A Question on Difficulty

[shrewdlogarithm]

The game appears to offer 5 difficulty settings - well - 4 if you assume that 'Story' is 'no difficulty'

I was, therefore, a BIT surprised that there's a massive difference between 'Easy' and 'Normal' - to the point that I'm torn whether to refund this right now as Easy is boring but Normal feels unfair (at least when you're starting-off/have no gear)

Also - Easy and Normal are really stupid names for difficulty settings - is everyone who plays anything but "Normal" therefore "Abnormal"? What is "Easy" for you may not be for someone else and so on...

Hmmm

[Panterich]

It is supposed to be challenging, to force you to try and learn game mechanics instead of blindly pushing through. So yes, it should feel unfair when you are starting and it will be the same on many following floors (levels). However it is not unfair (mostly) on any difficulty once you learn the ways to approach those challenges correctly. Still, the difficulty is not always ballanced very well and there are times when even 'Story' may feel hard (as was reported by some players).

The game does require a lot of micro and positioning to play on higher difficulty levels.
Boss battles on Normal may be hard. But if you feel that common enemies on Normal are also unfair, then i`d say you either are trying to play without pausing/slowing or doing something else wrongly.

Anyway, feel free to ask some more before you hit your 2 hours mark or decide to refund.

Originally posted by shrewdlogarithm:

Also - Easy and Normal are really stupid names for difficulty settings - is everyone who plays anything but "Normal" therefore "Abnormal"? What is "Easy" for you may not be for someone else and so on...

You say it is subjective, but your own statement is also very subjective. English is not my native language, but i will note that "Easy" difficulty is in fact "Abnormal" to "Normal" difficulty. And a game designer who did those difficulties according to his own reflection of "Normal" may see players who play "Easy" as "Abnormal". That doesn`t mean they objectively are, or that they should see themselves as "Abnormal" by themselves. If you think of yourself as "Abnormal" by playing "Easy" then perhaps difficulty naming is not the culprit.

[shrewdlogarithm]

For examples of 'unfair' - these are "Normal" difficulty situations in the first few fights

I've seen enemies hit my warrior taking-off 75% of his health in one blow - I guess it's teaching me to save my heals but it's not even explained about mana/skill regen yet!?

I seen enemies 'life drain' across the entire width of the screen - I guess that's to teach you about line-of-sight but there are times when you simply cannot "break sight" quickly enough

Those are "you died - learn from that" situations which is slightly harsh 20 mins into the game ;0

As for the naming thing - yes, I'm suggesting they are subjective and perjorative terms which we'd be better-off without.

There's nothing wrong with "Story" and then "Hard, Harder, Harderer and Harderest" :)

[Panterich]

>> these are "Normal" difficulty situations in the first few fights
Those don`t actually look like "first few"

>> warrior taking-off 75% of his health in one blow
I`d say that is not about healing, but rather about avoiding.

>> there are times when you simply cannot "break sight" quickly enough
Both champions have skills to move quickly. So unless those are on cooldown or mana is too low, you can break los quickly enough. Kane also have Stone Wall which is extremely potent especially at start. However breaking 'life drain' with both champions all the time may not be the best course - enemies can`t do anything else while they are channeling.

Originally posted by shrewdlogarithm:

There's nothing wrong with "Story" and then "Hard, Harder, Harderer and Harderest" :)

Well, some are fine even with this:
https://imgur.com/a/jW4fApA

[shrewdlogarithm]

One thing I've not figured-out yet (and which isn't explained upfront, at least) is how moving/slow-time interact.

Example: if a ranged spell/arrow (I can't tell which is which at this point) is travelling towards you and you move (slow-time or otherwise) it seems to me that the arrow will actually follow you - you cannot just 'sidestep' (it would be quite easy as they travel quite slowly)

Similarly, learning when an enemy is about to wallop you very hard is trial-and-error stuff too - and as you're running a whole party, not just 1 character, something which will take time to adjust to?

[Panterich]

That is not (and won`t be) explained and it is not consistent with different attacks and it also has quite a few variations.

Some attacks won`t follow target at all. Some will stop following on los. Some will stop following right before impact - possible to be evaded but it can be hard even in slow mode. Some will follow you till the end but will break on obstacles, while some won`t - the most dangerous type. Some are fast and some are slow. And i think some attack will stop following you if attacker dies while some won`t - not sure about that one.
In my experience, you should learn enemy skills and their potential. With attacks that won`t follow you, sometimes it is better to move while sometimes it is ok to stay. With attacks that follow you it is best to find alternative solutions to moving - be it hiding or disabling or healing.

Originally posted by shrewdlogarithm:

if a ranged spell/arrow (I can't tell which is which at this point)

There is physical and elemental damage. Everything else is irrelevant.
Each enemy has basic skill with short cooldown that they will try to use if no other skill can be used. Element of that attack is listed for each enemy in their description.
Element for each other skill is listed in that skill description and can only be checked outside of battle.

[shrewdlogarithm]

Some useful info there - thanks for that!

I still have to get over the relatively large gap between 'Easy' and 'Normal' if I want to continue tho

The difference is literally "no challenge whatsoever" and "feels unfair/random/not fun" - I've replayed the first few fights plenty of times on "Normal" now and I get the odd easy win, the odd crushing loss and the rest are scrappy and unsatisfying.

Oddly, I felt similarly about DA1 and eventually gave-up on that - maybe that fact I like the IDEA of team-RPGs doesn't jive with the fact they don't like me :(

[shrewdlogarithm]

Well I've tried as much as I'm willing and I'm giving-up

The fact there's 5 difficulty levels and 2 are so far apart to straddle "no challenge" and "unfair ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥" is something I'm not going to spend more time with.

I also find nonsense like "some spells follow you even when you teleport" to invalidate the whole concept (I also think the wall building thing is just silly and doesn't really work properly)

Just not for me it seems...

[General WVPM]

Maybe skip a battle and come back with better gear. Upgrade your gear. Use pause to micro.

As for difficulty, I played hard from start to end and enjoyed it despite it's spikes and boring parts (which you can speed up).

[Panterich]

Originally posted by General WVPM:

Maybe skip a battle and come back with better gear. Upgrade your gear. Use pause to micro.

As for difficulty, I played hard from start to end and enjoyed it despite it's spikes and boring parts (which you can speed up).

You can see that he refunded the game ...

[shrewdlogarithm]

I did indeed - I thing it was interesting but I need the right mixture of fun and challenge and this really only offered one of those at a time

For me at least - other people get on better with it judging by the reviews...

[mail4starzi]

For others having difficulty and ending up here after searching the web: It makes a big difference training/levelling-up you characters. I had three paths each blocked by fights and could not get a quarter of the way through any of them. I also had a stack of gold I'd been ignoring. After returning to the town and training all my team, the difficulty of each fight went from impossible to straight-forward.

[Blind88]

This is ridiculous. If you want to make the "point" that one person's easy doesn't account for another person's easy, do you really not get that it is then impossible to make quantified difficulties. The names are not what matters. They created quantifiable levels of difficulty for their game for you to pick. If one is too hard for you, you go down a level, or if one is too easy, you go up a level. People I swear.

[shrewdlogarithm]

Originally posted by Blind88:

This is ridiculous. If you want to make the "point" that one person's easy doesn't account for another person's easy, do you really not get that it is then impossible to make quantified difficulties. The names are not what matters. They created quantifiable levels of difficulty for their game for you to pick. If one is too hard for you, you go down a level, or if one is too easy, you go up a level. People I swear.

Firstly, this thread is TWO YEARS OLD so well done for resurrecting it

Secondly, I said that difficulties were "too easy" or "too hard" - there isn't one to pick - do you have a massive reading comprehension issue or what?

[Ferousfang]

After completing the game on normal and restarting on epic, I just wanted to add my two cents in here. Personally I feel that the first floor is too long and there is a giant range in-between enemy difficulty.I got stuck on one side of map because I couldn't do enough DPS but on other side I killed orcs easily, I can see the devs designed it this way so you would be able to collect enough gold to level up but I really think the game would have flowed better if they would have broken it into two floors instead.

[Yoinkyz]

hard is most balanced