121 réponses à ce sujet

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

Good or bad?

Sound off!!

[andar91]

I was fine with the system in DA:O. The only thing i don't like is when I fight a pack of uber-wolves at level 17. Other than that, i didn't have a problem.

[In Exile]

I'm against level-scaling in principle, but I have yet to see a good proposal for non-scaling in a way that doesn't lead to linear design.

[Wicked 702]

^ While I don't necessarily oppose it, I would prefer a better designed system. However, I have yet to hear or see one that would fit the build as well.

[Sable Rhapsody]

In Exile wrote...

I'm against level-scaling in principle, but I have yet to see a good proposal for non-scaling in a way that doesn't lead to linear design.

Level-scaling works ok in a game like Mass Effect where enemies don't really get more powerful abilities as they level up--they start with base special abilities, and just get better defenses, health, damage, etc.  But in a game like DA where abilities can mean the difference between a cakewalk and a clusterf---, I'm not so sure.  

But I can't think of a better way to do it either 

[In Exile]

Level design depends on a lot if you're not scaling. What's the power-gap between each level? What is an appropriate distance? How much freedom would you like to give the player?

The thing that I do like about not scaling is that it creates a very solid power scale. I don't like epic wolves level 20 wolves in my game.

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

In Exile wrote...

I'm against level-scaling in principle, but I have yet to see a good proposal for non-scaling in a way that doesn't lead to linear design.

Its been done. Zelda is arguably linear. If you replaced the dungeon numbers with dangerous names or locations it would seem more open-ended game without scaling, Fallout 1-2 didn’t have it and 3 didn’t have much of it. NWN 2 didn’t have scaling though it was easier than Dragon Age. The old Gold Box games didnt have it.

[Blessed Silence]

Okay .. doof here. What is level scaling?



You mean like Oblivion did? Where enemies level with you?

[In Exile]

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...
Its been done. Zelda is arguably linear. If you replaced the dungeon numbers with dangerous names or locations it would seem more open-ended game without scaling, Fallout 1-2 didn’t have it and 3 didn’t have much of it. NWN 2 didn’t have scaling though it was easier than Dragon Age. The old Gold Box games didnt have it.

I don't undertand. I said that not scaling can risk making the game linear. Are you trying to argue against this?

NWN2 was certainly very linear. I haven't played old gold box games so I can't comment on those, and I honestly can't remember Fallout very much. My impression was that it was linear... but I also played it when I wasn't that good at RPGs, so my builds sucked which made it hard to really get around.

[The Bard From Hell]

Well, so long as it dosn't means fighting level 30 Vorpal Rats of DOOOOOOM, I'm okay with it. Also, if it dosn't means after a while finding nothing less than Dragons while travaleing trough the world map, I'm okay with it. Meaning: so long as level-scaling dosn't make things look absurdly wierd (a Warrior getting his back-side kicked by a rat...), I'm all for it.

[Rawgrim]

I hate level scaling. Ruins the feel of the game for me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

I'm against level-scaling in principle, but I have yet to see a good proposal for non-scaling in a way that doesn't lead to linear design.

You clearly haven't been listening to me.

A shallower power-curve is the easiest way to eliminate the need for scaling without making the game linear.

You need to play some older games.  There were lots of open-world games with little or no scaling.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 17 décembre 2010 - 11:33 .

[Xewaka]

I miss the times when poking your nose at places way above your head meant a bloody nose and a grudge harbored.

[Ziggeh]

I think it depends on the game. In open world I like that it presents a sense of direction and variable, optional challenge, but if the direction is, well, at least structure if not actually laid down, then the optional nature, which I think is vital in the non scaling system, starts to disappear.



I think it's fairly easy to do badly, the classic, and something DA:O was guilty of, being failing to scale appropriately with gear rendering things trivial, but that's implementation rather than systematic.



And then you have the level 20 rat thing mentioned above, which I try to look at as a normal rat from another perspective. As in, it's an absraction to suggest people develop quite as quickly as they do in RPGs, and so I try not to think of it as literally becoming more powerful.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You clearly haven't been listening to me.

A shallower power-curve is the easiest way to eliminate the need for scaling without making the game linear.

That doesn't really eliminate scaling at all. That just has more enemies in your 'range' because it increases the number spread you need to have the same gap.

What it doesn't resolve is the fundamental issue that to have choice in where to travel, most enemies cannot be overtly powerful compared to a PC. A shallow power-curve is functionally equivalent to scaling.

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...


What it doesn't resolve is the fundamental issue that to have choice in where to travel, most enemies cannot be overtly powerful compared to a PC.

Why not?

[jackkel dragon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

I'm against level-scaling in principle, but I have yet to see a good proposal for non-scaling in a way that doesn't lead to linear design.

You clearly haven't been listening to me.

A shallower power-curve is the easiest way to eliminate the need for scaling without making the game linear.

You need to play some older games.  There were lots of open-world games with little or no scaling.

The problem is that video game players these days, or at least the common target audience, has a god complex when it comes to advancement. They want to crush the little guys with 9001x overkill. An example: The Force Unleashed II. The protagonist was powerful in the first game, but in the sequel he kills a (figurative) mountain like it was a pebble. For "RPG" (if you can call them that) examples, look at LOTRO or WoW. A level 65/80 can kill millions of lvl 1s without losing a single hit point.

On-topic: I'm generally against level scaling unless it's subtle and serves the purpose of keeping things interesting. Interesting is the key word. I don't want to find level 87 rats or beggars with full plate armor. *coughoblivioncough*

I partially agree with Sylvius in that the power-curve can't be as high as it is in many games. I'm sure a combination of that and minor scaling (AI tweaks, minor stat bonuses) would help many RPGs, whether they were linear or not. For example: (using 20 level scale)

Intro: Levels 1-5, no scaling
Middle: Levels 5-20, boss scaling and alternate enemies
End: Levels 15-20, full scaling
(I say this because the bosses/endgame are only run once, as opposed to the often repetive side-quests and such.)

As for DA2, I hope that the scaling system is improved over Origins. The alternate opening difficulties may have been a good idea, but capping enemies at ~15-20 made every fight laughable after level 21.

P.S: Sorry about the wall-of-text rant. I spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to balance encounters while keeping the power-growth from levelling.

[jackkel dragon]

Xewaka wrote...

In Exile wrote...


What it doesn't resolve is the fundamental issue that to have choice in where to travel, most enemies cannot be overtly powerful compared to a PC.

Why not?

If basic enemies are more powerful than the PC, it means your choice to go to that area at that time is wrong. Players don't *ever* want to be wrong. Players hate the game over screen even more.

Modifié par jackkel dragon, 18 décembre 2010 - 12:53 .

[Ziggeh]

jackkel dragon wrote...
beggars with full plate armor. *coughoblivioncough*

ahaha, really? That's brilliant.

[Xewaka]

jackkel dragon wrote...

If basic enemies are more powerful than the PC, it means your choice to go to that area at that time is wrong. Player's don't *ever* want to be wrong. Players hate the game over screen even more.

Did players got dumber as I grew old? Dammit.

How are we supposed to hold a grudge against the damned ogre who tore us a new hole when we hit him in the road the fisrt time and make his eventual defeat all the more sweeter if the game holds our hand all the way?

Modifié par Xewaka, 18 décembre 2010 - 12:55 .

[jackkel dragon]

Xewaka wrote...

jackkel dragon wrote...

If basic enemies are more powerful than the PC, it means your choice to go to that area at that time is wrong. Player's don't *ever* want to be wrong. Players hate the game over screen even more.

Did players got dumber as I grew old? Dammit.

Not necessarily dumber (though some have), but *much* more impatient. If they fail on their first try, they think the game is too hard. If they succeed too easily, they think the game is a joke.

[jackkel dragon]

How are we supposed to hold a grudge against the goddamn ogre who tore us a new hole when we hit him in the road the fisrt time and make his eventual defeat all the more sweeter when the game holds our hand all the damn way?

Are you talking about coming back to kill the ogre after escaping or reloading?



A success, either way, is going to make the player feel amazing, especially if it was a tough *and* rewarding fight. But some players (hopefully not many) will only reload several times before they give up, and I have seen few games that ditch a game over screen and still make losing a bad thing.

[Ziggeh]

jackkel dragon wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

In Exile wrote...

What it doesn't resolve is the fundamental issue that to have choice in where to travel, most enemies cannot be overtly powerful compared to a PC.

Why not?

If basic enemies are more powerful than the PC, it means your choice to go to that area at that time is wrong. Players don't *ever* want to be wrong. Players hate the game over screen even more.

More to do with choice, I imagine he means. An open game world, for example is not truly open if areas are closed of by difficulty. If most enemies are powerful enough to keep you at bay, then you are limited to only the areas in which the minority remaining reside. I suppose game size has an impact on that, but that's how I read it.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 18 décembre 2010 - 12:58 .

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...
Why not?

Because a full-party wipe makes the area impossible to travel to. I know what you're thinking of - going to some area and barely squeeking by is awesome. This is why I like not-scaling - I want this sort of insanely unfair challenge.

But there is a cut-off point where an encounter is simply impossible at your level. All the old 'gate' encounters just act as a 'this is the rough order you should do each quest in' which is what the partial scaling in DA:O ended up doing.

jackkel dragon wrote...

If basic enemies are more powerful
than the PC, it means your choice to go to that area at that time is
wrong. Players don't *ever* want to be wrong. Players hate the game over
screen even more.

Okay, can you let go of this condescention? Seriously?

I pointed out that you can't have real open-world content and serious non-scaled power scales, because the two are at odds. Dramatic power differences create a linear ''right'' path with a bit of leeway depending on how punishing the curve if.

The problem is that the very reason I like not-scaling makes what I like about it very hard to get right, i.e. skipping the easy area to go for the monster challenge.

Modifié par In Exile, 18 décembre 2010 - 01:01 .