235 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirigon]

Paromlin wrote...

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.

Sometimes, yes.
But luckily there are mods, Nightmare difficulty and self-imposed challenges like solo runs (though I personally haven´t managed one yet; the combat was easy for a whole party but I had no chance alone).

[AmstradHero]

Paromlin wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Paromlin wrote...

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.

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.

Consistently != constantly.  The former implies some "easy" battles, but that overall, there will be a tendency towards increasingly harder battles - which makes sense because your character is growing in power. Hence my point is not moot and you're arguing simply for the sake of it. Or, you simply didn't pick up on that nuance. I'm happier if it was the latter.

I've not seen anything in this thread suggesting how to fix it apart from "use AI director" which (a) won't work; and ( is simply scaling by number instead of level.

You also mentioned "gating" (which is putting the static level enemies in), but the thing is... you're still scaling! Once you get past that "gate", the monsters are more difficult... which is exactly what scaling does!

[Hurrrr]

The problem with level scaling is that it makes the idea of leveling redundant. 

May as well remove levels from the game.

Why cant they just go back to D&D Pleeeasseeeee make Baldurs Gate 3. Ill do anything! And yes Baldurs had level scaling, but not to this extent, when I met a thief in the city after just killing a red dragon I naturally didn't have to blink.

BG from what I saw simply added more mobs on set locations to stop you getting complacent, but Billybob the Legless wouldn't pose a threat and didn't scale regardless of that. 

Don't get me wrong, i'm open minded to them junking leveling etc if they think they have something cooler, but DA:O was really just a mindless grind to me, the tactical encounters were somewhat simplistic by comparison >> I still remember when I met my first lich, and the absolutely mad scramble for ANYTHING in my repertoire that could throw the tide of the battle. After discovering I had nada I went and elsewhere to plunder till I had my ace  

I think character development is just one aspect of an RPG, and to me a very satisfying one, not too happy with DA:Os.

[Ulicus]

elearon1 wrote...

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.

I think it depends to some extent on the story being told.

In DA:O, as it stands, the above would have actually been tricky.  Does the Grey Warden, for example, really become twenty (or ten, or whatever) times as powerful over the course of the adventure? It stands to reason that they grow more skilled, sure, but purely in terms of the narrative he or she isn't that much more advanced by the end than they were when they started out. So why are they getting curbstomped by enemy A at the beginning only to be able to easily dispatch them by the end?

In the context of the story, your character become a Grey Warden because they're a badass. They don't become a badass because they're a Grey Warden -- they just get "immunity" to the darkspawn taint. Right from the off -- and young/inexperienced as they are -- the character is supposed to be amongst the best of the best.  The entire process of leveling is thus almost entirely abstracted and far less representitive of actual advancement than it is in, say, Dungeons and Dragons.

That's probably why I didn't have as huge problem with the level scaling in the game as I otherwise might've done.  Had the story had been "weak and callow youth with great potential unlocks the power of the Grey Wardens over the course of the narrative to become a demi-god by the end of the game" then I'd have had a very different opinion.

Still, given Hawke's story is being told over the span of several years (as opposed to just one or two), one would expect that there would -- and should -- be a rather large disparity between his abilities at the beginning of the game and the end both in terms of gameplay and narrative.

elearon1 wrote...
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.

Heh, it's kinda funny. In BG2 (and ToB) I had huge problems with how they scaled the encounters, because while they didn't "actually" level scale... they might as well have. Running into a bunch of Tethyr "elite guard" who were all in the epic levels with magic items in ToB was just... horrendous.

As was every common thug being at least level 7 in BG2.

[soteria]

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.

Really? It makes sense for you to level up, but not for anyone else? All you're asking is for Bioware to manually set the level of the various enemies you fight to approximations of what they already are in any given playthrough. It doesn't make any more sense for Bioware to manually set the enemies in Orzammar at a higher level than it does for them to automatically be a higher level because a given character goes there last. One way or another the enemies you fight later in the game are going to be a higher level. The problem is in your head.

[Paromlin]

AmstradHero wrote...

Consistently != constantly.  The former implies some "easy" battles, but that overall, there will be a tendency towards increasingly harder battles - which makes sense because your character is growing in power. Hence my point is not moot and you're arguing simply for the sake of it. Or, you simply didn't pick up on that nuance. I'm happier if it was the latter.

I've not seen anything in this thread suggesting how to fix it apart from "use AI director" which (a) won't work; and ( is simply scaling by number instead of level.

You also mentioned "gating" (which is putting the static level enemies in), but the thing is... you're still scaling! Once you get past that "gate", the monsters are more difficult... which is exactly what scaling does!

So you don't want to move on, ok.
If you need to nitpick to prove a point you're already half-wrong. But since we're at it.. I've not said it's the same thing. I also don't know what "consistently challenging encounters" means to you, because it means different things to different people. Does DAO (a game in which everything scales) have consistently challenging encounters? Who can say that for sure? You?

Again, "you haven't seen" =/= "isn't there".

No, that's not what scaling does, sweetheart. Level scaling does something else completely. Don't try to blur the lines, because it won't work.

[Paromlin]

soteria wrote...

Really? It makes sense for you to level up, but not for anyone else? All you're asking is for Bioware to manually set the level of the various enemies you fight to approximations of what they already are in any given playthrough. It doesn't make any more sense for Bioware to manually set the enemies in Orzammar at a higher level than it does for them to automatically be a higher level because a given character goes there last. One way or another the enemies you fight later in the game are going to be a higher level. The problem is in your head.

Really, soteria, really. It does not make sense that the level of the enemy is tied to our own level. No matter how much you stretch it, put it on its head, shake it, beat it etc.

It's completely believable that enemies have various levels independent from *our* level, levels they earned on their own and at their own pace, which are shown to us when we encounter them.
It is not believable to have hordes of enemies all of the same level, scaled exactly to our level. Just because you can't comprehend that weaker enemies exist even in places you visit last doesn't make level scaling believable, sorry.

[AmstradHero]

Paromlin wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
Consistently != constantly.  The former implies some "easy" battles, but that overall, there will be a tendency towards increasingly harder battles - which makes sense because your character is growing in power.

I've not seen anything in this thread suggesting how to fix it apart from "use AI director" which (a) won't work; and ( is simply scaling by number instead of level.

You also mentioned "gating" (which is putting the static level enemies in), but the thing is... you're still scaling! Once you get past that "gate", the monsters are more difficult... which is exactly what scaling does!

So you don't want to move on, ok.
If you need to nitpick to prove a point you're already half-wrong. But since we're at it.. I've not said it's the same thing. I also don't know what "consistently challenging encounters" means to you, because it means different things to different people. Does DAO (a game in which everything scales) have consistently challenging encounters? Who can say that for sure? You?

Again, "you haven't seen" =/= "isn't there".

No, that's not what scaling does, sweetheart. Level scaling does something else completely. Don't try to blur the lines, because it won't work.

Snide attempted insults aren't becoming. I'm putting a reasoned argument here, not attacking you. Is it too much to expect the same from you?

If it appears I'm nit picking, it is because your posts did not appear to be consistent on the issue (note that I'm referring to your posts, not you personally - there's the nuance of language once again) Furthermore, I explicitly defined what I meant by the term consistent in the above post, but you immediately question it. Why ask a question to which I've already provided the answer?  If you're talking about what a "defines a challenging encounter", then you're talking a whole different kettle of fish that has nothing to do with level scaling and hence is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. What's easy for one player is hard for another, and so on. That's not the point being debated.

I take your point regarding suggestions within this thread. My apologies, there are some here.  I did read the thread, but by the time I got all the way through I'd forgotten some of the posts. So now I've gone back through again. However, the majority of suggestions to "fix it" are either not suitable or will make the game boring/linear.  There are two that aren't:
* Changing enemy groups in number/composition - which is a good suggestion. It fits the bill nicely. Unfortunately it's not easy to do in DA as it stands currently.
* Making increasingly smarter AI - which is a nightmare. AI is hard to code at the best of times, and besides, having "increasingly intelligent" enemies is just as ridiculous as having them becoming increasingly powerful.

In every RPG you've ever played, the monsters get more difficult as your character grows in power. They have to. I hate to break it to you, but that is level scaling. The monsters are scaled in difficulty according to your character's progression in the plot and their commensurate level of power.  Sure, there's circumstances where you can go off the beaten track a little and get squashed (see basilisks and ankhegs in BG1), but on the whole, the overall difficulty and power of enemies increases in a linear fashion.

You're defining level scaling as the limited case in which the same monsters are adjusted in level to match your character's level. Unfortunately in that case, your complaint in many cases boils down to: "there's not enough different monsters". Or perhaps what the player should be forced to do is run around, doing the first phase of each of the major quest lines.. then return and do a second phase once they've levelled up from all that work... then when they're getting more powerful, return again and finish them off... uh, no thanks. Yes, I'm exaggerating to make a point - but you get the picture.

For the sake of argument, let's take your definition and run with it. You're now simply complaining because you can pick the order in which you progress the plot and now the darkspawn enemies also get progressively tougher to match that character.  You're taking issue because those same monsters you've seen previously are now tougher to match your character's increase in power. Is it a bit silly in terms of the world dynamic, yes. I don't argue that for a second. But is it necessary? You're damn right it is.

Now, I'm not saying that I expect every Joe-Average-Bandit to scale in line with my character. If that's the case, then you end up with ridiculous scenarios a la Oblivion with hordes of bandits going around in glass armour.  I concur that I don't want that. But scaling does need to be implemented to some degree otherwise the game is boring.

I get that your issue is that you find it unrealistic that the monsters are always around the same level as the player. I really do. Heck, I even agree with you that it is stupid. But the problem is that you're failing to see the other side of the equation. Yes, I'd love some encounters where we get to romp through a group of weakling darkspawn before we meet up with their more potent bretheren every now and then. I'd like for that sloth demon that was able to bring an entire army of mages to its knees to be less powerful than a lone Hurlock Alpha in the Deep Roads. The problem is that it doesn't make for a fun game.

Realism in games is not necessarily achievable, nor should be desirable when it gets in the way of the game being fun, interesting and challenging to play. Ultimately, players play a computer game for fun - not for perfect realism. I dislike inconsistencies in gameworlds as much as anyone else (I wouldn't blog about game design issues so much if I didn't!), but there are points where you have to suck it up for the sake of fun.

There are issues with Dragon Age's level scaling engine - each area has a set level range in which the monsters spawn - it appears to be a non-trivial matter to have one group of monsters significantly weaker than the majorityt of those in the level apart from the very dull one-hit-kill variety. Yes, I'd love to see some changes implemented and perhaps get a system where we get monsters of varying difficulty within a particular area. I'd like to see those inconsistencies with the power of "grunt troops" removed - but I am adamant that scaling of encounters needs to occur to at least some extent. If we've got a non-linear plot, in most cases that means the game requires level scaling given the mechanics of most CRPG combat systems. Possibly unfortunate, but it's an easier win for the developers in that it is reduced effort that can be spent elsewhere.

Have you ever tried to tweak an encounter manually based on the number of enemies and enemy power to make it challenging across a range of character levels? I have, and across four consecutive releases of a mod in which I tweaked the encounter each time, I had players both decrying the encounter as "way too easy" or "impossibly difficult." A level scaling system helps to reduce the "user error" in encounter scaling, not to mention the high cost of repeated cycles of setup, testing, and refinement. In terms of cost effectiveness and overall enjoyment for the player base, level scaling is the current winner for RPGs.

In essence, all your arguments indicate that you value realism over player choice of plot progression combined with combat that consistently increases in difficulty to accomodate the player's increasing level of power throughout their adventure.  I don't, so we may just have to agree to disagree.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 19 juillet 2010 - 09:16 .

[Paromlin]

AmstradHero wrote...

never-ending wall of text

I take it you think I'm one of the crazies from this forum who'll quote every single paragraph (or.. sentence) and make it a monumental 100-pages long back-and-forth debate? Earth calling AmstradHero.
I hope you don't expect anyone to actually read your essay.

 Now, seriously, in the end, why does anyone have to explain to you how it's done since it's already been done successfully? To name it a few: Baldur's Gate. Storm of Zehir. Go play it for homework. Now.
To reiterate; you just need different areas with a variety of encounters and static level spans. (I'll stress that this is not level scaling, in case you get confused again.) So the player has a choice where to go, deciding the order of action that suits him best. That's all there is to it.

What constitutes "consistently challenging encounters" is entirely subjective.

As for the "insults"; you'd be wise not to throw snide remarks into every paragraph if you don't wish to be subjected to them yourself, or alternatively, don't be a baby and grow a thicker skin.

PS. I applaud you for having the stamina and impetus to write your thoughts down to the tiniest detail.

Modifié par Paromlin, 19 juillet 2010 - 11:39 .

[Suron]

I didn't mind it in DA:O, Oblivion it was terrible.



problems with DA:O's though;



1.) need more thrown in monster that do not scale so low (tackle that revenant or high dragon at lvl 10ish? they're lvl 18-20 MININUM...good luck!)



2.) loot...because of level scaling, even if done pretty well in DA:O, we got treasure chests filled with only one or two items and were random from a table of boring crap....made openning that chest almost pointless.



3.) some encounters being level specific....i.e. killing the High Dragon but then getting DESTROYED by a pack of wolves while hiking back to town.....



ok that's only 3...regardless I think level scaling is here to stay for most games...which isn't necessarily a bad thing (RPGs in video game form take there origins from the likes of DnD PnP....which gives rules for scaling encounters to the party level..of course now and then the DM would throw some monster/NPC that you weren't able to kill...but that is covered by my High Dragon/Revenant point) So level scaling is anything BUT new.

[Tirigon]

Paromlin wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

never-ending wall of text

I take it you think I'm one of the crazies from this forum who'll quote every single paragraph (or.. sentence) and make it a monumental 100-pages long back-and-forth debate? Earth calling AmstradHero.
I hope you don't expect anyone to actually read your essay.

You should read his Essay, because unlike you, he has intelligent and well thought-out points and suggestions.

You do nothing but whine and tell how awesome Baldurs Gate is...

[soteria]

@paromlin
Your continued disrespect toward anyone and everyone who disagrees with you is unfortunate.  Until you're willing to set aside the snide remarks and have an intelligent, reasoned, discussion, I don't guess there's anything more to say here. The problem, I believe, is that you can't conceive that anyone with an opposing view to yours is actually a thinking person. Let me know when you get past that impediment.

Modifié par soteria, 19 juillet 2010 - 01:29 .

[AmstradHero]

A pity. I thought there was actually scope for a good discussion on game design here, a subject I enjoy talking about and debating. My thanks for the input from those who made it interesting while it lasted.

I guess I'll just have to go back to posting on my blog and hope I get more crazies reading it.
Them's the breaks, I guess.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 19 juillet 2010 - 02:08 .

[druplesnubb]

Personally I really like scaling because it keeps immersion. In games without scaling you fight for maybe a couple of hours and can suddenly take on enemies that are much stronger than previously. When you have been fighting for a few weeks or months or years (a rough estimation of ingame time in a really long game without time skips) and you go from fighting to beat inexperienced soldiers to kicking the asses of things trained veterans have trouble with. This is even more ridiculous if your character start out as an experienced fighter storywise because then they learn many times more in that little time than in their entire previous lifetime of fighting.
And that's not even getting into how  area A has monsters/soldiers/bandits/whatever that are all about equally strong while all the guys in area B are much stronger and elso equally strong. Why are there no monsters as strong as the ones in area B in area A or as strong as those in area A in area B. Depending on how big the difference between low level and high level is in the game this could lead to one area having absolutely nothing but ****** that can't fight at all while another is inexplicably filled with things that can obliterate demigods. And as if that weren't enough the herao will always go from the area with the weakest guys to the area with the strongest guys in perfect order and even learn just enough from defeating the guys at the previous area (thanks to his previously mentioned bizarre learning skils) to be able to fight the for some reason stronger guys at the next area.
I seriously have no idea why people think scaling breaks immersion as I have seen some write on these forums. It's the only thing that makes the world make sense

(yes I know you can argue that fun>realism but that's not my point, this is for those who says scaling breaks immersion)

Modifié par druplesnubb, 19 juillet 2010 - 03:13 .

[coomber]

Paromlin - I feel your pain. Some people are beyond help...best leave them to it.

[Paromlin]

coomber wrote...

Paromlin - I feel your pain. Some people are beyond help...best leave them to it.

Hey, don't worry, it's the bioboards () so I got used to it.


@soteria
Now I'm convinced you're from a parallel universe (where bio-design decisions are the LAW), but
 you somehow connect to our internet. This sacred mission of yours to discredit anyone who suggests other design options is destined to fail, because unfortunately for you, arguments are needed. Still haven't figured out why level scaling isn't believable and doesn't make sense? ... I thought so.


Tirigon, thanks for your poll btw. - at least you've done something useful for this topic, unlike the above mentioned person. Your poll shows that the relative majority, as of now, thinks: "NO, level scaling sucks."

[Tirigon]

Paromlin wrote...


Still haven't figured out why level scaling isn't believable and doesn't make sense? ... I thought so.

I do not argue that level scaling is ridiculous.

However, I think the leveling of your character makes no sense either - especially in the case of the Warden, who is chosen on account of being the very best to start with.

So, if your main argument is that level scaling makes no sense, we would of course have to get rid of it, but with the same argument we would have to get rid of leveling too - or at least reduce it to 1 or 2 level-ups throughout the game.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Tirigon wrote...

Paromlin wrote...


Still haven't figured out why level scaling isn't believable and doesn't make sense? ... I thought so.

I do not argue that level scaling is ridiculous.

However, I think the leveling of your character makes no sense either - especially in the case of the Warden, who is chosen on account of being the very best to start with.

So, if your main argument is that level scaling makes no sense, we would of course have to get rid of it, but with the same argument we would have to get rid of leveling too - or at least reduce it to 1 or 2 level-ups throughout the game.

So many things that are considered an integral part of RPG's are really nothing more than Gary Gygax' arbitrary decisions in the 70's.  Levelling, ever-ascending hit-points, the "kill everything and take its stuff" mentality, and a hundred other things are all there because they've always been there. 

But they didn't have to be.

[soteria]

So many things that are considered an integral part of RPG's are really nothing more than Gary Gygax' arbitrary decisions in the 70's. Levelling, ever-ascending hit-points, the "kill everything and take its stuff" mentality, and a hundred other things are all there because they've always been there.

Well, the only question is if you happen to like those features. A lot of them seem to be extremely popular, since they've been leaking into other genres (especially strategy) for the past ten years and more.

[Paromlin]

Tirigon wrote...

I do not argue that level scaling is ridiculous.

However, I think the leveling of your character makes no sense either -

Funny that it's already been asked (soteria had the same deduction), and answered. Is s/he giving you debate directions via PM?  
Just scroll up and read it. In case you can't find it, I'll repeat it, just for you:

Levels are an abstraction of getting more powerful; stronger, tougher, more enduring etc. It's believable.

Level scaling is an abstraction of what? Of... nonsense? Of... The Twilight Zone?
Why isn't there a single level 1, 5 or 10 darkspawn, wolf, bandit when I reach level 15? Where do they disappear?

So you think level scaling is ridiculous, but you're vehemently defending it anyway...   ...when you say someone has intelligent points, that person should be worried.

Modifié par Paromlin, 19 juillet 2010 - 10:23 .

[Tirigon]

Paromlin wrote...

Levels are an abstraction of getting more powerful; stronger, tougher, more enduring etc. It's believable.

No it´s not. You´re a great warrior / mage when you´re chosen to be a Grey Warden. You don´t get better by doing what you did your entire life a week longer.

It´s especially senseless for mages: Why do I learn to use fireballs by killing lots of stuff with arcane bolt and winter´s grasp?
One wonders....

So you think level scaling is ridiculous, but you're vehemently defending it anyway...   ...when you say someone has intelligent points, that person should be worried.

In that case you can be happy, because your arguments are stupid, and certainly not intelligentB)

Seriously though; I´m defending Levelscaling because I prefer a ridiculous game mechanic over a game that´s almost impossible during the early levels and much too easy later on.
Also, please note that I frequently said I think leveling should be abolished completely. But as long as we have leveling, I want at least have levelscaling to make it a bit more bearable.

[Harley_Dude]

Oblivion leveling was just fine. My level 41 Breton had 100% magic resistance and 66% magic and damage reflection. All other armour had the 50 magic boost sigil stone so I could stand in the middle of any number of enemies cast 100% weakness to magic and proceed to slice them up with my health drain dagger on max difficulty. Maybe your character build just sucked.



The leveling in DAO is unpredictable. I was killed by the pack of wolves in a matter of seconds travelling between Redcliff castle and Redcliff village so had to repeat the Revenant battle and all the cut scene crap in the castle. Those wolves had to have been several levels above me and this is a randomly generated encounter so there was no option to "go back and play latter".

[Ravenfeeder]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

So many things that are considered an integral part of RPG's are really nothing more than Gary Gygax' arbitrary decisions in the 70's.  Levelling, ever-ascending hit-points, the "kill everything and take its stuff" mentality, and a hundred other things are all there because they've always been there. 

But they didn't have to be.

Don't confuse RPG's with D&D.  There are many pnp RPG's both ancient (Traveller) and Modern (FATE) without these things.  They are not a requirement.  However increases in power - levelling - do give players a reward at intervals throughout the game which make them feel like they're getting somewhere, even if the plot isn't advancing at the same rate (Deep Roads).

[Haexpane]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

 

So many things that are considered an integral part of RPG's are really nothing more than Gary Gygax' arbitrary decisions in the 70's.  Levelling, ever-ascending hit-points, the "kill everything and take its stuff" mentality, and a hundred other things are all there because they've always been there. 

But they didn't have to be.

Well we have ME2 for people who like their games to be
The Artist Formerlly Known as an RPG

RPGs that ditch RPG elements in favor of zoomed in camera angles and "loadouts" already exist.  Do we really want one of the last true RPG franchises to ditch RPG mechanics too?

I dont

I don't like DAO's scaling. but it's better than Oblivion.  I can live w/ it.

The lame loot in chests IMO is an entirely different problem.  That is a loot table problem.  You've got a ton of worthless loot that hogs up inventory space.  

people will flame, but DA needs a true loot table system.  Not just "unique items" + everything else is scaling junk

[Haexpane]

Tirigon wrote...
 

No it´s not. You´re a great warrior / mage when you´re chosen to be a Grey Warden. You don´t get better by doing what you did your entire life a week longer.
 

You're mixing canon w/ game mechanics.  Always a path to disappointment.

If I remember correctly Logain was calling me a Grey Warden Recruit.  So even in canon, Grey Wardens should get stronger as they come close to the ultimate.

If you don't want levels, that's what the books are for.

RPGs need levels.  RPGs w/o levels either suck, or replace levels w/ item levels or "circles" ... it's all the same thing