28 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Given that BioWare seems wedded to scaled content (which I maintain is a bad idea, but I'm not going to fight you on it right now), is there any chance that DA3 will offer us scaling that worked like DAO, rather than like DA2?

DA2's constant scaling allows for some absurd designs within the combat mechanics, and Origins didn't.  As such, I'd rather see Origins-style caling because that would force you to design the combat mechanics better.

[Dhiro]

Hmm, can you be more specific in the type of scaling we're talking about?

[Reno_Tarshil]

I'm not following, I think its better that mobs scale with your level instead of you running in and steamrolling everything.

[thendcomes]

Leveling is punishing in DA2. The game gets easier the lower your level. That happens because enemies scale better than you with level and the unique gear available to you gets relatively weaker as you level.

Modifié par thendcomes, 14 septembre 2011 - 04:03 .

[Forst1999]

Well, it's not nearly as bad as in Oblivion. In fact, i didn't even notice it, so i have no problem with the level-scaling in DAII.

[Arthur Cousland]

At higher levels in Origins, it's hard not to feel invincible.

I like the DA2 scaling, though I wish the heal spells didn't have such lengthy recasts.

Yes, you've got to love those Oblivion battles with ogres/minotaurs.  A regular encounter with one of them almost feels like a boss fight, and they're generic enemies just walking around.

Modifié par Arthur Cousland, 14 septembre 2011 - 05:11 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Origins, the Warden actually grew stronger when he levelled. None of his stats went down. In DA2, Hawke's stats actually get worse when he levels up because they're suddenly being compared to stronger opponents.

This works in DA2 because all of the content is scaled to match Hawke's level, so you no longer face the same creatures at level 8 that you did at level 7. Since DA2's stats are presented as values relative to a same-levelled opponent, gaining a level reduces your stats.

DAO couldn't do this because you could still meet lower level opponents as you grew stronger. Origins scaled a whole area all at once, so when the Warden gained a level the enemies around him didn't (because their level had already been set).

Look, it's possible that DA2 scales the same as Origins, but the way Hawke's stats are presented that would be really strange, so I don't think that's what's happening. I'm asking for a change to the scaling system not because I want the Origins scaling system for itself (which I do, but that's a different issue), but because using the DAO scaling would eliminate the obfuscatory stat scaling on the PC's character sheet.

[Sabotin]

Well, the stats themselves don't decrease (1k defense is still 1k defense, no matter the level), but comparatively to the enemy (who is "stronger") you get less out of it. Effectively it's pretty much the same as DA:O, except you get the additional info.

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DAO couldn't do this because you could still meet lower level opponents as you grew stronger. Origins scaled a whole area all at once, so when the Warden gained a level the enemies around him didn't (because their level had already been set).

Look, it's possible that DA2 scales the same as Origins, but the way Hawke's stats are presented that would be really strange, so I don't think that's what's happening. I'm asking for a change to the scaling system not because I want the Origins scaling system for itself (which I do, but that's a different issue), but because using the DAO scaling would eliminate the obfuscatory stat scaling on the PC's character sheet.

Pretty sure DA2 does the exact same thing, i.e. if you gain a level in an area, the monsters that are already cached don't automagically autolevel to match. It seems like your problem could be fixed by just adding "level N enemy" to the tooltip, e.g. "Chance to hit level <PlayerLevel> enemy", "Chance to dodge level <PlayerLevel> boss".

[Rocket_Man77]

In Awakening I definitely felt like a beast! Nothing could stop me!
In DA: II in Act 3, the enemies still were a slight challenge. I like being challenged a little bit, but if you ask me, without a doubt, Origins overall was harder.

[stragonar]

Sabotin wrote...

Well, the stats themselves don't decrease (1k defense is still 1k defense, no matter the level), but comparatively to the enemy (who is "stronger") you get less out of it. Effectively it's pretty much the same as DA:O, except you get the additional info.

I wish this were true, however it is not. The scaling of hit and defense % from attributes in particular are very steep in DA2, DAO not so much. Seeing as how dexterity affected both your hit and defense in DAO, if it scaled anything like the way stats do in DA2 every tank would be a dexterity build. In DAO abilities modify hit and defense values far more than the actual base stats themselves, if you really wanted to you could make a warrior with a huge amount of constitution stat, and yet you would still be able to hit enemies and dodge to some extent. Of course it wouldn't be a great choice, but if you did this in DA2 you wouldn't even be able to produce threat because of how much it would affect your hit%

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Pretty sure DA2 does the exact same thing, i.e. if you gain a level in an area, the monsters that are already cached don't automagically autolevel to match. It seems like your problem could be fixed by just adding "level N enemy" to the tooltip, e.g. "Chance to hit level <PlayerLevel> enemy", "Chance to dodge level <PlayerLevel> boss".

So it's a documentation problem?

My interpretation of DA2's tooltips and gameplay feedback is influenced by Mike Ladilaw's repeated assertions during DA2's development that DA2 would be "more transparent" than DAO.

All of the explanations I've heard in this thread contradict that claim.

[Satyricon331]

I found the DA2 stat system to be really unintuitive. Even if they kept the DA2 leveling curve, I'd hope they'd reformulate the stat numbering system - although really I'd prefer them to use DAO's leveling and rather than mostly/only changing the beasts themselves, tweak more the monsters you face and their scripts, a la BG2 (especially with the SCS2 mod). It's a matter of personal taste, sure, but it's surprising to me that there are ppl who found DA2's shrinking stat-number presentation intuitive.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I flatly deny the existence of intuition. If I can't see the equations, then I don't know how the combat works.

I desperately want DA3's documentation to contain the game's complete combat mechanics in sufficient detail that I could do the math myself if I wanted to (because doing the math myself is a fundamental part of effective inventory management).

[devSin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

So it's a documentation problem?

Yes?

The problem I see is that the absolute value is undocumented and the percentage value is fluid.

The absolute value never changes in meaning, but the percentage value derived from it changes to fit the situation. Your skill doesn't ever change, but the skill needed changes as the levels increase. The system in DA2 gives you both, but there's almost nothing you can do with just your skill, so it's practically useless.

They just need to have the absolute value mean something (you should be able to calculate on your own your chances of hitting anybody you want to hit); otherwise, it shouldn't even be there.

[Satyricon331]

@Sylvius - Hmm, I think we agree on the substantive design question, but I'm not sure I follow your criticism of intuition.  If you're not working out the math each and every time, and you're not conducting some statistical analysis to use inductive rather than deductive reasoning, then you'd be using intuition as well.  In this case it's the intuition that's developed through internalizing the rules, but it's still a mental association of two things without fully working through the problem.  Anyways, that's my* spiel about it at least.  I strongly suspect if I had simply recast my point in terms of storyline-gameplay integration, you would have accepted it (since it's the story telling me that I've improved my combat prowess enough to level up that suggests my stats shouldn't be falling).

*edit, sorry.  I came back to the thread and saw I made that sentence nonsensical 

Modifié par Satyricon331, 15 septembre 2011 - 06:08 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Pretty sure DA2 does the exact same thing, i.e. if you gain a level in an area, the monsters that are already cached don't automagically autolevel to match. It seems like your problem could be fixed by just adding "level N enemy" to the tooltip, e.g. "Chance to hit level <PlayerLevel> enemy", "Chance to dodge level <PlayerLevel> boss".

So it's a documentation problem?

My interpretation of DA2's tooltips and gameplay feedback is influenced by Mike Ladilaw's repeated assertions during DA2's development that DA2 would be "more transparent" than DAO.

All of the explanations I've heard in this thread contradict that claim.

Where was Origins more transparent than DA2?

[Veovim]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Pretty sure DA2 does the exact same thing, i.e. if you gain a level in an area, the monsters that are already cached don't automagically autolevel to match. It seems like your problem could be fixed by just adding "level N enemy" to the tooltip, e.g. "Chance to hit level <PlayerLevel> enemy", "Chance to dodge level <PlayerLevel> boss".

So it's a documentation problem?

My interpretation of DA2's tooltips and gameplay feedback is influenced by Mike Ladilaw's repeated assertions during DA2's development that DA2 would be "more transparent" than DAO.

All of the explanations I've heard in this thread contradict that claim.

Where was Origins more transparent than DA2?

Combat values made far more sense in Origins.  One point of attack was equivalent to 1% increased chance to hit.  One point of defense was equivalent to 1% increased chance to dodge.  One point of armor was equivalent to 1 less damage taken.  Resistances existed only as a percentage.  Compare that to DA2, where the relationship between base values and percentages is much less clear.  If I increase my base attack value by X, how much will the percentage chance to hit increase?  If I remember correctly, each additional point of str/dex/mag increases your attack value by more than the previous point, so the answer effectively changes every time you level up--no wonder it's hard to follow.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Satyricon331 wrote...

@Sylvius - Hmm, I think we agree on the substantive design question, but I'm not sure I follow your criticism of intuition.  If you're not working out the math each and every time, and you're not conducting some statistical analysis to use inductive rather than deductive reasoning, then you'd be using intuition as well.  In this case it's the intuition that's developed through internalizing the rules, but it's still a mental association of two things without fully working through the problem.  Anyways, that's my* spiel about it at least.  I strongly suspect if I had simply recast my point in terms of storyline-gameplay integration, you would have accepted it (since it's the story telling me that I've improved my combat prowess enough to level up that suggests my stats shouldn't be falling).

You're inferring a relationship between level and ability.  Unless that relationship is laid out explicitly, it is not reasonable for us to believe it exists.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Where was Origins more transparent than DA2?

If you examine two weapons in DA2, with different damage values and different % damage bonuses, what is their relative performance?  What will their relative performance be if Hawke gains two levels?

DAO lets you answer that question.  DA2 does not.

[Satyricon331]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You're inferring a relationship between level and ability.  Unless that relationship is laid out explicitly, it is not reasonable for us to believe it exists.

Even if I were to agree (which I don't, since it's consistent with inductive rationality), the point was about intuition generally, which I don't see why you say doesn't exist.  Though perhaps it's not a big deal.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Induction isn't rational.

[Satyricon331]

Empiricism and probabilistic inference (the backbones of science) are induction. If you think they're irrational then how would you know what words mean? Deducing them from dictionaries would be circular, and as such not truly deductive. Besides, even if you were right, induction is a separate question from intuition, which is simply associating a conclusion with a premise set without working through each and every inferential (whether deductive or inductive) step.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Satyricon331 wrote...

Empiricism and probabilistic inference (the backbones of science) are induction. If you think they're irrational then how would you know what words mean?

I don't.  I don't think anyone can, assuming words even have meaning.

Besides, even if you were right, induction is a separate question from intuition, which is simply associating a conclusion with a premise set without working through each and every inferential (whether deductive or inductive) step.

Right, and that was my point.  Intuition, as people describe it, is literally the ability to guess correct answers.

That's not a skill.  That's a random event.

[Everwarden]

There really isn't much to debate here. If you level up and feel like your character got -weaker-, that's bad design.