Board Thread:Wiki Running/@comment-67.86.180.6-20151222004107/@comment-67.86.180.6-20151222203457

Bp101697 wrote:

Roseturnip wrote: The reason why I disagree with the usage of variable difficulty for the luck-based levels is because some levels, for example, level 236 and 1055, are more leaning to easy difficulty. As you see, most players can pass these levels easily on 1st try, and I usually rate levels according to my number of attempts taken or my number of success rate on a level. So I think kind of easy rathings of these levels is enough, there's no need for variable difficulty. I feel that it is unnecessary to have them. Some levels like 463, even though it is luck-dependent level, most players usually find it hard, because 15 moves are too few to clear those jellies, and hard difficulty would be necessary  with the same reason I stated above. But for 463 DW, its depending on the moonstruck, if its strong, the level is very easy, if its weak, then the level become insanely hard to pass. I personally think a case like this the level can only be either very easy or insanely hard, and not from a range from that two difficulties. So its hard to say if the level is variable. According to my success rate on that level, its around medium - somewhat hard. As a result, my stance is:

I don't think level 463 is hard. I think variable should be appreciated, even some find it hard. I think very hard is extremely overrated. Hard or somewhat hard is better if not variable. And most don't have problem clearing this and King don't mark it as hexagon, but 462 instead. I was referring to the dreamworld version, not reality.

What I'm basically saying is that variable doesn't mean very easy to insanely hard. It should just mean like when the difficulty differs in a big range.

Here is the definition I found online:

variable

adj.

"Not consistent or liable to change".

So like, if there are difficulty predictions all the way from easy to somewhat hard, variable is possible.