www.ClassicTW.com :: View topic - Game Difficulty Rating Scale?

Cruncher wrote:

Someone's probably already thought of this before, but what about some sort of edits standard for ranking the game difficulty?

If we had a system, to rate the difficulty of the game edits so that players can more easily choose the game for them. This may help players to choose a game that’s not over their abilities. We’d have to develop a scale from builders to stock to Kill’em All and everything in between. This way players can also advance levels as they master one level, or choose to drop down a level or two until they are confident enough to advance.

I think this would be easier than trying to each everyone what all the edits mean.

The only trouble I can see is more advanced players jumping down to the easier levels for easy pickin’s. This isn’t like some online games that prevent players of certain advancement from attacking someone far below them. This may still need to be policed by the sysops.

The difficulty level would have to be in the name of the game. For an example a stock game without photons may be ranked “Game XYZ-L3”, stock with photons “Game XYZ- L3P”.

What do you think?

Promethius wrote:

What makes a game difficult for some is a preferred edit for others. The competition is actually what makes a game difficult or easy. The frustration factor for me is low turn games and I rate them as unplayable.

Promethius wrote:

You will also have to have a method of rating players and that will basically be impossible in today's environment. I play different aliases so you do not know if I am a noob or a fair to middling skilled player. Personally I don't care what people think of using different aliases for different games (this said so someone doesn't go off on that tangent).

Parrothead wrote:

Stock is not easy to play well.For example BOTE is almost over on day 3 barring a major issue, This is due to Corp 2 and 3 wasting there startup turns playing dock games.

Parrothead wrote:

This was about edits not the almost over BOTE

Big D wrote:

A low turn, stockish style game is one of the hardest type edits for a newer player to get started in IF there is any competition. However, no one really plays these type edits except players that can't compete in the more popular edits, so considering the competition level, a lot of these low turn stock edtis are very easy to get started in.

Cruncher wrote:

OK, you guys know best, that's why I'm asking you.

Builders <----\----\----\----\-Stock'ish-\----\----\----\----\----\-Unlim-\----\----\----\----\----> Kill'em All

I'm just looking for a general framwork to start basing a game difficulty rating scale on. Most everyone looks at the "S" settings when choosing a game, not everyone knows to look at the "*" menu options. So, if we had a general scale they could use in conjuction with the "S" menu, I think that may be helpful.

Cruncher wrote:

1 - can be played manually
2 - can be played manually, some helper useful
3 - need helper or scripts to play
4 - recommend using TWX
5 - TWX plus Mombot required

Singularity wrote:

Aggression:
1. Tradehugs
2. Paint scratcher
3. Regular
4. Constant risk of death
5. Active grid wars

Automation:
1. Manual
2. Automation useful
3. Automation advised
4. Automation required
5. Script wars

Promethius wrote:

A "helper" by its very name is always useful. From what I've seen over the years games are usually classified with the following:

Author:	Cruncher [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:07 pm ]
Post subject:	Game Difficulty Rating Scale?
Someone's probably already thought of this before, but what about some sort of edits standard for ranking the game difficulty? If we had a system, to rate the difficulty of the game edits so that players can more easily choose the game for them. This may help players to choose a game that’s not over their abilities. We’d have to develop a scale from builders to stock to Kill’em All and everything in between. This way players can also advance levels as they master one level, or choose to drop down a level or two until they are confident enough to advance. I think this would be easier than trying to each everyone what all the edits mean. The only trouble I can see is more advanced players jumping down to the easier levels for easy pickin’s. This isn’t like some online games that prevent players of certain advancement from attacking someone far below them. This may still need to be policed by the sysops. The difficulty level would have to be in the name of the game. For an example a stock game without photons may be ranked “Game XYZ-L3”, stock with photons “Game XYZ- L3P”. What do you think?

Author:	Promethius [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:39 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Game Difficulty Rating Scale?
Cruncher wrote: Someone's probably already thought of this before, but what about some sort of edits standard for ranking the game difficulty? If we had a system, to rate the difficulty of the game edits so that players can more easily choose the game for them. This may help players to choose a game that’s not over their abilities. We’d have to develop a scale from builders to stock to Kill’em All and everything in between. This way players can also advance levels as they master one level, or choose to drop down a level or two until they are confident enough to advance. I think this would be easier than trying to each everyone what all the edits mean. The only trouble I can see is more advanced players jumping down to the easier levels for easy pickin’s. This isn’t like some online games that prevent players of certain advancement from attacking someone far below them. This may still need to be policed by the sysops. The difficulty level would have to be in the name of the game. For an example a stock game without photons may be ranked “Game XYZ-L3”, stock with photons “Game XYZ- L3P”. What do you think? What makes a game difficult for some is a preferred edit for others. The competition is actually what makes a game difficult or easy. The frustration factor for me is low turn games and I rate them as unplayable. You will also have to have a method of rating players and that will basically be impossible in today's environment. I play different aliases so you do not know if I am a noob or a fair to middling skilled player. Personally I don't care what people think of using different aliases for different games (this said so someone doesn't go off on that tangent).

Author:	Cruncher [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:41 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Game Difficulty Rating Scale?
Promethius wrote: What makes a game difficult for some is a preferred edit for others. The competition is actually what makes a game difficult or easy. The frustration factor for me is low turn games and I rate them as unplayable. That’s fair, and I do agree that competition is a huge factor. OK, rather than edit difficulty, classifying by playing style? Would that be a better descriptor? I know just looking at the open games at stardock, we see server, # of sectors, turns and age of game. Sysops are getting descriptive in naming the games, or the menu tells you which games are builders, which are Kill’em all. But even the Kill’em all’s vary in edits and difficulty. I’m very visual so what about a sliding scale something like this: Stock <----\----\----\----\----\----\----\----\----\----\----\----\----\----\----\----> Lots of Edits Promethius wrote: You will also have to have a method of rating players and that will basically be impossible in today's environment. I play different aliases so you do not know if I am a noob or a fair to middling skilled player. Personally I don't care what people think of using different aliases for different games (this said so someone doesn't go off on that tangent). I think we all use different aliases from time to time. So that would best be left to the player to determine if they are in over their head or need more challenge. And I think we can all see in the game if one player or team is beating down the rest easily, in which case the sysop would probably be notified anyway.

Author:	Parrothead [ Wed Aug 11, 2010 1:13 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Game Difficulty Rating Scale?
Actually many of the gold edits are easier to play well with minimal direction than stock. Stock is not easy to play well.For example BOTE is almost over on day 3 barring a major issue, This is due to Corp 2 and 3 wasting there startup turns playing dock games.800 turn stock is not easy in a tourney environment. Pirates is a Blue game with a simple startup so I would say that Pirates is a good edit for the returning player. BLue planets and Blue ship advantage along with out of balance Tholian ship odds. 2 cents

Author:	T0yman [ Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:20 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Game Difficulty Rating Scale?
Parrothead wrote: Stock is not easy to play well.For example BOTE is almost over on day 3 barring a major issue, This is due to Corp 2 and 3 wasting there startup turns playing dock games. Not to turn this into smack, just a little clarification..... Corp 3 was not playing dock games, mainly because 1/2 of our corp could not make it to dock and 1 other could not make it off. But I agree on your other points just stating a simple fact, we were out gunned from the git go, but were trying.

www.ClassicTW.com http://www.classictw.com/

Game Difficulty Rating Scale? http://www.classictw.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=26934	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Parrothead [ Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:13 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Game Difficulty Rating Scale?
This was about edits not the almost over BOTE

Author:	Big D [ Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:40 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Game Difficulty Rating Scale?
A low turn, stockish style game is one of the hardest type edits for a newer player to get started in IF there is any competition. However, no one really plays these type edits except players that can't compete in the more popular edits, so considering the competition level, a lot of these low turn stock edtis are very easy to get started in.

Author:	V'Ger [ Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:22 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Game Difficulty Rating Scale?
Parrothead wrote: This was about edits not the almost over BOTE Then it is a good thing you did not bring it up first... oh wait...

Author:	Cruncher [ Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:54 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Game Difficulty Rating Scale?
Big D wrote: A low turn, stockish style game is one of the hardest type edits for a newer player to get started in IF there is any competition. However, no one really plays these type edits except players that can't compete in the more popular edits, so considering the competition level, a lot of these low turn stock edtis are very easy to get started in. OK, you guys know best, that's why I'm asking you. Builders <----\----\----\----\-Stock'ish-\----\----\----\----\----\-Unlim-\----\----\----\----\----> Kill'em All I'm just looking for a general framwork to start basing a game difficulty rating scale on. Most everyone looks at the "S" settings when choosing a game, not everyone knows to look at the "*" menu options. So, if we had a general scale they could use in conjuction with the "S" menu, I think that may be helpful.

Author:	Cruncher [ Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:06 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Game Difficulty Rating Scale?
Cruncher wrote: OK, you guys know best, that's why I'm asking you. Builders <----\----\----\----\-Stock'ish-\----\----\----\----\----\-Unlim-\----\----\----\----\----> Kill'em All I'm just looking for a general framwork to start basing a game difficulty rating scale on. Most everyone looks at the "S" settings when choosing a game, not everyone knows to look at the "" menu options. So, if we had a general scale they could use in conjuction with the "S" menu, I think that may be helpful. OR, since we already have the general Builders, stock, unlim, kill'em all then maybe a sliding scale 1-10 diffuculty in each style mod based on the settings in the menu, some of which aren't viewable but very important to know or have a clue about when choosing a game to play. Does this make sence?

Author:	Cruncher [ Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:59 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Game Difficulty Rating Scale?
OR make this system even simpler 1 - can be played manually 2 - can be played manually, some helper useful 3 - need helper or scripts to play 4 - recommend using TWX 5 - TWX plus Mombot required How does this sound? So after each game name it would have a rating of 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. Then the sysops would have to agree to some general guidelines as to what edits fall in each difficulty rating. Humm... ? Are we getting closer?

Author:	Singularity [ Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:04 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Game Difficulty Rating Scale?
Cruncher wrote: 1 - can be played manually 2 - can be played manually, some helper useful 3 - need helper or scripts to play 4 - recommend using TWX 5 - TWX plus Mombot required That assumes that nothing else will ever come along. Perspective pls. Instead of game difficulty, which is a completely random and arbitrary definition that will change from person to person, why not just do 2 scales: the level of aggression and the level of automation. Aggression: 1. Tradehugs 2. Paint scratcher 3. Regular 4. Constant risk of death 5. Active grid wars Automation: 1. Manual 2. Automation useful 3. Automation advised 4. Automation required 5. Script wars

Author:	Promethius [ Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:33 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Game Difficulty Rating Scale?
A "helper" by its very name is always useful. From what I've seen over the years games are usually classified with the following: Basically two major game types with sub types Turn base Low Turn (500 - 1500) Mid Turn (1501 - 5000) High Turn (5001 - 65k) and no, 65k is not unlim since I can burn through those turns Truce / non-truce Blue slanted edit / Red slanted Edit Corp size (solo to ?) Ship off/def settings favor attack or defensive Planet Cit number/sector, build times and capabilities Unlims Truce / non-truce / advertised DM Builder (slanted blue or by server rules on attacks/invasion) Corp size (solo to ?) Ship off/def settings favor attack or defensive Planet Cit number/sector, build times and capabilities Blue/red balance Sorry, gotta cut it short due to a meeting, but this gives the idea. Show the edit, tell who it is designed for in regard to game speed, and then let the users decide if it is for them. Unlims of the non-truce variety are never good for noobs/returning players IMO. They will die as they are learning/relearning the basics. Script usage is up to the player - low turns are not good games for the scripts I write, but some scripts are very useful to defend/attack with.

Author:	Cruncher [ Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:59 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Game Difficulty Rating Scale?
Singularity wrote: Aggression: 1. Tradehugs 2. Paint scratcher 3. Regular 4. Constant risk of death 5. Active grid wars Automation: 1. Manual 2. Automation useful 3. Automation advised 4. Automation required 5. Script wars The automation makes perfect sence, Tradehugs and Paint scratcher are new discriptors for me. Maybe "Truce/moderated" and "Only if provoked" for 1 & 2?

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Cruncher [ Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Game Difficulty Rating Scale?
Promethius wrote: A "helper" by its very name is always useful. From what I've seen over the years games are usually classified with the following: Great ideas Prom! I think those would definitely go into determining how to classify a game edit. I don't want to get too specific, let the sysops decide where they want to place their games in the rating scale. Then maybe each game selection menu can have a link back to the EIS forum directory where descriptions of each level are further explained with a note to each sysop's style or unique ship/planet edits? We want to leave room for discovery but also make sure new or returning players don't wander into a game that may be beyond their current capabilities.