I mean, this thread's touched on so many different sub-threads of the same base topic (difficulty) that trying to respond to it all at once and to have it make sense would be even beyond my regular word-blasting capabilities.
But right now I'm seeing the following:
- The game's base settings for each difficulty (damage, Zed speed, etc.)
- Difficulty as a result of player skills (experience, meta knowledge, technical capabilities, etc.) and collective party skills (is anyone sandbagging, etc.)
- Difficulty brought by player counts
- Difficulty by way of perks (some are much, much easier to win the game with than others)
- Difficulty of base game design (should we cater more towards PC players or compromise for console players?)
- The bump in between given difficulties; "How hard is too hard?" "Should the difficulty be more or less noticeable?"
- Should there be a series of sliders where players can determine their own difficulty?
- Is it fair to have difficulties that exclude players (which is kind of the point of difficulties but hey)?
And that's just scratching the surface.
But to respond to the above:
While I'm glad that you and others aren't overwhelmed with Suicidal+, I'm curious to learn if you came from a KF1 background or otherwise struggled a bit earlier in your KF/FPS experience. You've obviously been playing the game for a long time so I'm wondering if maybe you have forgotten some of the struggles you've faced prior to your time in Sui+ in KF2.
So full disclosure: my response comes as someone who has grown up on arcade and NES games, and who stayed on Hard and Suicidal for a pretty freaking good amount of those accumulated hours (as I am someone who
loathes the idea of being the guy sandbagging a team trying their hardest to win in a team game, so I want to be
really sure I'm not that guy).
I preface this so that I don't sound too much like a jerk. I try, and sometimes I succeed.
TWI has to consider how KF2 may be a player's first foray into any FPS game. On the other end of that spectrum are older players who may or may not have FPS experience, but do have other responsibilities that prevent them from putting in the time necessary to excel in Sui+. As someone who watches some of his friends decide that Hard is hard enough, while other friends enjoy the challenge of Suicidal+ and don't look back, I assure you that the vast majority of new players stick to Hard, or just plain rage quit at this gap. TWI wants player retention. I suspect that they'll be looking at the stats and making some changes for KF3.
Here's the question I pose back:
Isn't the point of difficulties to compromise for both the players who may not be MLG-pro but still want to play the game, and those who are challenge seekers and want the hardest challenge the game has to offer? And as difficulties climb, would it not make sense that there are fewer players who make it to the aforementioned harder difficulties?
This is a bit of a tangent, but there's a similar refrain I see on forums: some of them just want to stick to a power fantasy and mow down Zeds rather than play for the challenge. If the higher difficulties aren't doing it for you (in the sense of the royal "you"), then just stick to the lower ones. This is also a thing I remind players of in, as an example, the myriad suggestion forums where players want buffs and overpowered weapons.
But
assuming you actually want to shoot for the higher difficulties, would it not make more sense to try and improve your abilities to clear the difficulties, rather than ask the developers to nerf the difficulties (thus defeating the point of trying to complete the harder difficulties in the first place)?
If there are players who are actually rage-quitting the game in the process of going to Suicidal vs. Hard, that's entirely on the players, not TWI. While there are aspects of this game that are undoubtedly frustrating, the jump from Hard to Sui (which isn't even the hardest difficulty in the base game, let alone custom ones!) isn't one worth actively giving up the entire game over.
We all seem to agree that the learning curve between Hard and Sui is the most noticeable in the game. Can the leap from Hard to Sui be done? Obviously it can.
I mean, yeah. Really, the main issues coming from Hard to Sui are the faster Zed speeds and the new attack patterns. Once you get accustomed to those, you're good.
That's literally the toughest part, and both can be overcome via practice and pattern recognition.
But why would TWI risk losing players over an unnecessarily large leap? I'd like to see a mid-ground difficulty setting (or, better yet, a complete overhaul with detailed custom difficulty settings in KF3) where the elites are introduced and less noticeable boosts to zed speed, HP, and damage are provided.
Again: if there are players actively quitting the game because they can't nail Suicidal yet, that's entirely on the players, not TWI.
And a difficulty slider poses its own problems, but then again, there is the Controlled Difficulty server as a middle ground. They're not just for making ultra-hard games; they're also capable of doing that exact thing, within reason.
I agree that there are factors in determining difficulty beyond the difficulty setting itself, such as map selection.
Yes, some maps are much better designed than others.
This is a crossroads of multiple issues, namely the spawning system, map design, and perk interactions. To make a very,
very long story short, there are some maps that are terrible and cramped (see: The Descent, Nightmare, Biolapse, and adjacent designs) that heavily encourage stacking perks that don't require precision aim because at the highest difficulties, everything is working against precision perks.
There are some maps that are extremely easy in certain spots with certain perks. Containment Station turbine area might as well be a shooting gallery with precision perks, which I don't find terribly fun. Prison watchtower is another obvious example. If you're good enough you can hold really bad spots, not that it makes holding them necessarily a good idea
Not that this wasn't an issue in KF1. There's a good reason why players liked Farm and Mountain Pass in KF1: they offered a lot of room to run around and kite hordes to death, much like players gravitate towards Nuked in KF2. The underlying reasons differ due to mechanics, but the underlying principle is similar.
The map problem unfortunately goes hand-in-hand with the spawning system and that's an entirely different thesis. Hopefully TWI is indeed taking notes for their next chapter on how to tweak this.
I'll add that the number (let's momentarily assume equal experience level) of players in the party will greatly affect results.
This is getting into an entirely separate matter from the standard difficulty settings and veering into player count balance.
To make a very long story short,
my understanding is that KF2 is balanced with 6 players in mind. Any less and you're basically accepting the risks of playing it with a lower count.
From the perspective from a Sharp and Commando main: 2-3 players is absolutely doable even in Hell on Earth. Your priorities will shift from perfecting HVT takedowns to clearing trash, but it's absolutely doable. You may not be able to pick the perks you normally want in a 6-man game, but hey, that's perk specialties for you.
Now, TWI has clearly put some thought into the "what if I don't have 6 players" issue, because they did make concessions. Namely, Zeds have fewer hit points and do less damage as you go lower in player count. Solo might as well be its own difficulty because of how much it scales down compared to 6 players.
This is brushing up against other players who want an actual full-blown scaling system. Is it reasonable, then, to expect TWI to be able to develop a full scaling system that accommodates all player counts from 1-6 so it
feels more natural? Not just on enemy stats, but also on: map design, weapons, perks, and the whole lot? This is a lot to ask, and concessions have to be made somewhere.
I opine that 2-3p on Hard is more difficult than 5-6p on Sui+.
Nah. If you've built the skills and reflexes to trounce full Suicidal and Hell on Earth games, you should have the skills and reflexes to beat Hard on a half-man team.
I'm not saying that to be a callous dick. You're talking about scaling back to a difficulty where you can crouch-walk backwards and the Zeds won't even have the alternate attacks to move and hit you at the same time, let alone the speed or HP to deal with players who are that skilled.
Yes, there are more Zeds per player, but again: if you can build up the skills to consistently clear harder difficulties, I have faith you can do even better in lower ones. It may require learning different perks to consistently do so, but hey.
2-3p Sui+ is, of course, more difficult than 2-3p Hard, but the tactics used to make teams successful on 6p Sui+ will be a detriment to small groups at any difficulty setting by virtue of not having enough players/guns available to specialize in zed clearance. I don't mean to suggest that 2-3p is impossible or anything—just that it is more difficult than 5-6p.
2-3 players assuming the same difficulty and equivalent skilled players may require a change in tactics but it's more than doable. Enemy health scaling can count for a LOT depending on the perks and weapons involved.
I strongly believe that community-favored perks have played a large part in the interpretation of this.
I'm pretty sure that the versatility needed to survive in small groups are why TWI has unapologetically created weapons like the Healthrower, Clobber, and Microwave.
In some cases I agree and in some cases I disagree, but without an official word from KittenMittens, Yoshiro, or anyone else, it's hard to say for sure. The weapons are a good point but I'll get into those later. To respond to your immediate points:
The Microwave was here from the EA days, and it was OP as hell back in the Early Access days before it was rightfully stomped into the ground. There was a reason why the meta when it was released was 5 Firebugs with MWG + 1 Medic with MWG: because it was a gun that killed everything faster than any other existing perk, on a perk that didn't have to aim. (A recurrent theme with the Firebug.) The Helios Rifle has been a more acceptable compromise.
The other weapons are because there are definitely favored perks among the community (I would not be surprised if TWI released stats noting that the Berserker and Medic are the most commonly-picked perks in the game), and a number of factors lead to players depending on those perks, so more and more weapons get released to appease said players.
I think it is fair to say that people prefer to play with friends, so they'll play a lot of those 2-3p games... and struggle. Or they'll find their friends in 5-6p Hard groups that are easy to find but wind up in 2-3p Suicidal parties and hit a brick wall—not realizing that if they were in a 6p party that they'd hold their own. Some tweaking to difficulty settings is something that I'd embrace.
There are a number of reasons for this, but I have a very good one that goes unmentioned by the playerbase. Again, going back to perks as difficulty:
Some perks and/or perk loadout choices are going to have a much tougher time in smaller player counts than others, because the game is balanced around 6 player difficulty. Now, normally this issue would be solved by just telling the player to pick another perk that works better for small player counts, but TWI decided to go an alternate route by giving perks weapons that work better for roles they aren't suited for so everyone can play what they want. This is also a reason why there's so many weapons in this game that aren't that good otherwise.
As an example: Demolitionist is designed in 6P HoE as a HVT specialist. They have one good loadout in 6P HoE, which is RPG + C4 + .500, as it is designed to delete large Zeds with relatively minimal fuss while still giving you a means of one-tapping the odd trash that gets close. They're easier to use than Sharpshooter since their technical skill requirement is much lower but at the cost of having clunkier weapons, meaning they will have a tougher time with trash due to projectile travel times, smaller clip sizes, reloading, etc.
Now, a Demo in 2-3 player games has a problem: HP scaling on HVTs means his swift takedowns lose their impact because players in general will have a much easier time killing HVTs, all the way down to SWAT, to the point where his spike damage is almost unnecessary. They have another problem: They're dealing with much more trash than they otherwise would expect to, on a perk and loadout that isn't designed for it. This is almost a counter-pick situation for Demo.
Thus, the Demo is going to have a tougher time unless they either 1) switch perks, or 2) pick alternate weapons. Here's the thing: the weapons that would help with this (I'm thinking Seeker Six / M16) are crap in 6P HoE games by comparison because they're not designed with the Demo's role in mind. There isn't a single weapon that makes Demo an ideal on-demand trash sweeper. So if the player count scales back up, you'll need to resell the weapons to buy your better HVT ones. All in all, it would be easier just to pick a different perk altogether.
Sharpshooters, conversely, have a much easier time because they have skillsets and loadouts that scale well from 6P to lower player counts. While the RailSharp--their dedicated anti-HVT loadout--is a fan favorite, they're versatile and also have generalist loadouts, unlike the Demolitionist. In particular, the M14 loadouts still allow them to be staggeringly effective at just about any situation, in any difficulty, on any player count. The issue there is if the player has the aim to back that up, but if they do, they'll be able to do just as well in 3P as they will in 6P. Demo theoretically could make it work but it's not designed to do so.
Now, with the above in mind: Which of the two perks would you expect to see more often in games? Sharpshooter is probably one of the least popular perks in the game.
--
My point is: There are already so many sliding concessions on difficulty, up to and including perks that literally don't need to aim in order to win. (In a first-person shooter, mind you, which is a genre where aim is tradtionally part of the required skillset.) What more would be necessary for TWI to accomplish?
