121 réponses à ce sujet

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...

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.

And how is that a bad thing? In Bioware's case, we already accept we're diving into a heavily scripted story-based game, so a rough area order fits with the scheme.

In more open world games, it accurately reflects the fact that there are parts of the world with simply are deadlier than others.

[thedistortedchild]

Personally, I like to feel powerful by the end of the game. I like to start off the game feeling weak and knowing that fighting the High Dragon at my level would be stupid, then level up and one hit kill grunts.

[maxernst]

In Exile wrote...

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.

Another way to make an open world without level scaling is to make it easy to run away from encounters if they're going badly--something Bioware typically doesn't let you do but many older games did (the Might & Magic games, for example).  I have a feeling that DA2 is going to be pretty linear anyway, because of taking place over a ten year period.  My guess is that it's going to break into chapters and they'll have a pretty fair idea of what level you're going to be at during each chapter--so it may have little need for scaling.

Actually, I have argued elsewhere that an open world works better without level scaling if you want to have any sort of story at all.  Otherwise, you have these silly situations which pop up in Bethesda games where the main plot can be completed in fifteen minutes.  If your world is only quasi-open (meaning that you can go anywhere, but some areas aren't really viable at a particular stage), you can guard against those sorts of things happening.  It also just makes more sense--you can have NPC's telling the player the Frostback Mountains are really dangerous...and actually have them be dangerous when they get there, as opposed to them being no more dangerous than walking down the street in Denerim.

I remember in Might & Magic VI, I found a ring of water walking or learned the spell when I was about level five and began exploring around New Sorpigal (the entry area) by sea and found an island with a place called Gharik's Forge.  I wandered in and encountered a bunch of fire elementals, a couple of my characters died in about five seconds and I ran out the door, coming back when I was level 30 or so.  So...yeah, it's sort of linear in the sense that I couldn't do that particular dungeon at that time, but there was no need to reload and no sense of frustration because I knew that it was just a dungeon that I wasn't ready for. 

Level scaling is more frustrating in a way because if you get your butt kicked in an encounter, you don't have any reason to think it will necessarily be any easier later on.  It might even be harder if they've screwed up their scaling, or you're making non-optimal choices.

Modifié par maxernst, 18 décembre 2010 - 01:19 .

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

In Exile wrote...

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.

True thinking back NWN 2 was very linear. It just seemed open because I just played Strom of Zehir and when I think of NWN 2 I picture that game instead of the OC. Zelda wasnt linear though. FO 1 and 2 were only as linear as you made them. So I would say they were pretty open and same with most of the goldbox games. 

I can think of six steps to removing scaling for the better.
First dump the filler combat. DA was ripped for having so much filler combat with waves of mindless cohorts. By dumping the filler combat you can cut the level scale from 1-20+ to 1-10 which is more like Baldur’s Gate.

Second thing Is to provide some clues for what the PC is up against. The last thing you want is an open-ended world with many choices that lead to the same lvl of difficulty level but you don’t want people to feel railroaded. So in a game like DA where you have less paths than Zelda has dungeons you could simply give a description of each path so the PC can manage risk/tactics/reward. It cant just be risk or it will end up being a linear path in the order of difficulty.

Third is to make low level encounters knowledgeable to what they are up against. Have them flee, avoid, bribe, or use great numbers in an ambush. It beats removing them from the game.

Fourth is to do the same for high level encounters. High level creatures should always be relatively rare especially away from their habitat. Intelligent high level creatures are usually more passive with what they don’t perceive as a threat. An Evil Dragon, Vampire, or Beholder isn’t going to go out of their way to attack a group of travelers. 

Fifth is the use of skills to avoid combat. Less intelligent encounters or the occasional blood thirsty individual/s will attack on sight. Storm of Zehir did a good job with this. There were lots of skills to help you avoid unwanted combat.

Sixth is to cheat… kinda. If a boss knows your PC is coming instead of hiring unrealistic waves of filler how about if they hire merc types that are geared to stop you. So if you are low level and they haven’t even heard of you then they wouldn’t hire anyone. If you are mid level maybe they higher 2 mercs etc etc That’s just one example. They could also employ better arms. Basically they tighten security. Arcanum which was an open ended game if you ever saw one and had zero scaling did something like this with the assassins it sent after you.

I would add seven being a meaure to prevent grinding but Bioware isnt know for random encounters.

Modifié par Dorian the Monk of Sune, 18 décembre 2010 - 01:21 .

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...

And how is that a bad thing? In Bioware's case, we already accept we're diving into a heavily scripted story-based game, so a rough area order fits with the scheme.

In a Bioware game, I don't think there should be any freedom to explore. The biggest narrative weakness of any Bioware game is the ''here are four areas that you can visit that won't individually advance the plot'' that they've been pulling since KoTOR.

In more open world games, it accurately reflects the fact that there are parts of the world with simply are deadlier than others.

In an open world game, it makes the world less open. Essentially, you're controlling roughly when a player can visit a particular area based on the enemy present.

[Altima Darkspells]

I dislike level scaling in general. DAO was more or less tolerable--sorta. The plot actively steered you towards Redcliffe, where, most likely, you were going to get boned.



However, it gets rather ridiculous when Ferelden can simply march the bandits from the slums in Denerim to defeat the Blight.



Also, frickin' chaining scattershot.

[Maconbar]

I think that level scaling generally worked pretty well in DA:O. It allowed the player more flexibility in terms of the order in which tasks were completed. Without level scaling most players would be forced to do the main recruitment quests in a specific order depending on the level of the mobs in each zone. I don't think that's a good way to go.

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...

In more open world games, it accurately reflects the fact that there are parts of the world with simply are deadlier than others.

In an open world game, it makes the world less open. Essentially, you're controlling roughly when a player can visit a particular area based on the enemy present.

I believe that is a strenght of the setting. Properly done, it adds character, and sparks the player's anticipation to discover the secrets hidden behind the deathly mauling werebears.

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

I think it worked in a game like DAO where it wasn't true open world, but in a game like Oblivion I dunno. Personally I'm not so much against it as indifferent though, I think there are bigger problems that come with streamlining.

[Ziggeh]

In Exile wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

And how is that a bad thing? In Bioware's case, we already accept we're diving into a heavily scripted story-based game, so a rough area order fits with the scheme.

In a Bioware game, I don't think there should be any freedom to explore. The biggest narrative weakness of any Bioware game is the ''here are four areas that you can visit that won't individually advance the plot'' that they've been pulling since KoTOR.

Does put you in an odd position with side quests, but they could do away with them to resolve that.

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

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.

lol Yep. Thats my first step.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

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.

It's relevantly different from scaling in that the strength of the foes you meet is independent of your party's strength.

That's the primary problem with scaling.  If there are mudcrabs crawling on the beach when you're level 1, they should still be there when you're level 20, and they shouldn't be any more powerful than they were when you were level 1.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 décembre 2010 - 01:19 .

[maxernst]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

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.

It's relevantly different from scaling in that the strength of the foes you meet is independent of your party's strength.

That's the primary problem with scaling.  If there are mudcrabs crawling on the beach when you're level 1, they should still be there when you're level 20, and they shouldn't be any more powerful than they were when you were level 1.

Yes.  Unless the game's totally linear so you never return to those easy areas, level scaling completely destroys any sense of realism, especially in a game with a steep power curve.  Like--umm, where did all the bandit archers in Ferelden learn scattering shot when none of them seemed to know it before.

[Ziggeh]

maxernst wrote...

completely destroys any sense of realism

*downs shot*

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
It's relevantly different from scaling in that the strength of the foes you meet is independent of your party's strength.

That's the primary problem with scaling.  If there are mudcrabs crawling on the beach when you're level 1, they should still be there when you're level 20, and they shouldn't be any more powerful than they were when you were level 1.

I don't care about a subjective sense of realism. I want levels not to scale for the sake of the challenge. This is the only utility the feature has for me. That it can provide some satisfaction to same players that the world is not independent of them is entirely an unintended consequence, at least re: why I like the feature.

maxernst wrote...
Another way to make an open world without
level scaling is to make it easy to run away from encounters if they're
going badly--something Bioware typically doesn't let you do but many
older games did (the Might & Magic games, for example)

I don't see how that addresses the issue. You either run from encounter to encounter in a particular area, getting stuck if there are any mandatory battles to avoid the plot in that area, or you get herded.

maxernst wrote...
Level scaling is more frustrating in a way
because if you get your butt kicked in an encounter, you don't have any
reason to think it will necessarily be any easier later on.  It might
even be harder if they've screwed up their scaling, or you're making
non-optimal choices.

This is true, in terms of open-world content.

Xewaka wrote..

I believe that is a strenght of the
setting. Properly done, it adds character, and sparks the player's
anticipation to discover the secrets hidden behind the deathly mauling
werebears.

I don't enjoy open-world games, really, but I can certainly say that such things don't add any kind of anticipation, because for me the only interest is in the encounter itself.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

I don't care about a subjective sense of realism.

With regard to level scaling, that's all I care about.  That and the internal consistency of the setting.

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...

Xewaka wrote..

I believe that is a strenght of the setting. Properly done, it adds character, and sparks the player's anticipation to discover the secrets hidden behind the deathly mauling werebears.

I don't enjoy open-world games, really, but I can certainly say that such things don't add any kind of anticipation, because for me the only interest is in the encounter itself.

That might be the reason you don't enjoy them. When properly done, the simple fact of exploring is its own reward. Managing to sneak into a very hard area and discover it is part of the fun.

[maxernst]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't care about a subjective sense of realism. I want levels not to scale for the sake of the challenge. This is the only utility the feature has for me. That it can provide some satisfaction to same players that the world is not independent of them is entirely an unintended consequence, at least re: why I like the feature.

maxernst wrote...

I don't see how that addresses the issue. You either run from encounter to encounter in a particular area, getting stuck if there are any mandatory battles to avoid the plot in that area, or you get herded.

maxernst wrote...
Level scaling is more frustrating in a way
because if you get your butt kicked in an encounter, you don't have any
reason to think it will necessarily be any easier later on.  It might
even be harder if they've screwed up their scaling, or you're making
non-optimal choices.

This is true, in terms of open-world content.

Xewaka wrote..

And I care very little about challenge in roleplaying games, as long as it's not insurmountable.  Playing the same encounter repeatedly isn't any fun for me and linear games invariably result in that.  I rarely finish them, and I certainly would never replay one.  If I wanted strategic challenge, I'd pull out a strategy game.

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...

That might be the reason you don't enjoy them. When properly done, the simple fact of exploring is its own reward. Managing to sneak into a very hard area and discover it is part of the fun.

I don't like exploration at all. That's part of the chore for me, not the fun.

maxernst wrote...
And I care very little about challenge in
roleplaying games, as long as it's not insurmountable.  Playing the same
encounter repeatedly isn't any fun for me and linear games invariably
result in that.  I rarely finish them, and I certainly would never
replay one.  If I wanted strategic challenge, I'd pull out a strategy
game.

I didn't say I wanted a strategic challenge. Role-playing games have design challenges, where you can try to build increasingly efficient builds which dramatically alter the difficulty of an encounter. A lack of level-scaling is fun because it gives you a chance to design many different builds to see which one can handle the possibly unfair challenges of the non-scaled areas.

[crimzontearz]

depends on wether or not I get NG+

[asaiasai]

I liked the level scaling in DAO because it allowed the player to do the quests in any order they chose. This gives the player a sense of control over the game and the story by allowing them to say, go to the tower first because thier warrior or rogue needs a heals mage. I do agree that the mobs SHOULD NOT be capped but should level with the player all the way up.



With out level scaling in DAO the player would be forced to go to the same path with every play through so you would have to do, The Tower, The Forest, Deep Roads, Redcliffe, Haven, etc etc everytime with NO deviation pretty much a linear path. It may be of little signifigance with the current setup of DAO but as a player i preffer the ability to do the areas in any order i choose gives this me the appearance of choice and will take that over none any day of the week. A crappy game with choices is still a crappy game, but a good game with choices, even small ones, is a better game for it. The issue is that there are so many games that go like this; point A to B to C to D, fight end boss, player trophy moment, roll credits. Sure with level scaling in DAO it is just a mix C to D to A to B, fight end boss, player trophy moment, roll credits but it is the nod to player choice that makes level scaling superior IMHO.



I am not going to argue that the implementation of level scaling as presented in DAO needs a bit of a tweak but i will take choice or the illusion of choice over none at all. Sure one can argue the DAO is nothing more than Origin to Draklion and the road is still a linear path, but it is on the order that the player chooses for the middle that adds some depth. The player gets to work the middle in what ever order they feel is necessary determined by thier prefferences, needs, or goals which for me feels to me less static.



Asai

[Zlarm]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's the primary problem with scaling.  If there are mudcrabs crawling on the beach when you're level 1, they should still be there when you're level 20, and they shouldn't be any more powerful than they were when you were level 1.

Maybe they turned in a few quests, killed a few adventurers and levelled up.  Who knows what the mudcrabs are upto in their spare time...

More seriously I thought the controlled level scaling in DAO was a good compromise between the two systems.  Still had kind of a BG feel to it. 

[Sidney]

asaiasai wrote...

With out level scaling in DAO the player would be forced to go to the same path with every play through so you would have to do, The Tower, The Forest, Deep Roads, Redcliffe, Haven, etc etc everytime with NO deviation pretty much a linear path.

Asai

I'm not a huge fan of level scaling but what you describe is pretty much what happened with FO and FO2 where you had "freedom" but that freedom meant you and your spear could get wasted by Brotherhood Paladins unless you followed a pretty set path.

They've got to find a way to get the right feel. I had nothing but loathing for the encounters with wildly and improbably overpowered thugs in back alleys in Denerim or all the highwaymen with glass armor in Oblivion. That just slaps me in the face as being wrong.

[Fadook]

I thought the level scaling in DA worked well for the most part (overly strong wolves apart, though things like that can be resolved by lower level caps). Scaling means that more fights are challenging and fun. I do think that perhaps there should be some areas/encounters which will destroy low-level players, though these should be signposted.



The RP aspects of scaling never really bothered me in DA, probably because the setting doesn't feel as high-powered as in DnD based games i.e. you don't have milennia old lichs, demi-gods and various other uber-powerful beings wandering around DA. In that context, it makes sense that your character never reaches a point where he can single-handedly annhilate mobs of enemies. In DnD your characters can reach insane levels of power. But in DA I feel that when characters level-up they may have become more skilled and experienced, but are not turning into supermen.

[Super_Fr33k]

I think this is more a debate about execution than the presence of scaling, and it seems to be generating guidelines, not hard and fast rules, especially since any scaling scheme has to fit within a linear design. Completely non-linear gameplay isn't totally possible, nor likely desireable.



I think beating the problems with generic enemies becoming absurdly powerful (which negates a sense of PC accomplishment and seems illogical given the supposed rarity of high-level npcs) relies more on limiting the range of scaling within chapters of the game. Now, BW has been doing this for a while, but I think what would help is to make game content more evenly distributed over those chapters. DA:O, just like BG2 and so many other games, had one wide-open, big chapter, which tends to invite these scaling problems. This would also keep the player from feeling like the game had 'dried up,' after the big, non-linear chapter. I also think this would lend more options for side quests, since they wouldn't all be packed into mid- and low-level areas.



While this might make it seem like the PC has fewer choices, I think it would do a better job of making every fight feel more engaging and less like filler. Given that players often settle into doing things in a particular order anyway, whether the game forces them to or not, sacrificing too much to preserve the sense of non-linear gameplay can backfire.



I also think toning down "ability spam" would be another improvement, since it feels like a cop-out in making tough enemies. Overwhelm tops my list, though scattershot is not pleasant either. High-level encounters should introduce new dirty tricks for the party to counter.