TOPIC: Considering a 4th Difficulty Level for WYC Grind

Now that Who's Yer Con TD and Grind events are beginning to solidify a bit, I wanted to get some feedback on a potential 4th difficulty level that I would like to try for Grind.

As you know, with more and more tokens added each year along with increased power creep, it is becoming harder and harder to address the needs of different player types with our current difficulty levels (Normal, Hardcore, and Nightmare).

I would like to try adding a 4th difficulty level for Who's Yer Con and, if that experiment works out well, we could then maybe do it for GenCon True Grind as well.

To throw out some rough numbers, historically:

- Normal has a player survival rate of 90% or higher
- Hardcore has a player survival rate of around 60%
- Nightmare has a player survival rate of 10% - 20% (some years even 0%)

I was thinking of keeping Normal and Hardcore the same. The "ultimate challenge" that is currently Nightmare would get shifted to a higher difficulty level (we can just call it "Epic" for now). And then the new Nightmare will be roughly similar to Hardcore but geared towards more tokened out players. So my targets would be:

- Normal (90% survival rate)
- Hardcore (60% survival rate)
- Nightmare (40% - 50% survival rate)
- "Epic" (less than 20% survival rate)

With the old system, only one or two groups did Nightmare every year and there is such a wide range of players within Hardcore, so that is why I want to try stretching out the categories.

* This would only be for Who's Yer Con Grind (not for the normal TD events) and is logistically feasible since only my assistant DM's and I need to deal with the details.

If you have any feedback, comments, or other thoughts about this proposed idea, please let me know (post or contact me privately). Thanks!

It would be interesting to see. And interesting to find out if that is the survival rate. And how people would play at that rate. And what people think after playing at that rate.

That sounds like a great idea to me - maybe also include general stats like:

Be able to hit monsters with AC of X
Be able to pass saves of DC-Y
Be able to deal around ### hp of damage in one combat

Or whatever should be relevant

Or - if you really have survival percentages in mind you could design monster ac/hit bonuses to scale with party ac/hit bonuses to ensure similar challenge levels across differently geared token groups.

I understand why suggest having those guidelines and I think it does make sense, but I don't like it. I wouldn't want the game turn into a calculation test. I lIke the mystery of not knowing. This is just me. And understand for the sake of the game guidelines might be needed.

I think a 4th difficulty level for grind is a fine idea, however, I don't like the idea of listing survival rates as the standard metric. that survival rate assumes that players are running at an appropriate level, without acknowledging:
-token loadout (red, few UR, all UR, few relic, all relic and/or legendary)
-preparedness (no consumables vs general variety vs specific tokens that you know matter because you scouted the grind)
-skill and teamwork

as a player, here is my perception of the difficulty levels:
normal: for red players to have fun fighting monsters. adding some URs will make it easier. once you are purple monster, this level loses some fun as it becomes too easy.
hardcore: this level covers a wide range...
red players (with maybe a few URs) looking for a serious challenge, it would help to know what is coming and prepare, do not expect to survive.
purple players (with a few relics) can play this level with a general equipment set (no scouting needed) and a handful of generally useful consumables and do well, but probably take some casualties toward the end.
purple+ players that scout ahead and prepare for the tricks/traps and want to win will also play this level.
nightmare: you are expected to have every token available to you. you are assumed to be equipping whatever random token counters the special effects in place for the grind (without this, you will suffer serious penalties), thus you need to scout ahead and/or be very efficient in finding certain tokens. you WILL spend lots of consumables in the grind or you will suffer noticeably for it. and despite all that, do not expect to survive.

if you are separating hardcore into two levels, please be clear what style of group each level is geared towards. many of us are not interested in scouting ahead and tweaking our build specifically for the grind. I know some people love that, and if I had the time to play multiple times each year I would totally be one of them; but at one grind per convention, I am going to work my grind build as a slightly modified version of my main dungeon build and keep it unchanged. I also try to keep a variety of generally useful consumables in case of emergency, but I don't want to be throwing consumables at the DM every round just to stay alive/counter the monster.

I hope that helps and did not come across as negative or nit-picky. you do a great job putting grind together. thanks for all the work you put into it.

I like more levels. Me and several of my group are likely geared for Nightmare Grind, but others are only geared for Hardcore. If we had a level between those two I think we could pull it off with a greater challenge but also more fun than Hardcore.

At GenCon I'm trying my first Nightmare

Sounds worth trying.
It may be a bit complex for groups to figure where they are at.

As for me, hearing how some nightmare runs have gone through many expensive expendable tokens in previous years, I would be interested in the second tier level if it is expected to have relic and UR equipment, but not large amounts of expendables on top of that.

this is the convention to try it at.
I like the survivor percentages as listed (i know you have been keeping track)

I would suggest to combine what kurtreznor said and add percentages too

I know the new level has no data and should fall between the two (easier one and harder one)