121 réponses à ce sujet

[jackkel dragon]

Super_Fr33k wrote...
High-level encounters should introduce new dirty tricks for the party to counter.

Completely agree.

I'd also think that alternate encounters should take the place of stat scaling. As in:
Level 1-5: Rats
Level 6-10: Bandits
Level 11-15: Mercs
etc.

Weakness of this is when you have a lot of filler like in DAO or open-world games. It'll still be same old for the player. I'd prefer relatively unique, single occurance encounters, but it could take time to make variants.

I'd say more, but I'm trying to stop my encounter ranting. I spout off a few things I've been noticing and people think I'm trolling them. (I *do* troll, though...)

[Sylvius the Mad]

Zlarm wrote...

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. 

Unless you had the Survival skill and could literally watch the Genlocks level up with you.

[asaiasai]

Sidney wrote...

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.

I agree with you to a degree but what i do not want is the WoW approach. Where there is the start area, then a quest sends you to another guy in an area with just slightly bigger mobs rinse and repeat all the way to level cap. That is all fine and dandy the FIRST time you run that course, but what about the second third fourth character (i have 22 DAO characters). The difference of origins, the difference of builds, the difference of race, the difference of sex , and the difference of questing order it all add up to more player flexibility. Creating replay choices by something as simple as keeping the world on level with the player to keep the challange relevant yet keep player choice relevant, level scaling seems like such a simple thing to create that impression of freedom.

Asai

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Unless you had the Survival skill and could literally watch the Genlocks level up with you.

They farmed legion of the dead for XP?

Or wait, do you mean you could actually see their level go if you your level went up on the same screen?

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

Zlarm wrote...


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. 

Between what two systems? Oblivion and DA's or BG's or DA's? I dont remember any scaling in BG. Oblivion's system was just a new set of encounters. It was like a Pen and paper game that evolved while DA was just creatures leveling with you. I would prefer Oblivion's system over DA's and certainly BG over both.

[tmp7704]

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...

Good or bad?

Sound off!!

Only spot where scaling got really silly in DAO was when you'd visit the Alienage before the landsmeet and there were those tier.7 items worth like, 5 gold each, scattered around in chests and such...

Other than that, no preference. Well, ok, maybe some towards no scaling, but the way DAO handled it wasn't too bad.

Modifié par tmp7704, 18 décembre 2010 - 04:30 .

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Only spot where scaling got really silly in DAO was when you'd visit the Alienage before the landsmeet and there were those tier.7 items worth like, 5 gold each, scattered around in chests and such...

Other than that, no preference. Well, ok, maybe some towards no scaling, but the way DAO handled it wasn't too bad.

I think that's more a problem for random scaed loot than level-scaling.

[Leonia]

As long as it's not like Oblivion-esque level-scaling, I think I'll be ok. I'm fine with the game getting progressively harder as you go along but not fine with feeling like I can never have an edge in any combat encounters. I don't really want to be able to one-hit kill stuff that I've massively out-levelled either so.. I guess I am ok with something sort of similar to Origins but with a little more complexity.

[AlanC9]

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...
 I dont remember any scaling in BG.

BG2 has limited scaling. I'm not sure BG1 has any.

[Maria Caliban]

Dorian the Monk of Sune 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.

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.

Fallout 3 had area level scaling. Given that their last game was Oblivion, I was surprised at how well done it was.

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

asaiasai wrote...

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.

　
The problem with DA is that it puts so much into five paths but doesn’t flesh out the paths. Its simply lvls the paths to maintain difficulty and says have fun. That’s just too mechanical. Might be ok if the combat was great but it wasnt. Besides what choice is that? You can just flip a coin. How about this?

Remove the filler grind so there is less leveling. Make two of the five paths more difficult. It would only eliminate two choices but at least the choices would be meaningful. Make one choice really easy, the other two paths would be moderate.
Scatter some clues for the difficulty of each path. Make some of the paths better for certain tactics, and rewards too. So again less choice but better choices.
Next scale the weaker paths not with lvls but with tactics. Maybe the out matched NPCs could higher more help, attempt to bribe you or surrender outright. With less fodder battles you wouldn’t lose as much XP for peaceful solution. It would also make people feel powerful while giving the game more variety.
Give alternatives against tougher paths. Maybe the PC could simply loose but not be killed, or again solve the matter with a compromise, a bribe, or stealth and assassination, or with help kinda like the reverse of the enemy’s mercs where people come to help you.
　
　
　

Modifié par Dorian the Monk of Sune, 18 décembre 2010 - 06:03 .

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

I think that's more a problem for random scaed loot than level-scaling.

As far as i can tell this was because the gear in loot chests level-scales. It's the same effect you get with the vendors -- items which can come in range of tiers come in tier which roughly matches what's suitable for your character. Only items which are limited to certain tier are free from that.

[biostarfan]

if I revisit levels to clean out the place, I want to feel powerfull. level scaling isn't cool unless they do it in intervals. so if I need to be 15 to win, 16 would make it a bit easier... and at 17 it would level scale it and the game would be balanced again.



there needs to be some sort of variance In the level scaling... whats the point if it will always be difficult no matter what level I am...

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

They farmed legion of the dead for XP?

Or wait, do you mean you could actually see their level go if you your level went up on the same screen?

No, the level of an area was locked when you entered it the first time.

I was referring to how "Critter" ranked mobs in each area you visited would rise in level as you did.  So the lowest level Genlocks you'd meet in the worlkd would be level 10, and then suddenly you'd enter an new area never again to see a level 10 Genlock, as they were all now level 11.

Critter Genlocks appeared to peak at level 13.

This is actually something I think DAO did exceptionally well.  If your Warden went to the Brecilian Forest
when he was level 7, then that Forest would be scaled to a level 7 PC,
even if the Warden immediately left, levelled up to level 11, and then
returned.  DAO made it really difficult to notice level scaling without using metagame knowledge.  I really hope that any level scaling in DA2 works just like DAO did.  DAO's level scaling was, I think, the very best level scaling I have ever seen.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

BG2 has limited scaling. I'm not sure BG1 has any.

I've never tested this, but I think BG did.  At level 1, the road east of Candlekeep features solitary Diseased Gibberlings.  But I remember encountering larger groups of them in that location the first time I played (where I didn't reach that area until later, having wandered off the road).

[Sylvius the Mad]

tmp7704 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

I think that's more a problem for random scaed loot than level-scaling.

As far as i can tell this was because the gear in loot chests level-scales. It's the same effect you get with the vendors -- items which can come in range of tiers come in tier which roughly matches what's suitable for your character. Only items which are limited to certain tier are free from that.

The only problem I found with the scaled gear in DAO was that the low-level equipment disappeared from vendors as you levelled.  So if you happened to need a bow that could be used by someone with a Strength of 10, you needed to have kept one from very early in the game.

[tmp7704]

biostarfan wrote...

if I revisit levels to clean out the place, I want to feel powerfull.

DAO pretty much had that -- the level of enemies is established when the player visits for the first time, and remains even after you go away and eventually return. So if you gained some levels meantime, you'd find the enemies much weaker, since they'd be at their initial levels.

edit: kinda 'ed by Sylvius few posts up there.

Modifié par tmp7704, 18 décembre 2010 - 05:42 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

tmp7704 wrote...

DAO pretty much had that -- the level of enemies is established when the player visits for the first time, and remains even after you go away and eventually return. So if you gained some levels meantime, you'd find the enemies much weaker, since they'd be at their initial levels.

This is what I was talking about.  This was a terrific feature.

[jackkel dragon]

Where are these old-school RPGs that I hear so much about? I have some extra free-time and would like to see how the encounter design went...



On-topic: Scaled gear should not equal new color and stats. Scaled gear creeps me out to begin with. (By the way, it's level scaling of gear, technically. "Level-scaling" is not just level scaling of enemies.) I still remember a *trash* bin in NWN2:MotB containing no less than 4000 gold pieces...

[AlanC9]

biostarfan wrote...

if I revisit levels to clean out the place, I want to feel powerfull. level scaling isn't cool unless they do it in intervals. so if I need to be 15 to win, 16 would make it a bit easier... and at 17 it would level scale it and the game would be balanced again.

As Sylvius mentions, DAO's scaling gives what you want when revisiting a level. Come back later and you are more powerful, since scaling doesn't change once you've entered the area

If you have to do scaling at all this is the way, since within a given playthrough enemy stats don't vary from what the player has actually seen.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
As far as i can tell this was because the gear in loot chests level-scales. It's the same effect you get with the vendors -- items which can come in range of tiers come in tier which roughly matches what's suitable for your character. Only items which are limited to certain tier are free from that.

So they level-scaled the random loot? That makes sense. If you ask me, the loot scaling is worse than the level scaling.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
This is actually something I think
DAO did exceptionally well.  If your Warden went to the Brecilian Forest
when
he was level 7, then that Forest would be scaled to a level 7 PC,
even
if the Warden immediately left, levelled up to level 11, and then
returned. 
DAO made it really difficult to notice level scaling without using
metagame knowledge.  I really hope that any level scaling in DA2 works
just like DAO did.  DAO's level scaling was, I think, the very best
level scaling I have ever seen.

That was my impression of it, which is why I was surprised. I understand what you mean now.

[Sylvius the Mad]

jackkel dragon wrote...

Where are these old-school RPGs that I hear so much about? I have some extra free-time and would like to see how the encounter design went....

Even the older of the old school (I was going to say oldest of the old school, but I'm only going back to the mid-80s here) had some scaling in them.

Ultima IV (the greatest CRPG of all time, according to me) scaled its random encounters in the wilderness, so you were less likely to meet a roaming Daemon at low levels.  But its dungeons were filled with static content.  A room full of Dragons was always a room full of Dragons, regardless of your level.  Similarly, a room full of Slime, which would be a threat to a low level party, was nothing more than a nuisance at high levels, but it was always there.

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

AlanC9 wrote...


As Sylvius mentions, DAO's scaling gives what you want when revisiting a level. Come back later and you are more powerful, since scaling doesn't change once you've entered the area

If you have to do scaling at all this is the way, since within a given playthrough enemy stats don't vary from what the player has actually seen.

This only works if done like Fallout 3 in a large world with hand picked sections that never scale. DAO had a small amount of major areas. Scaling them like that didnt make sense because the only reason to explore those areas is to cheat the game by locking them at low lvls.

jackkel dragon wrote...

Where are these old-school RPGs that I hear so much about? I have some extra free-time and would like to see how the encounter design went...

On-topic: Scaled gear should not equal new color and stats. Scaled gear creeps me out to begin with. (By the way, it's level scaling of gear, technically. "Level-scaling" is not just level scaling of enemies.) I still remember a *trash* bin in NWN2:MotB containing no less than 4000 gold pieces...

NWN 2 MotB didnt have to scale it was a high lvl adventure with few lvls gained. I doubt the 4000 gp was a product of scaling. The game had really expensive items so they placed a lot of gp.
Motb is an example of a game that probably doesn’t have scaling or if it does you barely see it and it certainly wasnt necessary.
 The old school games played out like Motb. Zelda is probably the most popular example. Most of the map was open when you only had three hearts. There was no scaling in the Goldbox RPGs, none in Arcanum. Sylvious the Mad might be right that there was scaling in the first couple areas of BG but after that there wasn’t, and no scaling in the first 2 fallout games.




 

[AlanC9]

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...


As Sylvius mentions, DAO's scaling gives what you want when revisiting a level. Come back later and you are more powerful, since scaling doesn't change once you've entered the area

If you have to do scaling at all this is the way, since within a given playthrough enemy stats don't vary from what the player has actually seen.

This only works if done like Fallout 3 in a large world with hand picked sections that never scale. DAO had a small amount of major areas. Scaling them like that didnt make sense because the only reason to explore those areas is to cheat the game by locking them at low lvls.

 

Anyone who wants to exploit the game like that should be allowed to. But why should I care what the wimps do?

[asaiasai]

I am not sure but it sounds like folks are more irritated that if at say level 7 i went to the dailish elves just to buy elfroot for potions and left that those mobs would be lockeed at level 7. Yea that is not too cool and yes it does remove the challange i am with the anti level scalers on that one, but it seems such an easy fix just to have the mobs reflect the players level when they actualy do the encounter not when they stop by for materials.

There could be a mix say for both players where you have some mobs in a zone that max out at say level 10 (fodder mobs) but you would also have some mobs that level with the player so you could walk over some for the leet feeling but some bosses or even just some others would keep right up with the player. Now mix the two types into a larger group and now the player can have thier hands full.

I just do not like a linear approach to DAO i like the idea of being able to go where i want whether it is the tower or Redcliffe first. I found that that flexibility in the story order is one of the many things about DAO that i liked, it is quite a long list much much longer than my dislike list.

Asai

Modifié par asaiasai, 18 décembre 2010 - 09:07 .