Quote:
Originally Posted by One Post Wonder
That's the thing. It is always done a certain way and it is always wrong. I can't name any games off the top of my head that have more than 5 difficulty levels, but I can name a lot of games that I didn't enjoy as much as I could have because level x was too easy for me and level x+1 was too hard.
This especially sticks out in OOTP because trade is so important in baseball, you can't overcome mediocrity or underperform because of your fast twitch controller skills, and a game of OOTP runs a lot more seasons than most other GM management simulators.
So sure, adding levels isn't a common solution but I think on this occasion, it would work well.
Though another way would be perhaps keeping just 5 levels, but narrowing the gaps between them by reducing the extremes (does anyone play on 'Very Easy')? It's all about the size of the gaps for me... I'd like the gaps to be as small as possible or at least considerably smaller than they are now.
This idea would be great if there were a way of implementing it well. How would you lay that out? Perhaps something where it tells you the weighted value of each player and why - like a breakdown of what the AI likes and doesn't like. But if you hand out too much numerical information, the process gets gamey. If you try and present it in a human way, it won't look quite right and you'll sometimes get statements that sound illogical.
|
I agree with that. Eliminate very easy and very hard (by actual difficulty) and close the gaps between the rest. I think that would more than likely appease 90% of the masses. So instead of it being like this...
Very Easy - Easy - Average - Hard - Very Hard
you'd have
Easy - New Level - Average - New Level - Hard
Obviously you'd change the names of easy and hard to represent the extremes.