Win rates should be used to determine difficulty of contents !

I have learned recently by reading in the hero beta channel that it is possible in raids (at least tna) to see the win rate (number of success/total runs) since salted said the winrate of tna was around 25%. I think using the winrate statistic can be used to reflect the real difficulty on specific content, such as raids, dungeons and maybe boss altar. Because currently, there is no way to know if a raid is hard or not unless you have done some research . For dungeons, it is different since the "difficulty" scale with levels (the higher the level is, the greater the "supposed" difficulty will be) . But it does not reflect the difficulty of dungeon. For example Ice Barrows (which I find it to be one of the hardest dungeon at level) is only considered "hard ", whereas fallen factory (which isn't hard at all) is titled "extreme". Change my mind, but ff should have the title laggy ! So I think the following system may better reflect the difficulty of content :

Extreme : 15% win rate or lower
Hard : 35% win rate or lower
Challenging : 50% win rate or lower
Medium : 70% win rate or lower
Easy : 90% win rate or lower
Walk in the park (or very easy) : 90% + win rate

If 2.0 isn't released in September this might even be part on the 2.0 update :saltroll: (idk I hope it's not hard to implement, but that would be a good addition to the game)

Another thing, please do add a sound to warn players that Greg is going to cast The Void Howls and decrease its speed, since it already faster than a charge spam from warrior, and it' s probably not the only class which cannot outspeed this attack. Since the attack is doing a lot of true damage, not being able to avoid it means in 80%+ of cases a guarantee death. Which isn't a good way of adding "difficulty" !

 

The win rate of TNA is low because it's new and people are still getting used to it. Eventually people will be able to consistently do well in it which is ultimately going to change the win rate. Meanwhile, difficulty varies by player: A person who has run TNA 50 times is obviously going to do substantially better than someone who has done it once.

I do think some of the difficulty ratings should be updated to be more accurate (like you said, Fallen Factory definitely should not be rated as extreme), but I don't think it should be based on win rate since this can easily mislead new players

 

1/ You are right, since players are learning how to do the raid and what are the optimal strategies, TNA's win rate will be increasing and that's the same for most of the content in the game

2/ This is true but when I throught about the thread I never thought win rate will be the only factor to determine difficulty. But you have pointed out a flaw of using win rate as a metric to determine difficulty.

 

How bout like first three runs per player win rate? then it more accurately shows how hard it is for an inexperienced player

 

I like the idea of it, but i personally would like to change it up a bit. Insead of showing the winrate, how about the deaths in the first 10 runs are counted and then put into an average count of deaths per run, regardless of win or lose. That number is then put into difficulties based on the Deaths per run just like in the post from Prisme, but also shows the DpR (Deaths per Raid) next to it. I would also implement it 6 weeks after the release of a new Raid, this way we dodge the problem with players needing to learn how the Raid needs to be played. I think this concept goes past the problem of new players getting carried in lower leveled dungeons (mainly NoG and NoL) and can also go deeper into the performance of teams in my opinion. Feel free to critizice my post or give any suggestions for improvement.

Edit: i would also like to add that the number of deaths in a raid gets divided by the number of players, so that groups of 5 or 6 who'll prob. die more often aren't influencing the DpR.

 

yes this is actually a good idea

 

What would count as the first 10 runs?

 

The first 10 runs you did in a specific raid after the 6 week cooldown.

 

If that is possible to track the firsts run this is a good suggestion!

This is a very good suggestion and DPR (Death Per Runs) should be one of the metrics that determines "difficulty". If you want I can add that idea to the thread (if I am not lazy). The only thing I would change will be lowering the number of runs registered from 10 to 5, to better track difficulty, since doing it more and more will allow players to learn better strategies, which may result in a drop of deaths.

 

Sounds pretty good to me, the only problem now is that i have no idea of the DpR in each Raid, thus predetermening which numbers for the DpR-difficulties to use will be kinda hard

________________________________

I would also still use the concept of winrate for normal dungeons, as it probably isn't possible to track groups of players doing one dungeon at the same time. Same goes for boss altars.

 

Ok I do like the concept of raid difficulty being player specific and based on number of deaths, it definitely gives a more accurate rating. But I think that 2 issues sprout from this:
1) What would the raid difficulty be for those who haven't run the raid 10 times yet, or not even once? I think displaying an "??? Difficulty" would be really detrimental for those new players.
2) Even if you're good at a specific raid, what happens if you get a team that doesn't perform as well? Even having 1 player die can make a raid substantially more difficult, especially in the boss fight.

I think in response to those issues (and further developing your idea), Raid Difficulty should be:
1) Based on player death AND win rate, or at least have two separate visible categories for it. For those who haven't run the raid once, devs can probably just use a suggested Difficulty rating for what they expect from a new player (Extreme in most if not all cases)

2) Kind of spitballing here but what if when you enter a raid with a party, it takes into account all party member's difficulty rank for the Raid, and displays the average? For example: If a party of 4 people enter Nexus of Light each with, let's say: 1 Hard (80% Difficulty), 1 Easy (20% Difficulty), and 2 Medium (60% Difficulty). When you enter, it would take the average of all 4 players and then tell you what you should expect the difficulty rating to be for that run with your team members: using the above values, here it would be about ~43% (if I'm doing my math right), which is Low Medium Difficulty. That gives a general idea of what you should expect in terms of difficulty for that run

Additionally it would kinda be neat if they could show what the top 3-5 most popular Archetypes were for each raid using data combined from everyone.

 

I think i didn't explain it explicit enough. Anyways what i was talking about is that every Raid-Run (after the requirements) is firstly divided by the number of players as soon as the raid is over (so no personal DpR, or atleast not for that), then every Raid-Run that past these criterias gets added up (with this i mean the Deaths of all runs, not just your own runs) and a counter ( the counter is the total count of raids from every player within these 10 runs) will go up by one. Then we take the total amount of deaths in these raids and divide it by the total number of the counter.
Somewhat like this:
Raid: NoL
Total Runs: 20
Total Deaths:110
Average DpR: 5,5
Difficulty: Very Hard

I hope this cleared some things up.
I do like the idea of player specific difficulties though.
Also, deaths in the three different rooms do also count, not just the boss fight.

 

I think there are too many factors to just determine the difficulty based on win rates.
1st of all is the issue of the levels, people can run dungeons while being overleveled, which will make the dungeon's difficulty rating go down. This is fairly easy to fix with only accounting runs done at the reccomended level and around it.

2nd is that the win rates can be changed by player's experience and skill. Players with more runs will most likely have higher chances of winning, and therefore they will raise the win %. Therefore the difficulty rating won't really mean anything. A raid that is shown to be medium, could actually be really hard for players who never tried it before, and for experienced players the raid would be easy. So if anything these ratings based on win rates could actually show the wrong difficulty for the players who need it.

3rd is that the class of the player could greatly change the difficulty of something. For example, doing TNA is much easier on archer than warrior (imo). So personally, i think that making TNA the same difficulty for both archer and warrior makes no sense since its much harder on 1 of them.

ATM difficulty ratings don't really mean anything and if you want to do something with them, imo it should just be to remove them.

 

1/ I said in a previous response I said that I never seen win rate as the only factor to determine difficulty.

2/ If it is possible to track the level upon completion this should make the titled "difficulty" more accurate.

In a previous response I already talked to this issue with both Rymux and Lemonade about this. We came to the conclusion that we have to count only set number of runs (I think 5 is enough) to better track without having the win rate increasing too much, and the DPR decreasing too much, since learning how to do the raids and what are the optimal strategies will affect both of thoses. The issue about skill being different between players, isn't one. This will only make both of these metrics more accurate in average.

This is true, but I afraid it demands too much work, and will therefore never added to the game. Since some classes are doing better than others, difficulty should of course vary regarding classes.

 

I see it the same way, it's too much work especially for just a slight qol change that the majority of old players would just overlook.

 

by the way, a small thing
fairly easy means that it's less easy than "easy" so you should edit that to very easy
just got my a little triggered
other than that very goood suggestion i always got a little confused every time i saw the difficulties

 

I voted "no" because I don't think we should measure the difficulty of dungeons at all.

How do you objectively determine their difficulty when numerous aspects such as builds, class archetypes and general player skill affect it? Any dungeon you enter unprepared will be hard. Any dungeon you enter with specialized gear and an appropriate strategy will be easy.

For a level 9 Decrepit Sewers could be even harder than Undergrowth Ruins for a level 54, so what does rating the former easy while the latter medium (or hard, idk I forgot) help? Most dungeons (if not all) are locked by quests, so it's not like the difficulty rating could act as a deterrent for those level 1s who wander into Corkus by accident.

________________________________

I think there is a sound warning, it's just a very quiet growl. Or the dragon roar. Idk the attacks by their official names unless the boss starts shouting them like a shounen protagonist in some battle anime.

 

I think also that even if you compare win rates of groups using the same sets of gear, abilities or strategy, it may vary wildly sometimes because of either rng or simply how well the group executes a strategy.
I mean say you run a TCC group with 4 glass divzer build users that aim to just burst the living poo out of the boss. If you have enough ability to dodge incoming damage then your group could semi-reliably do this. But if your group cannot dodge because say, 3 platforms room appears, or your group does not actually have divzers but clusters instead, it could affect the win rate wildly

I think it would be too uneven to add any standardized difficulty ratings

 

Well English isn't my first language so I don't even knew that, ty !

________________________________

Well I already answered this :
1/ Difficulty is relative and should be considered like it
2/ The combination of winrate / DPR is at least giving a better indication than the current system. If it can be processed for each individual class it will be, in my opinion, pretty accurate.
3/ Counter point : I entered FF unprepared with a level 70 weapon and 80 gear, and I have managed to beat the dungeon easily, I even could look at a video in order to understand how to finish the dungeon while I was in the boss room. Some dungeon are like FF really easy and should be considered like this.For others, even if you are prepared, you will still have a hard time completing it.

No there is not, the dragon roar is for Earth Shatter.

 

ok I like the idea but those numbers are kinda whack
like
is there even any dungeon in wynn with 15% win rate or lower?
I'd say if this were implemented (which I wouldn't be against), the number should be changed
but they should add something like this cause the current system is kinda misleading to new players