There are many ways games can "up their difficulty." The most used, I think, is weighting one side or the other over the the other. This can be include weapons, armor ratings, health, and other "combat" factors. But games can be about more than just combat. Even in that arena, AI is rarely made more difficult so that strategy plays a bigger part.

I've been playing a lot of NCAA Football and have come to find one of their "difficulties" very enjoyable. No, It's not an RPG or set in a fantasy setting. But it has a difficulty based on something entirely different.

A little explanation of the game, so skip this next paragraph if not interested in American Football

In college, a big portion of the program is recruiting high school football players and entice them to come to your school. This is the part I enjoy most in this game. How they do this is there is a list of what your school has to offer each new player and the game gives each school a rating, or grade, from A+ to D- (lowest I've seen so far). There are also some aspects that change every week, like "playing time" or "playing style."

OK, are you back with me now? The "difficulty" comes in here via large school vs small school. My first foray into the game, I chose my favorite collegiate team to coach: Michigan. It is a top tier school with good facilities, a good reputation, and many players enter the professional league. I had 3rd string players that could have started for some of the other teams.

My second foray into the game, I took Wyoming, my favorite state in the U.S. The differences in difficulty I encountered astounded me. Barely anything I had to offer incoming players was rated "D" or higher. I no longer could focus on the top prospects (4 or 5 star - how players are rated) Like I did at Michigan, but had to go after 1, 2, or 3 star prospects.

The difficulty comes in trying to build a successful program vs maintaining a successful one. It's a much slower process taken in baby steps. This also trickles down to the actual gameplay. I don't have the "star players" like the big schools do. My depth chart, or back-up players are rather poor players. There is a huge gap between my starters and their back-ups. An injury to one of my starters can be devastating. The games are much more difficult, do to the gap between player talent. This, in turn, feeds back into the recruiting process, as winning is a struggle until I can recruit a few of the better players.

This is possible, though. I may get a local talent that doesn't want to be far from home. I may get a better prospect from a state where I have a bunch of players already (called a pipeline state) and have those current players help influence the new recruit. And no difficulty slider is even needed

tl/dr:

Bunch of stuff about an American Football game and one way difficulty is handled.

Since I have a feeling not many posters here play NCAA Football (or any sports game), let's get this to something where others can participate.

What kinds of difficulty do you seek when you play? Is more health/less damage enough for you? Would you like to see better AI?

In Skyrim's case, I know many players like the mod that makes Dragons actually scary. There are also other mods that make enemies with better AI. Is that more of the experience you're seeking?

I know a lot of players love combat, and sometimes just weighting the health/damage is enough, as it makes combat take longer. Are you in this camp?

I want better AI period, not as a part of difficulty.

Its not very satisfying in a game to succeed because your opponents act stupidly.

Paradox games do have a difficulty setting but, like in your college football game, who you decide to play as has a big impact on difficulty.

In CK2 starting as a Chieftain in Finland will give you a much harder start than beginning as the Caliph or Byzantine Emperor. This works well for me since sometimes I want an easy romp, sometimes a long slow climb to power where powerful neighbours are a real danger and could result in game over.

Maybe difficulty level should affect how good your character is when they start out.

I've been playing Dark Souls for the last few weeks, and that is the kind of difficulty i want. No artificial multipliers, you just can't get hit. You need to pay attention to enemies, react to their attacks and avoid, block or exploit them.
It's actually pretty easy once you know what you're doing, but it takes time to get to that point, and bosses usually have their own new tricks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVOBoMzcl0Q there was a good fight, fast and brutal, regardless of who lost

Quite enjoyable after spending so much time with BGS games, where combat pretty much equals pressing forward and attack

Divinity Original Sin, and it's sequel too it seems is another good example. Difficult at first, but once you learn the mechanics and interactions, it becomes quite easy too. Still each fight is a bit lke a puzzle, that you must solve to win

But hey, i started with NES, i'm used to punishing. Hell, i enjoy punishing

I'm pretty much on the enjoy a game that starts off easy and gradually gets harder as you go cause by the time you get to the endgame you're well trained to handle anything the game can throw at you.

Yes, better AI would be great all-around

I've played some "war game" types where who you pick can make the game easier or more difficult. I'd like to see that come back in RPGs, in my opinion. Cleric types should not waltz through a game like 2-handed warriors might. However, Cleric types should shine against undead opponents. Mages should svck against melee opponents, but still be able slog through, just not as easily.

I really like your character start idea!

I started with arcade games, which were designed to make players fail, thus spending more money. I'm not a fan of that

I do enjoy challenges, but have a low tolerance for pain

I was watching a gaming talk show the other day and one of the panelists talked about a very hard boss fight that took 8 hours to defeat. I'd never stick with a fight for that long. I'd be loading up an easier game after about an hour, maybe two

That's kind of a double edged sword for me. I hated Oblivion's feel as I never felt I was making any skill progress. Wolves stayed as hard as ever, or easy as ever. Different monsters, or differently named monsters helps with this. If you go wolves, then alpha wolves, then dire wolves, then hellhounds, I'm all for it. But if my 1st level character has the same success/failure rate as my 20th level character against the same opponent, my character's progress does not feel tangible.

TES is usually pretty good about this. Morrowind had higher level Daedra you'd meet as you leveled up. Skyrim had Bandits, Marauders, Bandit Chiefs and so on. But their wolves stayed wolves and after awhile, I get one-hit killcams on every wolf kill.

Did that make any sense?

It varies for me depending on the game. Each game to me needs its own identity especially a sequel.

I loved the Oblivion leveling of content but only for Oblivion I would not like to see it in other Bethesda's games since to me that is a big part that makes Oblivion, Oblivion for me. I believe most people at least here at the forums do not like that scaling and that common day bandits would be geared out with high end gear.

Some games I feel it should be about player skills but other games it should be more on the characters skills and not on the player. Some games it should be turned based like the civ games since you need time to think over everything and plan things out. While other games should be RTS like Starcraft.

Each game has to find out what it is trying to be and then find something that works for it. Smarter AI is usually one thing everyone wants but it is also one of the hardest ones to make especially to make it stable enough to play

Oh yeah.

I only play roleplaying games. And I don't play them for the "difficulty." For me, combat is the least interesting thing about roleplaying games. I play roleplaying games to create my own characters and tell those characters' stories. More often than not excessive "difficulty" gets in the way of my roleplaying.

I find that roleplaying introduces a kind of "organic" difficulty of its own. When I use only those skills that are appropriate for a particular character and take only those actions a particular character would take, it usually increases the difficulty of my games in a natural way.

About Oblivion: I had no problem with enemy scaling. What I objected to was item leveling. I hated seeing every bandit in the game suddenly appear in Glass Armor everywhere I went. I'm so thankful they fixed that issue in Skyrim.

That's how I was with Oblivion. I had absolutely no problem with the scaling, but man, all those bandits in glass armour.......

Oblivion's enemy scaling was annoying for certain enemies. Namely ghosts, goblins, ogres, along with a few others. Interestingly enough, I haven't had too much of an issue with item scaling (although every bandit having glass armor at a high enough level was ridiculous).

It is a fine line to walk between the challenging and rewarding difficulty and overbearing difficulty that is hard for its own sake. I don't want it easy, but I don't want it too punishing either. I thought Arena was the hardest TES by far in terms of how many times you died (I died at least 25 times in the Imperial Dungeon at the beginning of the game). Even at higher levels if you weren't careful you could have your butt handed to you easily, more so than any of the other TES titles. Maybe Battlespire will have something to say about that when I get to it...

Since you brought up NCAA football: is it just me, or will one team sometimes just randomly be absurdly hard to beat, and then if you decide to replay them or play them again soon suddenly it is way easier?

Goblin Warlords were so dangerous if they DIDN'T have a weapon! They could block Warhammers with their bony arms and then proceed to beat your anus with their tiny stick limbs.

And the Trolls in Oblivion? Evil warped gorillas that could outrun you and tank like a champ.

As for difficulty in general, I agree, we need better AI and numerous developers, including Bethesda, have been incredibly lazy in this department, doing nothing but vanilla scaling most of the time. Thankfully they seem to have fixed that awful AI thing from Fallout 3 where a hostile human with a SNIPER RIFLE would run right up to your face in order to shoot you. Same problem with Archers in earlier TES games.

As for me personally, I love Strategy games. Even MGS V has some strategic elements to it, which has kept my interest. Really looking forward to XCOM 2 next week as well. I cannot wait to train the proficient Alien Hunters that I usually do. I actually started being quite reckless on XCOM EU/EW after a while, because I knew my angles, the dangers of each battlefield, the calls of every enemy type and how to be aggressive and effective without taking too many risks. I trained them like wolves, or a hive. Each member was a terror by themselves, but as a team, they could crack open any opposing force.

So yeah, strategy is excellent and very rewarding. I'm also a fan of platformers, 2D or 3D. Speedrunning or more complicated acrobatics, I enjoy them both.

If Burnout Paradise goes backwards compatible, I am definitely picking that up too. It was one of my only regrets from last gen. I do enjoy arcade racers like Burnout and Ridge Racer.

Yea, combat is not a main factor in RPGs for me. It can certainly be fun, when I'm in a "burn, baby burn!" mood, but mostly it is what's between me and my next objective

That's cool about Oblivion. I know a lot of players liked (or at least didn't mind) the scaling difficulty. I think Bethesda did that for the comments about Morrowind, possibly. For me, I just didn't "feel" like my characters were getting any better

Had I played the game longer, I think I'd be on the "no like scaling loot" bit, too. If a Bandit can afford Glass armor and/or Daedric weapons, why are they bandits? Kicks?

Scaling loot in moderation would be better. I would prefer a much wider variety of more unique weapons a la Morrowind be in specific places along with some instances of scaled loot. The unique weapons can often be more rewarding, but having too many of them around can lead to overpowering your character too easily.

Good point about the bandits. Didn't think about it like that. I guess bandits always gotta be bandits. Can't ever be satisfied.

It is a fine line! And one that gets moved with each player

Definitely. I like to "coach" so much of the time, I'll use the "spectator" spectating when my games are played. The games can vary greatly with each reload. I've had times where I can't do anything (run, pass, defend), get frustrated and reload and suddenly the other team can't do anything

Strategy is fun for me, too. Thinking through problems, making the best use of items, planning ahead

My impression is the opposite, actually. It seems to me that one of the most-often-heard complaints about Oblivion is its scaling. Most people I know agree with you. I would even go so far as to say that fantasyjunkie and I might even almost be alone in our opinion.

I actually don't mind a few bandits wearing good stuff. It makes sense for some bandits (particularly bandit bosses) to be successful. In real life thieves can become wealthy. It is a mistake to think that everyone who steals is poor.

No, what I object to is every damn bandit showing up in good armor all at the same time, everywhere I go. That is just far too heavy-handed and feels artistically tone-deaf, as far as I'm concerned.

Interesting. Come to think of it, you may be right. It did seem like there was quite a stink about the level scaling.

As for item scaling, yes. That makes sense

I just started playing fallout 4 for the first time. The first 2 hours were ridiculously easy so I turned up the difficulty and found survival mode, and have been playing it since. It's actually pretty fun on this mode, guns kill me almost instantly, but they kill enemies really fast too. There's hunger, thirst and sleep that drain abilities, and you can only save by sleeping in a bed. You get diseases from eating uncooked food or bad water (I had parasites for like 6 hours and they made me eat more til I got rid of them ).


For once Bethesda came up with a difficulty that isn't just increased enemy damage and decreased player damage.

Sadly survival mode is only available on the hardest difficulty. I started off on very easy and have worked my way up to normal difficulty (where I still die from time to time) but it will be a long time (if ever) before I can tackle survival since it uses very hard as the base difficulty. I'd quite like the added logistical difficulties of survival mode, I always used it in FONV, but not at the price of having to use peashooters against bullet sponges.

Surprisingly its not as bullet sponge as you may think. They increase the damage the player does with survival as well as npcs. On top of that, you have adrenaline, which increase your damage by 5% per rank, and ranks go up as you kill people, and drop when you sleep.


So they make it so enemies die as quick as you do from the same type of attacks. I can kill a dude in 4 shots (or 1 head shot) and they can do the same to me.


It's actually quite different of a difficulty than the other standard difficulties in Bethesda games.


I'm also doing this on.my first play through, and finding I gotta take the game slowly.

Well next time I feel ready to up the difficulty upgrade I'll maybe give it a try. I think I'd have still preferred it if I could select difficulty and survival mode separately.

I like a little level scaling, but too much just ruins it for me. And that's true to an even greater extent for loot scaling, e.g. hordes of bandits in Daedric armor. FWIW my recollection is that most people hated Oblivion's level scaling. That's partly why Oscuro's Overhaul, FCOM and similar overhauls became so big.

I feel like Beth is getting better and FO4 survival mode is fairly good, but IMO just modifying damage input/output percents isn't enough.

I've been playing a lot of FO4 on survival, and feel like the early game is pretty good, but by level 30 or so I started one-hit killing everything (except for the rare boss-like creature). I agree with some of the typical arguments about hp bloat and bullet sponging, but the problem with nearly 100% one-hit kills is that it removes all the challenge from the game. Enemies (not every trash mob, but a fair number) need to be able to take a few hits in order to put up a fight. Otherwise it's just target practice. Increased damage from enemies doesn't mean anything if they're all dead before they can counter-attack.

So while I hate shooting an enemy 10x in the face, I also hate the whack-a-mole gameplay of one-hit kills.

And there are smarter ways to approach combat. I'm a big fan of Duke Patrick's mods for Oblivion and Skyrim. (Beth was too, they publicly credited his Oblivion mod for inspiring Skyrim's archery.) His Skyrim mod changed melee so that you had to keep moving to prevent enemies from flanking/surrounding you. He also forced you to incorporate timing into blocks and attacks, and his stamina system discouraged button mashing. I loved his approach, because it used a combination of RPG perks/stats and player skill. Most combat overhauls either go entirely RPG or entirely action, and neither fits Beth games well, IMO. I know there are a lot of Requiem fans out there, and I get it, but that approach doesn't feel right to me for Beth games.

If you're playing on PC, you should look at http://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/14650/?. it's essential, IMO, and allows you to configure most or all of the survival mode settings and reenables the console. After experiencing a few crashes, broken companion AI, and a corrupted autosave file, I installed this. Now I wouldn't play without it.