New Difficulty System Name Suggestions

[top]

Re: New Difficulty System Name Suggestions

Easy
Hard
Dum

qft

[qqwref]

Re: New Difficulty System Name Suggestions

And now, for something pretty similar.

01- Easiest
02- For Beginners
03- Very Easy
04- Easy
05- Standard
06- Tricky
07- Difficult (D)
08- Difficult+ (D+)
09- Very Difficult (VD)
10- Very Difficult+ (VD+)
11- Challenging (C)
12- Challenging+ (C+)
13- Very Challenging (VC)
14- Very Challenging+ (VC+)
15- For Masters Only (FMO)
16- For Masters Only+ (FMO+)
17- For Gurus Only (FGO)
18- For Gurus Only+ (FGO+)
19- Brutal
20- Insane

[stavie33]

Re: New Difficulty System Name Suggestions

And now, for something pretty similar.

01- Easiest
02- For Beginners
03- Very Easy
04- Easy
05- Standard
06- Tricky
07- Difficult (D)
08- Difficult+ (D+)
09- Very Difficult (VD)
10- Very Difficult+ (VD+)
11- Challenging (C)
12- Challenging+ (C+)
13- Very Challenging (VC)
14- Very Challenging+ (VC+)
15- For Masters Only (FMO)
16- For Masters Only+ (FMO+)
17- For Gurus Only (FGO)
18- For Gurus Only+ (FGO+)
19- Brutal
20- Insane

I actually like this the most lol

[DossarLX ODI]

Re: New Difficulty System Name Suggestions

In agreement with qqwref's list. It makes the most sense.

[Zakvvv666]

Re: New Difficulty System Name Suggestions

Will certainly make acronyms easier to move to instead of a whole set of other names.

[bmah]

Re: New Difficulty System Name Suggestions

Only issue I see in that list is that it can appear more confusing. We're used to seeing stuff like "Difficult" and "Very Difficult" as individual components, but to someone else, it can be viewed as the splitting of a difficulty into two parts. Splitting that even further would appear more confusing. You'd have a title that's like the subgroup of another subgroup.
"What's Difficult+? Huh? That's not Very Difficult? Doesn't + imply it's very difficult?" a new user may think.

IMO, I think the list gives an overly micromanaging appearance. It would've been more appropriate if difficulties like "Challenging" didn't already have two terms with a magnitudinal description as their differences.

Otherwise, you may as well have Challenging, Very Challenging, Very Very Challenging, and Very Very Very Challenging.

[leonid]

Re: New Difficulty System Name Suggestions

Divide the 20 difficulties into five groups of four, and tell them apart by appending four different smilies to them.


01- For Beginners Only
02- For Beginners Only
03- For Beginners Only
04- For Beginners Only
05- Easy
06- Easy
07- Easy
08- Easy
09- Standard
10- Standard
11- Standard
12- Standard
13- Challenging
14- Challenging
15- Challenging
16- Challenging
17- For Masters Only
18- For Masters Only
19- For Masters Only
20- For Masters Only

[wildfireskunk]

Re: New Difficulty System Name Suggestions

I'm not big on the + signs next to the existing difficulties. bmah pinpoints the same problem I have in that having each word span four different difficulties is just untidy and not very nice.

[DossarLX ODI]

Re: New Difficulty System Name Suggestions

Actually, it would be the opposite. If a new user finds discussions that have taken place over the past nine years, then it will look very untidy and confusing. It's really not that hard to see that + means the higher end, lol (hell even look at FFR tournaments. hi19's tournament had D5 split into like four parts? D5A, D5B, D5C, and D5D. He also had a lot of subdivisions in D1 and so forth)

[MarioNintendo]

Re: New Difficulty System Name Suggestions

Only issue I see in that list is that it can appear more confusing. We're used to seeing stuff like "Difficult" and "Very Difficult" as individual components, but to someone else, it can be viewed as the splitting of a difficulty into two parts. Splitting that even further would appear more confusing. You'd have a title that's like the subgroup of another subgroup.
"What's Difficult+? Huh? That's not Very Difficult? Doesn't + imply it's very difficult?" a new user may think.

IMO, I think the list gives an overly micromanaging appearance. It would've been more appropriate if difficulties like "Challenging" didn't already have two terms with a magnitudinal description as their differences.

Otherwise, you may as well have Challenging, Very Challenging, Very Very Challenging, and Very Very Very Challenging.

I can only partly agree with this. It's true that, when you look at it, the "very"s and the "+"s can get confusing for newcomers. However, I also believe that, once you get to see the whole list to understand the logic behind it, it's hard to get confused. Maybe, when the new difficulties are applied, a quick reminder in the engine (like a help panel when you first log in that would also be available afterwards somewhere) would be the solution to this problem you mentioned. We could also go directly in the newbie forums to make a poll or something to see how the newcomers react to the list.

[igotrhythm]

Re: New Difficulty System Name Suggestions

I like this idea a lot. Get a post in the newbie forums so we can get a larger sample of the community involved, instead of just the opinions of those that have strong opinions regarding file difficulty.

However, if a news post isn't going to get people's attention, I don't see a sticky/announcement doing much either. Still, can't hurt to try it.

[bmah]

Re: New Difficulty System Name Suggestions

It's really not that hard to see that + means the higher end, lol

And as I said, would be fine IF it wasn't for the fact that there were already magnitudinal descriptions for these old difficulties.

If there was such a system like:

Difficult
Difficult+
Challenging
Challenging+
etc.

I would be perfectly fine with this. But you already have "Very" describing high and low ends of these magnitudes, so further dissecting it with "+" would be even less straightforward. Right now, you're proposing for:

{Name}
- {Subname}
- - {Subsubname}

I propose to either think of a few new names to replace descriptions with "very", or go back to many other people's suggestions with unique descriptions for each difficulty.

[DossarLX ODI]

Re: New Difficulty System Name Suggestions

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself on how for the past nine years these difficulties have been used. Back in 2005 when I first was playing FFR I wasn't confused by "Challenging" and "Very Difficult". Using + is *nothing* like saying very very difficult, because if I was a newbie back in 2005, I was 11 years old and basically knew very little about the game at all, and knew that very difficult was a lower rating than challenging, there isn't going to be that confusion compared to coming up with names that will make older discussions way more confusing.

I would think "very difficult" would be harder than "challenging" back in that time, but I knew the ratings and it made sense with the discussions at the time. "Oh hey, this is only challenging. But this is very difficult? Wait, what is Very challenging supposed to be? What does it compare to?"

[bmah]

Re: New Difficulty System Name Suggestions

But back then, you didn't have a second descriptor subdividing it even further. You had "challenging" and "very challenging". You didn't have "challenging", "challenging+", "very challenging", "very challenging+". That's way too many subdivisions. A new user may not see that as very intuitive. One subdivision's enough.

[qqwref]

Re: New Difficulty System Name Suggestions

Honestly I don't even see the "Very" as a subdivision anymore. A VC isn't an extra hard C file, it's a separate difficulty entirely.

We don't even have to use the +s - actually, we could just have (for instance) both 15 and 16 be called For Masters Only, like what we always did with the 1-99 system. It might be a little confusing at first but I think people would quickly realize that 15 means "a low FMO" and 16 means "a high FMO".

Bonus: Oni doesn't become yet again even harder to achieve...