Post by Azherae on 2022-04-17 15:14:07
We have not received permission from CROW3 to share the quoted post.
I'll agree here, with a caveat that I'd like to discuss actually. While I don't mind the systems, I don't have a problem with the Hardcore method except that it requires more enemy design to fit the model of what I would consider fun. For observing and learning to be fun, requires that something can be observed and learned.
Simple example from the usual game:
An area contains some little seedling style creatures, some rabbits, sheep, giant walking mushrooms, tigers, orcs, and giant trees.
When I enter this area, in a game with this design type, I test my strength against the seedling creature or rabbit first. Because it follows that sheep are, at minimum, larger than rabbits and probably stronger in some way, and the Tigers and Orcs probably are stronger and more aggressive than the sheep. The giant Tree enemies are presumably the adult seedlings and automatically stronger.
But I don't get a perspective on the mushrooms, by contrast. I have no idea if they are 'stronger than the Orcs and Tigers and therefore those avoid them', or 'weaker than even the sheep'. It is at this point where I make the choice of if I should attack them or not based on how I feel that day, but at least I didn't have to do it for everything else, and therefore I can say 'I can learn this' and don't need any external resource (wiki) to prevent loss or deaths.
On the other hand if you go 'Here are some wildcats and raptors, some trolls, a large mobile plant enemy, and a bear', I can only make inferences about the bear and be confident, and even then, perhaps not, depending on the designer. I'm not the 'wiki' type by default, but I can at least recognize that it means that every time I interact with things, there's a nontrivial chance that it will be harder than I expected.
If you now extend it so that I move between two nodes, and in so doing I see two different types of wildcats, the ones I know, and before I can see the precise location of the other node, I meet another type, I can't make a decision on the strength of them, consistently, using the Hardcore system. If I miss a Point of Interest nearby, those wildcats could be out of my level range easily without any meaningful difference in appearance. If they're physically larger, it's probably fine, but across 50+ levels this might start to get ambiguous.
Is it 'failing' against a mob when you lost via a standard stat-check? The only thing I perceive to have been a 'failure' in that case is a 'failure' to identify that the mob would be stronger than you by enough to heavily invalidate your skill.
In an Actiony game this is worse, I'm definitely the type to spend upwards of 20 minutes 'fighting perfectly against an enemy far beyond my level' whose HP bar I cannot see. For many classes I play in MMOs, it's a requirement to do this because I enjoy fighting things that will kill me in two hits unbuffed. If I eventually slip and lose against this enemy type, I will wiki it then, because then, I need to know if I tried to kill a level 47 enemy when I was level 30. Damage numbers don't help with this in most games either. Enemy defense after a certain point scales in a way that means '6 levels over you' and '16 levels over you' don't necessarily look that different.
Now, this doesn't bother me that much. For my group, I AM the scout that does this testing, but that's because it's a specific part of my personality, and I know that others don't share it. I can imagine that you 'are the scout' if you aren't playing alone, @CROW3 , but if we were to assume that you had the potential to encounter three very similar looking enemies with wildly varying strength, within the same area, would you also prefer that non-Scouts not have any indicators?