235 réponses à ce sujet

[iTomes]

Tirigon wrote...

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.

1. of course it would make more sense if you get youre skills taught in a different way, BUT its not very handy: in a game like DA we cant go the gothic way where you always learn a new ability by getting taught by someone because its just a totally different fighting system: in gothic we attack and block "ourselves" what is completely different to DA style. problem is: we need influence what abilities we get: if we want to make more damage an ability "you make less damage and get less damage" is useless. so you'd have to make an npc saying: i can teach you one of three skills what is (imo) even less realistic then learning skills out of "nowhere". so the only thing left is getting youre skills for gold BUT that wouldn't make much of a difference except that you have to wait a little longer for youre skills, youll still buy all usefull. besides, in DA you have a PARTY. shall they get theyre skills out of nowhere??

2. YES it makes the hell of a difference if you hit someone with a iron weapon or a "hell of a world destroyer" weapon. BUT first you must hit him. thats the thing about swordfighting. different than in todays fightening the skill of the guy who carrys the weapon matters MUCH MUCH more. its not "holding the right end into the direction of the enemy and push a button". so if someone with a silverite weapon and someone with a steel weapon fight, its not necessary that the guy with the silverite weapon wins (but, of course, he has an advantage).

Modifié par iTomes, 20 juillet 2010 - 07:57 .

[Celticon]

iTomes wrote...

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??

It doesn't have to make sense or satisfy realism. How can a sword/weapon can increase your cunning, health regeneration, or constitution?

Modifié par Celticon, 20 juillet 2010 - 08:04 .

[In Exile]

soteria wrote...
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?

Spells are about willpower. In the Fade, things don't really exist; you make the exist a certain way because you want them to. I think that is the essence of magic; shaping reality. When we see the Tower in the Mage Origin, you can see apprentices learn about magic, and they are essentially being taught to be mentally prepared. The fire scene is particularly illustrative - the mage is trying to evoke fire, but is afraid of it, and so can't.

But this creates huge problems. If magic is about willpower and imagination, then with enough of both you should effectively be able to use any spell that does not violate the laws of physics. And if magic takes more than just imagination, if it takes a special kind of concentration or learning to bend reality in a specific way, then being capable of brilliantly researching all magical knowledge on your own is absurd.

I think the way DA set up magic, it basically doesn't make sense not to know all possible magic from the start.

[Haexpane]

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.
 

That sounds like the worst most, unbalanced RPG ever made

[Haexpane]

Tirigon wrote...
 
That´s where Shooters are superior (Mass Effect not counting here): You can kill even the toughest guys with a single headshot.

Most RPG fans would say that is where shooters are VASTLY INFERIOR, in that case all that matters is twitch.

What matters to RPG fans is gear/stats/levels/resists/buffs/position/bonus/penalty/assist etc..

[iTomes]

"That sounds like the worst most, unbalanced RPG ever made"



its a shooter, thats why^^

[Haexpane]

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. .

yes, this is traditional and time tested RPG gameplay.  You want to fight a level 60?  Well you can't even start the quest until level 47 because the land doesn't respect you or something to that effect.

Want to return to a level 10 dungeon at level 20 and see how many baddies you can fight at once?  Done

DAO wont allow this, no respawning enemies and the scaling means you are locked into one time battles.  If you spawn something too easy or too hard, too bad.

[Haexpane]

Tirigon wrote...
 

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)

Seriously dood, you are not arguing w/ your parents.   You got warned by a mod, and now you are going to try to nitpick his warning?  Wow:blink:

[Haexpane]

Tirigon wrote...

 
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.

Realism is meaningless in RPGs.  But there are 10,000 action games out there with no leveling if you prefer it.

[Haexpane]

Tirigon wrote...

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.

Vagrant Story has "weapon leveling" as the leveling system.  In the end, it feels almost exactly like a normal leveling system

Two Worlds has the "learn from some master" skill system.  In the end you just search out the trainer, pay him gold, and level up.  

Different flavors of window dressing, but the result is the same and feels no different.

[Paromlin]

AmstradHero wrote...
 your last post effectively said: "your post is too long, ergo you are wrong".



You mentioned I should play Baldur's Gate and Storm of Zehir as "homework". I have played both, and as such, I know that they both have a linear critical path. Dragon Age doesn't, which is why it needs encounter scaling.



Presently, level scaling is the most time efficient means perform encounter scaling to provide balanced combat across a wide level range for most combat system mechanics. 


Please do not take offense when I say this, but I would suggest that you go study game design

You colossally misinterpreted my words then. I wonder how, since I haven't said you're wrong because your post is too long. I was merely trying to suggest you should be more concise because it's better for dialogue. I did read it. Yes, in a sped-up way, jumping over more-of-the-same parts.
I was also dealing with certain trash posts at the time (which I ignore now, as I said I would), so it could've sounded a bit dismissive.


The thing you're missing from the picture is that those two games (BG, SoZ) are non-linear as a whole - therefore, to reach parts of this "linear critical path", as you call it, you have to go through various non-linear non-critical parts of the game. This effectively nullifies your point.
DAO's critical path.. ahm. The whole game is a critical path, sadly.

How can it be done in such a game, you ask? Let's take the Brecilian forest, for example. The first area could have level 6 and 7 mobs, the next area level 7 and 8, the next one level 8 and 9 etc. With a sprinkle of higher level enemies here and there; out of the main way to not screw the player in the advancement. I ask you to understand that this is not the same thing as level scaling nor does it have the same effects of level scaling.
In DA2 it should be even simpler as there are these jumps in time that can help balance the encounters even more.


Heh, you say level scaling is the "most time efficient" thing. I agree, but I'd use a different expression: lazy.


I'm sorry my suggestion to go play BG and SoZ (again) for homework upset you so much that you felt like sending me to study game design.

[Orchomene]

Haexpane wrote...

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. .

yes, this is traditional and time tested RPG gameplay.  You want to fight a level 60?  Well you can't even start the quest until level 47 because the land doesn't respect you or something to that effect.

Want to return to a level 10 dungeon at level 20 and see how many baddies you can fight at once?  Done

DAO wont allow this, no respawning enemies and the scaling means you are locked into one time battles.  If you spawn something too easy or too hard, too bad.

Well, some RPGs did manage this pretty well with either a bit more linearity or not : BG/BG2/PST/FO/FO2.
In FO, you can go and fight well equiped enemies and either work hard your way with a bit of luck (and much earning) or miserably die on the first shot.
What you describe is the MMO mechanic that I don't really appreciate. It's artificial. But in BG or PST, you don't feel that much constrained on where you can go or not.

[Tirigon]

Seagloom wrote...

 Also, no filter circumventing. It's in place for a reason.

What reason would that be? I have wondered that since the first time I posted.......

[Tirigon]

Haexpane wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
 
That´s where Shooters are superior (Mass Effect not counting here): You can kill even the toughest guys with a single headshot.

Most RPG fans would say that is where shooters are VASTLY INFERIOR, in that case all that matters is twitch.

What matters to RPG fans is gear/stats/levels/resists/buffs/position/bonus/penalty/assist etc..

That is you saying so, but I have a different view. What is good about RPGs is the roleplaying. The stuff you mention is just the annoyance I have to put up with until someone makes a GOOD shooter-RPG hybrid (ME2 wasn´t really bad, imo, but far from what I really want.)

[Tirigon]

Paromlin wrote...


How can it be done in such a game, you ask? Let's take the Brecilian forest, for example. The first area could have level 6 and 7 mobs, the next area level 7 and 8, the next one level 8 and 9 etc. With a sprinkle of higher level enemies here and there; out of the main way to not screw the player in the advancement. I ask you to understand that this is not the same thing as level scaling nor does it have the same effects of level scaling.
In DA2 it should be even simpler as there are these jumps in time that can help balance the encounters even more.

The problem with this suggestion is that this will be great when you enter the Brecilian forest between level 6 and 9 - but what if I want to do it last and go there on level 18?

I´ll tell you: It´ll suck.
What will NOT suck is, if for a level 18 char the creatures are scaled between, say, 15 and 22.

So, basically, I agree with your idea that there should be creatures that are weaker, and others that are stronger than you.
However, I think they should still be scaled to your level - only differently than now. For example, Dragons should always be a few level above you; common bandits and darkspawn should be scaled always a level or 2 below you.

[Tirigon]

Haexpane wrote...

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.

That sounds like the worst most, unbalanced RPG ever made

Sadly, it´s not an RPG but a shooter and like all of them it´s way too short. However, it´s the best I have ever seen. Both graphically, story-wise, immersion-wise and the gameplay.

[Seagloom]

Tirigon wrote...

What reason would that be? I have wondered that since the first time I posted.......

To censor profanity. Yes, it's there for exactly the reason one would expect. That does not mean posting rampant profanity is okay. Going overboard with it is a bad idea. Circumventing it is a worse idea. If you have any further questions PM them.

[Haexpane]

Tirigon wrote...

 

Sadly, it´s not an RPG but a shooter 

So it has absolutely nothing to do w/ the topic then

[Harley_Dude]

The leveling in Borderlands seemed fine to me. RPG purists dismiss it but I found the game to be quite fun. All the missions show you the level so you have an idea of how difficult it will be. It also allows you to respec your character and to try different skills. Being able to play co-op is an added bonus. I also liked Darksiders which has no leveling but you get more skills and health as the game progresses. The enemies get more difficult but not as bad as Oblivion.

[Tirigon]

Haexpane wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Sadly, it´s not an RPG but a shooter 

So it has absolutely nothing to do w/ the topic then

That depends. If you want a remake of Baldurs Gate (and no, I haven´t played it, I have no idea if it´s as great as everyone claims or not), then it has indeed nothing to do with the topic.

If you talk about how to make a truly perfect game, however, then it HAS something to do with it. Because I don´t think the RPG genre should stick to some outdated and ridiculous conventions but define itself by the actual roleplaying, while the gameplay may well have elements of another genre or even be completely separated from the "common" rpg stuff.

[Tirigon]

The Harley Dude wrote...

The leveling in Borderlands seemed fine to me. RPG purists dismiss it but I found the game to be quite fun. All the missions show you the level so you have an idea of how difficult it will be. It also allows you to respec your character and to try different skills. Being able to play co-op is an added bonus. I also liked Darksiders which has no leveling but you get more skills and health as the game progresses. The enemies get more difficult but not as bad as Oblivion.

In Borderlands, I like the CO-op, and I loved the respec, but the leveling, imo, sucked because enemies didn´t scale with you but were on fixed levels. Effectively that meant that always 95% of the game were either too easy or impossible.

[Tirigon]

Sry doublepost.

Modifié par Tirigon, 21 juillet 2010 - 09:12 .

[B3taMaxxx]

The Harley Dude wrote...

The leveling in Borderlands seemed fine to me. RPG purists dismiss it but I found the game to be quite fun. All the missions show you the level so you have an idea of how difficult it will be. It also allows you to respec your character and to try different skills. Being able to play co-op is an added bonus. I also liked Darksiders which has no leveling but you get more skills and health as the game progresses. The enemies get more difficult but not as bad as Oblivion.

 I had high hopes for Borderlands, but the skills/talents were extremely lacking, as well as the true ability to create unique builds. If they had employed an attributes set this would of been averted IMO. That coupled with the crap story, well...........

[soteria]

Tirigon wrote...

However, I think they should still be scaled to your level - only differently than now. For example, Dragons should always be a few level above you; common bandits and darkspawn should be scaled always a level or 2 below you.

I thought that *was* the implementation in Dragon Age. Dragons are always +3 levels, I believe, and a brief check from loading a couple saves showed that normal darkspawn were ranged from 2-3 levels below my PC, with elites being equal level.

[Tirigon]

soteria wrote...

I thought that *was* the implementation in Dragon Age. Dragons are always +3 levels, I believe, and a brief check from loading a couple saves showed that normal darkspawn were ranged from 2-3 levels below my PC, with elites being equal level.

Then why are some darkspawn stronger than my party?

And the very worst example: Loghain - Alistair duel.

My Alistair used overpowered weapons and armor from a mod, therefore having 50 armor and 70 damage, but Loghain was so insanely overpowered he hit for about 60 damage and received only 40..........
That means, he has 30 armor and 110 damage; however, if you recruit him he has only 18 or so armor and about 50 damage.

Stuff like that is what sucks, imo....