302 réponses à ce sujet

[Direwolf0294]

Allan, can I throw a suggestion out there that you add some really fun and cool abilities that aren't gained through leveling but rather learned from a drop (such as a book that drops off a monster that you have to read) or as a reward from a quest (an NPC teaches it to you after you help them), similar to those blood abilities in the Warden Keep DLC (I think it was Warden's Keep).

So a person who sucks runs through a dungeon and gets 200% experience from killing the creatures, finds a book at the end, reads it and gains a cool new spell to mess around with. A person who owns runs through the same dungeon, gets 50% experience from killing the creatures, finds a book at the end, reads it and gains a cool new spell to mess around with.

Of course they'd still be a heap of abilities you gain through leveling up but there would also be some really fun, non essential abilities you can learn at any level as quest rewards and drops that would add more versatility to the combat, no matter what level you are. It doesn't even always have to be a new ability, you could even unlock new special kills to add some more flavor to the game. Like a mage unlocking the ability to call down a lightning bolt to finish off an Ogre when they score a special kill on it or a rogue doing a cool flip over an enemy while beheading them.

[Firewolf99]

I don't know whether it's been said yet, but the good thing about level scaling is that it removes the need for grinding, which is possibly the most boring task in the world. Plus, it really breaks the immersion. I remember playing Dragon Quest 8, and having to stop before one boss and ext the cave so as to grind effectively. This would have given the boss plenty of time to enact his evil scheme and destroy/ take over the world. (I forget which) in real life. In that respect, I think I prefer level scaling.

But I do like all the ideas about how the ability tree can be improved.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sejborg wrote...

@ Fast Jimmy and Allan Schumacher

Why implement a system that rewards lazy behavior? That is basically what you are sugesting and discussing. You are discussing a perverse system that penalizes a person who performs great and rewards the person who deliver poor results. The XP is the players reward for every job or kill.

Imagine a workplace where they start to give the worst employee a higher salary because he is struggling and doing a horrible job. Why should the rest of the coworkers even try to make good results, when they get better rewarded for doing a horrible job?

Implement that system and getting better gear will be like a penalty, because the better gear will make it harder to suck at your game, and therefore make it harder to level up. Fist fighting nude will be the best option if you want to level up.

Its intent is not to reward lazy behavior, but rather to help those that need the most help. You may view XP as a reward for doing a job/killing an enemy (and it is, in some degree) but the primary mechanism of XP is to make your character/party stronger. If you are vastly overpowered (and again, I would put to the test 95% of the players on this forum to go through a DA:O or DA2 playthrough and take almost no damage the vast majority of their fights), then why do you need to become even more powerful? I understand the fun of leveling up, but maybe you can spend your money on better equipment/crafting items, since the player that is struggling and getting dealt a ton of damage is going to be spending that money instead on potions and injury kits.

If you think fist fighting nude would help you in this type of system, I'd tend to disagree. If you look back at my earlier posts when I was first discussing this, I said that a key feature of my XP model would be that the "auto-heal" aspect of Dragon Age would not be allowed or be present in this model - meaning your health would not replenish back to 100% within two seconds of finishing a fight. If you want to take a lot of damage on purpose to squeeze out XP,. then you'll need to chug a potion or two after every fight (multiplied times four, since the number of companions who are still alive is a big determiner as well), which will rapidly drain you of gold. If you want to spend every sovereign you have on potions to get the XP bonus, then you won't be able to afford equipment from shops or things like enchantments or traps.

The system is only open to manipulation if you sacrifice another aspect - gold (via potions). While some may view that as a cheap "gold to experience" loophole, I think its a realtive compromise. The best possible outcome is if you are an elite player, never taking damage, saving your money up to buy the best items. You may level more slowly than someone who is taking an average or above average amount of damage, but A) your build is apparently superior to theirs, so what does another level mean in light of that? and an elite player will have the highest possible amount of gold  to spend on better equipement, giving them a continued edge.

Therefore, if, in my model, the elite player has an overall (but not a drastic or overpowered) edge over the average player, the less succesful player and the player trying to manipulate the system, what is the problem?

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 29 avril 2012 - 11:10 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

In regards to Attributes and levels and the like, I've shifted my opinions on this several times, but I tend to think that simpler and clearer methods of abstraction are best.

To that end, I'd love to see a system that emulates the GURPS game system as far as Attributes go:

-Strength
-Dexterity
-Wisdom
-Resilience

Or at least something similar. Because really, these are the only elements that come into play for Dragon Age games. You could plausibly add one for Magic, but WHY OH WHY do we have a Magic Attribute if 2/3rds of creatable characters cannot use it by definition? Why is Cunning required for Defence or for opening Locks?

It's these sorts of brainfart illogical abstractions that a) annoy me to no end; and expose the poor design that could be fixed by having a Skills System, or better ways to measure and represent character development. It's not exactly uncommon to see in games, but really, it's not a good thing.

Secondly, I'd like them to be fixed on character creation. Less variation in Attribute Point allocation and less worrying about crazy stat/talent requirements and lopsided power curves.

Third, Attributes are not there to just determine numbers in combat through arbitrary formulae. They are there to represent the fundamental physical and mental aspects of your character(s). Attributes ought to be all encompassing and universal regardless of class. They should also have an impact of every aspect of gameplay, or as many as makes sense.

- Strength: Increases Base Attack Damage, Critical Hit Damage, Force for Physical Attacks and Inventory Capacity.
- Dexterity: Increases Dodge Rate, Critical Hit Rate, Accuracy for Physical Attacks and Movement Speed.
- Wisdom: Increases Accuracy for Spells, Force for Magical Attacks, Exp Rate and Tactical Slots.
- Resilience: Increases HP/MP/Stamina, HP/MP/Stamina Regen Rate and Fortitude.

Every Attribute has worth and since you're choosing it at the beginning, it forces you to think about the kind of character you want to make (y'know, that roleplaying stuff I hear about). Now, a respec option and some decent pointers on particular archetype Attribute allocation would be helpful, too.

A beefed up Talent Tree System could have Generalized Talent Trees, available to all classes giving broad equivalence to a Skills System - similar to Skyrim or even Origins, but structured more like DA 2's Talent Trees. That, combined with Specialized Talent Trees, which relate to Specializations and it's designated classes, could and should make up the bulk of character customization beyond character creation.

You can tie the Item System and it's requirements/progression to the Talent Trees: having a Base Talent in each Tree improving proficiency and use ala Skyrim. By doing that, you'd jettison the illogical requirement to have 50 Dex or be a Rogue before your character can figure out the immensely difficult task of how to put on a leather armor - it'd simply be less effective than a plate armor at stopping Stabby McKillsAlot unless you invest in the related Talent Tree(s). Even with the Talent upgrades, it might not be better. Still doesn't make complete sense, but a massive improvement, IMO.

It'd also allow for more variety within the types of equipment for specific playstyles (Chainmail = good vs swords, crap vs arrows) since you're not placing arbitrary requirements on it's usage.

As for XP rewards, I still think that XP ought to be rewarded for Quest completion with extra XP being rewarded for reaching milestones that relate to character actions (Killing, Sneaking, Diplomacy, Device Disarming, Stealing, Crafting, etc).

Either in general terms (Killed X people, Opened X locks) or specific to a particular quest (Solved situation X without resorting to violence, Stealthed past all the Guards in X's mansion without killing anyone, etc). It's easy to tie into the Achievement System, too.

Now, on the issue of scaling, I believe someone mentioned BG 2 a few pages back and how it scaled monster types of static strength according to level ranges. No wolf pups being stronger than bosses because you're a high level, but mega super hardcore death dire wolves instead. That'd be fine, IMO.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 29 avril 2012 - 11:46 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

@CrustyBot, but .. but what about Charisma attribute?! sometimes I use it in RL and it works!

[Dominus]

They are there to represent the fundamental physical and mental aspects of your character(s). Attributes ought to be all encompassing and universal regardless of class. They should also have an impact of every aspect of gameplay.

That, 100 times.

Why is Cunning required for Defence or for opening Locks?

Likely done for simplicity?

[Sejborg]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Its intent is not to reward lazy behavior, but rather to help those that need the most help. You may view XP as a reward for doing a job/killing an enemy (and it is, in some degree) but the primary mechanism of XP is to make your character/party stronger. If you are vastly overpowered (and again, I would put to the test 95% of the players on this forum to go through a DA:O or DA2 playthrough and take almost no damage the vast majority of their fights), then why do you need to become even more powerful? I understand the fun of leveling up, but maybe you can spend your money on better equipment/crafting items, since the player that is struggling and getting dealt a ton of damage is going to be spending that money instead on potions and injury kits.

If you think fist fighting nude would help you in this type of system, I'd tend to disagree. If you look back at my earlier posts when I was first discussing this, I said that a key feature of my XP model would be that the "auto-heal" aspect of Dragon Age would not be allowed or be present in this model - meaning your health would not replenish back to 100% within two seconds of finishing a fight. If you want to take a lot of damage on purpose to squeeze out XP,. then you'll need to chug a potion or two after every fight (multiplied times four, since the number of companions who are still alive is a big determiner as well), which will rapidly drain you of gold. If you want to spend every sovereign you have on potions to get the XP bonus, then you won't be able to afford equipment from shops or things like enchantments or traps.

The system is only open to manipulation if you sacrifice another aspect - gold (via potions). While some may view that as a cheap "gold to experience" loophole, I think its a realtive compromise. The best possible outcome is if you are an elite player, never taking damage, saving your money up to buy the best items. You may level more slowly than someone who is taking an average or above average amount of damage, but A) your build is apparently superior to theirs, so what does another level mean in light of that? and an elite player will have the highest possible amount of gold  to spend on better equipement, giving them a continued edge.

Therefore, if, in my model, the elite player has an overall (but not a drastic or overpowered) edge over the average player, the less succesful player and the player trying to manipulate the system, what is the problem?

I admit I had not read your post about the no health regeneration. That alters the case somewhat, and there might not be a weird exploit in the system as I suggested.

But if you try to help the poorer players by giving them more xp, but then take away their needed advantage by reducing their gold budget for gear, because they have to use a lot of gold on potions... then what is the point? 

Alot of the fun - for me atleast  - is both levelling up and getting new gear. Getting a cool new skill, or a new chestpiece for your armor can be really satisfying. Especially if the chestpiece alters your look without making you look stupid.  With this new xp system, the elite player will not get the same amount of level ups, and the poor player will not get as much new gear.

One could say: "you win some, you loose some". But if the poor player, that is struggling with the combat, just lowers the difficulty then it would actually be "win win". I think that would be the best solution. 

[Curlain]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

...

If you think fist fighting nude would help you in this type of system, I'd tend to disagree. If you look back at my earlier posts when I was first discussing this, I said that a key feature of my XP model would be that the "auto-heal" aspect of Dragon Age would not be allowed or be present in this model - meaning your health would not replenish back to 100% within two seconds of finishing a fight. If you want to take a lot of damage on purpose to squeeze out XP,. then you'll need to chug a potion or two after every fight (multiplied times four, since the number of companions who are still alive is a big determiner as well), which will rapidly drain you of gold. If you want to spend every sovereign you have on potions to get the XP bonus, then you won't be able to afford equipment from shops or things like enchantments or traps.

The system is only open to manipulation if you sacrifice another aspect - gold (via potions). While some may view that as a cheap "gold to experience" loophole, I think its a realtive compromise. The best possible outcome is if you are an elite player, never taking damage, saving your money up to buy the best items. You may level more slowly than someone who is taking an average or above average amount of damage, but A) your build is apparently superior to theirs, so what does another level mean in light of that? and an elite player will have the highest possible amount of gold  to spend on better equipement, giving them a continued edge.

Therefore, if, in my model, the elite player has an overall (but not a drastic or overpowered) edge over the average player, the less succesful player and the player trying to manipulate the system, what is the problem?

Not really unless you deal with regenerating mana between battles as well, and fallen party members getting straight back up after combat ends.  As the mages in any group will just heal everyone up between combat quickly enough, so that the regenerating health may as well be left in.  If you do intend to stop regenerating mana, they you will need some other form or resting or recharging mechanic in place, particularly for combat heavy areas.

Modifié par Curlain, 29 avril 2012 - 12:31 .

[AkiKishi]

CrustyBot wrote...

In regards to Attributes and levels and the like, I've shifted my opinions on this several times, but I tend to think that simpler and clearer methods of abstraction are best.

To that end, I'd love to see a system that emulates the GURPS game system as far as Attributes go:

-Strength
-Dexterity
-Wisdom
-Resilience

Or at least something similar. Because really, these are the only elements that come into play for Dragon Age games. You could plausibly add one for Magic, but WHY OH WHY do we have a Magic Attribute if 2/3rds of creatable characters cannot use it by definition? Why is Cunning required for Defence or for opening Locks?

It's these sorts of brainfart illogical abstractions that a) annoy me to no end; and expose the poor design that could be fixed by having a Skills System, or better ways to measure and represent character development. It's not exactly uncommon to see in games, but really, it's not a good thing.

Secondly, I'd like them to be fixed on character creation. Less variation in Attribute Point allocation and less worrying about crazy stat/talent requirements and lopsided power curves.

Third, Attributes are not there to just determine numbers in combat through arbitrary formulae. They are there to represent the fundamental physical and mental aspects of your character(s). Attributes ought to be all encompassing and universal regardless of class. They should also have an impact of every aspect of gameplay, or as many as makes sense.

- Strength: Increases Base Attack Damage, Critical Hit Damage, Force for Physical Attacks and Inventory Capacity.
- Dexterity: Increases Dodge Rate, Critical Hit Rate, Accuracy for Physical Attacks and Movement Speed.
- Wisdom: Increases Accuracy for Spells, Force for Magical Attacks, Exp Rate and Tactical Slots.
- Resilience: Increases HP/MP/Stamina, HP/MP/Stamina Regen Rate and Fortitude.

Every Attribute has worth and since you're choosing it at the beginning, it forces you to think about the kind of character you want to make (y'know, that roleplaying stuff I hear about). Now, a respec option and some decent pointers on particular archetype Attribute allocation would be helpful, too.

A beefed up Talent Tree System could have Generalized Talent Trees, available to all classes giving broad equivalence to a Skills System - similar to Skyrim or even Origins, but structured more like DA 2's Talent Trees. That, combined with Specialized Talent Trees, which relate to Specializations and it's designated classes, could and should make up the bulk of character customization beyond character creation.

You can tie the Item System and it's requirements/progression to the Talent Trees: having a Base Talent in each Tree improving proficiency and use ala Skyrim. By doing that, you'd jettison the illogical requirement to have 50 Dex or be a Rogue before your character can figure out the immensely difficult task of how to put on a leather armor - it'd simply be less effective than a plate armor at stopping Stabby McKillsAlot unless you invest in the related Talent Tree(s). Even with the Talent upgrades, it might not be better. Still doesn't make complete sense, but a massive improvement, IMO.

It'd also allow for more variety within the types of equipment for specific playstyles (Chainmail = good vs swords, crap vs arrows) since you're not placing arbitrary requirements on it's usage.

As for XP rewards, I still think that XP ought to be rewarded for Quest completion with extra XP being rewarded for reaching milestones that relate to character actions (Killing, Sneaking, Diplomacy, Device Disarming, Stealing, Crafting, etc).

Either in general terms (Killed X people, Opened X locks) or specific to a particular quest (Solved situation X without resorting to violence, Stealthed past all the Guards in X's mansion without killing anyone, etc). It's easy to tie into the Achievement System, too.

Now, on the issue of scaling, I believe someone mentioned BG 2 a few pages back and how it scaled monster types of static strength according to level ranges. No wolf pups being stronger than bosses because you're a high level, but mega super hardcore death dire wolves instead. That'd be fine, IMO.

Problem with that is when you start to relate equipment to stats. In D&D you don't need specific stats for equipment (unless they have changed it). Once you starty needing X this and Y that to equip, then stats become more than they are,which further changes the balance of the game.

Same is true in systems where you need a specific stat before you can advance to the next skill level. Two Worlds 2 would be such an example. 
Stats then become essential to being able to equip the latest and best equipment ,which in turn means you end up going down a very narrow path anyway.

Easy enough to solve, you simply remove the stat requirements of items.

[Curlain]

BobSmith101 wrote...



Problem with that is when you start to relate equipment to stats. In D&D you don't need specific stats for equipment (unless they have changed it). Once you starty needing X this and Y that to equip, then stats become more than they are,which further changes the balance of the game.

Same is true in systems where you need a specific stat before you can advance to the next skill level. Two Worlds 2 would be such an example. 
Stats then become essential to being able to equip the latest and best equipment ,which in turn means you end up going down a very narrow path anyway.

Easy enough to solve, you simply remove the stat requirements of items.

It was needed in D&D, such is in BG & BG 2 (using adapted 2nd Ed rule-set), you had minimum strength requirements for armour and weapons for example and unlike NWN/NWN 2 etc, which used a rule-set adapted from 3rd Ed and 3.5, attributes were static once set in character creation for the whole game (apart some some specific opportunties in the game that would let you raise them, such the Tears of Bhaal thing at the end of Shadows of Amn).  Thus Aerie or Viconia for example (with low strength stats) could only use limited armour and small maces etc, despite the cleric class allowing them to use full plate/flails etc (unless you use mauler's arm, orge gaunlets or belts of giant strength, strength spells etc).

Modifié par Curlain, 29 avril 2012 - 12:40 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

@BobSmith:

You can tie the Item System and it's requirements/progression to the Talent Trees: having a Base Talent in each Tree improving proficiency and use ala Skyrim. By doing that, you'd jettison the illogical requirement to have 50 Dex or be a Rogue before your character can figure out the immensely difficult task of how to put on a leather armor - it'd simply be less effective than a plate armor at stopping Stabby McKillsAlot unless you invest in the related Talent Tree(s). Even with the Talent upgrades, it might not be better. Still doesn't make complete sense, but a massive improvement, IMO.

To clarify: yes, remove stat requirements. Simply have them scale in effectiveness according to Talent Selection or Specializations.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 29 avril 2012 - 12:58 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Curlain wrote...

snip

There would be no need to worry about mana, since there is no way to heal a companion outside of combat in DA, but there is ways to use potions. 

And companions would 'get right back up' but they would have an injury for each time they were struck down, as we would see in DA:O. And I was picturing that the fallen character's health would revert back to just one HP, a la old FF games. I discussed some of these points in my earlier posts. I apologize for the fact that they are huge walls of text. 

Also, again, I cannot reiterate this enough... the system as I envision it would be a sliding scale that is constantly changing. The whole idea of restoring balance via increased/decreased XP would be to tweak it so that the vast majority of players, the vast majority of the time, are as near to the normal range as possible. If it was implemented poorly, it would feel like it would penalize certain players. But ideally, it would gently nudge those who are getting hurt to the stronger end, and taper the growth of those who are more powerful than the designers intended. 

Instead of working in ways to make enemies harder/stronger or just have more HP/resistances, you can keep all enemies/quests/objectives the same difficulty, and rely on the XP system to keep players in a 'normal' range. 

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Jimmy (and I just thought of this now, so apologies if it seems rough around the edges), what about a system that scales gold rewards instead of XP in that manner?

If done well, it does present a clear advantage and nudge in the right direction for people who are struggling (better equipment, more consumables, etc) but it doesn't outright hinder the character progression and development of players who work well with tactics.

[Curlain]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Curlain wrote...

snip

There would be no need to worry about mana, since there is no way to heal a companion outside of combat in DA, but there is ways to use potions. 

And companions would 'get right back up' but they would have an injury for each time they were struck down, as we would see in DA:O. And I was picturing that the fallen character's health would revert back to just one HP, a la old FF games. I discussed some of these points in my earlier posts. I apologize for the fact that they are huge walls of text. 

Also, again, I cannot reiterate this enough... the system as I envision it would be a sliding scale that is constantly changing. The whole idea of restoring balance via increased/decreased XP would be to tweak it so that the vast majority of players, the vast majority of the time, are as near to the normal range as possible. If it was implemented poorly, it would feel like it would penalize certain players. But ideally, it would gently nudge those who are getting hurt to the stronger end, and taper the growth of those who are more powerful than the designers intended. 

Instead of working in ways to make enemies harder/stronger or just have more HP/resistances, you can keep all enemies/quests/objectives the same difficulty, and rely on the XP system to keep players in a 'normal' range. 

Ah I see (I did read the post, but popping in and out I think I forgot about the injuries).  That does solve the healing issue, though it does raise a bit of an immersion issue (basically why can't a mage heal someone outside of combat when they can in combat).  It might make game play and story/setting further divided by a seemingly artifical barrier (much like DA2 combat did for me in a different way with it's comic presentation, bloated boss hps and sky-falling enemies), unless an in-universe reason could be given for this.  I hope I'm not coming of to critical of the system proposed, I'm am interested in seeing how it could work, just wondering about the odd issue that occurs to me.

Modifié par Curlain, 29 avril 2012 - 01:19 .

[Joy Divison]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Nightmare is more difficult unless you cheese your way through, which is exactly what most people do. If you did away with the scaling, you could go back to the "challenge" days (read the earlier FF faqs) where you could brag to your mates you finished FFV with a party in single digits, without impacting on anyone elses game.

No it's not. I haven't played a CRPG where nightmare presented a consistent challenge.

[AkiKishi]

Joy Divison wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Nightmare is more difficult unless you cheese your way through, which is exactly what most people do. If you did away with the scaling, you could go back to the "challenge" days (read the earlier FF faqs) where you could brag to your mates you finished FFV with a party in single digits, without impacting on anyone elses game.

No it's not. I haven't played a CRPG where nightmare presented a consistent challenge.

Not suprising since the challenge will vary with the variables. Different characters will find different things easier or harder.

The point of the FF examples is simply to challenge yourself. Finishing the game at a level that most people would say was impossible.

[Fast Jimmy]

CrustyBot wrote...

Jimmy (and I just thought of this now, so apologies if it seems rough around the edges), what about a system that scales gold rewards instead of XP in that manner?

If done well, it does present a clear advantage and nudge in the right direction for people who are struggling (better equipment, more consumables, etc) but it doesn't outright hinder the character progression and development of players who work well with tactics.

I suppose that could work, from a gameplay point of view. But, at the same time, I'm not sure that will address the issues like level scaling or gating, where a level 10 enemy may be too easy or too hard for than a level 10 character. 

Also, from an immersion/story ideal, gold magically appearing on corpses based on how much damage you take is a little odd. Struggling in a fight and learning from it (I.e gaining more XP) makes more in-game sense. But the concept is a good one if the XP scaling I suggested would be too complex/thorny of an issue. 

[Luigitornado]

I like the feeling of becoming stronger over the course of the game and wiping out low-threat foes with a few hits.

[Pasquale1234]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Also, again, I cannot reiterate this enough... the system as I envision it would be a sliding scale that is constantly changing. The whole idea of restoring balance via increased/decreased XP would be to tweak it so that the vast majority of players, the vast majority of the time, are as near to the normal range as possible. If it was implemented poorly, it would feel like it would penalize certain players. But ideally, it would gently nudge those who are getting hurt to the stronger end, and taper the growth of those who are more powerful than the designers intended. 

Instead of working in ways to make enemies harder/stronger or just have more HP/resistances, you can keep all enemies/quests/objectives the same difficulty, and rely on the XP system to keep players in a 'normal' range. 

Where is the player's motivation to really learn and understand the mechanics if all (or most) choices lead to the same (or similar) result?  Gosh, re-reading that statement reminds me of a certain game I've played...

Since a lot of it would (theoretically) be obfuscated, and most players would never see different results for different build choices, they would never learn how to make better build decisions.  It seems to me like it would effectively nerf the consequences of build choices, the opposite of what many who desire greater player agency are requesting.

It could, I suppose, have the net effect of allowing players to be successful with a wide variety of different strategies, which could potentially enhance role-playing.

Interesting to think about.

[just_me]

One of the main problems of Fast Jimmy's suggestion can be eliminated if you just separate "leveling up" and "gaining skill/attribute points". A Level Up could only increase HP/Mana/Stamina and maybe certain resistances... these are things a player that performs poorly needs, but someone who barely takes damage in battle does not.
Skill- and attribute-points are only given as quest rewards and maybe for reaching certain milestones (for performing certain tasks and in a quest line) Maybe the skill system would need some changes, so that skill points can be given to the player more often... something like "learning a base/low level talent requires only a single skill points, while learning the ultimate spell of a magic school costs 5" should do. It might be a bit more restricting than gaining everything by leveling up, but not much imo

And the feature should not be available in nightmare mode. Nightmare only exists to challenge players. A feature that helps the player, if they are challenged doesn't make sense here. Additionally any relevant builds do not depend on the "dynamic XP" at all.

@Fast Jimmy
I read most of your posts, but can't remember that detail and don't want to read the whole stuff again^^ Did you want to calculate the XP bonus/penalty based on HP remaining after the battle, or HP lost during the battle? I'd say the second one is better, since a fight, where I had to use one potion and have 50% HP left, was harder than a fight I could finish without using a potion but 30% HP. The first one discourages healing (especially near the end of battle too much imo)

Modifié par just_me, 29 avril 2012 - 06:51 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Where is the player's motivation to really learn and understand the mechanics if all (or most) choices lead to the same (or similar) result?  Gosh, re-reading that statement reminds me of a certain game I've played...
Since a lot of it would (theoretically) be obfuscated, and most players would never see different results for different build choices, they would never learn how to make better build decisions.  It seems to me like it would effectively nerf the consequences of build choices, the opposite of what many who desire greater player agency are requesting.

It could, I suppose, have the net effect of allowing players to be successful with a wide variety of different strategies, which could potentially enhance role-playing. Interesting to think about.

My system relies heavily on the player keeping all members of the party alive (you multiply the base XP times the XP rating based on health and also by the number of companions who survive the fight), so a TRULY bad build would be penalized across the board and would require the player to turn down the difficulty or reload a LOT. I wanted my system to help by nudging, not completely eliminate the need for some players to drop the difficulty. 
So... if possible, I'd like the system to be viewed as having the benefit of multiple strategies and RP opportunites? 

just_me wrote...

One of the main problems of Fast Jimmy's suggestion can be eliminated if you just separate "leveling up" and "gaining skill/attribute points". A Level Up could only increase HP/Mana/Stamina and maybe certain resistances... these are things a player that performs poorly needs, but someone who barely takes damage in battle does not.
Skill- and attribute-points are only given as quest rewards and maybe for reaching certain milestones (for performing certain tasks and in a quest line) Maybe the skill system would need some changes, so that skill points can be given to the player more often... something like "learning a base/low level talent requires only a single skill points, while learning the ultimate spell of a magic school costs 5" should do. It might be a bit more restricting than gaining everything by leveling up, but not much imo

And the feature should not be available in nightmare mode. Nightmare only exists to challenge players. A feature that helps the player, if they are challenged doesn't make sense here. Additionally any relevant builds do not depend on the "dynamic XP" at all.

I would not be opposed in the least to separating standard levels and XP with skill dependent XP. My mechanics I believe could work very similarly, in fact, within a framework like this.

 just_me wrote...

@Fast Jimmy
I read most of your posts, but can't remember that detail and don't want to read the whole stuff again^^ Did you want to calculate the XP bonus/penalty based on HP remaining after the battle, or HP lost during the battle? I'd say the second one is better, since a fight, where I had to use one potion and have 50% HP left, was harder than a fight I could finish without using a potion but 30% HP. The first one discourages healing (especially near the end of battle too much imo)

I don't think I stated this explicitly, but I had thought of the idea. And I'm not totally sure.

I agree that the total damage done over the fight would be the best model, both for logical, Role Playing purposes and overall purpose-of-the-model functionaly. If I am advocating that the amount of damage you receive in a fight is the best indicator to how well (or how poorly) you are doing, then it shouldn't be a simple snapshot of your health at the end of the battle, but rather the total amount of damage done.

That being said, this runs into the same issue that Curlain brought up - spells can be used to regenarate health. Granted, the point he raised was that the auto-restore of mana could be used to restore health in a similar fashion outside of combat, a similar scenario of kiting infinitely while waiting for mana recharges to happen could be seen as well. After all, a ring or two of mana regeneration and some high willpower can result in a mage who can cast multiple healing spells left and right infinitely, allowing for the cooldown time. This would lower the need to depend on potions as the main source of healing (tying the restriction to gold vs. XP), so a character could get pummeled every fight, kite for a while, cast healing spells once their mana is restored, and then reap the XP bonus. It would take a little time and work to do for every fight, but it is a plausible exploit, which is problematic.

I've thought a possible solution would be no mana/stamina regeneration during combat, but much larger mana/stamina pools, so that players could use multiple skills and spells during combat. This would still give a healer mage the ability to save their mana to heal exclusively during every fight, however, so it is a hurdle to overcome. 

If anyone has any suggestions as to how to overcome the mana/healing issue during combat as a way to avoid a possible exploit, I'd be happy to hear it. Otherwise, I'd say to default to A) using the health at the very end of combat or anytime a character uses a healing spell or health potion during combat, automatically revert their XP gain to normal. 

I don't think either of those solutions are perfect, so it could be a real snag to the overall process.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 29 avril 2012 - 07:13 .

[Akizora]

I would much prefer a softcap than a hardcap at the level at which you no longer gain skill/ability points, however you do gain health, mana and possibly statpoints and continue to do so. I've found that since I play as a completionist I may run over the same area once every time I finish a quest to see if theres anything new unlocked, each time I fight something and level up.

If I do everything I can possibly do, chances are that I will be at the maximum level before I finish the game and then the feeling of progression is lost. If I continue to gain levels and something is gained with it, though at a much smaller scale, it would still feel like I'm getting stronger -- though without becoming overpowered and losing all challenge.

Scaling in the main quest is a bad and good idea, on the good side of it is that you'll be able to do side-quests and not just cookiecutter your way through the mainquest as if its hot butter. On the bad side of it, you could kind of feel as if you're not getting any stronger and all those side-quests you did to gain better loot, more levels and so on are for nothing. It is of course possible to create a level scale system that eventually tips in your favor and does make the enemies weaker, though this has been tried a few times by others and failed to make it work entirely.

In the end though, I think that gaining levels, attributes, skill points, ability points and loot is all part of the RPG experience for me. If I hit a hardcap, I lose a sense of progression, so even if the story is great I am not experiencing the same draw anymore and a piece of motivation has more or less been lost.

[Tigerman123]

I don't really see that there was much of a problem with level or challenge scaling on nightmare, other than the perennial problem of the game becoming considerably easier as you progress, so that the hardest quests in the game include night lies and the mercenary path when you first arrive in Kirkwall. The optional battles which were supposed to provide extra difficulty were pretty hit and miss, Xebenkeck is considered reasonably hard, but hybris is ludicrously easy. Yeah I'd I've preferred nightmare to be trickier and it was compared to dao, but it's not likely to happen given how few people played it and how they subsequently patched it...

[just_me]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If anyone has any suggestions as to how to overcome the mana/healing issue during combat as a way to avoid a possible exploit, I'd be happy to hear it. Otherwise, I'd say to default to A) using the health at the very end of combat or anytime a character uses a healing spell or health potion during combat, automatically revert their XP gain to normal. 

I don't think either of those solutions are perfect, so it could be a real snag to the overall process.

I'm not sure if you have to think about this that much.
It certainly depends on the amount  of XP one can gain through combat compared to the rest, but let's assume a completionist exploiting the system on every occasion gains around 5-7 more levels over someone with all XP from quests, but minimal combat XP (maybe the gap is bigger early game, but as the required XP to gain a new level increase, the difference in level probably shrinks) And let's just say you have to lose 150% of your total party health to gain the 100% bonus(so you even have to heal to gain max XP). If you have healing spells similar to the ones in DA2 the process becomes incredibly tedious imo... and someone who suffers that much deserves some reward xD Of course multiple mages ease the pain, but you still have to be rather determined to pull this off...

It's even less of an issue if you separate skill and level progression... since the exploiting players ends up with a few additional HP and that's it. And as the feature should not be available on nightmare, it's insignificant for "proper" builds anyway... But it remains a useful help for players struggling on lower difficulties.

[bEVEsthda]

I often really do the work of reading through a thread, before responding in it, believe it or not.

I stayed away from this thread from the start though. Mainly because I thought I either - had so much to say, that it would be so much work, and I knew anyway that our contemporary EA/Bioware would never pay any interest whatsoever to anything, - or, if I wasn't going to say that, I had nothing to say at all.

But I am jumping in here, without reading the thread, even though I'm sure you have an interesting discussion here, just to say this:

Leveling up, is for the character to grow in power so that the PC can accomplish more challenging things.

This, however, is completely pointless when developers, like Bioware and others, line up challenges in a chain, where they are either unreachable for the char until reaching the right level, and/or 'balanced'. This later, distressing scheme makes for everything just staying the same, throughout the game. Of course already BG, or at least BG2, was 'balanced' to some degree. But I think the first to really go too far was Dungeon Siege. Back in those days I thought that was just a temporary abomination. I could never belive developers like Bioware would copy all the worst features to the letter.

It is the PC's responsibility to navigate the world, according to how strong and capable the player feels the party is.
That is my ideal. That is how it should be. And all I have to say in this matter, in a forum belonging to our current Bioware.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 29 avril 2012 - 08:36 .