[Brainstorm] What If Dynamic Conclave Scaling Was Implemented?

[Vaskadar]

Preface

 

I think conclave scaling, if implemented well by the designers, could add a whole other level of replayability to the game's missions and therefore add value to the gameplay itself.

Now, I know that my idea of the system isn't fully thought-out, nor would it be perfect to implement just yet; however, I'm certain that this would alleviate some of the complaints of 'too little difficulty' when revisiting earlier content, and possibly 'too much difficulty' when fighting in the later missions. Granted, the reward tables would be adjusted to accommodate.

The higher the base level, the lower the multiplier, as players get closer and closer to the point at which late-game content is (supposed to be) balanced around.

 

The conclave rating of the players would not be displayed.

 

What it is Supposed to be

Conclave scaling, a difficulty scaling idea based on what rating your collective loadout has, would dynamically modify the difficulty depending on how powerful the mods you have equipped are. Collective conclave scaling would take the average of a group and apply that rating to the difficulty. Say for instance, a player doesn't have many good mods, but another player in the group does, it takes that number and averages the two out to find the middle ground between the two players, then applies that rating to the difficulty multiplier selected when choosing a mission.

 

A.I. Director and Behavior Modification

 

As suggested by Lorche, the artificial intelligence would (ideally) have more complex formations, more enemy variations, and better reactions to players at higher difficulties and levels. Enemy diversity should still remain at a per-level basis, meaning, more enemy types are introduced as the enemy levels get higher, a sort of reaction that the AI director could perform.

 

The causative lore-friendly explanation for this could be that the ship has turned over to high alert due to the presence of multiple Tenno on the vessel or in the vicinity of the facility that the faction is defending.

 

The Incentive For Higher Risk

The difficulty multiplier wouldn't be without reward, though. Higher levels should inherently mean better loot, credit rewards, and affinity rewards.

In addition to the usual multiplier, there would be a secondary multiplier that modifies the enemy spawn rate and enemy level dynamically, in-mission, depending on how many players there are. Solo/single player would have a reduced spawn rate and difficulty to adjust for not being able to revive oneself. Two-players would have a normal multiplier (i.e. 1.0x), three and four players would have respectively higher multipliers.

This is to address the consistent complaints of late-game missions being too easy on some accounts, whereas early-game missions are too hard for some.

 

Selecting Difficulty

 

Matchmaking preferences would determine whether or not the player will join a scaled mission. It will also determine what difficulty the player wishes to play the game at. Since the population of the game is already quite high, this shouldn't be too much of an issue.

 

When selecting a mission, there would be two other difficulty settings to choose (once beaten). The names of which are completely up in the air at the moment (I figured mastery rank names would work best here).

Disciple would be without scaling, and will be the default setting for the first time the player passes the mission. Players can play without scaling still, at this point. Rewards are not adjusted.

-The base difficulty of the game

Hunter would be the normal multiplier, with above average rewards

-This would be the most common difficulty choice, I'd think

Master would be the highest multiplier, with the highest rewards and best chances for rare drops and rare enemies

-This would be the late-game difficulty choice, seeing as how many players begin to min-max at late-game

-The AI director would be more aggressive in this setting

-This would obviate the need for a nightmare mode, completely obsolescing the RNG factor of the game mode in favor of more fair, but more challenging difficulty

 

Manually-Adjusted Scaling

 

While I'm not in favor of this because it doesn't take into account optional scaling, manual scaling keeps the difficulty scaling away from new players and puts the scaling more into the designer's hands. The three planets scaling would be excluded from would be Mercury, Venus, and Earth, if manually adjusted scaling were to be implemented instead of optional scaling.

Since this is a brainstorming thread, I'm looking for critiques on the idea.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Vaskadar

[Lorche]

That would be a problem (kinda) to players who are on different mastery level or people who purposely hanging out in lower level to test their weapons. The scaling would be either too high or too low for one party.

This would be wacky on pub-matchmaking system like we are now.

 

But if this implemented in the future Badlands map, this has potential to be a satisfying 'end-game' content; since this map definitely not a 'firing range' map.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Lorche

[Vaskadar]

Perhaps as a fully optional thing? I mean, the players should be able to vote on it, and have search preferences then. I hadn't thought about that, thanks.

[Skaleek]

I think conclave scaling is a great idea. It would allow dynamic difficulty.

[.Talia.]

Difficulty being scaled based on Conclave rating seems so logical, that its hard to imagine why this isn't implemented yet.

[Lorche]

Perhaps as a fully optional thing? I mean, the players should be able to vote on it, and have search preferences then. I hadn't thought about that, thanks.

 

That could be a thing, but I fear that it could widen the new player/veteran gap. Which is already wide at the moment

But it's just me thinking way far ahead. Back to brainstorming.

 

Now on second thought, I think 5 tier is kinda too much lol. Just 3 (for now) should suffice (kinda like the old tier in Void)

Also, it would be (kinda) better if the enemy's A.I. also scaling with the difficulties.

Like:

- Grineer making even more complex battle formation and lineup

- Corpus dynamically add more drones and proxies as they positioning their crewman in a clumsy, yet basic military formation (they are merchants, not soldiers. And they could read basic military positions from books)

- Infested are stepping up their 'hive mind' and learn to counter our movement.

 

A challenge isn't always about higher health pool and damage they could throw. It could be in the form of adaptability in more complex battles, situations, and map awareness. Or all of it.

 

But, I have no idea of how much coding this would need, and I seriously afraid this would bring too much meta in a fast-paced game like Warframe

Edited April 4, 2014 by Lorche

[Vaskadar]

I'd say having dynamic scaling (if implemented correctly) and AI would honestly be ideal.

 

At this moment, four-player co-op is too easy, whereas solo play is relatively difficult, even for the devs. I agree on the higher health pool and damage, Lorche. Mechanical difficulty, i.e. introducing more mechanics to increase difficulty would be ideal. Programming new AI movements and behaviors is difficult. Making them more inclined to hang onto cover and move from cover to cover, and adjusting their reactions would be a good step in the right direction.

 

I've updated the OP with suggested changes. The OP is a living document, meaning that any critical thinking put forth should be implemented.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Vaskadar

[notionphil]

I like the overall idea, but would imagine this should just be left out of early/mid game content entirely and it should simply be manually balanced.

 

Can you explain how dynamic conclave based scaling would interact with the "select a difficulty" option you presented?

 

Seems a bit overkill to have both, no?

[Volt_Cruelerz]

Auto-scaling difficulty is functionally the same as removing damage mods and enemy scaling.

 

I feel this would break the community apart a bit too much IMO.

[Vaskadar]

Auto-scaling difficulty is functionally the same as removing damage mods and enemy scaling.

 

I feel this would break the community apart a bit too much IMO.

 

As in a highly divisive mechanic? I'm not sure I understand how the two (auto-scaling and removal of damage mods) are equal. I suppose my post wasn't lucid or clear enough, or didn't fully explain how I'd imagine it to work.

 

Let's say you want to fight Captain Vor, and you want a real challenge from it, with better loot, etc., selecting (the completely optional) conclave scaling would produce a more on-level challenge for the player than the cakewalk that the game presents otherwise for a late-game player. The community (I'm pretty sure) is large enough to sustain this kind of divide without severe impact. The multiplier would adjust enemy levels, enemy behaviors, enemy types, and spawn rates to boost the level of difficulty proportionately to the number of players as well as the player equipment.

 

I'd like for this to add replayability to the game, honestly, something beyond the grind.

 

It'd be a separate matchmaking setting, rather, but I do see your point.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Vaskadar

[Volt_Cruelerz]

As in a highly divisive mechanic? I'm not sure I understand how the two (auto-scaling and removal of damage mods) are equal. I suppose my post wasn't lucid or clear enough, or didn't fully explain how I'd imagine it to work.

 

Let's say you want to fight Captain Vor, and you want a real challenge from it, with better loot, etc., selecting (the completely optional) conclave scaling would produce a more on-level challenge for the player than the cakewalk that the game presents otherwise for a late-game player. The community (I'm pretty sure) is large enough to sustain this kind of divide without severe impact. The multiplier would adjust enemy levels, enemy behaviors, enemy types, and spawn rates to boost the level of difficulty proportionately to the number of players as well as the player equipment.

 

I'd like for this to add replayability to the game, honestly, something beyond the grind.

 

It'd be a separate matchmaking setting, rather, but I do see your point.

They are functionally the same because enemies will always scale to your capabilities.  You may as well not have scaled at all.

 

While I agree that this is fine on some major missions like bosses and the big farming locations, it will make it harder to find a match elsewhere.

 

Also, once you open this door to letting players pick who they play with, you open the floodgates of manual matchmaking which entails a lot of things that would majorly fragment the community.

[AuroraSonicBoom]

The only thing I would use conclave rating for is a lowballing gamemode where you score more points the lower your conclave rating is.

[Vaskadar]

Perhaps I should be asking: Why is it that four player co-op is so much easier than solo? Why shouldn't they be equally difficult?

[Volt_Cruelerz]

Perhaps I should be asking: Why is it that four player co-op is so much easier than solo? Why shouldn't they be equally difficult?

Why is it easier? Revives+Support+More enemies can be reasonable killed

 

Why shouldn't it be the same?  It should be the same, but equal numbers of enemies required for equivalent drop rates is what leads to the problem.  I guess solo mode could have increased drop chances per enemy or something.

[Lorche]

Why is it easier? Revives+Support+More enemies can be reasonable killed

 

Why shouldn't it be the same?  It should be the same, but equal numbers of enemies required for equivalent drop rates is what leads to the problem.  I guess solo mode could have increased drop chances per enemy or something.

 

DE are thinking of giving people who had to solo everytime a way to enjoy the game.

I'm more inclined to, uh, differentiate RNG based on level (or time incase of survival.)

 

On lower level, the RNG is like, more chance of getting normal and uncommon drops

As the level progress, the RNG also shifted to more chance to getting uncommon and rare drops in progressive way.

But it's just a random thought of mine.

 

As for the conclave system, on second thought, this won't fit on Solar System. Thinking of lobby-system (I think DE wanted to pull that some point or later) or server, but like Volt said, it still bring a gap on new players/veteran.

 

The probably safe bet for this system to be implemented is on Badlands only, and put "Clear all nodes and have mastery rank of 10+ to enter" just as precaution to people who power-clearing the whole nodes with 'easy' setup. Not to alienate them, but more for a indirect nudge for them to experience more of the content before entering 'end-game' stuff. This most probably have glaring flaws (again, bringing manual matchmaking, which is bad), but it's the safest route (for now) to implement this.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Lorche

[Vaskadar]

I suppose this is turning into a super-thread on the difficulty curve and how to implement it.

I feel that there's one extreme or the other, as there seems to be no real in-between easy and truly frustrating. As a player with a sufficient amount of weapons (that have had forma applied to them, but not profuse amounts of forma), I find that the difficulty curve has gotten better since they introduced damage 2.0, but it still feels pretty off when you're going with the starter equipment, and it turns into a barrier for new players.

Damage 2.0 could be explained to players in a more clear way, and how to achieve certain effects with mods.