No... even though it might help some people I don't see the need. This game may be kind of hard but difficulty would just have the world playing on easiest. The different game modes are difficulty, easiest being freedom and hardest hardcore.
Just to clarify (since I think some people will misinterpret the poll, as I suspect the post above did):
"Difficulty settings" doesn't just mean "easy/normal/hard" which just tweak your health or enemy damage or something (as some games do) -- although having one of those isn't a bad idea too.
What I thought of when voting this way is "settings", ie. several options for different aspects, eg. some of the following:
Basic combat difficulty (as above)
Respawn or permadeath
What happens to inventory/equipment on respawn (keep, drop, delete)
Low oxygen warnings or silent
Predator attack noises or silent
Hunger/thirst or not
Handtools power management or not
Base power management or not
Vehicle damage or not
Long crafting times or not
I'm sure people could think of others. The idea would be to have a large list of individual things that could be tweaked on or off to fine-tune, similar to starting a new Space Engineers game.
There could still be standard "modes" that preselected certain options for the common styles, and most players would probably just go with one of those -- but this would allow people to fine-tune how they want to play to get the most enjoyment or challenge.
Well, I dont know, since I only play on survive, and as for me, thats the ez mode. The custom setting, would let the players make it more difficult, etc.. I have no plans for lowering the difficulty, but increasing it. It works both ways. At the moment, its impossible to do.
I'm really really for this idea. I always loved custom options in games like X-COM or(as above) Space Engineers. It allows a way for everyone to tweak their experience in that specific and special way that is unique to their preferences.
Whatever for? If you want it easy and without any dangers to face, you have creative. If you want to struggle and fear for your life, you have hardcore. If you want standard gameplay, you have that too. I see no reason to demand the devs wasted even more time and resources on something as pointless as even more difficulty levels than the game already has... just because someone is too lazy and too whiny to learn how to play a survival game. I'd rather they focused more on actual content.
Calarand77lurking in general forumsJoin Date: 2016-01-22Member: 211786Members
Not too fond of the idea, I think what we already have at our disposal covers all the needs and play-styles very well, but... it would stop the incessant complaining that is currently rampant on the forum, so I'm all for it. Bear in mind, however, that if it was to ever happen, we would likely lose some content in favor of more difficulty levels. Just saying.
How about adding the "EASY" button to the game? For those gamers who want all the rewards but none of the work? And of course you also get an associative achivement to go with it.
The thing is that most of the settings suggested above are either already things that are in the game in some form (eg. components of the existing survival/freedom/creative modes) or are simple "disable that thing" options. So the only hard part is making the settings page to put the checkboxes on -- after that it'd be trivial to add tons of options. It could be done in a day or two.
Whatever for? If you want it easy and without any dangers to face, you have creative. If you want to struggle and fear for your life, you have hardcore. If you want standard gameplay, you have that too. I see no reason to demand the devs wasted even more time and resources on something as pointless as even more difficulty levels than the game already has... just because someone is too lazy and too whiny to learn how to play a survival game. I'd rather they focused more on actual content.
For some people (myself included) they may want these settings to ramp up the difficulty, as well as the people who want to make it easier. The current modes don't change how hard it is in several key areas, such as how much damage creatures do and how easy it is to aggro them. Also, the suggestion that, if people find it too tough they can just play on creative, locks them out of being able to play the story.
That said, I would still much rather the devs focus on other things if this is going to take ages to implement, but it might be a job that can be done simply in a few hours (though that's probably wishful thinking).
The thing is that most of the settings suggested above are either already things that are in the game in some form (eg. components of the existing survival/freedom/creative modes) or are simple "disable that thing" options. So the only hard part is making the settings page to put the checkboxes on -- after that it'd be trivial to add tons of options. It could be done in a day or two.
Never assume anything is just a 'day or two' in programming. Not only would they need to design a difficutly page, but they'd have to make sure all the values are checked for and applied throughout the entire game. Every mob's damage or aggro radius would need to account for every setting. Blueprint options can at least use and expand on existing checks from survival vs creative. Fragment drop rate would need to be accounted for, and considering how hit or miss it already is in some cases, this might still be buggy as hell going into it. Resources could be scaled relatively easily, I think. Without seeing the code, I can't say for sure.
I can see so much potential for new bugs being added by doing this. And they'd need to test each option to make sure it's not only working, but also working beside all the other potential options being suggested. Before they start adding variables and difficulty curves, they need to finish balancing what they have and get their 'normal' difficulty sorted out.
Comments
"Difficulty settings" doesn't just mean "easy/normal/hard" which just tweak your health or enemy damage or something (as some games do) -- although having one of those isn't a bad idea too.
What I thought of when voting this way is "settings", ie. several options for different aspects, eg. some of the following:
I'm sure people could think of others. The idea would be to have a large list of individual things that could be tweaked on or off to fine-tune, similar to starting a new Space Engineers game.
There could still be standard "modes" that preselected certain options for the common styles, and most players would probably just go with one of those -- but this would allow people to fine-tune how they want to play to get the most enjoyment or challenge.
It's already easy if you choose creative. Or am I wrong?
He means more like this:
http://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/144663/different-difficulties
I'm really really for this idea. I always loved custom options in games like X-COM or(as above) Space Engineers. It allows a way for everyone to tweak their experience in that specific and special way that is unique to their preferences.
For some people (myself included) they may want these settings to ramp up the difficulty, as well as the people who want to make it easier. The current modes don't change how hard it is in several key areas, such as how much damage creatures do and how easy it is to aggro them. Also, the suggestion that, if people find it too tough they can just play on creative, locks them out of being able to play the story.
That said, I would still much rather the devs focus on other things if this is going to take ages to implement, but it might be a job that can be done simply in a few hours (though that's probably wishful thinking).
Never assume anything is just a 'day or two' in programming. Not only would they need to design a difficutly page, but they'd have to make sure all the values are checked for and applied throughout the entire game. Every mob's damage or aggro radius would need to account for every setting. Blueprint options can at least use and expand on existing checks from survival vs creative. Fragment drop rate would need to be accounted for, and considering how hit or miss it already is in some cases, this might still be buggy as hell going into it. Resources could be scaled relatively easily, I think. Without seeing the code, I can't say for sure.
I can see so much potential for new bugs being added by doing this. And they'd need to test each option to make sure it's not only working, but also working beside all the other potential options being suggested. Before they start adding variables and difficulty curves, they need to finish balancing what they have and get their 'normal' difficulty sorted out.
I'm all for it, but after v1.0 please.