[Discussion] Trainer Difficulty

[Worldslayer608]

"ruthlessly"

Is your word, nobody else's. Recent games are designed with player to player interactivity in mind, they were not always like that and yet all still share a core element for game play and difficulty progression.

You say that we are suggesting throwing out core elements because grinding is a suggested alternative to increasing difficulty in a game where encounters are level based interactions... are you aware how absurd that actually is? Combine that with the fact that Pokemon is also an RPG... if freedom is what you want, you can add an incredible amount of freedom without removing the fact that you have to grind (because combat is level based).

You are trying to be a purist, for reasons beyond me, and it is making your post quite pointless and not even remotely constructive.

I also fail to see how replay value could be favored over endgame continuity... just because you are unable to actually have a fully functional multi-player system, does not mean you have to get rid of endgame continuity. Let's look at the potentials of tournament scripts that we are starting to see... those are great examples of a solid direction to take to allow competitive players an actual end game that they can continue playing without having to restart the game because let us be honest, restarting the game (especially a fan game) is really not the most exciting thing you could actually be doing. Nintendo is aware of this, and that is why the games have become more multi-player oriented.

You might not feel like it, but even in the original games, trying to take down the E4 with a team of Raticates or Watchog, is going to require you to grind. Maybe not remotely as much as in World of Warcraft, but you still have to grind if you expect to actually be able to get there. Increasing that, even by just a couple levels, makes the game inherently more difficult without being annoying. So once again, "ruthlessly" is your word not mine.

Giving players access to counter types early on is destructive and simply makes the game easier for players unless you are increasing something like the opponent encounter levels... I am not sure if that is what you are getting at, but it does not sound like it going from your statements above.

As for point 2, you would destroy content flavor for the sake of fixing something that is not actually broken or something that can be adjusted without killing content flavor? That is nonsense... people like their games to have content flavor and you want to kill it rather than make necessary adjustments elsewhere.

I think the main issue here, is that people are thinking that increasing game difficulty is just a matter of 1 or two alterations, when really it is one that requires subtle formula changes on multiple levels.

Instead of considering something like increasing opponent encounter levels, base stats, and broadening the types available in conjunction, they simply assume that people are just advocating level increases alone. Instead, more seemingly single point hotfixes are just being suggested, which don't actually fix problems, they merely produce other ones in their place.

 

[Ratty524]

"ruthlessly"

Is your word, nobody else's.

Yes, "ruthlessly" is a legitimate adverb.

On topic...

Recent games are designed with player to player interactivity in mind, they were not always like that and yet all still share a core element for game play and difficulty progression.

Hahaha... What?

Pokemon has had player-to-player interactivity since the moment trading between friends was introduced. Sure, it was never as up to a notable degree as with recent games, but it's always been there.

I never said a difficulty curve shouldn't exist in Pokemon, because it exists in the games and it's necessary to keep the player challenged by your game. What I DID say was that making the game too difficult runs the risk of isolating your target audience, which is counter-intuitive for a franchise that strives to get as many people playing it as it can (which Pokemon is and has always been).

You say that we are suggesting throwing out core elements because grinding is a suggested alternative to increasing difficulty in a game where encounters are level based interactions... are you aware how absurd that actually is?

Just for clarification, I wasn't responding to your recent posts in particular, moreso the thread as a whole. I don't know where you got that I was against your suggested alternative of grinding, because you actually have a legitimate point with that. Heck, where do you even see me talking about grinding in my post, at all?

You are trying to be a purist, for reasons beyond me, and it is making your post quite pointless and not even remotely constructive.

Yeah... Um... How?

Pokemon's open-ended type of gameplay is what makes the game enjoyable. How that makes me a purist is beyond me, because if you remove or dampen that aspect in any way, then how can you even call your game "Pokemon"?

I also fail to see how replay value could be favored over endgame continuity... just because you are unable to actually have a fully functional multi-player system, does not mean you have to get rid of endgame continuity. Let's look at the potentials of tournament scripts that we are starting to see... those are great examples of a solid direction to take to allow competitive players an actual end game that they can continue playing without having to restart the game because let us be honest, restarting the game (especially a fan game) is really not the most exciting thing you could actually be doing. Nintendo is aware of this, and that is why the games have become more multi-player oriented.

That's awesome, dude! 'Cause you know, replay value doesn't solely mean restarting a game after you've beaten it, moreso it measures how often a player gets back into playing the game even when whatever goals the game throws at you are accomplished. I also wouldn't treat replay value and endgame continuity as completely separate ideas, because the reason any game developer would even bother with endgame continuity is to create replay value to begin with.

Giving players access to counter types early on is destructive and simply makes the game easier for players unless you are increasing something like the opponent encounter levels... I am not sure if that is what you are getting at, but it does not sound like it going from your statements above.

How is that destructive? Giving the player the tools he needs early doesn't necessarily mean the game will be easier, because it's how those tools are utilized by the player and how they relate to what the player is up against that matters.

As for point 2, you would destroy content flavor for the sake of fixing something that is not actually broken or something that can be adjusted without killing content flavor? That is nonsense... people like their games to have content flavor and you want to kill it rather than make necessary adjustments elsewhere.

My suggestion was just that: a suggestion. If you have a better solution, have at it. I don't find simply using that one Pokemon whose type has an advantage over the entire gym to be remotely strategic, though. At least in my view of how video games should be made, a boss battle is like a puzzle, one that clues you into how to win and lets the player figure it out on his/her own to solve it. I guess Pokemon still does this, but the solution is painfully obvious and relies so much on either the player's experience or knowledge that is only found outside of the game. That, and the fact that this boss solution repeats itself 12 times (the gyms and the E4) causes the reward for beating those bosses to feel a bit underwhelming. That could just be me, though.

I think the main issue here, is that people are thinking that increasing game difficulty is just a matter of 1 or two alterations, when really it is one that requires subtle formula changes on multiple levels.

Instead of considering something like increasing opponent encounter levels, base stats, and broadening the types available in conjunction, they simply assume that people are just advocating level increases alone. Instead, more seemingly single point hotfixes are just being suggested, which don't actually fix problems, they merely produce other ones in their place.

I agree with this. :)