PC Risk vs. Reward? Upping the difficulty level

[Pernicious]

I didn't say the game was too easy, I said that *I* was finding it too easy and I considered raising the difficulty level. What I learned however is that if you do that, you increase the difficulty without getting any additional reward, which means that all you get by doing that is more challenge. More challenge is not in and of itself my goal, my goal is more fun, and that usually derives from the standard formula: more risk = more reward, i.e., better loot. The disappointment of extra effort without any payoff other than extra challenge was the point of my message. A simple observation (apparently shared by others), no need to complicate it with additional interpretations.

I find that logic a little circular. If you say double the hit points of zombies, but then you level faster, get more perks, drop say the machine gun sooner and loot more bullets, are you taking more risk? If you are not, then why are you getting more reward?

If it gave more and better non-combat loot (e.g. vehicles, crafting stations but not materials - i.e. quality of life loot) rather than xp and combat loot, I could understand that would be a sustainable risk-reward scenario. But as soon as you start making the player tougher or giving them better weapons and armour, you take the extra risk out of the equation.

Edit: maybe put it another way. I am trying to remember what game it was now, but ages ago, I played a game where increasing the difficulty not only increased enemy hit points and damage done, but also lowered reduced the XP and loot dropped. I think thay kind of showed the relationship between loot and difficulty. The less loot you got the more difficult the game became.

 

[JCrook1028]

I didn't say the game was too easy, I said that *I* was finding it too easy

Lmao, you're kidding right? Talk about splitting hairs to try to make a point. You're using a microscope and a laser scalpel there my friend. I'm done here.

 

[FranticDan]

Increasing difficulty does exactly what is says, makes the game harder.
I doubt there are many games out there that reward player for playing on the "harder" difficulties

Anyway, here's what each difficulty does. Do note that DoT dmg from bleed and stun baton are unaffected.

Scavenger: Deal 200%, Take 50%, No zombie rage
Adventurer: Deal 150%, Take 75%, 15% chance of rage and 1% chance of Super Rage
Nomad: Deal 100%, Take 100%, 30% chance of Rage and 3% chance of Super Rage
Warrior: Deal 83%, Take 150%, 35% chance of Rage and 5% chance of Super Rage
Survivalist: Deal 66%, Take 200%, 40% chance of Rage and 8% chance of Super Rage
Insane: Deal 50%, Take 250%, 50% chance of Rage and 15% chance of Super Rage

 

[Melange]

Increasing difficulty does exactly what is says, makes the game harder.
I doubt there are many games out there that reward player for playing on the "harder" difficulties

Anyway, here's what each difficulty does. Do note that DoT dmg from bleed and stun baton are unaffected.

Scavenger: Deal 200%, Take 50%, No zombie rage
Adventurer: Deal 150%, Take 75%, 15% chance of rage and 1% chance of Super Rage
Nomad: Deal 100%, Take 100%, 30% chance of Rage and 3% chance of Super Rage
Warrior: Deal 83%, Take 150%, 35% chance of Rage and 5% chance of Super Rage
Survivalist: Deal 66%, Take 200%, 40% chance of Rage and 8% chance of Super Rage
Insane: Deal 50%, Take 250%, 50% chance of Rage and 15% chance of Super Rage

Thanks for this. I understand the Deal and Take numbers. But what does Rage and Super Rage do to zombies exactly? Increase their Deal and Take (only guessing here}? If so, by how much?

 

[FranticDan]

Thanks for this. I understand the Deal and Take numbers. But what does Rage and Super Rage do to zombies exactly? Increase their Deal and Take (only guessing here}? If so, by how much?

Rage makes them move faster
Super Rage they move even faster and for much longer
On nightmare speed they can easily run faster than you while in super rage

 

[Uncle Al]

I didn't say the game was too easy, I said that *I* was finding it too easy and I considered raising the difficulty level. What I learned however is that if you do that, you increase the difficulty without getting any additional reward, which means that all you get by doing that is more challenge. More challenge is not in and of itself my goal, my goal is more fun, and that usually derives from the standard formula: more risk = more reward, i.e., better loot. The disappointment of extra effort without any payoff other than extra challenge was the point of my message. A simple observation (apparently shared by others), no need to complicate it with additional interpretations.

Seems to be a bit of confusion here.  The actual game design principle is 'for a given baseline difficulty, increased risk should lead to potentially increased reward'.  The whole point of difficultly settings is they increase difficulty, not rewards.

As mentioned, moving to other biomes does increase both risk and reward - you get a more difficult environment and better loot.  Or you can increase some difficulty settings and also increase loot settings if you want harder zombies and more loot.

Difficulty settings that increase rewards are really bad design, because they don't do what they should, i.e. increase the difficulty.  You see this a lot with CRPGs if higher difficulties makes more enemies appear in combats.  The extra enemies give more exp, you level faster and actually end up with an easier game when you set the difficulty harder.  Good designers reduce the exp for enemies proportionally to the increased enemy count to stop this happening.

 

[Apocalyptical Survivor]

Seems to be a bit of confusion here.  The actual game design principle is 'for a given baseline difficulty, increased risk should lead to potentially increased reward'.  The whole point of difficultly settings is they increase difficulty, not rewards.

As mentioned, moving to other biomes does increase both risk and reward - you get a more difficult environment and better loot.  Or you can increase some difficulty settings and also increase loot settings if you want harder zombies and more loot.

Difficulty settings that increase rewards are really bad design, because they don't do what they should, i.e. increase the difficulty.  You see this a lot with CRPGs if higher difficulties makes more enemies appear in combats.  The extra enemies give more exp, you level faster and actually end up with an easier game when you set the difficulty harder.  Good designers reduce the exp for enemies proportionally to the increased enemy count to stop this happening.

I'll agree that there's some confusion here, but I'm not sure where it is. You state

"The actual game design principle is 'for a given baseline difficulty, increased risk should lead to potentially increased reward".

That is a sound game principle, but the critical key is how one interprets those words. What is "increased risk"? And where exactly does it come from? If one chooses to play at a higher difficulty, one should expect that encounters will be more challenging, more likely to fail, and that the chance of dying will be greater, meaning greater risk of failing the quest or losing experience. And with that greater risk, should come greater rewards, all resulting from the choice to play at a higher difficulty. How is your stated principle in conflict with the issue I'm raising?

 

[Uncle Al]

I'll agree that there's some confusion here, but I'm not sure where it is. You state

"The actual game design principle is 'for a given baseline difficulty, increased risk should lead to potentially increased reward".

That is a sound game principle, but the critical key is how one interprets those words. What is "increased risk"? And where exactly does it come from? If one chooses to play at a higher difficulty, one should expect that encounters will be more challenging, more likely to fail, and that the chance of dying will be greater, meaning greater risk of failing the quest or losing experience. And with that greater risk, should come greater rewards, all resulting from the choice to play at a higher difficulty. How is your stated principle in conflict with the issue I'm raising?

Because you're ignoring the 'for a given baseline difficulty' part.

The solid design principle is that if you take larger risks at a set difficulty, assuming the larger risks are aligned with game objectives and you're not just randomly handicapping yourself, you get the chance of larger rewards.  Exploring a dangerous biome does exactly this in 7DTD.

An equally solid part of the principle is that if you raise the difficulty level then you get larger risks with NO larger rewards.  That's pretty much what defines the concept of 'difficulty level'. Lowering rewards without decreasing risk is also a valid raise in difficulty level. Do you expect putting loot to 25% to also reduce zombie hit points to a quarter of their normal value?