121 réponses à ce sujet

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

AlanC9 wrote...

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

Thats my point. There is no reason besides cheating and cheating really isnt a good reason. There wasnt much incentive to explore and backtrack in DA like their was in FO 3 especially with scaled loot. Why does it matter if it scales one time or everytime when you visit most areas once? I couldnt wait to get out of half the areas. I damn sure wasnt going back to the fade or the temple, or deep roads. Matter of fact if I had to play DA over again I would cheat on those areas just to make my  trip to those locals short.


Then I could see a lot of people with video game exploration OCD cheating on accident. Which I guess isn’t cheating.. But still you would nerf the key areas to low levels.

Modifié par Dorian the Monk of Sune, 18 décembre 2010 - 10:01 .

[Seagloom]

I do not mind level scaling with limitations such as in the BG2 style. There were more or tougher enemies in certain areas if one arrived at them with a high level party. In DA2's case I wonder if level scaling would even be necessary though. The framed narrative approach to storytelling that has us jumping across various time periods puts on a narrower, potentially more linear path than Origins did. I will be surprised if level scaling remains exactly as it was in Origins given that.



That said, Origins's level scaling did not bother me a great deal except for a few occasions, such as running into typical bandits that mysteriously knew the advanced combat maneuvers of a master warrior. That hurt immersion somewhat. Maybe scaling would bother me less if all enemies had their own pool of powers rather than sharing so many abilities with player characters.

[Sidney]

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

FNV the scaling hasn't bothered me that much. There's an element where, in a world of trash scavengers, I can buy random bad guys with 12.7mm pistols more than I can the DAO bandits with Unobtanium swords, that's just me.

The thing that seems to be different is that in FNV I can still kill the average bad guy in 2 or 3 shots. Caesar's praetorians are shockingly bullet resistant but they're tipppy top end bad guys but an average fiend or legionare won't require me to work him over the way an average bandit would in DAO and that difference might be enough.

[Wishpig]

andar91 wrote...

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.

This! I'm fine with level scaling, but there are some things that SHOUD NOT level scale with you. Like wolves or raggy looking thugs.

[tmp7704]

Wishpig wrote...

This! I'm fine with level scaling, but there are some things that SHOUD NOT level scale with you. Like wolves or raggy looking thugs.

DAO does have upper limit for each creature type, which limits how high they scale. I'm guessing for the wolves and such it's not set at point that would be considered low enough by some, though.

Things not being allowed to scale all way to the player's level can be seen as a drawback -- low level creatures don't provide xp in amount the higher level characters do, so the player may get upset they're killing "trash mobs" that give them no benefit.

[Sidney]

tmp7704 wrote...

Things not being allowed to scale all way to the player's level can be seen as a drawback -- low level creatures don't provide xp in amount the higher level characters do, so the player may get upset they're killing "trash mobs" that give them no benefit.

This just gets back to the problem with giving XP for killing things anyways. Give XP for accomplishing things not just random acts of death and trash mobs go away, they are an obstacle to a worthy goal.

Things like wolves shouldn't really "level". I mean you can at least try and explain bandits and thugs being "tough" but wolves, no way.  A more natural feeling to leveling would instead of having 5 wolves that vary from level 3-8 to have the number of wolves scale up and then toss in "alpha" wolves or something. Same with bandits, toss in a few "leaders" to upgrade the mix but don't make the scum rabble ungodly powerful.

DAO really suffers because of their silly approach to weapon/armor quality by using metals. Veridium (or whatever) goes from being rare early on to, apparently, the default metal of the world by the later world. It is why the better guns of FNV don't feel as silly when the level scaling adjusts with you.

[In Exile]

Ironically, that was the complaint with the fodder darkspawn at Denerim, even though they were put there precisely so the player felt overpowered compared to the start.

[tmp7704]

Sidney wrote...

This just gets back to the problem with giving XP for killing things anyways. Give XP for accomplishing things not just random acts of death and trash mobs go away, they are an obstacle to a worthy goal.

On the surface, yes. But if the whole quest boils down to just killing few mobs which at your current level pose no threat to you, why should such quest give you any xp for accomplishing it? It's not much of accomplishment after all.

I.e. the amount of xp for getting the quest done should probably be set to level based on what level creatures are present in it... but that just brings us back to square one -- except it replaces "trash mobs" with "trash quest" so to speak.

Modifié par tmp7704, 18 décembre 2010 - 04:41 .

[Wulfram]

I'd prefer to see scaling by adding more enemies rather than making them tougher.



Though the fundamental problem is the crazy power curve, which is totally divorced from the story

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
I.e. the amount of xp for getting the quest done should probably be set to level based on what level creatures are present in it... but that just brings us back to square one -- except it replaces "trash mobs" with "trash quest" so to speak.

Skill-based and trainers + books. That is the ideal level system. We ought to do away with the wargame leftover blight that is XP.

... I really hate the XP leveling system. It's incoherent, and it rewards players actively going out and murdering, particularly when the non-combat XP you get if you avoid an encounter is generally less than the encounter.

Also, DA:O offered quest + combat XP.

[Ymladdych]

Wishpig wrote...
This! I'm fine with level scaling, but there are some things that SHOUD NOT level scale with you. Like wolves or raggy looking thugs.

I don't see anything wrong with a hybridized system.  So, for instance, bosses and named NPC's could be scaled, except for maybe certain encounters that need to be level X because of lore.  Like, to me, it doesn't make sense that Ser Cauthrien is a tougher opponent than Loghain.  Unscaled encounters would have to be tied to static plot developments, though, to ensure that players don't hit them prematurely. 

Or, as someone else said, the game could just make it clear to the player that they're doing something inadvisable.  I, personally, have no issue with having my butt handed to me and going, "Wow.  Maybe I shouldn't try that just yet," but I know some players get demoralized by that sort of thing.

Now, other npc types could have static level ranges, and encounters would be dynamically generated with varying types of npc's (or quantity of npc's, as another poster suggested), based on the player's level.  So, encounter T575 might generate with 6 standard wolves (levels B-D) if the player is level A, but would generate with 7 blight wolves (levels X-Z) if the player is level W.

Another possibility, although I don't like it as much, would be to offer supplementary, and optional, assistance when the game calculates a player to be underpowered.  Some type of mechanic, like a helper NPC, or access to specialized gear or something.

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...
... I really hate the XP leveling system. It's incoherent, and it rewards players actively going out and murdering, particularly when the non-combat XP you get if you avoid an encounter is generally less than the encounter.

Also, DA:O offered quest + combat XP.

Properly done reward systems should give XP based on accomplished objectives, not on murder. And XP should be literal currency to buy upgrades. Leveling up simply feeds our carrot following instincts.
It maddens me that RPG encourage murderous rampages as the best route to excellence.

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...

Properly done reward systems should give XP based on accomplished objectives, not on murder. And XP should be literal currency to buy upgrades. Leveling up simply feeds our carrot following instincts.
It maddens me that RPG encourage murderous rampages as the best route to excellence.

What I object to here is the core implementation. While I don't care about realism in just about anything, I've spent the last four years studying neuroscience and psychology, so I'm quite sensitive to a realistic take on human behaviour and learning. It just makes my brain bleed that my mage learns to craft better potions and learns now spells by strangling wolves with their own intestines.

My problem isn't the incentive (because no XP for combat just makes combat annoying if you can't avoid it) but the principle of the implementation. I prefer a skill-based system where you can only learn from trainers and rarely by doing, i.e. each skill has its own XP bar that fills up through frequent use slowly and can dramatically improve through trainers.

[Ymladdych]

In Exile wrote...

My problem isn't the incentive (because no XP for combat just makes combat annoying if you can't avoid it) but the principle of the implementation. I prefer a skill-based system where you can only learn from trainers and rarely by doing, i.e. each skill has its own XP bar that fills up through frequent use slowly and can dramatically improve through trainers.

Oblivion used that mechanic, to a certain extent.  So did "Everquest," actually.  Well, they used the typical XP bars, too, but you also had separate skill levels that went up with usage.

The problem with those mechanics?  People would get their butts handed to them in encounters from insufficient use, so they'd end up having to spam click abilities to power up their toons.  Example: running up and down hills with an EQ monk to up the fall skill.  Casting ghost 50 billion times to build conjuration in Oblivion.  So on and so forth.  Otherwise it requires grinding, which still comes back to combat for improvement.

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...

What I object to here is the core implementation. While I don't care about realism in just about anything, I've spent the last four years studying neuroscience and psychology, so I'm quite sensitive to a realistic take on human behaviour and learning. It just makes my brain bleed that my mage learns to craft better potions and learns now spells by strangling wolves with their own intestines.

My problem isn't the incentive (because no XP for combat just makes combat annoying if you can't avoid it) but the principle of the implementation. I prefer a skill-based system where you can only learn from trainers and rarely by doing, i.e. each skill has its own XP bar that fills up through frequent use slowly and can dramatically improve through trainers.

So you want the Ars Magica system, which requires the party to stop a minimum of three months in-game to study skills if they want to improve them. While the system has proven workable, the whole roleplaying system is built around it. Using that kind of method would require completely reworking the game concept from the base.

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...

So you want the Ars Magica system, which requires the party to stop a minimum of three months in-game to study skills if they want to improve them. While the system has proven workable, the whole roleplaying system is built around it. Using that kind of method would require completely reworking the game concept from the base.

If you're refering to PnP, I don't know what precise system you mean. I don't play tabletop games. I certainly wouldn't want any time lag in developing a skill.

Ymladdych wrote...

Oblivion used that mechanic, to a
certain extent.  So did "Everquest," actually.  Well, they used the
typical XP bars, too, but you also had separate skill levels that went
up with usage.

I don't know about everquest. Oblivion was open world and had a broken leveling mechanic (because you had to use each skill an optimal number of times for the right statistical gain, idiotic scaling aside).

I would have fixed statistics as a base modifier for all abilities at CC like Fallout and a system of perks which are your RP personality differences, which I quite like. The game would not be open world - it would be highly scripted & linear like a Bioware game, so the # of encounters would be precisely known and it would be easy to balance combat because the designers would know your relative levels.

The problem with those mechanics?  People would get their butts
handed to them in encounters from insufficient use, so they'd end up
having to spam click abilities to power up their toons.  Example:
running up and down hills with an EQ monk to up the fall skill.  Casting
ghost 50 billion times to build conjuration in Oblivion.  So on and so
forth.  Otherwise it requires grinding, which still comes back to combat
for improvement.

I wouldn't design a first-person game like Oblivion with non-combat skills like athletics. Everything would be turn-based (think Heroes of Might and Magic) and you would only have personality skills, crafting skills and combat skills.

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

So you want the Ars Magica system, which requires the party to stop a minimum of three months in-game to study skills if they want to improve them. While the system has proven workable, the whole roleplaying system is built around it. Using that kind of method would require completely reworking the game concept from the base.

If you're refering to PnP, I don't know what precise system you mean. I don't play tabletop games. I certainly wouldn't want any time lag in developing a skill.

Yes, I refer to PnP. It has the system you seek. In fact, since the game revolves around wizard covenants, most of the gaming sessions revolve around searching new tomes and other benefits to further the learning capability of those in the covenant, and most of the inhabitants consider it neccesary nuisances rather than the focus.
The time lag is precisely what you're advocating with the search for trainers and manuals to learn skills.

Modifié par Xewaka, 18 décembre 2010 - 05:38 .

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...
Yes, I refer to PnP. It has the system you seek. In fact, since the game revolves around wizard covenants, most of the gaming sessions revolve around searching new tomes and other benefits to further the learning capability of those in the covenant.
The time lag is precisely what you're advocating with the search for trainers and manuals to learn skills.

I don't think there should be any search for trainers. I would design the game to have very obvious centres for learning. They would cost money, but that would be a balancing mechanic so you could not learn all skills. Since the game would be primarily linear, you would just spread out your power curve by access to trainers.

Think of it a little like Jade Empire, at least with respect to how they spread out different styles from Tien's Landing to the Imperial City.

Manuals would just be drops from bosses.

Again, I hate open world and would never design any such game, or even consider that style of game when proposing an alternative to the XP system.

ETA:

That doesn't sound like a very fun setting.

Modifié par In Exile, 18 décembre 2010 - 05:40 .

[Ziggeh]

In Exile wrote...
Everything would be turn-based

The world needs more turn based gaming.

[Xewaka]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

In Exile wrote...
Everything would be turn-based

The world needs more turn based gaming.

It does. It's no coincidence the top games in my favourite list are turn-based "fourecks" games.

[In Exile]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

In Exile wrote...
Everything would be turn-based

The world needs more turn based gaming.

Yes. Absolutely. I thought the best Dragon Age combat system was in Journeys...

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...
ETA:

That doesn't sound like a very fun setting.

If you're reffering to Ars Magica, then I'm doing a poor job of selling it. But I'd rather not go off on a tangent explaining the elegance of the system or the inmersive setting (it's a version of medieval Europe where most myths are true, and so there are imps and pixies in the forests, there are mages - the PCs-, miracles happens and demons bargain with mortals, for example).

Still, I believe "go on and look for the mystical hermit to learn his secret techniques" make for very fun sidequests. The journey to the master should in itself be a learning  lesson.

[Lorianno]

considering that endgame, with the gear you got, everything you fought was basically no more than flies needing a swatting, I'm all for it.



Now if they attempted to gear scale too, then I'd be pissed.

[jada_pinkett]

level scaling takes away alot of the fun, i hated that i could beat oblivion at level 5. so much more fun to go explore and walk into a dungeon and get destroyed.now that makes you want to get in there even more. so you go level up some and go back. no level scaling adds more depth and fun. imo.

[Ymladdych]

@In Exile: Okay, I see what you're looking for, but it would only change the mechanic on a superficial level. Instead of grinding and questing to level up, you're farming for cash so you can buy new abilities. It's a merchant mechanic, and that's fine, a lot of games have something like it in a different wrapper. (Buy a new gun that gives you a stun; buy a new spell; buy a new plasmid power; etc.)

@Xewaka: Now that system sounds more unique and interesting to me. Questing, solving puzzles, passing tests for your skills...I like that concept.

Modifié par Ymladdych, 18 décembre 2010 - 07:55 .