How would you define difficulty ?

[BrecMadak]

Since 'difficulty' term is objective and just can not be defined same to everyone, i though this topic would be helpful to hear different opinions and thoughts when it comes to challenge in games.

Creating a smart AI is the first true way for kreating a challenging feel i'd say, as long as linearity won't last long enough to make you lazy that would put you off changing your tactics and 'on a knife-edge' throughout the game. The problem normally exposures even when every foe has different attack patterns and behaviours, though if their behaviours would be depending on various circumstances that would make difference 'partially'. What i mean you will get used to deal with every foe in time as you spent more time playing the game eventually no matter how long. But what Sui Generis offers us here, dynamic physics system, which aims to break 'habitual' moments that unlikely other games could achieve. This solely makes the game to stand out from crowd in the first place, wonderful...

Now let's hear personal thoughts to know each other better how 'difficulty' is shaped in our minds.
I'm also interested to hear more from devs about how they want to handle difficulty in Sui Generis, since they seem to side hardcore gameplay which i totally support.

So gunz out, define what it is !

* Gonna come back after having more time to choke on this.
** Sorry for my poor English.

 

[Psychomorph]

Advanced difficulty should not absurdly raise the opponents health and lower the power of your weapons, but instead give them either better armor and weapons, or increase their count. Game becomes more difficult without altering the natural physics that define the mechanics in SG.

 

[Rob]

Advanced difficulty should not absurdly raise the opponents health and lower the power of your weapons, but instead give them either better armor and weapons, or increase their count. Game becomes more difficult without altering the natural physics that define the mechanics in SG.

I agree.

Thinking about advanced AI...

In principle, it should always be possible to "block" a blow... providing you are fast enough (both feet and arms), can wield a defensive weapon well enough, and don't fall over. In principle, it should be possible for Bare Mettle to create "impossible difficulty" AI enemies by making them so good that you can't hit them. I'm not suggesting that such "impossible" enemies are a good idea... but it is possible in principle.

Less impossible enemies could be created by adding stochastic elements to movements, reducing movement/reaction speed, etc.

Importantly, this system scales perfectly from "completely impossible" to "completely useless" enemies.

In practice, I suppose "completely impossible" enemies could only be defeated by attacking them with attacks that they can't defend against... such as a boulder falling off a cliff onto their head, or being trapped in a burning house.

As far as I'm aware, the Bare Mettle team have already thought about all of this, and have got specific ideas about how AI will be implemented and how it will scale. Just thinking out loud!

 

[Kaizer0002]

Difficulty in most challenging games I've played lately / can think of are defined as being unforgiving. Among these are the new XCOM (Classic/Impossible Ironman), Super Meat Boy, Hotline Miami or Dark Souls. There's a fun article on the Escapist about how respawn contributes to difficulty, and in XCOM the AI actually behaves more intelligently on the higher difficulties and enemies have higher crit/health, but they all boil down to being fairly simple once you understand the mechanics. The games just don't permit you to make mistakes, as a wrong move is fatal.

The real question being asked I guess is how difficulty in Sui Generis could scale based on what we know without making it seem unfair or a slog. Unless I'm mistaken, it is a permdeath system with autosaves which already meets my criteria. In Mount and Blade which was somewhat of an inspiration, I believe they just increase the reaction time of the enemies (it's been a while) which is viable. Keeping with the premise that difficulty=unforgiving, I think relentless enemies would make sense. An easier mode might have enemies that sort of dance back and forth with you while harder ones would expect you to react more quickly with little to no pauses between their actions.

 

[Tony]

The real question being asked I guess is how difficulty in Sui Generis could scale based on what we know without making it seem unfair or a slog. Unless I'm mistaken, it is a permdeath system with autosaves which already meets my criteria. In Mount and Blade which was somewhat of an inspiration, I believe they just increase the reaction time of the enemies (it's been a while) which is viable. Keeping with the premise that difficulty=unforgiving, I think relentless enemies would make sense. An easier mode might have enemies that sort of dance back and forth with you while harder ones would expect you to react more quickly with little to no pauses between their actions.

Just a quick note... I can't seem to find the quote but I don't think they're going for a permadeath solution. I think they're keeping the specific mechanics under wraps but they've said something along the lines of "death will be common" which leads me to believe they're making some sort of respawn solution. My guess is it somehow ties into the story and so they're not going into specifics (to avoid spoilers).

 

[Kaizer0002]

That's encouraging. I'd rather not get 100 hours into a game and die forever.

 

[Kale]

Don't you mean subjective?

In any case, I hate most "unforgiving" difficulty because most of the time, instead of improving AI or make the enemy more competent, they just improve stats. That seems incredibly lazy to me.

I like X-Com EU, but Classic and Impossible just ramp up the difficulty by adding to their aim and hp. Demons Souls has some good difficulty, but they also basically ramp up damage and lots of the "difficult deaths" that people think is so awesome are instant kills from overpowered enemies. I never got why people thought that was good. I did find it rather enjoyable, but that type of difficulty was off putting all the same.

 

[Rob]

Don't you mean subjective?

In any case, I hate most "unforgiving" difficulty because most of the time, instead of improving AI or make the enemy more competent, they just improve stats. That seems incredibly lazy to me.

I like X-Com EU, but Classic and Impossible just ramp up the difficulty by adding to their aim and hp. Demons Souls has some good difficulty, but they also basically ramp up damage and lots of the "difficult deaths" that people think is so awesome are instant kills from overpowered enemies. I never got why people thought that was good. I did find it rather enjoyable, but that type of difficulty was off putting all the same.

Isn't that exactly what we're speaking out against in this forum, and exactly what Bare Mettle are saying they don't want to do?!!!

Rather, intelligence or skill will be based on physical qualities, not on pure stats such as "aim and hp".

 

[Kale]

Just putting my 2 cents out there.

 

[Rob]

Just putting my 2 cents out there.

Didn't mean to offend!

Just wasn't quite sure what you were protesting against, given the current agenda...

 

[Kaizer0002]

In XCOM EU they actually improve the AI across difficulties. This is verifiable by saving at the end of your turn and adjusting the difficulty. Note that there's a few bugs related to save/loads like patrols relocating and such that will become apparent if you play with it enough. They also increase the effectiveness of the patrols so that you're likely to run into multiple groups at a time, but that really isn't my focus. My point moreover was that they go further than most games to ramp difficulty by doing a few variety of things.

Anyway, enough of that. The point of the thread is how we go about defining a more intelligent AI. In XCOM's case it really just boils down to the AI making less mistakes, which is easy enough to see in a turn based game. They bunch up less, they go for flanks more often, they retreat when appropriate, focus their fire, etc.

Now, the complaint is that they didn't go far enough, as although they make less mistakes they are predictable and anything in a game that's predictable is exploitable. A more intelligent AI wouldn't have to just screw up less, but be capable of throwing the player off guard by changing up their routine. I can't think of any of games that go with this route which is sadly a part of why I stop playing some games. They become simple when you understand the routine.

Making an enemy that adapts to your play style seems key. This is simple enough in some games (ex: Star Ruler) as each strategy has a counter. If the player uses a large number of small ships, the computer will employ more flak for example.

In summary, if I had to define an intelligent AI opponent, they would be unpredictable so their behavior cannot be exploited, adapt with counters to the player's strategy, and not make poor decisions which would have to be identified on a case by case basis. I'm not an expert swordsman, but there's plenty of real life examples of how to fight intelligently with weapons. I welcome critiques and additions.

 

[nox]

This is my idea of a difficult game

(nsfw language)

 

[Algea]

Hard difficulty is great for those who enjoy a bit of challenge, but I hope there'll be Easy difficulty too, for people like me who love games but don't enjoy this particular type of challenge. I mean I'm more like a casual player and while I feel great satisfaction after beating some really hard opponent (Inferno Belial anyone?) my playstyle is just too erratic (not refined, I guess I'm just not too good at games) and nervous to enjoy those challenges very often. So I'd love to have a variety of difficulties and if there is going to be the easy one I'll definitely play it during alpha and beta test.

Of course if there isn't going to be any leeway for the likes of me I'll try to accommodate. After all I won't have much choice; I want to play this game too much and I love battle system already.

 

[AlphaChris]

For me, any difficulty that relies upon percentages that dictate whether damage will be dealt or not is the only kind of difficulty that I personally despise. If my survival depends on a percentage based "Hit or Miss" system, I rage quit. That is why I dislike XCOM so much. When my personal skill cannot carry me all the way, I have a problem.

 

[Icecold]

Hm, I think the ways to make your game difficult should depend on what kind of game you make. SG is supposed to be a realistic game, so on the highest difficulty level I'd expect stuff like smart and decisive AI and being killed or KOed from 2-3 direct hits and all that.

Hard difficulty is great for those who enjoy a bit of challenge, but I hope there'll be Easy difficulty too, for people like me who love games but don't enjoy this particular type of challenge.

I hope so too. Sometimes you just want to enjoy the story and the world, or just have some fun without worrying too much. Especially then physics are involved!

 

[calithlin]

From what I understand the game's really going to be only as difficult as you make it:
Dangers will be (at least for the most part) obvious, but for every risk will come with the possibility for reward. You can probably go through much of the game playing it safe, running from monsters, not making a fuss, but it will likely take you longer and not benefit your character nearly as much. As well, they said you might miss parts of the plot, and thus you may end up with a poorer ending because of it (well, sorry guy, you never really stood up to the evil wizard and the world is now enslaved. Sucks to be you!)

 

[JamesButlin]

Advanced difficulty should not absurdly raise the opponents health and lower the power of your weapons, but instead give them either better armor and weapons, or increase their count. Game becomes more difficult without altering the natural physics that define the mechanics in SG.

I completely agree with Psychomorph on this one, for me, the best kind of increased difficulty is where the enemies outnumber you, where it feels like they one nothing more than to kill you and eat your body. I like increased intelligence in higher difficulties too, it's a scary thing being outsmarted by a really clever AI!

Upping the damage and health of the enemies just leads to more frustration imo, one thing that made me not really want to pursue Inferno difficulty on Diablo III, I just ended up getting annoyed and didn't bother with it.

 

[Chedburn]

I personally really dislike the ability to select a certain difficulty. It feels so much more meaningful when everyone plays the same game. Couldn't the main storyline be set easy-medium, with additional extremely hard set side-objectives. Or instead of running away from a big monster that attacks you (easy) you'd fight it (hard). I believe players should make their own difficulty.

I know I'm probably alone on this, it's just the way I'm wired.

 

[Zodeak]

For me, any difficulty that relies upon percentages that dictate whether damage will be dealt or not is the only kind of difficulty that I personally despise. If my survival depends on a percentage based "Hit or Miss" system, I rage quit. That is why I dislike XCOM so much. When my personal skill cannot carry me all the way, I have a problem.

I'm pretty sure you can prescribe percentages to any situation in a game, be it hit or miss, saving throws etc etc. It only becomes annoying if a player can't avoid it yourself (I.e. you are in a set-in-stone position or stuck in some way). From the videos we've seen SG seems very much like a game of fluidity, in every sense, pertinently during combat also - in which case the percentage to be hit or missed during combat will change based on player skill. So yes, I agree that when the player skill is taken from combat and reduced to a percentage it is infuriating.

Creating a smart AI is the first true way for kreating a challenging feel i'd say, as long as linearity won't last long enough to make you lazy that would put you off changing your tactics and 'on a knife-edge' throughout the game. The problem normally exposures even when every foe has different attack patterns and behaviours, though if their behaviours would be depending on various circumstances that would make difference 'partially'. What i mean you will get used to deal with every foe in time as you spent more time playing the game eventually no matter how long. But what Sui Generis offers us here, dynamic physics system, which aims to break 'habitual' moments that unlikely other games could achieve. This solely makes the game to stand out from crowd in the first place, wonderful...

I don't really have an opinion on AI other than it being realistic. I want the NPCs (both combatitive and non"--") to act not necessarily as they would in RL, but as they would in a medieval setting, within reason ofc. NPCs doing things that seem very odd in games just takes a massive chunk out of the immersion for me.

 

[Madoc]

Better AI is definitely our preferred method of increasing difficulty. Hitting, parrying, dodging etc. is all down to physics and AI decisions. We hope that AI at its best can be competitive with a very skilled player. There isn't much for AI to do yet but already they can use some pretty clever tactics. Also, for example, if you try to run past an NPC they will actually aim and time a blow so that it knocks you off your feet as you run past. Our method for designing AI is often to observe Kieran fighting and teaching AI the same tactics he uses, all AI is limited to the same inputs as a player character and basically we just put an AI player in control.

If we do introduce some kind of difficulty scaling it will definitely be along the lines of better AI, better equipment, harder / more opponents etc. What Chedburn says is however pretty much exactly what we would prefer too.