480 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

adi4444 wrote...
wow tamzuk i couldent have sayd it better i totaly agree with you
i am sooo disapointed about the direction da2 has taken...mibe ea? fpult
but we have hope the witcher 2 should came out in few mounthes mibe it will be good rpg..

Yet all of the features people seem disappointed with in DA2 are already in The Witcher.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DarkSpiral wrote...

Uh, yeah.  Yeah it does Sylvius.  If I can decide where to go and what quest to do first that would be more freedom.

Right, but Ortaya was saying that scaling is what grants that freedom, and that's not the case.  It's the choice that grants the freedom.

Yeah, we as a level 8 warrior would be free to go up against a level 16 monster and get our asses handed to us. You need a way to render your choices feasible. Scaling system is one such way.

You seem to be suggesting that certain areas be far more difficult than others.  That isn't freedome, that's just another way of enforcing linearity: "Go to Area A, then Area B, and then Area C, because going to Are C first will kill you every time."

Not necessarily far more, but certainly more.  There's no telling when one player will have difficulty with a different section of the game and find ease with another even though the typical player experiences the opposite.  And what if I'd rather have the big challenge first and them face only easy fights afterward (this is actually how I prefer games to go - levelling up should reward me by making the game easier - if not, why did I bother?)

Suppose you're level x. One area has level x enemies, the other level 2x. I think you know where I'm going with this. You're clinging to the idea of some finding the first battle much tougher whereas others thinking the same with the second battle. With fixed enemy levels and uneven areas, it is no longer rational to expect this.

DarkSpiral wrote...

Assumptions?  I don't see him directly referencing DA2 at all.  Ortaya is talking about possibilities, or stating preferences, just like you are.  What assumptions is he (or she) making about DA2?

Any game's design.  Ortaya's points only made sense if the game had a steep power curve.  That is by no means necessary.

We could easily look at DAO at see how little scaling would be required if the entire game spanned only levels 6-12.

Or, as I suggested, a less linear power progression generally.  It would work better with a classless system, but if each area was vulnerable to different sorts of abilities or tactics, so whichever you choose to emphasise in your party would determine the optimal order in which to tackle to quests.  The player would still have all the same choice - the choice would just have to be coupled with skill selection.

In your case, what's the point of leveling altogether if you can possibly beat a level 12 monster with your level 6 character? You call a steep power curve, I call a power curve that makes room for the concept of leveling at all. If you can kill level 12 people with your level 6 person, the game becomes Denerim City Gates by the time you reach level 10ish. Is that what you want? How many people do you think would appreciate playing the better half of the game against one-shot kill monsters?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Easy. I get the "not intuitive" part well enough, thank you very much. I'm simply saying you're losing your hair strands over something unworthy. If getting one stat point every ten levels or starting with 200 STR and ending up with 250 STR or whatever other intuitive solution will help your immersion, by all means take it to developers. If they aren't convinced, tough break. You think it's a bad system because it hurts immersion, they think it's good system because it's practical. Or something. Considering the matter is thoroughly subjective, with no "right" or "wrong" leveling systems around, what you're doing here doesn't go far beyond venting.

I disagree. Simple logic dictates - if you have two systems that get you the same result, but one is more logical (realistic), then there is no need to go for theother one, espeially if you want a realistic world/setting.

Quite simply - the system I mentioned is better. Objectively. Better imersion, easier balancing, more challegne, more intuitive.

But it doesn't have as much "dings" and useless frills and ego-boosting. I weep for the world.

By following "simple" logic, then, we should add functions such as eating, sleeping, taking a ******, taking a dump, taking a shower, sickness and menstruation to the game as well. Because we want a logical (realistic) world/setting. It's all about convenience, not realism. You think varying an attribute between 1010-1090 instead of 10-90 makes a system "objectively better"? Yep, they give the same result, and the former has logic, realism, chalenge, intuition...never mind redundancy. I suggest you revise your notion of objectivity; this topic has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Modifié par Ortaya Alevli, 19 septembre 2010 - 01:16 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Yeah, we as a level 8 warrior would be free to go up against a level 16 monster and get our asses handed to us. You need a way to render your choices feasible. Scaling system is one such way.

If all choices are feasible then they're not really choices.

Suppose you're level x. One area has level x enemies, the other level 2x. I think you know where I'm going with this. You're clinging to the idea of some finding the first battle much tougher whereas others thinking the same with the second battle. With fixed enemy levels and uneven areas, it is no longer rational to expect this.

If all battles are is run into a room and fight, yes, you'd be correct.  But this isn't mandatory.

I level is the only means to measure the challenge of an encounter, you'd be correct.  But this isn't mandatory.

Tactics can and should matter.  Preparation can and should matter.  And all level x fights shouldn't be equal.  Look at the basilisks in Baldur's Gate.  Regardless of your party's level, if you didn't have a means to avoid petrification, you'd probably get killed by them.  But if you did have the means to avoid petrification, you could probabaly defeat them by level 4.

All levels are not created equal.

DAO's design would be perfect for this.  There could be an enemy that was vulnerable to shattering, but otherwise extremely difficult to kill.  Any party that lacked the abilitiy to freeze and shatter it would need to be very high level to defeat it, but a party of half that level who could freeze and shatter it would fight the encounter simple.

You're still making far too many unnecessary assumptions about game design.

In your case, what's the point of leveling altogether if you can possibly beat a level 12 monster with your level 6 character?

It would be easier and require less preparation.

At level 12 you might walk into a room unprepared and still handle it with ease, while at level 6 you'd only be successful if you planned the battle very carefully and everything went your way (but one failed resistance check and you're done).

You call a steep power curve, I call a power curve that makes room for the concept of leveling at all.

given the length of games these days, a steep power curve is even nonsensical within the setting.

I'd like to see the rise from peasant to god-killing-abomination be the work of a lifetime, not just several weeks of adventuring.  There's a reason why old D&D modules would typically grant enough experience to gain only one level (maybe two).  You'd play for what might be several weeks in-game, and when you came out the other side you'd have gone from level 6 to level 7.

That's a reasonable rate of progression.

By following "simple" logic, then, we should add functions such as eating, sleeping, taking a ******, taking a dump, taking a shower, sickness and menstruation to the game as well.

I do think they should add sleeping.  Not for the sake of realism, but for gameplay.  Ambushes are excellent narrative opportunities.

[Ortaya Alevli]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[quote]Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Yeah, we as a level 8 warrior would be free to go up against a level 16 monster and get our asses handed to us. You need a way to render your choices feasible. Scaling system is one such way.[/quote]
If all choices are feasible then they're not really choices.
[/quote]If one side is not interested in making sense anymore, it's not a proper discussion.

I'm afraid you're wasting your time.

[quote][quote]Suppose you're level x. One area has level x enemies, the other level 2x. I think you know where I'm going with this. You're clinging to the idea of some finding the first battle much tougher whereas others thinking the same with the second battle. With fixed enemy levels and uneven areas, it is no longer rational to expect this.[/quote]
If all battles are is run into a room and fight, yes, you'd be correct.  But this isn't mandatory.

I level is the only means to measure the challenge of an encounter, you'd be correct.  But this isn't mandatory.

Tactics can and should matter.  Preparation can and should matter.  And all level x fights shouldn't be equal.  Look at the basilisks in Baldur's Gate.  Regardless of your party's level, if you didn't have a means to avoid petrification, you'd probably get killed by them.  But if you did have the means to avoid petrification, you could probabaly defeat them by level 4.

All levels are not created equal.

DAO's design would be perfect for this.  There could be an enemy that was vulnerable to shattering, but otherwise extremely difficult to kill.  Any party that lacked the abilitiy to freeze and shatter it would need to be very high level to defeat it, but a party of half that level who could freeze and shatter it would fight the encounter simple.

You're still making far too many unnecessary assumptions about game design.[/quote]It doesn't matter if we're comparing a Ser Cauthrien battle and a Flemeth battle. If both battles are somehow manageable at level 6 and enemies aren't leveling up, then either they'll become a cakewalk at level 10 or your own leveling won't matter much, which would take away the major incentive of leveling up: getting stronger and we'd be playing something like GTA: San Andreas.

Basilisk example is a marginal one and cannot be applied universally. You cannot design all battles to be winnable with a level-independent strategy. That would trivialize the entire concept of leveling and we'd be playing something like Quake IV.

Of course tactics should matter. Which is exactly one of the advantages of leveling enemies. When they level up alongside you, they're still worth a brain cell or two and you'll feel compelled to plan your battle as much as you did at early levels. Enemies with static levels, however, would provide less challenge as you keep leveling
up, which in turn would take away from the importance of elements such as
tactics, strategy and micromanagement and we'd be playing something like World of Warcraft.

You'd be wrong to assume I claimed that all level x battles should be equal. Of course there should be variety. But they should be comparable. As in, manageable when you're level x. If one level x battle is manageable at level x and a second one is not, then that second level x battle is not a level x battle.

I'm afraid you're wasting your time.

[quote][quote]In your case, what's the point of leveling altogether if you can possibly beat a level 12 monster with your level 6 character?[/quote]
It would be easier and require less preparation.

At level 12 you might walk into a room unprepared and still handle it with ease, while at level 6 you'd only be successful if you planned the battle very carefully and everything went your way (but one failed resistance check and you're done).[/quote]So the entire point of leveling is toning down the difficulty. Start with Nightmare, finish with Casual. That's...great.

I'm afraid you're wasting your time.
[quote][quote]You call a steep power curve, I call a power curve that makes room for the concept of leveling at all.[/quote]
given the length of games these days, a steep power curve is even nonsensical within the setting.[/quote]Your personal opinion. Mine would be that DA:O is long enough to warrant a consistent difficulty level.

[quote]I'd like to see the rise from peasant to god-killing-abomination be the work of a lifetime, not just several weeks of adventuring.  There's a reason why old D&D modules would typically grant enough experience to gain only one level (maybe two).  You'd play for what might be several weeks in-game, and when you came out the other side you'd have gone from level 6 to level 7.

That's a reasonable rate of progression.[/quote]'K.

[quote][quote]By following "simple" logic, then, we should add functions such as eating, sleeping, taking a ******, taking a dump, taking a shower, sickness and menstruation to the game as well.[/quote]
I do think they should add sleeping.  Not for the sake of realism, but for gameplay.  Ambushes are excellent narrative opportunities.[/quote]No objection here. It's been tried with mostly satisfactory results.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
Yeah, we as a level 8 warrior would be free to go up against a level 16 monster and get our asses handed to us. You need a way to render your choices feasible. Scaling system is one such way.

You're assuming a lvl 8 warrior has no chance agaisnt a lvl16 monster. It all depends on how power scales with level.

In your case, what's the point of leveling altogether if you can possibly beat a level 12 monster with your level 6 character? You call a steep power curve, I call a power curve that makes room for the concept of leveling at all. If you can kill level 12 people with your level 6 person, the game becomes Denerim City Gates by the time you reach level 10ish. Is that what you want? How many people do you think would appreciate playing the better half of the game against one-shot kill monsters?

You're trapped looking at level and pwoer prgression in always the same way.
What makes you think that your power grows exponentially? What maeks you think that at lvl 20 you will be a god among men?

Player pwoered depends on how you percieve and model that "power".
Is it a large HP and ATT increase at each level? By lvl20 it surely would accumulate?

Or is it just skills and abilities that get added with levels?

One way enables you to wade trough dozens of enemies with ease once you reach a high level, the other makes you pwoerfull while still making those dozen enemies VERY challenging.

I can ask simply - what's the point of player level increase, if the SAME enemeis will only become stronger too (lvl1 darkspawn and lvl20 darkspawn)?

By following "simple" logic, then, we should add functions such as eating, sleeping, taking a ******, taking a dump, taking a shower, sickness and menstruation to the game as well. Because we want a logical (realistic) world/setting. It's all about convenience, not realism. You think varying an attribute between 1010-1090 instead of 10-90 makes a system "objectively better"? Yep, they give the same result, and the former has logic, realism, chalenge, intuition...never mind redundancy. I suggest you revise your notion of objectivity; this topic has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Nope. Why should you add things that add little to nothing to the gameplay (and are probably not in the design document in the first place)? Granted, there are games where food and sleep are in, but a game has to be geared towrds that.
In contrast, a leveling system WILL be in the game. If you're already going to have one, Then why not make it function mroe realisticly?

For an example - in BG, if you make a strong starting character, that character is alread strong enough to equip any armor/weapon in the game. Makes sense - I have to be fit and strong to wear full plate, I don't have to be a pwoer lifter for that. Does it work that way in DA:O? No. I presumably start as a fit, trained warrior that can easiyl wear IRON chainmail...yet I'm not strong enough to wear STEEL plate ...or STEEL chainmail for that matter. Yes, totally immersive.

You can expand on that...other thing can be done more immersively..loot drops, inventory, etc. No defeated enemy should EVER drop working armor. After all, he wore it and you killed him, so that armor is not in wokring condition anymore.
Limited inventory, because people onnly have 2 arms and limited strength. Etc...


And no. I think varrying an attribute between 10-20 or 50-100 is better than varrying between 10-100. And I'm right.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You're assuming a lvl 8 warrior has no chance agaisnt a lvl16 monster. It all depends on how power scales with level.

If you wish to discuss a new gameplay system in which leveling wouldn't matter as much in the traditional sense, please let me know. Otherwise, killing endgame material with a band of newcomers doesn't help much in the way of giving players a reason to level up.

You're trapped looking at level and pwoer prgression in always the same way.
What makes you think that your power grows exponentially? What maeks you think that at lvl 20 you will be a god among men?

I'm "trapped" thinking that level 10 enemies will not pose as much challenge when you're level 20 in current gameplay systems. So, the enemies need to catch up if the game is to keep things interesting. Or you can design a game where level 10 enemies can still give you a hard time even after you leveled well past their caliber. Hard to do that while ensuring that leveling still matters, though.

Player pwoered depends on how you percieve and model that "power".
Is it a large HP and ATT increase at each level? By lvl20 it surely would accumulate?

Or is it just skills and abilities that get added with levels?

One way enables you to wade trough dozens of enemies with ease once you reach a high level, the other makes you pwoerfull while still making those dozen enemies VERY challenging.

Either one works. Bottom line is, each new level in a RPG gives you a sense of increased overall capability. All the while providing you with more capable enemies so that difficulty doesn't drop and the game doesn't lose your interest as you keep leveling.

I can ask simply - what's the point of player level increase, if the SAME enemeis will only become stronger too (lvl1 darkspawn and lvl20 darkspawn)?

I want to remind you that you're fighting the "same" enemies only during the non-linear parts of the game. You're going to visit Deep Roads sooner or later during the course. Enemy leveling allows you to go there at any order. Can be your first or fourth destination; you're free to go there at any time. Fixing Deep Roads at level 16 means it will be Nintendo hard if you prefer to go there as your first destination. Fixing Deep Roads at level 9 means it will be a cakewalk. That's the point of enemy leveling. More freedom in choosing which quest you want to do first, putting your destinations in order as you see fit. After that, after the non-linear part, scaling enemies will lose justification, of course. As far as I know, Archdemon is always level 23, for example, so your level will matter more.

Nope. Why should you add things that add little to nothing to the gameplay (and are probably not in the design document in the first place)? Granted, there are games where food and sleep are in, but a game has to be geared towrds that.
In contrast, a leveling system WILL be in the game. If you're already going to have one, Then why not make it function mroe realisticly?

For an example - in BG, if you make a strong starting character, that character is alread strong enough to equip any armor/weapon in the game. Makes sense - I have to be fit and strong to wear full plate, I don't have to be a pwoer lifter for that. Does it work that way in DA:O? No. I presumably start as a fit, trained warrior that can easiyl wear IRON chainmail...yet I'm not strong enough to wear STEEL plate ...or STEEL chainmail for that matter. Yes, totally immersive.

You can expand on that...other thing can be done more immersively..loot drops, inventory, etc. No defeated enemy should EVER drop working armor. After all, he wore it and you killed him, so that armor is not in wokring condition anymore.
Limited inventory, because people onnly have 2 arms and limited strength. Etc...

Tiered gear is out of the scope of my argument, though. Maybe steel in DA:O is a little heavier than iron, and a little bit more strength may be required to wear it effectively. I don't intend to dig for a justification to that mechanic. A dragonthorn bow requiring more dexterity than an elm bow is something I can't possibly explain. Again, it's probably less to do with realism and more gameplay balance and such. Stats are far from realistic to begin with anyway.

And no. I think varrying an attribute between 10-20 or 50-100 is better than varrying between 10-100. And I'm right.

You're not "right". You have your personal opinion with an arguably valid explanation (realism) and an assumption that BioWare is supposed to trade their reasons for realism. The dev team had their own opinion with their own reasons (a greater extent of character customization, for instance). If you're hungry and you've got McDonald's and Burger King down your block, which one is the right choice? It's a matter of preference.

[krasnoarmeets]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You can expand on that...other thing can be done more immersively..loot drops, inventory, etc. No defeated enemy should EVER drop working armor. After all, he wore it and you killed him, so that armor is not in wokring condition anymore.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Unless you're wielding a weapon that can punch/bludgeon through a suit of armour, for the most part you're going to be trying to get around the armour. 

[mopotter]

Kevin Lynch wrote...

Yep, the NPC interaction in BG2 was a template, I think, for what Bio's done since with character design. DA:O was a great throw-back to that time, although there was way too much humour in the chat and not enough in the way of serious, important topics. It'd be great if the banter moved a little bit into the realm of meaningful conversations both with the PC and between NPCs.

I wouldn't mind cutting back the humor by a tiny bit, in DA2 but humor is one of the things I loved about BG, DA and KOTOR.  I loved Jolee and HK47's humor and I also loved the teasing between Raven and LI.  DA brought that joy back.  Even in a terrible situation, people will find things to laugh about.   Actually, I'd just like them to add a bit of serious talk and don't remove any humor.      

[mopotter]

DarthCaine wrote...

OriginsIsBest wrote...

Ahh BG...why do they not make games like that anymore? why?

Because in those days, RPGs were like reading a book (literally, only 1% of dialogue was voiced, I felt I've gone deaf while playing the game which really killed the experience). IMO Old RPGs aren't in the least bit immersive 'cos of that.

Now, most of the budget is spent of voice acting, and RPGs are more like watching a movie (which is faaaaar better IMO)

I never finished BG 'cos the "no voice acting" part which made the game really dull. I looked past it in PS: T and Fallout 'cos they were short, but still they're not anywhere near my top 10 RPGs (I do read books in case you're wondering). PS: T had a great unique story and if it was ever remade it'd be in my top 5 RPGs. But with the barely any voice acting part and the isometric view it just isn't that good

I get the feeling most of you love it mostly 'cos of nostalgia since it was your first RPG. I really doubt anyone that played KOTOR, ME or DAO first would say BG is better

I did play BG first, but KOTOR is #1 in my favorite game list and ME series is #2.  BG is around 4.  

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

If you wish to discuss a new gameplay system in which leveling wouldn't matter as much in the traditional sense, please let me know. Otherwise, killing endgame material with a band of newcomers doesn't help much in the way of giving players a reason to level up.

I'm "trapped" thinking that level 10 enemies will not pose as much challenge when you're level 20 in current gameplay systems. So, the enemies need to catch up if the game is to keep things interesting. Or you can design a game where level 10 enemies can still give you a hard time even after you leveled well past their caliber. Hard to do that while ensuring that leveling still matters, though.

Of course leveling matters. But in a different way. Focused power, instead of generic power.
A swordsman will not have an easy time agaisnt 10 weak opponents, no matter how skilled. But, against one or two opponents, his experience and skill make all the difference.

Seems you have a hard time wrapping your head arund that.

Either one works. Bottom line is, each new level in a RPG gives you a sense of increased overall capability. All the while providing you with more capable enemies so that difficulty doesn't drop and the game doesn't lose your interest as you keep leveling.

I certanly wouldn't loose interest. And again, it depends on how you define "capable" and why should it even be overall capabiltiy?

You're not "right". You have your personal opinion with an arguably valid explanation (realism) and an assumption that BioWare is supposed to trade their reasons for realism. The dev team had their own opinion with their own reasons (a greater extent of character customization, for instance). If you're hungry and you've got McDonald's and Burger King down your block, which one is the right choice? It's a matter of preference.

Nope, I am right.
There is no greater extent for customization with a 10-100 system. By what logic?
Seriously, you cannot even find a reason to justify that system in the first place.

A cosmetic issue it might be, but appearances matter in the long run.

[Lotion Soronarr]

krasnoarmeets wrote...

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Unless you're wielding a weapon that can punch/bludgeon through a suit of armour, for the most part you're going to be trying to get around the armour. 

Which is exceptionally difficult, since your target won't stay still.
Not to mention that armor size amtter too.
At lest in case of plate armor, even if you found a set in perfect condition, it's questionable if you could even don it, and if so, it wouldn't fit well, reducing it effectiveness (as ti woudl chafe/fatigue you more).

[DragonOfWhiteThunder]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Nope, I am right.
There is no greater extent for customization with a 10-100 system. By what logic?
Seriously, you cannot even find a reason to justify that system in the first place.

A cosmetic issue it might be, but appearances matter in the long run.

By shifting to a 10-100 system for attributes, you open up the possibility of increasing attributes at every given level, rather than only at regular intervals as in the case of D&D 3e+ or not at all outside of rare items as in the case of the AD&D ruleset. In a system where attributes increase every level, attribute thresholds for equipment and abilities are more viable and it aids in the player believing his/her character is becoming more skilled. Perhaps it ultimately doesn't offer more customization than a 1-20 scale, but it's not an indefensible system.


To illustrate Ortaya's point about leveling, let's take Baldur's Gate as an example again. If you play a fighter, for the vast majority of levels nothing really happens. You gain some hit points and your THAC0 goes down one. Rarely, you get a proficiency point, or your saving throws go down. For a mage, it's actually even worse because while you gain a new level of spells every odd level, you can't do anything with them until you find or buy the scrolls. Priests and Druids are fortunate in they always can draw from their entire spell list, so they have something to show at spell-level levels, and thieves have their skills which improve every level. But for the most part, level-ups feel marginalized, which is a shame given that they're so rare in the first game.

By contrast, Dragon Age constantly had your character learning something. Even if that talent point didn't result in a clicky on your hotbar, your character still learned something new at every level that s/he couldn't do before. Perhaps ultimately there is no difference between a high-level AD&D mage and a high-level Dragon Age mage, they both are game-warpingly powerful entities that you can believe could destroy the world on a whim. But the level-ups of the Dragon Age mage feel less empty getting there.

So what was the point of this? If a player doesn't really feel that their character is getting better, then a leveling mechanic is ultimately moot. Yeah, it's kind of cool to be able to say "I beat the final boss without gaining a level," but if that's possible, the leveling system is a failure. By all rights, a level 16 enemy should be able to destroy a party of level 8 characters, that's the point of having a level in the first place. Perhaps the party can win through a combination of tactics, clever skill choice, and sheer dumb luck, but that should be the exception, not the rule. If it becomes the rule, then level ceases to be an indicator of comparative power and attempting to use it to balance game difficulty becomes fruitless. And if it cannot be used for those reasons, what was the point of having a leveling mechanic to begin with?

tl;dr: versimilitude is fine, but not when it wrecks game balance.

[nikki191]

mllrthyme wrote...

I loved the banter in BG2 and in DA:O, and then they did it again in WH. It makes the game more interesting and the characters seem less static and more a part of the story.
On a side note, I named my space hamster Boo.

i still expect the normandy to be boarded one day by a large man wielding a two handed sword trying to get back his boo who was stolen by batarian slavers

MINSC AND BOO FOR ME3!!!!

Modifié par nikki191, 21 septembre 2010 - 01:21 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

DragonOfWhiteThunder wrote...

By shifting to a 10-100 system for attributes, you open up the possibility of increasing attributes at every given level, rather than only at regular intervals as in the case of D&D 3e+ or not at all outside of rare items as in the case of the AD&D ruleset. In a system where attributes increase every level, attribute thresholds for equipment and abilities are more viable and it aids in the player believing his/her character is becoming more skilled. Perhaps it ultimately doesn't offer more customization than a 1-20 scale, but it's not an indefensible system.

Following that logic, levels and stats going from 1 to 1000 is even more preferable.
Bigger numbers mean squat.
The more attribute points and the bigger the range, the LESS impact every distribution decision has. It becomes meaningless, and balancing equiment and restrictions becomes more complex.

And becomign more skilled? An event being rarer makes it more special then one that happens constantly. In Icewind Dale 2, when I got that extra attribute point, I was all excited and pondered for quite a while where to put it. In DA:O?  yeeee....another 3 attribute points *yawn*

Basicly, I'd rather have a smaller range and less "dings" with a bigegr impact (in regards to decision making and character development) than tons of tiny, insignificant increments nad changes.

To illustrate Ortaya's point about leveling, let's take Baldur's Gate as an example again. If you play a fighter, for the vast majority of levels nothing really happens. You gain some hit points and your THAC0 goes down one. Rarely, you get a proficiency point, or your saving throws go down. For a mage, it's actually even worse because while you gain a new level of spells every odd level, you can't do anything with them until you find or buy the scrolls. Priests and Druids are fortunate in they always can draw from their entire spell list, so they have something to show at spell-level levels, and thieves have their skills which improve every level. But for the most part, level-ups feel marginalized, which is a shame given that they're so rare in the first game.

By contrast, Dragon Age constantly had your character learning something. Even if that talent point didn't result in a clicky on your hotbar, your character still learned something new at every level that s/he couldn't do before. Perhaps ultimately there is no difference between a high-level AD&D mage and a high-level Dragon Age mage, they both are game-warpingly powerful entities that you can believe could destroy the world on a whim. But the level-ups of the Dragon Age mage feel less empty getting there.

You must be mis-reading me. I'm all for skills and talens.
In fact, I'd like for levels to be based on that, rahter than HP and ATT/DEF increase. (I?d do away with HP increase altogether. Period.)

The attribute part of DAO levelups feel empty and insignificant, and senseless.

So what was the point of this? If a player doesn't really feel that their character is getting better, then a leveling mechanic is ultimately moot. Yeah, it's kind of cool to be able to say "I beat the final boss without gaining a level," but if that's possible, the leveling system is a failure. By all rights, a level 16 enemy should be able to destroy a party of level 8 characters, that's the point of having a level in the first place. Perhaps the party can win through a combination of tactics, clever skill choice, and sheer dumb luck, but that should be the exception, not the rule. If it becomes the rule, then level ceases to be an indicator of comparative power and attempting to use it to balance game difficulty becomes fruitless. And if it cannot be used for those reasons, what was the point of having a leveling mechanic to begin with?

Again, you misunderstand. IMHO, the WAY characters progress with levels in most games is the issue, noth the level progression.
Instead of HP and damage getting an substantial increase with each level, you get skills, feats, talents.

Think. With no ramaprt "toughness" escalation, you don't need weaposn to escalate in such a unrelaistic fashion. You won't start with a 10dmg sword and end up with a 1000 dmg sword.
Even begining enemies will still present a credible threat (if you're not carefull). That doesn't mean the player doesn't become more powerfull....his power is just more subtle and based on skills and abilities, rather than pure stat increases

[Ortaya Alevli]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Of course leveling matters. But in a different way. Focused power, instead of generic power.

A swordsman will not have an easy time agaisnt 10 weak opponents, no matter how skilled. But, against one or two opponents, his experience and skill make all the difference.

Seems you have a hard time wrapping your head arund that.

I don't know what you mean by focused/generic power distinction.

If you gained less points with every level-up in DA:O, you'd have less opportunity to focus on a single attribute. Or less opportunity to balance your attributes. In DA:O, you can go all STR with Sten, you can go 50 STR/50 DEX, you can go 30 STR/30 DEX/30 CON, you can put some in WIL...you can get closer to the balance you have in mind. Compared to the system where you get one point every four levels. Good for you or bad for you. It's the developer's preference.

Either one works. Bottom line is, each new level in a RPG gives you a sense of increased overall capability. All the while providing you with more capable enemies so that difficulty doesn't drop and the game doesn't lose your interest as you keep leveling.

I certanly wouldn't loose interest. And again, it depends on how you define "capable" and why should it even be overall capabiltiy?

Okay, so you're one of those who doesn't give a damn whether a game offers you comparable levels of challenge throughout. But don't expect game designers to stop worrying about providing players with a consistent difficulty level just because you don't care about it.

Not much to say about the definition of capability. A level x character is more powerful than a level x-1 character. And less powerful than a level x+1 character. A level x character can go toe-to-toe with a level x enemy but will have a harder time fighting a level x+1 enemy or an easier time fighting a level x-1 enemy. A level x character will kill an enemy with less hassle than a level x-1 character would have.

Nope, I am right.

There is no greater extent for customization with a 10-100 system. By what logic?

Seriously, you cannot even find a reason to justify that system in the first place.

See above, and see DragonOfWhiteThunder's explanation below. And if that's not enough for you, let me know so I can reword it in a fashion you can understand more easily.

DragonOfWhiteThunder wrote...

By shifting to a 10-100 system for attributes, you open up the possibility of increasing attributes at every given level, rather than only at regular intervals as in the case of D&D 3e+ or not at all outside of rare items as in the case of the AD&D ruleset. In a system where attributes increase every level, attribute thresholds for equipment and abilities are more viable and it aids in the player believing his/her character is becoming more skilled. Perhaps it ultimately doesn't offer more customization than a 1-20 scale, but it's not an indefensible system.

Following that logic, levels and stats going from 1 to 1000 is even more preferable.

Bigger numbers mean squat.

The more attribute points and the bigger the range, the LESS impact every distribution decision has. It becomes meaningless, and balancing equiment and restrictions becomes more complex.

I wished to see if it became meaningless in DA:O, so I played the game. Turns out it didn't become meaningless.

And becomign more skilled? An event being rarer makes it more special then one that happens constantly. In Icewind Dale 2, when I got that extra attribute point, I was all excited and pondered for quite a while where to put it. In DA:O?  yeeee....another 3 attribute points *yawn*

Basicly, I'd rather have a smaller range and less "dings" with a bigegr impact (in regards to decision making and character development) than tons of tiny, insignificant increments nad changes.

Maybe someday it will occur to you that some others didn't go *yawn* with 3 attribute points per level. That they appreciated the degree of variety it offered.

I'm all for skills and talens.

In fact, I'd like for levels to be based on that, rahter than HP and ATT/DEF increase. (I?d do away with HP increase altogether. Period.)

The attribute part of DAO levelups feel empty and insignificant, and senseless.

Again, to you. You're by all means free to advocate a different level/skill/point etc. system altogether. That doesn't justify your saying it was "wrong" for BioWare to prefer the system they used in their game, however.

IMHO, the WAY characters progress with levels in most games is the issue, noth the level progression.

Instead of HP and damage getting an substantial increase with each level, you get skills, feats, talents.

Think. With no ramaprt "toughness" escalation, you don't need weaposn to escalate in such a unrelaistic fashion. You won't start with a 10dmg sword and end up with a 1000 dmg sword.

Even begining enemies will still present a credible threat (if you're not carefull). That doesn't mean the player doesn't become more powerfull....his power is just more subtle and based on skills and abilities, rather than pure stat increases

And yet you assume that those "subtle" increases will sufficiently satisfy players and give enough reason to implement a level-based system. The game has linear (before Lothering and after Landsmeet) and non-linear segments (after Lothering and before Landsmeet). You need to make difference between each level prominent enough to make leveling matter for non-linear parts. All the while, you need to find a way to keep the difficulty consistent for linear parts. BioWare decided to go for 3-points-per-level system for the former and scaling enemies system for the latter. These are systems that can be no doubt improved or even replaced altogether, but it isn't fair to say they didn't do the job. It's one thing to say that you'd prefer other systems (like I did; again, I personally don't like enemies leveling up as my character does), but when you say the system you propose is "right" and theirs is "wrong"...that's not the way to go.

Modifié par Ortaya Alevli, 22 septembre 2010 - 01:37 .

[Elvhen Veluthil]

DragonOfWhiteThunder wrote...

To illustrate Ortaya's point about leveling, let's take Baldur's Gate as an example again. If you play a fighter, for the vast majority of levels nothing really happens. You gain some hit points and your THAC0 goes down one. Rarely, you get a proficiency point, or your saving throws go down. For a mage, it's actually even worse because while you gain a new level of spells every odd level, you can't do anything with them until you find or buy the scrolls. Priests and Druids are fortunate in they always can draw from their entire spell list, so they have something to show at spell-level levels, and thieves have their skills which improve every level. But for the most part, level-ups feel marginalized, which is a shame given that they're so rare in the first game.

By contrast, Dragon Age constantly had your character learning something. Even if that talent point didn't result in a clicky on your hotbar, your character still learned something new at every level that s/he couldn't do before. Perhaps ultimately there is no difference between a high-level AD&D mage and a high-level Dragon Age mage, they both are game-warpingly powerful entities that you can believe could destroy the world on a whim. But the level-ups of the Dragon Age mage feel less empty getting there.

Being a mage in BG was the ultimate experience that game could offer imo. Finding the scrolls and scribing them was one of the greatest satisfaction, something many people doesn't seem to appreciate. All the game is about exploring and adventuring, that's the soul of that game. Now if you like a game  when you know from the first moment what kind of spells you can get instead, DAO is your game.

And you can't compare a high level mage from BG2 with a mage from DAO. Being the former (+ being the slayer) made you felt like a god later in the game. A feeling dear to those that like magic.

[AlanC9]

Elvhen Veluthil wrote...
Finding the scrolls and scribing them was one of the greatest satisfaction, something many people doesn't seem to appreciate.

Not everyone enjoys the things you enjoy? How shocking!

All the game is about exploring and adventuring, that's the soul of that game. Now if you like a game  when you know from the first moment what kind of spells you can get instead, DAO is your game.

So what you like is a game where you can't completely control how your character develops? Fair enough.

In practice, there are very few important BG2 spells that can't be purchased outright. Honestly, the only one that I can  remember really wanting for a while was Melf's MM. Of course, finding a new scroll does give you that little hit of experience even if you don't ever use the spell. Nothing wrong with a bit of rat chow in a game design.

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

AlanC9 wrote...

Elvhen Veluthil wrote...
Finding the scrolls and scribing them was one of the greatest satisfaction, something many people doesn't seem to appreciate.

Not everyone enjoys the things you enjoy? How shocking!

All the game is about exploring and adventuring, that's the soul of that game. Now if you like a game  when you know from the first moment what kind of spells you can get instead, DAO is your game.

So what you like is a game where you can't completely control how your character develops? Fair enough.

In practice, there are very few important BG2 spells that can't be purchased outright. Honestly, the only one that I can  remember really wanting for a while was Melf's MM. Of course, finding a new scroll does give you that little hit of experience even if you don't ever use the spell. Nothing wrong with a bit of rat chow in a game design.

How is exploring not in control of character development? Nevermind that it is to me two different things in the first place. Are you speaking of the mundane exploration of BG1? I find that more interesting than the "pocket areas" of DA:O.

[AlanC9]

Are you confused by Elvhen's post, or mine?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

I don't know what you mean by focused/generic power distinction.

I can't speak for Lotion, but if I'd said such a thing I would have been referring to gaining power at something in particular rather than gajing power generally.

Generic power is the sort seen in DAO 9and most RPGs) where getting stronger makes you more effective against everything.

But what if that wasn't the case?  What if you could choose that, or instead choose a more focussed power where you grow more powerful faster, but your power is only effective against a subset of all possible opponents?

With that sort of ruleset, gaining levels wouldn't necessarily make you any more able to defeat any particular monster.  Monsters generally, yes.  But this randomly slected monster in particular?  Maybe not.

And in a game with more focused power options, level scaling becomes far less useful a design tool.

[AlanC9]

I don't quite see how that would be workable in a gameworld where a large majority of combatants are melee fighters, though.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

I don't know what you mean by focused/generic power distinction.

I can't speak for Lotion, but if I'd said such a thing I would have been referring to gaining power at something in particular rather than gajing power generally.

Generic power is the sort seen in DAO 9and most RPGs) where getting stronger makes you more effective against everything.

But what if that wasn't the case?  What if you could choose that, or instead choose a more focussed power where you grow more powerful faster, but your power is only effective against a subset of all possible opponents?

With that sort of ruleset, gaining levels wouldn't necessarily make you any more able to defeat any particular monster.  Monsters generally, yes.  But this randomly slected monster in particular?  Maybe not.

And in a game with more focused power options, level scaling becomes far less useful a design tool.

Indeed. Although that would still require some sort of solution for enemies to catch up. One-dimensional or no, there's still a sense of character progression here.
DA:O is a squad-based game, meaning there's still the option of having a party member specialized in dealing with another subset of enemies. If you do not do that, or if you bring unsuitable companions to battle, enemies would always pose the same challenge even without level scaling. Thus far it's all good. But if you've got enough foresight to prepare at least one companion for one specific subset of enemies... now that would make you overpowered. So, either the game has to track the specifics of your level progression and make detailed adjustments on the enemy progression accordingly, or...take the easy route and simply level up the enemy in a predetermined fashion, forcing the player to develop a party in such a way that each member is specialized in something, but the party as a whole is able to deal with any situation they will come across. Which means we're back where we began.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlanC9 wrote...

The problem is that Bio's become more interested in more traditional forms of heroic narrative. It's relatively rare for a hero to have no rush. There are exceptions, of course, like Severian in The Book of the New Sun.

I never felt rushed in DA:O...Because there were no consequences to taking your sweet time.

[AlanC9]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
 But if you've got enough foresight to prepare at least one companion for one specific subset of enemies... now that would make you overpowered. 

Well, the designers could just assume that everyone would be smart enough to do that.

@ Lotion: the problem is that most RPG gamers couldn't actually handle consequences for goofing around. We've had that debate and we've lost it. But that just governs the mechanics Bio uses, not their stories. Of course, not having a penalty for goofing around is a Bio tradition -- note that Sarevok waits patiently for you in the Undercity even though the game tries to convince you to head after him right away

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 septembre 2010 - 08:53 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

AlanC9 wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
 But if you've got enough foresight to prepare at least one companion for one specific subset of enemies... now that would make you overpowered. 

Well, the designers could just assume that everyone would be smart enough to do that.

Exactly.