235 réponses à ce sujet

[Narreneth]

I don't like level scaling. But I do like level scaling. Level scaling allows me to choose what order I play the game in. At the same time, if there is no level scaling and I run into a place I get stuck (not common this day and age) I can just go somewhere else, get a few levels, and come back like a hammer.



I think both have their benefits and I'm fine with both.

[Haexpane]

Grommash94 wrote...

I dont mind level scaling. Maintains a constant difficulty.

 

Not in DAO or DAO A

The game starts out hard, once you hit level 12 everything is then too easy, and if you don't follow the "best parth" it starts out way too hard, and then gets even easier.

Here is the more classic method

yard trash - always low level
Outside dungeon guards - the "test" to see if you are the right level for the area
then inside the enemies level and difficulty is set
Upper
Middle
lower
boss

In a classic RP{G you go to the n00b dungeon at high level to slaughter everything to prove how UBer you are and get revevenge.

But in DAO there is no respawning of anything, I guess that's a major reason for scaling.

There is an ullusion of freedom.  You are free to start your quest in Orzamaar, but every NPC in the game tells you not to.  ANd if you start there, you face the hardest part of the game first, and everything after is too easy.

So why even have the option?  Ilusion of freedom

[fchopin]

No level scaling and no item scaling.



I very rarely play games with level scaling so DA:O could be one of the last.

[Paromlin]

Haexpane wrote...

Level scaling never works and has never worked in ANY RPG.

Make areas hard level. The deeper you go, the harder it gets.

.

[Nerevar-as]

Item scaling gets stupid at times. Mooks dropping better equipment than a noble starts with? Come on. Level scaling was OK in DA, getting spells and skills gave you the edge even if enemies were in the same relative rank.You feel you are getting more powerful.

Still like more games with no level scaling (i.e. Gothic series), going from avoiding fights all you can to beating trolls to pulp is really satisfying.

[DraCZeQQ]

yea without scaling we can pick either from "one normal and rest easy = boring dungeons" or from linear story ... umz ... yea .. well i will prefer scaling and "unlocking" new areas by story then blocking area by high level mobs

[Paromlin]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Still like more games with no level scaling (i.e. Gothic series), going from avoiding fights all you can to beating trolls to pulp is really satisfying.

That's one aspect of the absence of level scaling that I also find among the most satisfying; feeling the power as you progress in levels.


***

Draczeqq... err, no, that's not how it works.

[winter troll]

andar91 wrote...


I gather that some people do not like the scaling that was present in DA:O. I personally had no problem with it, as I felt that it helped maintain a consistent level of challenge without being overpowering. I'm curious as to why people love it, hate it, and whether they want it, a similar system, or a completely different system implemented in DA2.

Thoughts?

i would suggest using AI director which would spawn more enemies , better gear and more elites . Its beoynd me why would any one would bother playing a game for second time if you know where every encounter going to happen and whom you going to fight . Reason i hate is becouse its LAZY you dont need to make new enemies , you dont need to make good enemy AI all you have do to make game chalanging is make enemies hit harder .

[Narreneth]

My only real issue with scaling is that you have trivial things like a pack of wolves as a threat when you're level 20. I wish the scaling also scaled what the enemies you encountered were (like in Oblivion)

[Remmirath]

I don't really like level or item scaling. I'd prefer all of those things to be set. Sure, that means you can run into an area you've got no chance of winning at that time, and I suppose some people don't like that, but I do. Then you just have to go and get more experience and better equipment before you try again. It feels as though you have something to work up to.
It also means you won't get pounded by the same creatures that were killing you however many levels ago, and it doesn't really feel like you were making much progress if that happens.

I think it's fairly obvious why item scaling is weird (random toughs in better armour than knights you ran into earlier, things like that). I especially don't like items you find being scaled, because I think that if you have a particular item, it should be the same no matter when you find it. If you find it sooner and it's significantly more powerful than other things you've found, you got lucky. If you find it later and it's less powerful compared to other things, too bad.

I'd rather have neither level nor item scaling in DA2. I could certainly deal with it if they're both there, and I expect them to be, but I'd be quite happily surprised if they weren't.

[jjkrogs]

I don't like limitless leveling, frankly. I'd like to see a max in each stat, and force the player to choose other specialties or skills, which are really lacking in DA. Again, without making this a thread about it, it's tough to top the AD&D character system, despite it's well-discussed flaws. It forces you to make hard choices, whereas in DA, it was pretty clear what avenue you needed to go down each time you leveled, based on the character you were playing.

More importantly, in DA I never felt my character was getting much better as most everything got better with me. I can't say I like scaling, but you need it to a certain extent. But that extent went too far with DA.

Modifié par jjkrogs, 17 juillet 2010 - 01:55 .

[In Exile]

I think AD&D is way too complicated to integrate into a game well. There are too many traps and otherwise useless classes available.

That being said, I agree that DA:O was far too easy, even on nightmare or harder once you gained a bit of insight into which abilities were traps. Archery groups could be deadly. Mages were incredibly strong when you avoided the trap powers. I never quite had a handle on how to use a rogue effectively. I tended to go with 2 mages/2 warriors, and nightmare never posed a challenge. Hell, with the right item, I could use any unbalanced or otherwise weak party combination and the game would be simple only in virtue of overpowered items. The Templar Knight Commander armour (40% spell resistance) + harvest ring, cadash stompers and Helm of Honleath for Shale effectively made an indestructible tank.

ETA:

The issue with not level scaling is linearity. To allow choice in where the player travels you would have to design areas in bunches  (or have levels be weak enough that a few levels difference would not be insurmountable).

Modifié par In Exile, 17 juillet 2010 - 02:22 .

[Dansayshi]

Level scaling is needed, especially in a game of choice like fo3, tes, doa etc.



But what makes a bad level scaling system and a good 1 is good itemisation. As your character grows, they gain access to equipment which helps them in battle, making encounters easier. Without levelscaling the game would just be too boring imo. Imagine your level 25 warden facing off against those darkspawn inside the tower of ishal again.

[Avaflame]

I don't have a problem with level scaling. If I had gone to the circle tower and the abominations and such were too hard, I would most certainly not just leave and do everything else before returning to find things exactly the same.



Plus I think some of you are exaggerating. At the Tower of Ishal, you and your party struggle to defeat an ogre. Near the end of the game, you might fight two operating as a stronger foe's underlings. Much easier to defeat than the ogre at the start.

[Tirigon]

Imo, bosses should scale in level.



Nameless ones shouldn´t, instead they´ll get more.



For example:



Lv 1: You fight 2 mobs. After a break you fight 1 boss.



Lv 10: 5 mobs, afterwards boss + 2 mobs.



Lv 15: 5 mobs+ mage, afterwards boss, 2 mobs and healer for the boss.



Max level (25, if it´s like in DAO): You fight 1 boss, 5 meelee mobs, 5 archers, 2 mages and 2 healers all at once. if the fight lasts too long reinforcements may arrive, or maybe the mages can raise dead, making them priority targets....



Obviously, the exact numbers shouldn´t be the same for every fight but depend on type of enemy and encounter difficulty and difficulty setting etc..., but you get the basic idea, right?

[Fishy]

There's plenty of game without level scaling.They're called MMORPG .

[dmgdougshow]

I liked it in the first, but I'm curious to know how leveling works when the game jumps large gaps of time.

[Dansayshi]

It'll be exactly the same m8, the large gaps in time are most likely purely an extension of the story and not actual game mechanics.

[Paromlin]

In Exile wrote...



The issue with not level scaling is linearity.

This is a widespread misconception.

There's plenty of evidence showing that the absence of level scaling doesn't (doesn't have to) make a game linear.

• Clever design: The area is harder as you go deeper (into the forest/ruin/caverns), which allows exploration to a certain extent; depending on your skill, tactics, level. It's rewarding to go as far as possible because it provides your character with better items and experience. If you can't complete it on the first try, you simply change area and come back later when you're stronger (or ajdust the difficulty slider if you're one of the players that wants to be able to complete every area now, once you go there). This is done by progressively placing higher static level enemies deeper into the area.
• Experience from past non-linear games: Baldur's Gate, Fallout, Storm of Zehir to name a few. They're as non linear as it gets. Without level scaling. With challenging and interesting combat. (In case someone wants to nitpick; BG did have a sprinkle of level scaling in a totally different form from DAO where all areas are set to scale, thus every single enemy is level scaled. In BG there are only a couple of instances of level scaling, where you'll be faced with more monsters; gibberlings or xvarts, but the vast majority of encouters, I'd say 95%, is exactly the same no matter your level. In no case does the "level scaling" in BG change the level of the enemy.)
• Difficulty slider: As previously mentioned, for those that wish everything served on a silver plate or simply don't want to bother with too hard/too easy areas due to the lack of level scaling; they can adjust the slider on the fly. A great variety in enemy strength is one of the things that makes us who oppose level scaling happy.

[Stefanocrpg_rev91]

I don't like level scaling, it makes almost senseless to level up in many cases.
In DAO level scaling was used in a more intelligent way than in Oblivion, at least, since leveling up helped to defeat some of the monster (the High Dragon and Flemeth were very very difficult if you faced them low level and become easier if you were high level), but I still prefer other methods, though I won't cry if BioWare keeps level scaling.

Anyway, a solution other than total linearity I think could be found. I mean, Baldur's Gate games weren't linear (especially the first one) and they didn't use level scaling.
You could go facing Firkraag at the Windspear Hills even before you choose between the thieves of the vampires, or you could go there after you complete every other sidequest, like Trademeet, De Arnise and Ulmar.
The important thing is that you are somehow warned that a given area is very dangerous and that you have a way out if you find that's too difficult.

Otherwise instead of having every enemy scaling levels up to your characters, it would be better having at least encounter scaling: so, if you in the Deep Roads at level 9 you fight against two hurlocks and three genlocks; if you go there at level 15, you fight two melee hurlocks, one harlock alpha, three genlocks' archers, one shriek and a hurlock emissary.

Modifié par Stefanocrpg_rev91, 17 juillet 2010 - 02:35 .

[DA Trap Star]

I loved it, they should keep it the way it is.

[Rzepik2]

If right after killing a dragon, my whole team is wiped out by a pack of wolves, something is really wrong.

[Sidney]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Item scaling gets stupid at times. Mooks dropping better equipment than a noble starts with? Come on. Level scaling was OK in DA, getting spells and skills gave you the edge even if enemies were in the same relative rank.You feel you are getting more powerful.
Still like more games with no level scaling (i.e. Gothic series), going from avoiding fights all you can to beating trolls to pulp is really satisfying.

Item scaling is really stupid.

Level scaling is the price for the "non-linear". Games like FO and FO2 were non-scaling and non-linear and you could go anywhere and then get your #$%^ handed to you. That's fine but the effect of that is that you have a de facto linear game. While you can go anywhere you really can't succeed so there is a "best fit path" that almost every gamer followed.

I don't have an issue with that but "non linear" has becomes such a holy grail for the RPG crowds that it'd be hard to drop. I mean you have enough RPG's snobs that hate on everything else imagine if the "game was on rails" for them. The horror!

[Tirigon]

RPGs, imo, have to be non-linear.

Why?

Because the Freedom to play as I want is what matters to me, it is why I play RPGs.

If I want to follow a set storyline and care for the action, I play games like "Halo" or "Alien vs Predator" or "Dark Messiah of Might and Magic" or other linear action games.

By the way, imo all these games have a story that is superior to the one of DAO, and the combat is infinitely better (if you like action, of course).

DAO wins by its roleplaying elements and the freedom it presents to the player. If RPGs become more cinematic and linear and less focused on freedom, they will be completely redundant. This is also the reason why ME2, in spite of being a good game, does not, imo, qualify as a great game.

[Sidney]

Tirigon wrote...
DAO wins by its roleplaying elements and the freedom it presents to the player. If RPGs become more cinematic and linear and less focused on freedom, they will be completely redundant. This is also the reason why ME2, in spite of being a good game, does not, imo, qualify as a great game.

There's nothing linear in ME2, well nothing more than in DAO. Really any Bioware game.

It uses the same basic start - branching paths - checkpoint - branching paths- end game format. You can do all those loyalty missions in anyorder and then you come back to a Collector Attack where the plot sort of comes to a single point. In DAO you can do the treaty quests in any order and then you checkpoint at the Arl's place pre landsmeet. In BG2 you do Athkala in any order and then Checkpoint with the trip to Spellhold. At some point all the threads come together.