Board Thread:Wiki Running/@comment-24733878-20150726083717

Currently, the number of insanely hard levels to earn three stars for Reality and Dreamworld is pegged to 15 each which is the same number of levels in theire respective polls. However, this has caused one problem. It is that some of the levels which are insanely hard levels to earn three stars have to be forced downgraded. Hence, I decide to remove the cap on the number of insanely hard levels to earn three stars.

This will cause some pros and cons.

Pros


 * Levels can be graded to their true difficulty, allowing an accurate representation of the number of levels which are insanely hard to earn three stars.
 * The episode star difficulties are also accurately represented.

Cons


 * There will be too many levels which are insanely hard to earn three stars. In fact, it is because of this forum post that is the initial reason for the cap on the number of insanely hard levels to earn three stars.

Lefty7788 wrote: After Level 734 was upgraded to Insanely Hard and people voted THREE Insanely Hard levels in Candy Calaboose, this idea has come to my mind.

Are we overusing the Insanely Hard difficulty? Is it becoming the new Very Hard?

Back in the day (ie a year ago), level 734 would not have been rated Insanely Hard. I mean come on. Is it REALLY harder than Level 70? That's like putting Level 629 at Insanely Hard, or 617. I think these days we have become too easy to rate something Insanely Hard. The second we fail a level 10 times, we call it Insanely Hard. Admins see it and then put that as the difficulty.

Back in the day a level was only given Insanely Hard after a poll was held and 70% of 50+ people voted Insanely Hard. Now we're just slapping it on any level that takes us fifteen tries.

I believe the mid-700s to be the culprit for this major relaxing. They released so many impossible levels then that we were having to genuinely use the difficulty alot. People got used to it eventually and started treating it like the new Very Hard.

Sure, some levels REALLY deserve it, like 765. But 734 and 820?! These are hard levels, but not worthy of the highest difficulty at all. I am even having my doubts over whether 829 should be Insanely Hard.

I think we should push for the old ways, where we were very sparing with this difficulty, only adding it after days of consensus and polling.

I know I will get some hate for this, but I hope I have opened your eyes a little bit. WAY too many levels have Insanely Hard ratings where they are not needed. Do you all think we should push for the old days and only upgrade something to Insanely Hard if it's clearly almost impossible (like 735 version 1) or if 70% of 50+ people vote Insanely Hard in a level poll?

Lefty7788 (talk) 18:52, January 24, 2015 (UTC)


 * There will be endless debates on the levels which are insanely hard to earn three stars which will cause slowdown in the implementation on the star difficulties.

Hence, should the cap on the number of insanely hard levels to earn three stars be removed?

Show your stance with, or. When showing your stance, please state your reasons and any ways to rectify the problems caused by the cap removal. Any stance which does not have any reasons or ways to rectify the problems caused by the cap removal will be invalid. 