235 réponses à ce sujet

[SkittlesKat96]

I think Dragon Age Awakening did a good job with levelling, they let you fight darkspawn but you could massacre them which made you feel like all the stuff you did in Dragon Age Origins made you stronger, but Awakening still had bosses and enemies like Armored Ogres that wore armor, and they had a smart reason for armored ogres, being that some of the darkspawn were more intelligent.

[soteria]

I.e, start off fighting wolves, thugs and roaming gentlocks then at the end of the game we get to fight heavily armored kings, armored ogres, powerful cursed spirits, dragonlike (or even dragons themselves) creatures and all that cool stuff.

The main enemy you fight in the game is darkspawn and humans. Are you asking for Bioware to just rename and reskin higher-level darkspawn to make you feel like you're fighting stronger enemies? In this particular story, they can't just have you start fighting a completely different enemy at higher levels, and it wouldn't even make sense. It doesn't make any more sense for renamed and reskinned darkspawn to show up later on than it does for the existing ones to just be tougher. As for fighting weaker enemies, they did put in hundreds of "grunts" toward the end... and it was awful, imo.

[Vaeliorin]

I have a question for all the "I hate level scaling because it makes me feel like my character isn't progressing" people.



Have you ever played a game that doesn't have levels? Perhaps something using the Storyteller system? In the Storyteller system, instead of levels, you get XP that you can spend on abilities, enhancing statistics, etc. Do you feel like your character progresses in such a system?



If you feel that your character can progress in a level-less system, I have to wonder how that's truly different than a system with level-scaling? You essentially stay on a level plane with enemies, but you get new abilities that make fights easier.



Personally, I favor level-scaling with minimum levels for monsters, but no maximum level. It means (ideally) that combat stays challenging throughout the game, wherever you go. I honestly think easy combat simply shouldn't be in the game, because all it amounts to is a waste of time. If the combat fails to challenge me in some way, it serves no real purpose other than to take up time, and honestly, I'd rather have a shorter game with no pointless filler than a longer game with a significant amount of pointless filler (NWN1/2, I'm looking at you here!).

[RetrOldSchool]

AmstradHero wrote...

...Oblivion's level scaling:
It sucks. There's no two ways about it. Bandits with glass armour, daedroth roaming the countryside, guards that can almost go toe to toe with the hero ot Tamriel... Yuck.

Amen. Actually the re-spawns in the dungeons and the ridiculous level/item scaling in Oblivion were the reasons I put it down (something Bethesda redeemed in F3 luckily).

I don't have a problem with most of the level scaling in DA:O, most of the time I didn't really think about it that much.

I think one way of taking care of the loot scaling (or at least make it less obvious) is to give the player other ways of earning money, that way the player won't be as dependent on selling loot to be able to afford higher tier equipment. I think ME and KOTOR also had level scaling and I never gave it much thought in neither of those games.

[AmstradHero]

I concur on the point of liking the principle behind Oblivion's levelling system. You get better at things that you actually do. This was done "well" way back in the days of Dungeon Master.  Dungeon Siege tried to bring it back, but unfortunately fell a little short of the mark in the implementation.

soteria: The reason the horde of weaker enemies didn't work is because they were all "one-hit" kill enemies. That's a specific category in the toolset.  It made the fighting too trivial. Instead of making you feel powerful, it just made those darkspawn feel like weaklings. Especially given that if you did the Deep Roads last, as the darkspawn you encountered most recently before that were fairly tough.

Vaelorin: I see where you're coming from with the wanting challenging combat - however, I confess I do occasionally like facing off against a horde of weak enemies I faced earlier in the game and seeing how easily I can dispatch them. I don't want it to happen all the time - but one or two such encounters are nice. The immediate impression of a swarm of enemies you saw significantly earlier in the game is one of danger. However, as you step forward and start carving through them - or as you watch a large bunch of them fall from a panicked fireball - the feeling you get is one of relief and achievement.  "Damn, I'm so awesome!" Gamers like that.  They just don't need that repeated a lot... else it's "Oh great, another orc horde, come on, just hurry up and die so I can move on."

[Tirigon]

AmstradHero wrote...


I think the most interesting point that's been raised the in the thread is the abolition of levelling entirely. I like the concept, but I think the problem would be merging it into the "rise to power" tradition present in CRPGs. Or perhaps RPGs in general? Players like to have the sense of acheivement of becoming powerful and so they would be able to summarily destroy the weaklings they encountered at the start of the game. It's the empowerment of becoming a champion that people are attached to, and it could be argued as a result of that, levels are now more frequently granted to players. While the overall rise in power might be the same across the adventure, the granularity of that progression is more fine grained so that players get more "WoWcrack" from seeing that advancement occur.

We human beings are easily manipulated creatures - even when we know we're being manipulated.

There are ways to increase in Power without leveling up, e.g. via better weapons and, especially via the PLAYER´s increased skill.

A very good example is Alien vs Predator: In the first level of the marine campaign it is insanely hard to defeat the Aliens as soon as there are 2 or more at once.
In later levels you get the sniper rifle that allows to see them even in total darkness and can kill with a single hit, making it by far easier.
And at 2 points you get the Smartgun and feel the complete power of technology vs claws: It aims automatically, kills with 2 to 3 hits and is fully automatic. I sometimes killed 10 aliens in a row without them getting close to me.

So, you definitely feel the advancement from an inexperienced recruit to an almost unstoppable killer machine - but the game has no levels at all.

[soteria]

soteria: The reason the horde of weaker enemies didn't work is because they were all "one-hit" kill enemies. That's a specific category in the toolset. It made the fighting too trivial. Instead of making you feel powerful, it just made those darkspawn feel like weaklings. Especially given that if you did the Deep Roads last, as the darkspawn you encountered most recently before that were fairly tough.

They could have achieved more or less the same effect by having you fight the same level darkspawn you fought at Ostagar. I'd say most PCs could one-shot those, wouldn't you? And again, in Dragon Age Origins all you fight is darkspawn and humans. Either they rename them and make them tougher for no good reason, or you fight a lot of fodder that never really threatens you, or they use automatic level scaling and save their resources for something else. The only really realistic route is for the PC to level up rarely or not at all and for everything to stay around the same level for the whole game. I don't think the realistic route sounds very fun.

As for the idea that late-game it's nice to have the odd encounter that makes you feel powerful, I'd argue that we already have that in Dragon Age. The game gets significantly easier by around level 15, and a properly built character can be nearly indestructable by level 18 or so. I outright reject the claims that you don't feel more powerful at the end of DA:O because of level scaling. It's simply a false claim, and in Awakening, that's even more true.

[Tirigon]

soteria wrote...

As for the idea that late-game it's nice to have the odd encounter that makes you feel powerful, I'd argue that we already have that in Dragon Age. The game gets significantly easier by around level 15, and a properly built character can be nearly indestructable by level 18 or so. I outright reject the claims that you don't feel more powerful at the end of DA:O because of level scaling. It's simply a false claim, and in Awakening, that's even more true.

Overall, I agree with this - for about 99%.

However, there is ONE exception where later in the game you feel weaker: Lots of archers.

This is due to EVERY SINGLE ASS of an archer having scattershot. I play almost only on Nightmare, but at one place in the Tevinter slaver´s base (Alienage) I had to turn down to easy because the enemy archers wiped my whole party with their scattershots - and due to the stun you can´t even spam your potions to survive.....

Seriously, if I would know how to use the toolset I would change the Archer AI so that only bosses nd elite uses Scattershot.
Or, maybe, just delete this skill entirely because it´s the most ridiculous skill in the entire game anyways, and one of the reason why i hate archers.

Mod Edit: Removed a word that was seriously bending the rules.

Modifié par Seagloom, 20 juillet 2010 - 01:08 .

[Sidney]

soteria wrote...
As for the idea that late-game it's nice to have the odd encounter that makes you feel powerful, I'd argue that we already have that in Dragon Age. The game gets significantly easier by around level 15, and a properly built character can be nearly indestructable by level 18 or so. I outright reject the claims that you don't feel more powerful at the end of DA:O because of level scaling. It's simply a false claim, and in Awakening, that's even more true.

Yeah but really, you'd think Arl Howe's basement is the single most valuable chunk of real estate in Ferelden.
Do you win, yes, but the fact that an amped up, super over the top mage has to blast the living hades out of every single guard over and over and over  doesn't feel right.  It isn't hard in game terms. I'm gonna win despite the annoyances of scattershot but it sure doesn't make me feel powerful in any meaningful way.

Again, the problem is never dragons, demons, mages and their ilk. It is the infestation of Tevinter Guards, guys in Arl Howe's basement and other run of the mill schleps that seem improbably tough that create the wrong feel.

[Tirigon]

Sidney wrote...

Again, the problem is never dragons, demons, mages and their ilk. It is the infestation of Tevinter Guards, guys in Arl Howe's basement and other run of the mill schleps that seem improbably tough that create the wrong feel.

Indeed. But I think this is the problem with RPGs - in RPGs you will always either have such ridiculous situations, or you´ll not be challenged in most situations.
That´s where Shooters are superior (Mass Effect not counting here): You can kill even the toughest guys with a single headshot.

[soteria]

I've said in more than one thread that Arl Howe's guards seem disproportionately tough. There's a definite jump in difficulty from whatever you had been fighting before you entered that area. And yes, scattershot is a problematic ability. I'd prefer Bioware stopped trying to make all the enemies have identical abilities to ours and just design interesting enemies, but they haven't listened, yet. Scattershot, Fireball, Cone of Cold and Crushing Prison are all fun abilities for the player, but in the hands of the enemy they're just frustrating.

Again, the problem is never dragons, demons, mages and their ilk. It is the infestation of Tevinter Guards, guys in Arl Howe's basement and other run of the mill schleps that seem improbably tough that create the wrong feel.

I halfway agree, but can't quite. At the risk of mixing different issues, the fact that most of the game is (imo) so easy makes Howe's dungeon a lot of fun. I feel like I can finally flex my virtual muscles, meet some resistance, and take pleasure in overcoming it. Most other enemies die too quickly. On nightmare, I wish more of the game were like that. But like I said, you're right about that segment of the game not "fitting."

[AmstradHero]

The extraordinarily powerful "run-of-the-mill" guards in Howe's basement are the perfect demonstration of the annoyances of scaling, yet in order to make the encounter meaningful (particularly for those from the human noble origin), it has to be that way. It sucks from a realism/consistency standpoint, but as a human noble, I didn't want it any other way. I wanted to take down that rotten Howe from the very start of the game - even when I first met him I figured him for a slimy weasel, and I was right. If it wasn't a challenge reaching and killing him, the whole sequence would have been a massive let-down.

I'd be happy to have weak darkspawn that took maybe 1-3 hits to kill at Redcliffe invasion in the end-game. It would make it seem more like combat rather than, "run to enemy, watch them die, rinse, repeat". I'll also agree that combat can get somewhat easy towards the tail end of the game... excluding a couple of encounters and those damnable scattershot spamming archers.

But, I must confess, I'm one of those people that plays on normal... the idea of playing nightmare gives me the willies. When it comes to designing really challenging combat - or at the very least, testing it, I'd have to hand the task off to someone like you, soteria.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 20 juillet 2010 - 01:10 .

[Seagloom]

It's possible to disagree with others without resorting to personal attacks. This thread is becoming a little heated and I rather not lock it.

This especially goes for you, Tirigon. Calling people idiots just because you dislike them is bad form. Adding *one* asterisk to a swear word to "censor" it doesn't make it okay to post. Consider this your warning.

Modifié par Seagloom, 20 juillet 2010 - 01:12 .

[Orchomene]

I don't like level scaling at all. It breaks the feeling of evolution of power of the character and is, for me, a poor design solution whereas there are other ways to solve the issue.

1. Having a less impressive progression between level 1 and level 20. That is, not having a level 20 being ten times stronger than a level 1, but only may be three times or whatever.

2. Having encounter scaling as proposed in the beginning of the thread. If you are high level with three NPC you have more enemies and of different type than if you are alone and low level. But I don't think this should "scale" completly, just be a minor modification.

3. Assume the player can understand that if he is facing a dragon at level 6, he will die. Assume also that the player can understand that if he is facing wolf/bandit or whatever small enemy at level 20, the fight won't be fun at all. That is, assume the player has some good sense. This is somewhat already a little done in the DAO system, but too little to my taste.

At the end, a good thing is a mix of all of this and DAO tries to find a good balance between free exploration and too much level scaling. But there are still too many enemies and places having a very wide level range. With a bit tighter one, the game would feel a bit more realistic at the expense of a small frustration when you go to high level places. At the moment, going from Lothering to Orzammar remains being too easy.

[Tirigon]

Seagloom wrote...

This especially goes for you, Tirigon. Calling people idiots just because you dislike them is bad form.

I suppose you refer to Paromlin? If yes, I didn´t call him an idiot because I dislike him, but because he insulted me first, and because of his arrogant, annoying attitude. That´s a difference.

Adding *one* asterisk to a swear word to "censor" it doesn't make it okay to post. Consider this your warning.

It´s not supposed to censor it, it´s supposed to circumvent these annoying auto-censorsB)

Modifié par Tirigon, 20 juillet 2010 - 03:22 .

[Tirigon]

Orchomene wrote...

3. Assume the player can understand that if he is facing a dragon at level 6, he will die. Assume also that the player can understand that if he is facing wolf/bandit or whatever small enemy at level 20, the fight won't be fun at all. That is, assume the player has some good sense. This is somewhat already a little done in the DAO system, but too little to my taste.

I think it´s realistic as it is. Only because you can kill a dragon doesn´t mean a bandit archer can´t kill you with a well-placed arrow.

[Harley_Dude]

Tirigon wrote...

soteria wrote...

As for the idea that late-game it's nice to have the odd encounter that makes you feel powerful, I'd argue that we already have that in Dragon Age. The game gets significantly easier by around level 15, and a properly built character can be nearly indestructable by level 18 or so. I outright reject the claims that you don't feel more powerful at the end of DA:O because of level scaling. It's simply a false claim, and in Awakening, that's even more true.

Overall, I agree with this - for about 99%.

However, there is ONE exception where later in the game you feel weaker: Lots of archers.

This is due to EVERY SINGLE ASS of an archer having scattershot. I play almost only on Nightmare, but at one place in the Tevinter slaver´s base (Alienage) I had to turn down to easy because the enemy archers wiped my whole party with their scattershots - and due to the stun you can´t even spam your potions to survive.....

Seriously, if I would know how to use the toolset I would change the Archer AI so that only bosses nd elite uses Scattershot.
Or, maybe, just delete this skill entirely because it´s the most ridiculous skill in the entire game anyways, and one of the reason why i hate archers.

Mod Edit: Removed a word that was seriously bending the rules.

Hah! I just was killed by off by a bunch of archers and a friggin mage. I went down so fast I could not cast a single spell. The whole party was stunned and then roasted alive. I got the twitching blood boil treatment as an added bonus.

You may hate leveling in Oblivion but at least it was consistent. DAO leveling is all over the place. Time to ditch M and bring back L with her Arrow of Slaying. L loves mages.

Modifié par Seagloom, 20 juillet 2010 - 07:16 .

[AlanC9]

Tirigon wrote...


A very good example is Alien vs Predator: In the first level of the marine campaign it is insanely hard to defeat the Aliens as soon as there are 2 or more at once.
In later levels you get the sniper rifle that allows to see them even in total darkness and can kill with a single hit, making it by far easier.
And at 2 points you get the Smartgun and feel the complete power of technology vs claws: It aims automatically, kills with 2 to 3 hits and is fully automatic. I sometimes killed 10 aliens in a row without them getting close to me.

So, you definitely feel the advancement from an inexperienced recruit to an almost unstoppable killer machine - but the game has no levels at all.

The gear levels up, and the player doesn't.Workable, but pretty much the opposite of what I like in an RPG.

[Tirigon]

AlanC9 wrote...


The gear levels up, and the player doesn't.Workable, but pretty much the opposite of what I like in an RPG.

You can´t argue taste; if you prefer leveling up, that´s your opinion and it´s valid.

But at least accept that it makes no sense from a realism perspective - at least not in the way it is done in current RPGs.

[iTomes]

Tirigon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...


The gear levels up, and the player doesn't.Workable, but pretty much the opposite of what I like in an RPG.

You can´t argue taste; if you prefer leveling up, that´s your opinion and it´s valid.

But at least accept that it makes no sense from a realism perspective - at least not in the way it is done in current RPGs.

hmmm i wouldn't say that gear getting better is better.... at least not in a medieval enviroment rpg. a sword is still a sword,  no matter if it is of iron or dragonbone. you see, that the material really matters you first have to hit an enemy. besides, how would you explain a new skill when the only thing you changed is the material of youre weapon??

[Tirigon]

iTomes wrote...

hmmm i wouldn't say that gear getting better is better.... at least not in a medieval enviroment rpg. a sword is still a sword,  no matter if it is of iron or dragonbone. you see, that the material really matters you first have to hit an enemy. besides, how would you explain a new skill when the only thing you changed is the material of youre weapon??

That´s exactly my point. It makes no sense to learn new skills by winning with your old ones.

It DOES make sense to learn skills by story events, like being taught a specialisation by your companion, or by paying for lessons at a Master warrior or something, but not simply by leveling up.

And yes, better weapons DO make sense. It´s a difference if you hit an enemy with a rusty old iron dagger or if you hit him with an enchanted, dwarfen-made sword made from the finest silverite and with an edge 100 times sharper than your old iron dagger´s edge.

[soteria]

Well, technically speaking, a sword is not still a sword. Steel was a large improvement over iron, which was brittle and corroded. If we accept fantastic metals like red steel and dragonbone, then it makes sense for better materials to be a large improvement. That said, I'm really not too concerned with being a slave to realism when it comes to game systems.

[In Exile]

It does make sense to learn sword and shield skills with time, though. It can just be a matter of making them up on the fly with experience. Spells make a lot less sense.

[Seagloom]

Tirigon wrote...

I suppose you refer to Paromlin? If yes, I didn´t call him an idiot because I dislike him, but because he insulted me first, and because of his arrogant, annoying attitude. That´s a difference.

It´s not supposed to censor it, it´s supposed to circumvent these annoying auto-censorsB)

That doesn't justify it. I know you're not the only person in this thread to use ad hominems. I mentioned that since I had to bring up the swearing bit anyway. No matter what you think of someone or how they treat you, I ask you don't lash back with insults. Report it to a moderator instead. Also, no filter circumventing. It's in place for a reason.

[soteria]

It does make sense to learn sword and shield skills with time, though. It can just be a matter of making them up on the fly with experience. Spells make a lot less sense.

As far as I can tell, spells are cast more-or-less "naturally" in Thedas. It doesn't seem like they're memorized or written down in the DnD sense. I'd say learning new spells as you level up makes as much sense for mages in DA:O as it did for sorcerors in DnD. I'm curious, how else do you think mages should learn spells in DA:O?