I would like to suggest more customization in regards to difficulty options of co-op missions. I see the appeal of mutations however personally find most of them to be more tedious than challenging, which i don’t find fun. However regular Brutal difficulty is far too easy to provide a challenge. I want to suggest more difficulty levels or even customizable difficulty levels in regards to the stats (hp+, dmg+) of enemy units, without having to sort to brutal +.
5 Likes
Would be cool having a system like rifts in D3, which become increasingly challenging without annoying affixes.
4 Likes
That’s a cool concept Jazur, haven’t thought about that
2 Likes
This actually sounds like a genuinely good idea. Kind of tired of the big jump.
3 Likes
Yeah it seems kinda weird that the “difficulty” is equal to more disrupting gameplay by affixed instead of making it more challenging like the D3 rifts/m+ which are systems already in place in other blizzard game.
1 Like
What’s interesting is that in the map editor, Coop has two more difficulties above Brutal that aren’t used. They’re called “Extreme” and “Unlikely”.
6 Likes
i’d be happy enough if they at least just allowed us to queue with randoms in +2,3, and 4 at this point.
2 Likes
Dreams, tis but a dream.
3 Likes
Seriously?! I’m guessing that they favored mutations over difficulties, which is what Brutal+1-6 is.
1 Like
I’m with you there. I was thinking at least up to B+3.
1 Like
“Unlikely” is a weird word for a difficulty though.
1 Like
Yeah. It may have just been an internal placeholder that would have been given a more appropriate name if it had come to fruition.
It’s painful how easy they made brutal+1 after the nerfs, the interesting mutations only start appearing at b+3 and they get good at b+4, I understand where the “b+ is annoying” sense comes from because the brutal+1 mutations are simply annoying, but it gets pretty good at higher b+, it’s just a shame that you can’t play those in the random queue.
1 Like
What goes on here? Does it just up the stats?
If you read through the descriptions of B+1 to B+6, they use stuff like “you can routinely beat Brutal Mutations” and “you enjoy losing a lot”, so it seems par for the course.
In a way, I’m glad we don’t have anything above Brutal. If there’s XP involved, it would further divide the community. You’d get people who shouldn’t even be doing Brutal, let alone “Extreme”, queuing up for that.
1 Like
You could have the difficulties gated by your previous game.
“To play Extreme you must have just successfully completed a brutal mission”
“To play Unlikely you must hBe just successfully completed an Extreme mission”
“To play Brutal you must have just completed a hard mission”
You could do the same for queueing higher random B+ difficulties…
1 Like
Decent idea in theory, but that would also create a lot of tension between the players. If one is perceived as weak, or had an over ambitious build, then it could be seen as throwing the game to the other player.
Not to mention how much more damage someone trolling could accomplish.
1 Like
So you get dropped 1 difficulty and have to do an easier mission next time around? If someone plays poorly they won’t be at “unlikely” mission difficulty often anyway right and be less likely to intentionally screw it up if they did get it up there?
Well yes there will be there less lower skilled players, but not necessarily, since winning in coop is the sum of both player’s performance. If one barely knows RTS games but the other is capable of soloing the game then both win regardless.
More what I’m talking about though is attitude, people in general look to things other than themselves for a failure (just look at the general forums here). This happens in coop already, now consider that it would introduce an element of real loss as well.
You forget there are some hard trolls out there who thrive on this kind of system. So I for one am very glad it doesn’t work this way.
If we’re talking about a general average for the past 5 games to determine your available difficulty for the next game, then the system has some potential improvement.
For your specific idea, these toxic players who thrive on making people lose will do so for even more shiz and gigz. Also it doesn’t address the real issue, for example:
- Most recent TotP with a P3 Kerri who chose to do mass Zerglings against Terran Air. So all I can do is cover everywhere with Mengsk BCs. While it worked and we won, I’d hardly say this person should be going into the next difficulty.
- So should this partner go on and drag down the next person/game? I don’t think anyone would like that.
- At what point is it just more a bog-down system than incentive for the better? After all, sure several games later my particular partner is down to Normal for his general bad gameplay. That is only after likely 3-4 really bad games for several other players (who are not at my level).
- Why should those players suffer their loss(es) or simply have unenjoyable games, which leads them to lower difficulties for 1 bad player’s gameplay?
These are very real but unfortunate side-effects of this kind of system. That’s why in theory it sounds good but in practice, you’re hurting far more average players than helping.
1 Like