On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 07:46 +0200, Moon Pearl wrote:
> > :-)
> >
> > I should have emphasized the *strict*... I'm all for sorting the levels
> > *roughly* by difficulty, but throwing in a few easier levels sounds
> > like a good idea to me.
>
> Im sorry to be so stubborn, but I still think there will be no need to put
> easy levels between hard ones on purpose. Players will find some levels
> easier and harder by themselves, even if we *strictly* order them by
> difficulty.
Ok then, we could at least *try* to order them by difficulty. Here is the
ranking
scheme I would propose, to start off the discussion. We should rank the
difficulty
along several axes, for example according to the intelligence, dexterity, and
patience
required to solve the level. I think 5 levels of difficulty are enough for
each category,
their meaning could be something like this:
1 - very easy
2 - easy
3 - requires some experience
4 - difficult
5 - very difficult
Here are the first few levels from Enigma and Enigma3 ranked according to this
scheme:
Level pack: Enigma
----------------------------
Int. Dext. Pat.
#1 1 1 1
#2 1 1 1
#3 2 1 1
#4 1 1 2
#5 2 2 2
#6 1 2 2
#7 1 1 2
#8 1 2 1
#9 2 2 2
#10 1 1 2
#11 2 2 2
#12 1 3 2
#13 1 3 2
#14 3 1 2
...
Level pack: Enigma 3
--------------------------
Int. Dext. Pat.
#1 1 2 4
#2 1 3 2
#3 1 2 2
#4 4 1 2
#5 1 3 1
#6 2 1 3
#7 1 4 2
...
If we had those scores for every level, we could even display them in the level
menu!
Comments?
Daniel
_______________________________________________
Enigma-devel mailing list
Enigma-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/enigma-devel
