235 réponses à ce sujet

[Paromlin]

There was a thread about level scaling, coupled with a poll, on the gamebanshee forum. It's a nice site with lots of in-depth rpg analysis (walkthroughs, reviews, previews, bestiaries, item lists etc.) thus I thought it would be interesting and relevant to share the preference:

"Is Level Scaling a Good Idea?"

"Yes, why not?  0 %

No, level scaling is an abomination 69,05%  (29 votes)

Sometimes (please specify)  30,95%  (13 votes)

Don't care 0%

Other 0%"

http://www.gamebansh...idea-99983.html

It was the site where I discovered some of BG 1/2 secrets after completing those games multiple time. It's an excellent rpg central; there's really a lot of quality content.

Ulicus wrote...

Paromlin wrote...

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.

You realise, of course, that people in favour of level scaling could suggest exactly the same thing to those against it?

They, of course, can't.
People who dislike level scaling don't have nervous breakdowns with the concept of "too hard (now)" and "too easy (now)", we can adjust our tactics accordingly without the difficulty slider. And you missed the point by a few light years; challenge is only a marginal problem because the entire concept of level scaling is sensless. That's the issue.

[Tirigon]

Paromlin, you realise that a poll with 42 votes is HARDLY representative?

Just for interest, I´ll make a poll HERE and link it.



Edit: Here´s the link. Go and vote.
http://social.biowar...952/polls/8232/

Modifié par Tirigon, 18 juillet 2010 - 06:00 .

[Paromlin]

Tirigon wrote...

Paromlin, you realise that a poll with 42 votes is HARDLY representative?

 

I expected this knee-jerk reaction, coupled with a mandatory "you realise".

Have I said it was representative of the world's stance of level scaling? An internet poll will never be representative of anything other than the site's users stance on certain topics. The number of votes is irrelevant. The percentage isn't.
Incidentally, it's a site with quality rpg content so I value the opinion of those people a bit more than the opinion of.. someone random. In the sphere of rpgs, naturally.

[Tirigon]

Paromlin wrote...
I expected this knee-jerk reaction, coupled with a mandatory "you realise".

That shows your wisdom and understanding of human natureB)

Have I said it was representative of the world's stance of level scaling? An internet poll will never be representative of anything other than the site's users stance on certain topics. The number of votes is irrelevant. The percentage isn't.
Incidentally, it's a site with quality rpg content so I value the opinion of those people a bit more than the opinion of.. someone random. In the sphere of rpgs, naturally.

To be honest.... the fact that it´s a site "with quality RPG content" makes ME not give a damn about what they think... Because it is clear that a hardcore oldschool RPGler wouldn´t want change. I am more interested in what the average, open-minded player thinks who is not limited to RPGs

[soteria]

Well, if the number of votes is irrelevant, then it looks like the number of people who like level scaling or like it situationally is at least equal to the number who don't like it. Then again, who cares about the results of a poll either way?

[Paromlin]

Tirigon wrote...

That shows your wisdom and understanding of human natureB)

Indeed. You should try, it's fun.

To be honest.... the fact that it´s a site "with quality RPG content" makes ME not give a damn about what they think... Because it is clear that a hardcore oldschool RPGler wouldn´t want change. I am more interested in what the average, open-minded player thinks who is not limited to RPGs

Oh, sure. Let's ask those who prefer driving casual cars what they think about piloting a jet plane and how does it feel like.
Those close minded jet plane pilots, gee, why do they still prefer kerosene when next-gen and casualisation offers so many alternatives....!
And they're aaaall hardkor & oldskul (just because you said so).

[Tirigon]

Paromlin wrote...

And they're aaaall hardkor & oldskul (just because you said so).

Of course. If they weren´t they wouldn´t waste their time talking about that stuff.

[Paromlin]

Tirigon wrote...


Of course. If they weren´t they wouldn´t waste their time talking about that stuff.

... and opening polls about it, right?
Then again, it's not like you have more than a dozen posts on this topic..., oh wait..
It seems you're the most hardkor and oldskul guy on the block, after all. Therefore, as you said, you shouldn't care* about your own opinion.

Edit:

*give a damn

Modifié par Paromlin, 18 juillet 2010 - 07:27 .

[Ulicus]

Paromlin wrote...

Ulicus wrote...

Paromlin wrote...

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.

You realise, of course, that people in favour of level scaling could suggest exactly the same thing to those against it?

They, of course, can't.
People who dislike level scaling don't have nervous breakdowns with the concept of "too hard (now)" and "too easy (now)", we can adjust our tactics accordingly without the difficulty slider. And you missed the point by a few light years; challenge is only a marginal problem because the entire concept of level scaling is sensless. That's the issue.

Paromlin, I was responding to a very specific argument -- one that pertained directly to challenge and difficulty -- rather than your position in its entirety. Hence, y'know, the quotation. There's really no need to get light years involved. Chill out.

Regarding that reasoning, why can they not say the exact same thing? If you feel like common street toughs (for one example) should be a breeze for your uber-levelled party in a game that includes level scaling... why can't they tell you to "adjust the slider on the fly" so as to better represent the mooks' shoddiness in comparison to your characters?

I'm at a loss, I'm afraid.

EDIT: For what it's worth, my position on level scaling is the same as it was when this thread opened: leveling is abstract, so I don't care either way (though if I had to come down on one side or the other, I prefer games without). Item scaling, on the other hand, really grinds my gears....

Modifié par Ulicus, 18 juillet 2010 - 07:38 .

[Tirigon]

Paromlin wrote...

Tirigon wrote...


Of course. If they weren´t they wouldn´t waste their time talking about that stuff.

... and opening polls about it, right?
Then again, it's not like you have more than a dozen posts on this topic..., oh wait..
It seems you're the most hardkor and oldskul guy on the block, after all. Therefore, as you said, you shouldn't care* about your own opinion.

Edit:

*give a damn

Believe me, the irony of my statements is not lost on meB)

Though I have an excuse. I am finished with school, but studying begins in October, so I have way too much free-time right now, and I´m terribly bored.....

[Gambient]

It was okay. The sheer amount of difficulty spikes, even on normal, was unnerving though, and sometimes I lost a chunk of progress because I went in a room filled with very powerful enemies without any warning from the game, which is frustrating.

[Paromlin]

Ulicus wrote...

Regarding that reasoning, why can they not say the exact same thing? If you feel like common street toughs (for one example) should be a breeze for your uber-levelled party in a game that includes level scaling... why can't they tell you to "adjust the slider on the fly" so as to better represent the mooks' shoddiness in comparison to your characters?

I'm at a loss, I'm afraid.

So we should be designing our own game on the fly, using the slider, by guessing for each specific encouter if the level scaling system made us much weaker than we should actually be?
What to say... cool story bro.

[Ulicus]

Paromlin wrote...

So we should be designing our own game on the fly, using the slider, by guessing for each specific encouter if the level scaling system made us much weaker than we should actually be?

It'd be stupid, wouldn't it?

And it is. For either group.

[Paromlin]

Ulicus wrote...

Paromlin wrote...

So we should be designing our own game on the fly, using the slider, by guessing for each specific encouter if the level scaling system made us much weaker than we should actually be?

It'd be stupid, wouldn't it?

And it is. For either group.

No.

Because for the other group there's no other reason to adjust the difficulty other than it's "too hard/too easy for me" now.  We (the anti level scaling group) would be adjusting the slider for a completely different reason, which isn't feasible.

[Tirigon]

Paromlin wrote...

Ulicus wrote...

Paromlin wrote...

So we should be designing our own game on the fly, using the slider, by guessing for each specific encouter if the level scaling system made us much weaker than we should actually be?

It'd be stupid, wouldn't it?

And it is. For either group.

No.

Because for the other group there's no other reason to adjust the difficulty other than it's "too hard/too easy for me" now.  We (the anti level scaling group) would be adjusting the slider for a completely different reason, which isn't feasible.

You say so. As someone who prefers levelscaling I would say it sucks if you have to turn the difficulty down in the early levels but turn it up later to be challenged.

Funnily though, it was like that in Oblivion for me, in spite of level scaling.

Talk about fail........

[Ulicus]

Paromlin wrote...

No.

Because for the other group there's no other reason to adjust the difficulty other than it's "too hard/too easy for me" now.  We (the anti level scaling group) would be adjusting the slider for a completely different reason, which isn't feasible.

What reason is that? Because it's "too hard/too easy for my character"? I'll grant that's different, but it's not complet- Ah, y'know what? Fair dos, mate. While I don't think there's as huge a disparity as you're making out, there'is a disparity. One larger than -- in my ignorance -- I initially supposed. I'll retract the point.

Modifié par Ulicus, 18 juillet 2010 - 08:33 .

[Paromlin]

Ulicus wrote...

What reason is that? Because it's "too hard/too easy for my character"? I'll grant that's different, but it's not complet- Ah, y'know what? Fair dos, mate. While I don't think there's as huge a disparity as you're making out, there'is a disparity. One larger that -- in my ignorance -- I initially supposed. I'll retract the point.

I don't think you're being ignorant about it. Perhaps you haven't invested a lot of thought in it; simply because it doesn't bother you a lot.

Trigon,

talk about fail in our case... You'd have to adjust the slider just to make the game more challenging/less challenging, IF you're too lazy to change area. Which would be perfectly expected even in a game with level scaling because what's easy for someone else could be too challenging for you, for example.
On the other hand, we'd have to use the slider to counter the effects of level scaling, which is impossible.

And nobody is arguing, even those who prefer level scaling, that level scaling makes sense.

[soteria]

And nobody is arguing, even those who prefer level scaling, that level scaling makes sense.

Neither do levels or stats or half-dozen other features. They're video game abstractions and don't have to make a lot of sense... unless you happen to not like them, in which case it matters, apparently.

[Tirigon]

soteria wrote...

And nobody is arguing, even those who prefer level scaling, that level scaling makes sense.

Neither do levels or stats or half-dozen other features. They're video game abstractions and don't have to make a lot of sense... unless you happen to not like them, in which case it matters, apparently.

Indeed. Personally, I DO prefer no levelscaling - because I prefer no levelling.
Just do it like in Halo.

[Paromlin]

soteria wrote...

And nobody is arguing, even those who prefer level scaling, that level scaling makes sense.

Neither do levels or stats or half-dozen other features. They're video game abstractions and don't have to make a lot of sense... unless you happen to not like them, in which case it matters, apparently.

There's a big difference actually.
Levels and stats (and half-dozen other features) are abstractions; the whole world leveling up with you for no apparent reason other than.. you leveled up (level scaling) simply doesn't make sense. Try harder, soteria.

[AmstradHero]

Paromlin, Tirigon: You ignored my first post, but I'll try again.

You want a non-linear game, but you don't want level scaling, but you want consistently challenging encounters.

Encounters have to be scaled if we're dealing with a non-linear story. It's that simple. Fights have to be made more difficult if you get the them later, otherwise they're not challenging and hence boring. Boredom is not fun, and fun is why players play games.

I support level scaling simply because it's needed to make the game fun. You'll complain it "breaks immersion" and does other "bad stuff", but without it, we're either forced down a linear path, or stuck with a lot of "too easy" combat later in the game.

How about, instead of simply saying "level scaling sucks", you suggest a viable alternative? Until we have the means to replace it, it's here to stay.

[Paromlin]

AmstradHero wrote...


You want a non-linear game, but you don't want level scaling, but you want consistently challenging encounters.

I don't want "consistently challenging encounters". Therefore, your other points are moot.

And there's lots of ways to do it in a non-linear game. It's been written how, here and elsewhere, countless of times. You don't want to accept it, fine. Let's move on.

Modifié par Paromlin, 18 juillet 2010 - 09:17 .

[elearon1]

>>I'd rather have encounter scaling (ie the number and sometimes quality of your opponents changes based on your level), instead of the DAO system<<



This. If monsters are getting more powerful just because I do, then I don't really feel as though I am getting any more baddass. Instead, improve the number, of throw in a recognizably more powerful breed of monster to keep the balance, rather than just leveling up the same old baddies.



In Baldur's Gate 2 for example, you ran into increasingly more powerful creatures throughout your adventures and that tended to make sense because you were going to increasingly more dangerous areas ... maybe you shouldn't be able to survive everywhere on the map from 1st level, ya know? It also allows them to create some static and recognizable enemies ... when you see a Green Dragon you have a fairly reasonable expectation of how powerful it will be and know that a Red Dragon is far more of a threat, and so on.



This does, however, require the creation of more monster models, which may significantly increase production values ... so a balance needs to be set.

[Tirigon]

Paromlin wrote...

I don't want "consistently challenging encounters".

Why play a game at all then? If I want to be bored I´d not spend money on a game but sit in a corner doing nothing......

[Paromlin]

Tirigon wrote...

Paromlin wrote...

I don't want "consistently challenging encounters".

Why play a game at all then? If I want to be bored I´d not spend money on a game but sit in a corner doing nothing......

That's you assuming I get bored by not having challenging encounters constantly thrown at me. And.. you're wrong.

Challenge is very relative; what's easy for me could be challenging for you and the opposite. So you're speculating on speculations. Many said DAO's combat wasn't challenging at all (and that's a game with level scaling, do'h!), they must have been in an endless boredom loop then.