Higher Difficulty = Higher Rewards?

In my opinion...

The difficulty setting is a way for me to control my game experience. Without a reward, I choose a difficulty level to ensure that I'm sufficiently challenged. That's why I never play on Easy, even when it offers the same benefits of playing on Hard/Hardcore.

When you incentivize the difficulty scheme by offering more EXP, or a better ending, or extra content, I feel coerced into taking the higher difficulty setting. I do not like to be coerced into any decision. 

To me, beating a game on hard/hardcore is its own reward.

In another thread...

This is true. However, other developers (Blizzard, InExile, Obsidian, Larian, etc) recognize that players will play a challenging hardcore mode just for the sake of the challenge. That is why you see a hardcore mode in Diablo II/III, Pillars of Eternity, Divinity: Original Sin, Grimrock, and many other games. Those games have hardcore modes that did not offer any tangible benefits other than bragging rights (and potential achievements).

As you said... If a game is good, it should be worth playing over and over. That is what hardcore perma-death modes make you do.

Agreed.  I never like being coerced into higher difficulties. Hard mode is its own reward. X-Com (Waves at Firaxis!!!!) is a great example of this.  I set Iron Man mode because I wanted to, and it was a great choice, which made for some great stories!  And let's face it, the stories are far better than "loot, exp, whatever."

Nobody remembers their Staff Of Whatever from WoW, but I hear so many people talking about the glory days of Vanilla WoW, which was hard and awkward, and made so many great stories!

Star Control is built to make stories (I know SC2 certainly was!) and hard mode, if it makes for more of those memorable tales, will be a reward unto itself. 

P.S. that means I'm in favor of different difficulties, but not necessarily with different rewards.

I'll be more philosophical and relay a concept I thought of long ago while making a mod for a football game...

"Sauce for the goose, Mr. Savik, the odds will be even."  Mr. Spock was wrong.  The odds were not even.  Entering the nebula gave Captain Kirk an advantage.  When you raise the level of difficulty, you make the difference between the average and the expert more pronounced.

I like difficulty settings, and I enjoy hardcore (permadeath) - but as much as I like doing it for bragging rights; I also feel great if I get something out of it that is more tangible. It doesn't have to be a big deal.

A single planet that is unique (present in both hardcore and non-hardcore) that has 15 monuments to the 15 most successful hardcore playthroughs. 10 Dedicated to my own playthroughs; and potentially 5 more that are global.

Something to consider is that difficulty levels aren't always just a factor of desire, or reward. For myself, these days, time is a more significant factor than anything. I used to enjoy the most challenging difficulty levels, just for the experience it provided. Now, with very few hours to give to gaming directly, I usually choose normal or easy, depending on the genre and what's available. In that way, I'd lean towards difficulty levels having more intrinsic rewards (achievements, etc), rather than having too dramatic an effect.

And also to consider, there's other ways to reward game skill outside of direct difficulty settings, that are more performance based. E.g. Doing something better than average gives you something extra. Say, if you win a battle with fewer ships lost than expected, or save a species from plague before half their population has died (with the assumption there isn't a fail state/it isn't possible for the whole population to die).

If it's possible with the tools, the rewards outside of a setting are going to be what I put in my alt universe. 

One point I might add...

Bragging rights are... for braggarts. They are an out-of-game reward for those that complete the game on a harder setting.

In my case, I know very well that, once the game is released, I will probably play it alone (if there is a coop mode, with my GF), and never go on a forum again.

I'm just not that kind of gamer. I don't feel the need to compete against others, I don't feel the need to relate to faceless people with a funny avatar. Of what use is a hardcore mode if the only thing I get is that the enemy ships take more hits before they go down, and that there are more of them?

The way this is being discussed, a "hardcore" or "hard" mode includes only combat, which is a big "Meh" for me.  Of course, if SD can get me hooked to the SCR combat, that will be another matter entirely. But no combat game has hooked me so far, so I wouldn't bet on it happening this time around either

Higher Rewards for Higher Difficulty seems reasonable. Even if it is only to get a Steam badge.

What I think is that people who want to enjoy the game for the story need not play hardcore or whatever.

The game in itself in normal (or story mode) should be engaging in itself and be focused on the story and adventure.

So then what to put in hardcore? Example...

Well hardcore could be where you turn on the micromanagement and crafting system.

Any base or item or whatever you have to find blueprints and craft the items and micromanage the whatever.

The reward in itself would be the ability to have greater control on what to craft and how to craft it unlike the normal/story mode game where items are are story based and are available according to the storyline and there is no micromanagement.

This would be a good fit and would satisfy both worlds.

In summary:

Normal or story mode: No micromanagement, standard items that are obtained through the course of the story/adventure like SC2. Tops about maybe 300 hours gameplay.

Hardcore mode: Adjustable micromanagement difficulty (from easy to hardcore), blueprints and crafting and farming/grinding. Minimum 500 hours gameplay.

Apologies. This isn't entirely what I meant. Think "pride" rather than "bragging". If I beat a game on the hardest setting (or solo a boss without getting hit), I usually don't brag about it. But... I always feel proud.

It usually is tied to combat. There are fewer opportunities to make the story "harder" other than by beefing up combat. This is especially true when you have a game without true player stats/attributes.

One person wanted timers, and those could be harsher on higher difficulties. I will leave the merits/demerits of this to the Timed Quests topic.

You mention Blizzard. Are you completely oblivious to the Mythic raiding rewards in World of Warcraft? They are the EPITOME of higher risk/higher challenge = higher reward. 

Quoting Tovanion, reply 8

One point I might add...

 

Bragging rights are... for braggarts. They are an out-of-game reward for those that complete the game on a harder setting.

 

In my case, I know very well that, once the game is released, I will probably play it alone (if there is a coop mode, with my GF), and never go on a forum again.

 

I'm just not that kind of gamer. I don't feel the need to compete against others, I don't feel the need to relate to faceless people with a funny avatar. Of what use is a hardcore mode if the only thing I get is that the enemy ships take more hits before they go down, and that there are more of them?

 

The way this is being discussed, a "hardcore" or "hard" mode includes only combat, which is a big "Meh" for me.  Of course, if SD can get me hooked to the SCR combat, that will be another matter entirely. But no combat game has hooked me so far, so I wouldn't bet on it happening this time around either

Hardcore mode (as described by a self-professed hardcore player):

Detailed management of crew and starbases. Repairs for individual ships may take days, even weeks or months of game time. A ship's captain can die when it takes damage, rendering the ship at half-efficiency until a new captain can take their place. Diplomacy takes into account the ships you have in your fleet; if you take a ship belonging to this new race's sworn enemy upon first contact, diplomacy just won't happen. Alliances take work to maintain, if you don't come to help them or if you ignore their requests, they'll eject themselves. Fuel efficiency is determined not only by fuel tanks and thrusters, but also the number of modules on a ship. Asteroids actually deal damage. I can't really think of more to add to this list, but you get the idea.

But yeah, Tov, I agree. Either have hardcore mode give something tangible, even just an achievement and maybe an in-game title or something, or don't put one in at all.

I'm not familiar with that particular system, but I am familiar with MMOs, high end content, and high end gear. I am also familiar with WHY they implemented this. They keep adding hard content at the top of the MMO to keep people playing and paying. If it were easy, people would clear it, lose interest, and stop subscribing.

But consider this...Just before I quit FFXIV:ARR, they added extremely high-end "brutal" mode for the end-game raid dungeon (Binding Coil of Bahamut turns 1-9). Brutal mode dropped the same level of gear that normal Coil did. The only thing you got was a title. Yet high-end raid groups were pushing to clear that just for the extra challenge and pride/bragging rights.

So... Wait... This is what you wanted? This was on the level that I was proposing to begin with (bragging rights and an achievement). Hahahaha... Ok then.

Always love a Star Trek reference and your right. Higher difficulty does make the difference far more pronounced between casual and master gamer. It is one of the reasons I tell people a game is not beaten until you can finish on the hardest settings.

I don't agree that higher risk=higher reward is always necessary. Lets face it, many of us do remarkably difficult things just so we can have a little achievement next to our steam account that says we did it (How many people here actually did spend weeks destroying all 20,000 Grox planets in Spore?). Even then, many times do we self impose our own restraints on games to make them harder (Beat Final Fantasy 1 with only 1 White Mage. That's was a favorite of mine). Even when not looking for bragging rights, we often do it to make the game last longer and feel fresh again and again.

To that last part about locking in the difficulty, I am mixed. Personally, I feel that if you change difficulty to a easier setting mid-game it amounts to cheating. That said, I also don't think that a player should be punished because 5 hours in they realized they bit off more then they can chew and must start over to correct the problem. It would really depend on the type of game itself. In games where difficulty affects mostly the environment around you and not the narrative (Like Star Control, Wing Commander, Mass Effect and Fallout for ex.) I can see the use of a shift able difficulty setting. In games where difficulty is key to how the narrative can play out (More RPG/Multi Ending games then I can count do this) then the concept of a changeable difficulty causes problems and is at best, difficult to include.

I think what it comes down to, is difficulty just a modifier or does it affect how the story can play out? If Star Control is to be an adventure game, then I can see both as possibilities, depending on the writing.

See, I think you misunderstood my definition of tangibility. Like, if the only thing you got out of it was a title that displayed in multiplayer, or a portrait, or a portrait border, that's all I'd really want. That way you can indicate your prestige in a way that can't be faked. That's the different between a tangible reward and "bragging rights". Something other players cannot deny.

A border that other players can see or a title that is used in multiplayer, that won't change a thing for me, since I don't really care about what other players will see or not, given that I will *not* interact with other players once the game is released.

My take on it is this: if I'm in babyland, I should expect baby toys. If I'm in a more difficult setting, I should get a few perks.

It's like wanting to experience real-life combat and have soldier skills while remaining on your couch and sip Mountain Dew. You're going to have to choose either the comfort of your couch or the difficulty and rewards of the soldier's life (no, paintball doesn't count as real-life combat experience - you get to drink a Mountain Dew with your enemies after the match, you don't get to bury your family and friends).

What kind of perks?

One of the problems I have with giving tangible game balance affecting rewards is that they end up making the game easier.

Higher difficulty = More EXP? Great! Now my characters will be even more overleveled for the content they are completing.

Higher difficulty = More Enemies? Great! That inadvertently increases the amount of EXP you get as well as the amount of loot you find.

Higher difficulty = Best Weapon? Great! That means that I can kill those harder enemies easier.

(The other issue is the coercive element that these rewards provide, but I have discussed that already.)

(sigh)

IBNobody, you're thinking only in terms of game mechanics, which inevitably leads to power inflation, a skewed arms race, and the rest of the consequences.

Try to think outside the box. Perks could be:

-Access to a different secondary ability which is in no way OP but that allows me to fight in a different fashion.

-New dialogue options that allow me to "finish" the game with a different ending.

-A ship module that doesn't take one of the usual slots and that allows me to launch fireworks every time I best an enemy group

-In-game recognition that I'm a bad-ass space pirate mercenary. Ex: Druuge says: "The Crimson Corporation has put a bounty on your head that is quite significant. I am hesitant to try and collect it, since many of our starship captains have found their demise facing you, Captain Zelnick-the-Hardcore."

Sure... Sure... But some of the ideas you proposed do affect the game. (Your firework idea was good, though.)

A different secondary ability: If it changes how a ship can fight, it changes the balance of combat. That's pretty cut-and-dry.

A new game ending: If you open up additional dialog options and quest resolutions based on the the difficulty setting, you are basically giving the finger to everybody playing SCR for the storyline. I expect that there will be a number of people that will play on Easy because there are a number of Founders that have admited they hated combat. It also breaks immersion... "I''m sorry, sir, but you can't select the dialog option that you want because, apparently, you are playing on Easy."

In-game recognition that of being a bad-ass space pirate mercenary: You earned this how? By adjusting a difficulty slider? Wouldn't the Druuge react this way if you proved yourself by destroying 50 of their ships, regardless of difficulty?

Honestly, the only "tangible" rewards that are acceptable are cosmetic only. If you touch the story, it's just as bad as touching the combat mechanics.

These ships, being so simple, are even more sensitive than that.  Lots of people have talking about upgrades and things for ships, but any change to any ship really fundamentally changes what that ship is because there are so few variables involved.  Speed, thrust, maneuverability, crew, energy.  2 Weapons/devices.  That's it, that's all these ships are in the end.  They completely define what a given ship is, so changing any of their attributes fundamentally changes what that ship is because they are so simple.

This is one of the reason why I was suggesting noticeable, tangible upgrades if there are going to be upgrades for the "satellite ships".  Things like going from single fire to multifire or adding a property to a weapon.  If you are going to fundamentally change what a ship is, make it something that is visually noticeable.  

Except that there's totally precedents of games that cut major chunks of story if you aren't on the hardest difficulty. World of Warcraft comes to mind, you can't see how the expansion's primary story arc concludes unless you're completing content on Mythic difficulty. Undertale's story is incomplete unless you finish it 3 different times (and the npcs can tell it's not your first run to boot), New Vegas has alternate quests for those playing on Hardcore mode in the dlc. The Firaxis interpretation of XCOM not only has difficulty endings, but also Ironman endings and endings that depend on you not only being on the hardest difficulty, but not losing a single soldier and keeping the support of every nation. The entire Kingdom Hearts series has at least 10 hours of gameplay that don't show up if you don't beat an optional boss (Sephiroth).  That's just a handful of examples, there's certainly more, and these are all EXTREMELY successful games/franchises.

I don't see the need for difficulty settings to exist, to my mind they're one more thing that can be botched in making a game. I've played a ton of games where difficulty changes things in the most unimaginative of ways that doesn't lead to a more enjoyable experience or something you feel better for overcoming, but simply a more frustrating one. I don't see that Starcontrol needs a slider.

^ Should we get a Frustration Setting then? Higher frustration = lower reward.

Sure, there is precedent for developers doing all sorts of dumb things and getting away with it. Look at EA. Are we supposed to like it?

Unfortunately, I wasn't a Founder in any of those games you mentioned and didn't have a say.

(BTW: I have no problem with optional hard bosses in games that gate content. Even in "normal" mode, it's nice to have some challenging encounters so that you can gauge your skill and progress through the game. I'm even okay putting overpowered rewards behind those bosses. If I can clear an optional boss, I'm already powerful enough to steamroll through all story encounters.)

Quoting Hunam_, reply 23

^ Should we get a Frustration Setting then? Higher frustration = lower reward.

You joke, but this IS how most difficulty sliders work.

Sure. That's a valid argument.

The only thing I'd like to see the difficulty setting change in SCR is the skill of the AI.

In SC2, an "Awesome Cyborg" AI would wipe the floor with the casual player. (The AI was so good for a few of the ships that it actually had to be dialed back.) The best thing about the AI was that it didn't cheat. It just became a better pilot. I would hope that SCR carries this forward.