed 'rng,' I would believe them. And that's nothing against you personally; I've found myself saying the same thing before. I've found that the best thing to keep in mind is that beating it the first time is always the toughest; just get over that hurdle and you'll find the same encounter instantly easier because you'll have a better or at least working strategy and muscle memory. To me, part of the fun of challenge maps is figuring out the solution to the active/combat puzzles, and prolly also dying hundreds of times in the process ;p You don't often lose hours of progress in a doom map unless you consider it as being equivalent to / played at the pace you played at on your first run, so who says dying in doom can't be fun ;p In the cases of larger/longer encounters, more attempts also lets you observe more effects of the rng and ripples of your previous actions, which helps to negate the rng aspect of say, mobs moving the wrong way or something, as you learn to manage their positionings. So each new aspect of the larger picture tends to reduce the effects of many aspects of rng in casual play; can't control how much damage your shots do individually / etc, but you can control groups of monsters / etc.

 

Getting back to the first point though, without a specific example people can only say "sure pure rng is bullshit, that's why I don't play slot machines," but not everybody sees rng as being so overwhelmingly prevalent in casually surviving even a really tough doom map.

Edited by Fonze

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, pulkmees said:

How is it wasted time if more people play it? That's what it gives you. For me it's a waste if only 12 people end up playing it. Gorgeous well textured maps for 12 people.

I just want to mention @4shockblast has made maps that only he has beaten and I don't consider his effort a waste, a mapper is free to catter to whatever audience he wants.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, pulkmees said:

How do other games do it then ?
Companies do it with loads of playtesters.

Seems you have your answer.

2 minutes ago, pulkmees said:

Means we have to make more of an effort

"We"..? Who's "we"? Can I see your maps and have a look at your efforts?
 

3 minutes ago, pulkmees said:

You can't fathom playing as someone with lesser skill ? Missing more shots, not figuring out puzzles as fast, not knowing patterns, getting lost ? It's subjective, but not highly.

Contrary to popular belief I can do that, which is why I always make difficulty level adjustments for maps that are meant for community projects, and I'm not exacty doing a bad job at that, if the feedback I get overall is in any way indicative.

It seems there's this notion that "better players" can't relate, and it's probably one of the biggest fallacies I have ever seen. Better players are better, because they understand why something is difficult. A player with no understanding whatsoever can only say as much as "it is difficult". that's the fine albeit important difference.

5 minutes ago, pulkmees said:

How is it wasted time if more people play it? That's what it gives you. For me it's a waste if only 12 people end up playing it. Gorgeous well textured maps for 12 people.

And? Why should I care about how many people like my maps? If 12 people who rarely if ever get to play any maps that match their tastes are happy with my weird shit it's a pretty nice bonus in and off itself. But I map for myself, like everybody else, and it doesn't matter how many more times we're going in circles here, I won't change that. Deal with it.

13 minutes ago, pulkmees said:

I thought we were generalizing as this is a general issue imo.

Can't expect to have "general talk" when you're looking to base arguments on specific issues.

14 minutes ago, pulkmees said:

Nothing has ever pissed you off in any game or wad that was cheap or luck based ? 

No. I simply know when to take a break, or accept that a map is not my cup of tea.

16 minutes ago, pulkmees said:

But then that's why I'm asking if that effort is worth it for ONLY that niche audience ?

Yeah, definitely worth it. Because it's easier to base tweaks around the same target audience than it is to base tweaks around an entirely different audience. If I were to make a slaughtermap, and then tried to provide a "tourist difficulty", I'd have to thingplace, or much rather "thingerase" large portions of the maps. When I build more nuanced "stepping stones" it is most likely easier to make tweaks and still end up with a product that fits into its intended niche, because I can account for the fact that the target audience meets a certain baseline of expertise.

20 minutes ago, pulkmees said:

Why ? Enough time has passed for some guidelines and standards to emerge.

Standards have emerged. Look at eviternity for that broad appeal standard. My standard is different. You'd be mistaken to think that there's no "hivemind" here. Unfortunately for you, not everybody cares to be a part of it, and that's for the better, because how else are you gonna get people who experiment with new concepts and deliver fresh ideas?

What I """""should"""""" consider when doing this thing that I do for recreational purposes is for me to decide. You and your arbitrary standards have no say on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, pulkmees said:

There is one difficulty that is the sweetspot. It means someone, who plays your map for the first time doesn't have to savescum through it, but it's still challenging for the average fps player.

The question is: sweet spot for who? The problem with the so called "average fps player" in vacuum is that in practice he may or may not carry a set of "skills" from shooter games that do or do not translate particularly effectively into set of "skills" that are required to beat, say, scythe.wad@map26 in a single sitting.

 

Even just in general the problem with this is that what one player may find hard the other player may find very easy. Players' skills and play styles are fairly varied and some of them may be just not enough or suitable for specific level, situation or encounter. That's fairly important to note, because, if we are speaking of levels and players in vacuum, certain things about how player plays through the map may be more crucial than others. Several players may be wasteful with provided ammo, others may be extra conservative with it, some players move through levels like a hurricane, some do roundhouse defense of small corner they think is safe and complete levels by slowly clearing them, etc, etc. Not to mention, maps also differ in style and approach to general gameplay theme and encounter design. Mapper could want to go out of his way for specific themes, e.g. ammo/health starvation, slaughter, cheap trap galore, level full of environmental hazards or puzzle maps. How would you approach making skill levels "accessible for newcomers" for such maps while keeping the feel and punch of the theme here? How would you approach making skill levels for map that, say, has challenge coming entirely from mandatory tricks? Like, this may be one of examples of possibility of hypothetical player having absolutely none of the skill or experience required to beat the level, which makes him unable to beat a hypothetical hard level no matter how many bfgs and invulnerability balls you throw at him. How and why would you account for it?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, pulkmees said:

For me it's a waste if only 12 people end up playing it. Gorgeous well textured maps for 12 people.

well this is a sad way to think about things

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×