New Difficulty System Name Suggestions

[I like it]

Derp sorry Jae, had a thread by Zag open and thought it was you.

**edit: oops im on i like it, wrong account

[PrawnSkunk]

Derp sorry Jae, had a thread by Zag open and thought it was you.

[nois-or-e]

Nice attempt of a troll guys, but I can see what ips you are posting from~

Prawn: np mate, it happens ;D

[DossarLX ODI]

Alright so I went back to see what the 1-20 system would be, translated from the old system.

01- Easiest/For Beginners
02- For Beginners/Very Easy
03- Very Easy/Easy
04- Easy/Standard
05- Standard
06- Tricky
07- Tricky/Difficult
08- Difficult
09- Very Difficult
10- Very Difficult
---
11- Low Challenging
12- Mid Challenging
13- High Challening / Low VC
14- Mid VC
15- High VC / Low FMO
16- mid - high FMO
17- high FMO / low FGO
18- mid - high FGO
19- FSO
20- Vertex Beta vROFL

Something I'd like to ask is: Why change something that doesn't need fixing? No, really. Why is it automatically assumed that we have to suddenly ditch the old names that have been used for the past 9 years and everyone's familiar with? Pretty much everyone I talk to on Skype and AIM has admitted that they'll still think of files as VC, FMO, etc. even if the new names come in place.

Time should not be wasted on changing the names of difficulties. People will still continue calling difficulties by their old names. Older discussions will make no sense because of the different names. Keeping the old names we've had for the past 9 years will still make discussions in that big time frame make sense. qqwref actually made a post about this back on page 3, but I couldn't comment because I was banned at the time.

It's fine if a name spans more than one difficulty number. Our current 1-14 scale goes by a general range. There are low FMOs and high FMOs, and so on. Difficulties are for general ranges. I am, however, in support of changing the FSO title to something more appropriate.

[TheSaxRunner05]

Originally Posted by DossarLX ODI

I am, however, in support of changing the FSO title to something more appropriate.

Like Legendary =)

[Winrar]

I agree with Dossar 100% changing the names will bring up too much confusion to newer members, and veterans will continue using the older names.

[wargasm1]

for lv 20 ''move to sm'' :P

[Winrar]

20. If you can AAA this no one will find you attractive sry

[EzExZeRo7497]

Originally Posted by DossarLX ODI

It's fine if a name spans more than one difficulty number. Our current 1-14 scale goes by a general range. There are low FMOs and high FMOs, and so on. Difficulties are for general ranges. I am, however, in support of changing the FSO title to something more appropriate.

I agree with this.

[popsicle_3000]

I'd be quite happy to keep the names the same. changing FSO to Legendary would be the only change.

only problem with this would be that somethink like 18 where there is a cross over between FMO & FGOs... then amen iraq would be called the same as FN. then what would you refer it to?

[stargroup100]

whatever you end up using I highly recommend you avoid references to ddr such as "for stepman only" and "oni"

because those sound dumb and they are dumb

[Poison-]

I completely agree with Dossar. I don't like the idea of new names.

[iironiic]

Originally Posted by qqwref

So my suggestion is simple: figure out which new difficulties roughly correspond with the old ones, and then just bring the names over. It's fine if something like VC or FMO spans more than one difficulty number.

Seems like we have more supporters for qq's suggestion :3

[deadpony]

I never look at the names anyway, lol I have always gone by number.

[ShadowXall]

Originally Posted by Xx{Midnight}xX

Get rid of "For stepman only" please it sounds utterly retarded.

Also difficulty 20 should be left as simply "20"

It's so hard it gets no real name

01- Beginners
02- Very Easy
03- Easy
04- Simple
05- Light
06- Standard
07- Tricky
08- Very Tricky
09- Difficult
10- Very Difficult
---
11- Demanding
12- Heavy
13- Challenging
14- Very Challenging
15- Oni
16- Master
17- Guru
18- Ridiculous
19- Brutal
20- Legendary

By far the best, in my opinion.

[One Winged Angel]

Originally Posted by nois-or-e

My updated suggestions. Thoughts?

01- Training
02- Easiest
03- Beginner
04- Very Easy
05- Easy
06- Light
07- Moderate
08-Standard
09- Tricky
10- Very Tricky
---
11- Difficult
12- Very Difficult
13- Challenging
14- Very Challenging
15- Expert
16- Master
17- Guru
18-Brutal
19- Ridiculous
20- ???

Hi, use this plz

01- Easiest
02- Beginner
03- Novice
04- Very Easy
05- Easy
06- Light
07- Moderate
08- Standard
09- Tricky
10- Very Tricky
---
11- Difficult
12- Very Difficult
13- Challenging
14- Very Challenging
15- Expert
16- Master
17- Guru
18- Brutal
19- Ridiculous
20- ???

Novice could technically work as 5, following Very Easy and Easy (shifting those down to 3 and 4), but either or works imo

[i love you]

Originally Posted by DossarLX ODI

Alright so I went back to see what the 1-20 system would be, translated from the old system.

01- Easiest/For Beginners
02- For Beginners/Very Easy
03- Very Easy/Easy
04- Easy/Standard
05- Standard
06- Tricky
07- Tricky/Difficult
08- Difficult
09- Very Difficult
10- Very Difficult
---
11- Low Challenging
12- Mid Challenging
13- High Challening / Low VC
14- Mid VC
15- High VC / Low FMO
16- mid - high FMO
17- high FMO / low FGO
18- mid - high FGO
19- FSO
20- Vertex Beta vROFL

Something I'd like to ask is: Why change something that doesn't need fixing? No, really. Why is it automatically assumed that we have to suddenly ditch the old names that have been used for the past 9 years and everyone's familiar with? Pretty much everyone I talk to on Skype and AIM has admitted that they'll still think of files as VC, FMO, etc. even if the new names come in place.

Time should not be wasted on changing the names of difficulties. People will still continue calling difficulties by their old names. Older discussions will make no sense because of the different names. Keeping the old names we've had for the past 9 years will still make discussions in that big time frame make sense. qqwref actually made a post about this back on page 3, but I couldn't comment because I was banned at the time.

It's fine if a name spans more than one difficulty number. Our current 1-14 scale goes by a general range. There are low FMOs and high FMOs, and so on. Difficulties are for general ranges. I am, however, in support of changing the FSO title to something more appropriate.

Which is why I mentioned this post:

Originally Posted by i love you

Although, what you guys should have done first was determine if majority of the community would prefer not having certain names as difficulties (Example: "Very ____" names or "For ____ Only" names etc). It is far more effective to take things step by step by first seeing what the community wants/does not want before having them actually start naming difficulty names. That way the community would have more of an idea of what majority of people agreed/disagreed to and they will come up with better difficulty names based on what the community wanted.

It is far better to first discuss with the community on what they prefer/not prefer first before coming up with names or w/e. The results would have been much more accurate and people would have more of an idea on what to name those new difficulties and from there, we can determine as a community which list they prefer the most and just end it there. It was a big mistake for nois-or-e to just start this thread and immediately have people come up with names blindly without any discussion/debate about the changing of the names etc.

Also, I still think 20 should be left blank.

EDIT: Just want to mention that I do agree with qqwref's sugguestion

[bmah]

Originally Posted by One Winged Angel

Hi, use this plz

01- Easiest
02- Beginner
03- Novice
04- Very Easy
05- Easy
06- Light
07- Moderate
08- Standard
09- Tricky
10- Very Tricky
---
11- Difficult
12- Very Difficult
13- Challenging
14- Very Challenging
15- Expert
16- Master
17- Guru
18- Brutal
19- Ridiculous
20- ???

Novice could technically work as 5, following Very Easy and Easy (shifting those down to 3 and 4), but either or works imo

I actually quite like this list, with the only questionable one being Novice of course (what defines a "novice", especially in relation to "very easy/easy"?).

Originally Posted by i love you

Also, I still think 20 should be left blank.

I think this just makes the 20 difficulty look like some sort of coding error in which the coder forgot to add in a description. Using "???" is far better and adds to this mysterious difficulty that few dare to attempt (or so to speak, want to give off that vibe).

Also, about the "very" descriptor (e.g. Challenging vs Very Challenging), I think such an adjective is necessary to better demonstrate a gradual difficulty curve, as opposed to trying to find 7-8 different words that are all really synonyms of the word "hard" in the upper half of the scale. Stuff like "Chimera" doesn't describe any sort of difficulty AT ALL. Sure it sounds "mean", but it's far from describing an actual measure of difficulty. Words gotta be more utilitarian than that. It also doesn't describe itself as being more difficult or easier than its adjacent difficulties.

As for qqrwref's suggestion, I'm currently undecided. Right now, a few lists such as the one OWA posted are quite satisfactory to me.

[tofurox]

I love the idea of new difficulty names still. Even if it would be kinda confusing at first, it just takes a bit to get used to. Many of the older difficulty names are still being used anyways, just the added levels need difficulty names. I've seen a lot of great names in here that would work out well in the actual game.

[i love you]

Originally Posted by bmah

I think this just makes the 20 difficulty look like some sort of coding error in which the coder forgot to add in a description. Using "???" is far better and adds to this mysterious difficulty that few dare to attempt (or so to speak, want to give off that vibe).

That is a good point although putting "???" for a 20 just seems weird to me lol. How about just name it "20" or just put one question mark instead of three question marks? xd

EDIT: Then again, does it really matter haha