I already knew the full context of the post because I can read. But, again, you want to read in it what YOU want because he is not saying at all that he stands still and let enemies hit him and they do no damage. He simply stated that by now mobs do barely any damage and that can be either a factor of what you say or a factor of doing so much damage that they don't have a chance to build enough damage to seriously harm you. Since I know the game (and probably a little better than you) I have the feeling that it's the latter, since nobody stands still while having mobs hitting him.
I already knew the full context of the post because I can read. But, again, you want to read in it what YOU want because he is not saying at all that he stands still and let enemies hit him and they do no damage. He simply stated that by now mobs do barely any damage and that can be either a factor of what you say or a factor of doing so much damage that they don't have a chance to build enough damage to seriously harm you. Since I know the game (and probably a little better than you) I have the feeling that it's the latter, since nobody stands still while having mobs hitting him.
It's not nonsense. It is a legitimate distinction. I'm not saying anything should be different or this should even reflect in the game, or be mandatory, or anything.
I'm also NOT talking from a game mechanics perspective.
I am commenting on a specific sentence you wrote in response to another user, outlining some considerations.
That's all.
I never know how to reply to these sort of comments. It is not meant as a mechanic perspective, it is not meant to make a point about something, it is not meant to have a practical value, so what's meant for? Maybe you haven't noticed by we are in a gaming forum here, not in a philosophical board.
That is NOT what it means. When a mob hits you it will do damage. You go into this crazy zone of trying to differentiate between standing still and dodging. A hit is a hit is a hit. Simple to understand that. Of course we don't stand still silly. But these hits are supposed to barely do any damage so IF, repeat IF I did stand still I should survive doznes of hits because after all they are doing barely any damage. Kapish?
Now how much damage does it do? He says barely any. He did not quantify that but to me that means 1-2% of my health. Didn't matter what I was doing. A hit will do it's damage. So I asked what build + equip does he have to only allow barely any damage (1-2%). I think he was exaggerating here and I'm calling him out. There may be a build but I'm not aware of it.
So Mr. Wizard since you know the game better than all of us please enlighten us with your great knowledge. What build + equip can we use where Imlerith will only do barely any damage when he hits us? Bet you can't come up with one. Bet that no matter what build+equip you list a high level mob will kill you in around 6 hits and maybe less if they crit.
Maybe the best option is either address them in their context or not replying, it's not as if it's rude not to.
It was meant as a... comment on what the other user said and possibly meant.
This is not philosophy. It's a simple consideration on the distinction between game mechanic related difficulty and story related one. In response to what a user said.
I apologise for having wasted precious virtual space.
Even going into "philosofical" field, there is nothing story related that should make you feel like a badass by slashing late game monsters in the hardest setting. Those lvl 1 wild dogs maybe, not the Fiends, Griphons and etc...
Is not as if Gerald is a demi-god that had amnesia so starts week but as he regains his memory and power he becomes ubber.
---------- Updated at 09:27 PM ----------
To be honest, for ME , my thoughest challenges in this game (started in Death March).
1)1st ghouls you meet
2) The first Griphon
3)Jenny from the woods (cuz i was a few lvls behind the required)
4)Irmilith (that was a cool fight. maybe harder cuz i went full sign in all trees and griphon setting and the F* is imune).
I will not lie and say I didn't die to other stuff in the game, wich i Did, but yes the game could improve in some areas, imo.
Is not as if Gerald is a demi-god that had amnesia so starts week but as he regains his memory and power he becomes ubber.
---------- Updated at 09:27 PM ----------
To be honest, for ME , my thoughest challenges in this game (started in Death March).
1)1st ghouls you meet
2) The first Griphon
3)Jenny from the woods (cuz i was a few lvls behind the required)
4)Irmilith (that was a cool fight. maybe harder cuz i went full sign in all trees and griphon setting and the F* is imune).
I will not lie and say I didn't die to other stuff in the game, wich i Did, but yes the game could improve in some areas, imo.
Then why does he in fact start off weak where the wild dogs can kill him?
It really is a philosophical discussion. Most focus on his power at the end but it's just as valid to focus on his weakness at the start. And the answer is the same for both. It's a game where they alloy you to get stronger.
And you should get stronger against those dogs, or ghouls and etc... MAYBE even to a point of buttom mashing, but not against higher lvl mobs (wich the game lacks) or against higher lvl single monsters. Means the game should make you have a sense of progression while not make it a cakewalk towards late game.
I thing the most gripe people have is about the scaling. Game starts challenging enough than it just turns into a cake walk for most.
"You're character should be OP, because Geralt is a bad ass"
I've seen this line of thought touted a few times in this thread as a reason for keeping the difficulty down, but isn't feeling like a bad ass a bit subjective?
I've installed a few mods for my current play through to liven it up a bit and keep it fresh, one of the mods being Better Combat Enhanced. I wouldn't recommend this mod to everyone, only people looking for an extra challenge they can't get from the vanilla game. I'm playing it on the hardest setting, so you can imagine it's no walk in the park, most encounters feel epic (or will do once I get further in), but I'm definitely getting that bad ass feeling overcoming the odds in this play through using all the tools at my disposal than I did face rolling my vanilla play through.
I think people should realise that not all gamers are equal skill wise, that is why we have difficulty options. Easy should be a cake walk, normal should be moderately challenging, hard should be tough and death march, well that should be as described by the game itself, "you're truly insane and loving it".
Last edited:
speak for yourself, tw3 was very hard for me at the beginning, on normal
And what about now? Now you presumably have considerable hours under your belt? Of course you need to learn how to play in the beginning.
Once you've finished or feel like you've mastered the game what do you do? Sadly some people are finding that mods are their only option to increase the difficulty on their next play through, the discussion here is should we have to mod the game to make it challenging? Shouldn't the hardest difficulty be sufficient? Not all of us play on PC, so that rules out mods for them.
Someone even posted a few pages back how CDPR hyped up the difficulty in an interview before release, was this just all marketing BS to get more sales? Or do they genuinely believe death march difficulty is 'truly insane'?
It doesn't really bother me anymore to be honest, I bought this for PC because I didn't want to miss out on awesome mods that increase the longevity of the game. But the vanilla game is much easier than I was lead to believe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2yEiW_pK0g&feature=youtu.be
From my Brazilian friend. On Death March.
Yep... now there will be people saying "dont use bombs".
From my Brazilian friend. On Death March.
Yep... now there will be people saying "dont use bombs".
It's quite obvious it's more like "Don't use exploits"
Marketing BS? Difficulty is subjective. I am good at all games I play yet I found Witcher 3 on Blood and Bones to be brutally difficult for most of the game.
Granted I have always had my own distinct playstyle in Witcher games that naturally make the game harder.
I'm not telling you to play like I do. I don't care how you play. Some people have their own philosophy in which difficulty is not up to the gamer and that it is purely up to the developer to determine. This is fine, but don't close your mind there and completely disregard other forms of difficulty just because they are not set in stone. Fact is the game is as easy or as hard as you make it. You may personally not believe in this but it stands true. CDPR didn't lie about anything.
Last edited:
Our friend, Geralt of Rivia, finds himself at the 26minute mark, exploring the mountains of Velen. Suddenly he happened upon two Wyvern nests - many levels above his own and on the highest difficulty.
Feeling cocky, Geralt readied his oils and bombs, and set forth to cleanse the mountain of the dracanoids. Midway through vanquishing the twin beasts, a Royal Wyvern, the largest seen in years, attacked Geralt. After a long and tiring battle, a new trophy would be his.. http://www.twitch.tv/thy_reapermc/b/674618076
... Sorry, mate. Couldn't help myself
The game is difficult if you take on too much too quickly. If you take things like a hunter would, ie, taking single enemies out of a pack, tiring out larger opponents and never attacking longer than needed, than the game is quite easy.
The moment one stops respecting the potential damage of all enemies, the game becomes hard.... And on a console, a loooooong reloading process. It's incentive enough to learn to smarter.
Feeling cocky, Geralt readied his oils and bombs, and set forth to cleanse the mountain of the dracanoids. Midway through vanquishing the twin beasts, a Royal Wyvern, the largest seen in years, attacked Geralt. After a long and tiring battle, a new trophy would be his.. http://www.twitch.tv/thy_reapermc/b/674618076
... Sorry, mate. Couldn't help myself
The game is difficult if you take on too much too quickly. If you take things like a hunter would, ie, taking single enemies out of a pack, tiring out larger opponents and never attacking longer than needed, than the game is quite easy.The moment one stops respecting the potential damage of all enemies, the game becomes hard.... And on a console, a loooooong reloading process. It's incentive enough to learn to smarter.
Our friend, Geralt of Rivia, finds himself at the 26minute mark, exploring the mountains of Velen. Suddenly he happened upon two Wyvern nests - many levels above his own and on the highest difficulty.
Feeling cocky, Geralt readied his oils and bombs, and set forth to cleanse the mountain of the dracanoids. Midway through vanquishing the twin beasts, a Royal Wyvern, the largest seen in years, attacked Geralt. After a long and tiring battle, a new trophy would be his.. http://www.twitch.tv/thy_reapermc/b/674618076
... Sorry, mate. Couldn't help myself
The moment one stops respecting the potential damage of all enemies, the game becomes hard.... And on a console, a loooooong reloading process. It's incentive enough to learn to smarter.
And tell me, in how many areas a thing like that can happen? Because, out of my memory, I know only about 3/4 instances in where you can aggro powerful encounters one next the other (and it also requires for you to have opened them prior). So, sincerely, basing a concept of making a game difficult for yourself out of 3/4 instances in hundreds of them it's a little, let's say... problematic.
---------- Updated at 07:52 AM ----------
Oh really? Well that's interesting... I would like to understand how you play because, you know, if mathematic is not an opinion in BB by middle game you do about 1.5 times the damage of practically 90% of the enemies you encounter plus you can either have permanent vitality/permanent stamina/permanent DPS effects on hit, depending on the route you go (alchemy, signs, sword).
It's simply impossible if you play normally (i.e. without voluntarily gimping yourself by not taking skills/upgrading items) to have Broken Bones a challenging difficulty after about level 15 and this is not a matter of opinion, it's a fact (a mathematical fact by comparing stats in the game engine).
I'm sorry but looking at your previous posts I cannot but notice how you say completely wrong things on the matter as if you neither played the game. You insist that you can gimp yourself in the game by not choosing OP skills (it doesn't matter because, as it has been pointed to you, the skill effect itself is icing on the cake, but there's already an innate bonus on the generic skill - based on which tree it is located - that causes you to become much more powerful after you sum some of them up), you insist there are no i-frames in dodging (that's completely false as dodging clearly has i-frames in the first half of the animation), you insist that Broken Bones difficulty is challenging (even when it's mathematically impossible for it to be such by a certain point). It seems like you have to defend the game at all costs, no matter what absurdity you need to come up with.
---------- Updated at 08:10 AM ----------
I'm sorry if you have taken my reply as rude, it was not meant to be such. It is just that I really didn't know how to reply to it, because you were talking about users "feelings". Excuse me but what's the point of discussing what individual users feelings can be on the issue? Mechanical behavior on a game should be based around objective parameters (established by the genre) and "feelings" of users on the matter have no impact whatsoever.
Moreover the particular situation you were talking about would be completely the fault of the user him/herself (as I explained), on not understanding the context of what difficulties mean in a game.
Last edited:
Meh, I thought Wild Hunt was challenging enough. If you ramp up the difficulty to Death March and don't put any points into "suns and stars" (i.e. rely solely on Swallow and food to regenerate), the game packs a punch. Even at level 35 with Mastercrafted Wolf Armor, I found some of the lower level npcs getting a good hit in every now and then. I still had to make effective use of dodge and the Witcher signs.
Nah, should be fine now. The mod is quite mature at this point. I'd advise most people to use the mod because a lot of people helped balance it out and it's still getting weekly updates. The game is quite a challenge on Deathmarch and you need to know your stuff. No longer can you just spam anything.
And Gwent is balanced as well for an extra plus. I'd probably do normal or Blood if you are just looking to have some fun. You can look at all the changes on the site. Mod was updated to 2.11 with some significant things: http://www.nexusmods.com/witcher3/mods/139/?
Last edited:
Difficulty is indeed subjective, but the hardest difficulty should be hard, very hard. I would think that goes without saying. Maybe I'm alone in this way of thinking, but that's my opinion. But when devs make statements like "It’s the same with the difficulty – there’s a nice curve. It gets more difficult the more you progress in the game", I'll call them out on it, that is straight up BS, it's not at all how my game played out. Other's in this thread have also made similar claims.
I also played blood & bones on my first play through and brutal is not what I'd call it, not even close. But we've established that you choose to gimp yourself as to not become too powerful, which is your choice, but of course that effects how well you do. Part of the fun for me in RPGs is coming up with strong builds, so it makes sense that I'm having an easier time of it.
I like to think I have a pretty open mind, I accept that players like yourself are fine with the current death march difficulty and down the track will just adjust your build to increase the difficulty for yourself. However I don't believe CDPR were referring to this way of playing when describing how difficult the game was.
---------- Updated at 11:39 AM ----------
What exploit was he using? Bombs?
There always will be people for which the game is either too easy or too hard, no matter the difficulty setting. It doesn't make the game "unbalanced".
I do agree that it gets easier even on Death March as you level up, but it's still highly challenging enough for the crushing majority of players.
They won't, and don't have to make the game even more difficult to satisfy the whims of a tiny minority of players - and I'm one of these, as I love insane difficulties.
So I concur in what have been said : use mods. Period.
Alternatively, you can do what I used to do in other games to make them more challenging and realistic:
- Only manually save at "safe" places, such as inns, camps, villages and cities, and discard automatic saving (other than for recovering from game crashes or obvious bugs).
- Don't consume food or health potions in the middle of a fight. Because, seriously.
- Don't use perks giving you unrealistic boosts (such as the one giving you more health regen, for example).
- Limit yourself on what you're carrying, because having 5 swords and 3 sets of armors in your inventory just isn't realistic. It also means you'll indirectly earn less revenue by selling loot, making the equipment management and upgrade more complex.
- Any other similar tweak you can think of.
By mixing all this, the result is no more "fighting against all odds" bullshit, after a couple failures, you'll find yourself fleeing or avoiding deadly conflicts, as anyone with a brain and without a death wish would do (including a witcher), and learning to behave in a more well-thought way in your fights and wanderings.
I used to do that kind of things with games such as Stalker (with insane difficulty mods to make it even more challenging), and it's much more rewarding then, when your choices leads to greater consequences on the long haul: you tend to be more careful and realistic in your behaviours, as any misstep matters more, and you're more on a survival path than a uberpwning one.
It's a more rewarding and interesting type of difficulty in my opinion, much more than bluntly raising levels, hitpoints, damages and number of opponents.
Beside theatrical boss fights, fights that lasts minutes aren't realistic or challenging to me. I don't want to grind a healthbar. I want a meaningful feeling of risk and consequences.
I've been an Eve Online player for over 10 years, so maybe it affects the way I perceive the whole difficulty/risk/consequence issue.
But as a gamer for 25 years, it just makes sense to me. I've had my share of "hard-mode" games that just drops mountains of resistance and health to grind at. And it's nowhere interesting or challenging.
I do agree that it gets easier even on Death March as you level up, but it's still highly challenging enough for the crushing majority of players.
They won't, and don't have to make the game even more difficult to satisfy the whims of a tiny minority of players - and I'm one of these, as I love insane difficulties.
So I concur in what have been said : use mods. Period.
Alternatively, you can do what I used to do in other games to make them more challenging and realistic:
- Only manually save at "safe" places, such as inns, camps, villages and cities, and discard automatic saving (other than for recovering from game crashes or obvious bugs).
- Don't consume food or health potions in the middle of a fight. Because, seriously.
- Don't use perks giving you unrealistic boosts (such as the one giving you more health regen, for example).
- Limit yourself on what you're carrying, because having 5 swords and 3 sets of armors in your inventory just isn't realistic. It also means you'll indirectly earn less revenue by selling loot, making the equipment management and upgrade more complex.
- Any other similar tweak you can think of.
By mixing all this, the result is no more "fighting against all odds" bullshit, after a couple failures, you'll find yourself fleeing or avoiding deadly conflicts, as anyone with a brain and without a death wish would do (including a witcher), and learning to behave in a more well-thought way in your fights and wanderings.
I used to do that kind of things with games such as Stalker (with insane difficulty mods to make it even more challenging), and it's much more rewarding then, when your choices leads to greater consequences on the long haul: you tend to be more careful and realistic in your behaviours, as any misstep matters more, and you're more on a survival path than a uberpwning one.
It's a more rewarding and interesting type of difficulty in my opinion, much more than bluntly raising levels, hitpoints, damages and number of opponents.
Beside theatrical boss fights, fights that lasts minutes aren't realistic or challenging to me. I don't want to grind a healthbar. I want a meaningful feeling of risk and consequences.
I've been an Eve Online player for over 10 years, so maybe it affects the way I perceive the whole difficulty/risk/consequence issue.
But as a gamer for 25 years, it just makes sense to me. I've had my share of "hard-mode" games that just drops mountains of resistance and health to grind at. And it's nowhere interesting or challenging.