BC-0226 · TROUBLESHOOTING
Editorial review 2026-09-27
Build Difficulty Is Inconsistent
Compare inconsistent difficulty under comparable starting conditions before smoothing the whole game. A harder segment may introduce an intended new demand, or it may inherit less health, missing resources or unclear information from the previous segment. Separate the challenge itself from the state the player brings into it.
Symptom
Adjacent or comparable segments differ in difficulty for reasons not explained by their intended roles.
Immediate action
Compare the demanded skill and incoming player state before changing challenge values.
Diagnostic branches
- The later segment assumes a resource no longer available.
- Repair the cross-segment prerequisite rather than slowing unrelated hazards.
- A new demand appears without the information needed to attempt it.
- Clarify or bridge the transition while preserving the intended challenge.
- The difference serves a deliberate recovery or finale role.
- Preserve the purpose and evaluate its actual clarity instead of flattening it.
Least-destructive change
Correct the unexplained transition or prerequisite while retaining meaningful challenge variation.
Retest
- The next segment's required starting state is attainable.
- The new demand is understandable from information actually available.
- Purposeful recovery and escalation remain distinct rather than uniformly easy.
Escalation
Keep the pairwise comparison and untested conditions if tuning remains uncertain. No hidden adaptive-difficulty cause or universal challenge curve is established.
Working notes
Name the pair of segments that feel unexpectedly different and what skill each is meant to test. A navigation puzzle and a timing obstacle do not have directly interchangeable demands. The question is whether the transition prepares the player for the new requirement and provides the resources the design assumes.
Record arrival state alongside the obstacle: available actions, relevant resources, prior instruction and meaningful recovery opportunities. A route that looks identical can play differently when the previous segment consumes the item needed to continue. Do not attribute that difference to a hidden difficulty algorithm.
Classify the discontinuity. An unexplained rule change needs communication or an intentional bridge; an impossible resource assumption needs a dependency repair; a genuine jump in the same authored demand may need local tuning. Changing every stage at once removes the comparison that made the problem visible.
Preserve purposeful contrast. A recovery segment after a demanding encounter can be intentional, and a finale can ask more than the opening. State the intended purpose of the transition and inspect whether the player can understand and attempt it, rather than forcing a flat challenge curve or a universal completion target.
Examples
- State-driven discontinuity: a later gate assumes the player still carries a key that the previous delivery consumed. Increasing the timer would not repair the unavailable prerequisite; restore a coherent resource path.
- Legitimate contrast: a quiet route lets the player recognize the next goal after a demanding obstacle. Keep that recovery purpose unless observation shows it creates confusion or an unrelated blocker.
- Comparison record: segment role / incoming state / required demand / information already taught / usable recovery / intended contrast / specific mismatch. This is not a measured difficulty score.