On 6/30/05, Moon Pearl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. Jacob _______________________________________________ Enigma-devel mailing list Enigma-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/enigma-devel
