[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Enigma-devel] Improved version of Sentry Duty level

From: Jacob Scott
Subject: Re: [Enigma-devel] Improved version of Sentry Duty level
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:28:06 -0500

On 6/30/05, Moon Pearl <address@hidden> wrote:

>     I think we should rate all levels from a single pack (that's 100 levels
> in all) by difficulty on a 1 to 10 scale. This would include nine "regular"
> landscapes plus one meditation landscape per "difficulty level". Once that's
> done, just reorder them by difficulty. Ten "difficulty levels" seems
> accurate enough to me. This should be something like "1-Obvious    2-Easy
> 3-Simple... 8-Hard    9-Harsh    10-Impossible !". ;-) I think if we all use
> this system, instead of reordering the levels in a "linear" way, our
> opinions about the ten level-groups order should not differ very much.

I think this idea could work very well, and I like the idea of
reordering the level packs to reflect difficulty and putting them in
bundles of 100 each, but it might actually reorder the levels too much
by difficulty, leaving 20 or so very hard levels at the end that would
discourage players.  I remember from the original games that while
overall the levels increased in difficulty, there were rarely
consecutive very hard levels -- many of the levels above 90 could be
solved in just a few tries and in just a few minutes.  I think mixing
up hard levels and easy levels to some extent could reduce frustration
for new players.  Maybe instead of using a rating system purely of
difficulty, we could use one of difficulty and interest combined, or
some other factors.  I'm not sure there will be a problem with
ordering levels completely by difficulty, but it's a good thing to
keep in mind.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]