Changing difficulty mid-campaign

as long as the AI says something witty when you do it! Can't have people making it easier without getting funny taunts, or the AI showing you some respect if you make it harder.

Only if the Difficulty level is HARDER than the one you're playing at.

And, if the AI says something like "I just took a level in BadAss. Prepare to have your's handed to you!"

I see no particular reason why this restriction should be in place. Presumably, multiplayer games will either have computer players at a locked difficulty or require the agreement of the majority (or all) of the participating players to change since the host arbitrarily deciding that the game difficulty should change could be a nuisance, and in single player the only person for whom the play difficulty matters is the person playing the game.

I see no reason to oppose the suggestion as originally posted.

I agree with joeball

I'd like to see this too, to help offset the endgame grind (though GalCiv2 did make progress in mitigating it).

I think the point here is to find a way of alleviating the end game tedium of most 4X games. Changing difficulty level may be one way, but maybe StarDock can find another (perhaps better?) way? Some kind of invention could be well worth it in patent rights.

Please, please please allow difficulty level to be increased (but not decreased) midway through a game!

I really must ask why this restriction should be in place. There is nothing at all wrong with deciding that you'd rather play an easier game at an advanced point in the tech tree, or in deciding that the difficulty you originally set (or most recently set) is too high for you or for your tastes, and as far as the single-player side of things goes, why should I care how anyone other than me is adjusting the game difficulty? Nor is it necessary for multiplayer games, as for those the difficulty should not be changed without the consent of at least the majority of the players, no matter which direction the difficulty changes, nor is it inconceivable to find a group which decides that perhaps it would rather do something easier but doesn't want to waste all the progress made up to that point. So would someone mind explaining to me just why it is that it should be possible to increase game difficulty but not decrease it?

I absolutely agree.  If you're going to allow difficulty change midstream (and I whole heartidly approve that), then it should be either way... Increase or decrease.

I agree. If some players decide they get more out of the game by playing it a certain way, that's up to them. Don't tell me ProfoundGlee has never used cheat codes on a GTA game

I think this type of rubber-banding sounds really interesting, especially if the AI difficulty is determined primarily by how the AI plays rather than by cheats and bonuses. That being said, When you hit that tipping-point where you know you are going to win, it may be tough to raise the difficulty enough without it feeling really unfair to the player.

I don't see the suggestion as proposed as a rubber-banding type thing - it's the player who is deciding the difficulty should change, not the computer. The player's goal in changing the difficulty during an in-progress game is most likely to keep the game fun, whereas the goal of a dynamic difficulty system is to keep the game challenging; these two goals are not the same thing, despite what some people will tell you. Worse to me is that I personally find that dynamic difficulty can make progression less rewarding, simply because it means that I haven't really accomplished anything despite all the stuff I've done, since my character or empire still has more or less the same strength relative to the same opponent in the 'after' picture as in the 'before' picture (when done particularly poorly, as in TES IV: Oblivion, you're actually going backwards in relative strength compared to the same opponents as you advance the game).

Dynamic difficulty done well can be a good thing, such as by introducing thematically-appropriate tougher opponents, as when done well it can provide a challenge without that sense that you're not making any headway despite all your efforts. When it's not done well, it can make you feel cheated or like you've made no progress or even gone backwards (why is it that in Oblivion my level 1 Bosmer Assassin can kill a goblin in 1 shot with a bow but my level 10 Bosmer Assassin cannot under the same circumstances with level-appropriate equipment and given the same target?), or like the computer's an idiot (if it has the economic power to sustain a fleet bigger than my own despite having only a hundredth of the colonies that I have, why did it never make use of that economic strength while it was in a position of strength. Ultimately, though, dynamic difficulty is not a solution to the tipping point issue; at its best, it delays the onset without irritating the player, while at its worst it makes the player feel cheated.

Yeah, my conception when I wrote the OP was for the player to have the ability to change the difficulty on their own initiative (and if it's available in a multiplayer game, for the decision to be up to the human players collectively either by majority vote or unanimous consent, after an individual initiates the process)

I would like to see each difficult level scale by itself as the game goes on. But this would have to mean that Hard is more than the AI getting more starting stuff and nothing else the rest of the game. I would like to see as the game moves on to mid and end game, Moderate vs. Hard etc. has consequences that make the game adjust to the mid and end game to keep the difficulty the same difficulty.

While past games get easier when the game transtions to mid and end game, i would like the AI or something to adust to keep the difficulty statis as the transistions occur instead of having to manually increase the difficulty.