>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.
I think levels were really ordered by difficulty in Oxyd. But there are
different types of difficulty. It can be based upon dexterity, it can be a
hard puzzle, it can also be based upon the player's knowledge of the game
(like for example what an item becomes once exposed to a laser). I think we
are all more competent in a specific area, and that's what make us find some
hard levels easier than others.
So, I don't think that we *need* to mix up harder and easier levels. The
players will find their balance themselves.
Aurore.
_______________________________________________
Enigma-devel mailing list
Enigma-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/enigma-devel
