Aller au contenu

Photo

What is the point of level and Attributes


302 réponses à ce sujet

#51
Zexiv

Zexiv
  • Members
  • 62 messages

Pasquale1234 wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

All I really want is for combat in dragon age 3 to be more about player skill and less about stats.


As others have said, you don't want an RPG, but an action game.

RPG mechanics use the characters' skills (not the player's sklls) to determine the outcome of combat.  It is the characters, not the player, that are engaging in combat.



+1  RPG's tend to be focused on the types of builds charecters can be made into rather than player skills fast twitch wise.  Even Diablo 2 which is much more hack and slash than Dragon Age is heavily influenced by what type of build you're making and levels.  Personally I enjoy trying different build types out more so than playing a fighting game.

Take it easy

#52
MichaelStuart

MichaelStuart
  • Members
  • 2 251 messages

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

Okay MichaelStuart, this I can understand.

The problem is if a game is based on a leveling system it will apply for all the fights ingame normally. A different approuch for doing combat without it affecting your level could be done in DA as they did in Orzammar in the arena. You can fight and earn weapons/money f.e.

Could that be somethng that would appease you?


But wouldn't my that just determine how strong my charater is by my equipment in stead of level?

All I really want is for combat in dragon age 3 to be more about player skill and less about stats.


Hmmmm. In DA2 you developed your character by choosing skills in the trees. Your point here is to only have skill customization when you level up.


I'm sorry if thats the point I seem to making, but it's not.
I just felt that since in Dragon age 2, I didn't seem to get any stronger by leveling and had to rely more on moving my characters around to win combat (which I did enjoy more), if we should just get rid of levels and attributes and focus more on controlling what characters during combat.
Clearly most people seem to to like them and want them back.
 

#53
Fast Jimmy

Fast Jimmy
  • Members
  • 17 939 messages
A thought occurs to me that could put to rest the 'Crit Path' issue in relation to experience.

Have side quests be mandatory, but you can only choose a limited amount of them in a given playthrough.

Example: you are given the option to do five side quests in a town. Due to a restriction (time, conflicts between various parties, having one side quest essentially null another, etc.) you can only do three. Conversely, if you do nothing or move on to another area, the main quet objective for that area never becomes active.

Putting a limit to the number of factions or side quests you can perform would be an excellent way to increase replayabilty, given that the actions taken in a quest could vary, as well as the quest you take itself.

That way, EVERYONE is on relatively the same level for the main quest, but can have wildly varied experiences and access to different loot.

#54
MichaelStuart

MichaelStuart
  • Members
  • 2 251 messages

Pasquale1234 wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

All I really want is for combat in dragon age 3 to be more about player skill and less about stats.


As others have said, you don't want an RPG, but an action game.


Just to be clear, the main reason I play RPG's is so I can Role Play.
I can play a good action game for a hour, but I can play a good RPG for days.
I just want the combat (which should only make up 20% of a RPG) to be more tactical. 

Modifié par MichaelStuart, 23 avril 2012 - 04:08 .


#55
Guest_sjpelkessjpeler_*

Guest_sjpelkessjpeler_*
  • Guests

MichaelStuart wrote...

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

Okay MichaelStuart, this I can understand.

The problem is if a game is based on a leveling system it will apply for all the fights ingame normally. A different approuch for doing combat without it affecting your level could be done in DA as they did in Orzammar in the arena. You can fight and earn weapons/money f.e.

Could that be somethng that would appease you?


But wouldn't my that just determine how strong my charater is by my equipment in stead of level?

All I really want is for combat in dragon age 3 to be more about player skill and less about stats.


Hmmmm. In DA2 you developed your character by choosing skills in the trees. Your point here is to only have skill customization when you level up.


I'm sorry if thats the point I seem to making, but it's not.
I just felt that since in Dragon age 2, I didn't seem to get any stronger by leveling and had to rely more on moving my characters around to win combat (which I did enjoy more), if we should just get rid of levels and attributes and focus more on controlling what characters during combat.
Clearly most people seem to to like them and want them back.
 


A better combination of strategic gameplay and the leveling system would be a great compromise I think.

If I understand it right this is kind of what you are looking for right? Image IPB

I for one like the strategic part but play RPG mostly for the story and what I need to do to progress the story. Depending on the game this involves more/less fighting, doing side quests, talking to people etc.

#56
the_one_54321

the_one_54321
  • Members
  • 6 112 messages

MichaelStuart wrote...
I believe that a game's difficultly should only be determined by skill as a player, not by how many quests I complete or enemies I kill.

This is the opposite of what I want to see in any BioWare game. If you follow this suggestion, I won't buy the game and I'll tell all my friends that you kick puppies while brainstorming new game ideas.
:pinched:

Also, why are people concerned about overpowering a character by spending extra time developing levels? Having a character that kicks butt is a reward for spending extra time.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 23 avril 2012 - 04:13 .


#57
Pasquale1234

Pasquale1234
  • Members
  • 3 076 messages

Fast Jimmy wrote...

A thought occurs to me that could put to rest the 'Crit Path' issue in relation to experience.

Have side quests be mandatory, but you can only choose a limited amount of them in a given playthrough.

Example: you are given the option to do five side quests in a town. Due to a restriction (time, conflicts between various parties, having one side quest essentially null another, etc.) you can only do three. Conversely, if you do nothing or move on to another area, the main quet objective for that area never becomes active.

Putting a limit to the number of factions or side quests you can perform would be an excellent way to increase replayabilty, given that the actions taken in a quest could vary, as well as the quest you take itself.

That way, EVERYONE is on relatively the same level for the main quest, but can have wildly varied experiences and access to different loot.


Or maybe have the main quest choices determine which side quests are active?  An example of this was whether you chose to support Bhelen or Harrowmont in DAO - some of the "prove your loyalty" quests were different.

I like the concept, though there may be quite a bit of content you would not see on any given playthrough.  As it stands now, it seems that most of the content that changes from playthrough to playthrough has to do with relationships - whether you friend or rival, which LI you romance, that sort of thing.

#58
AkiKishi

AkiKishi
  • Members
  • 10 898 messages

the_one_54321 wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...
I believe that a game's difficultly should only be determined by skill as a player, not by how many quests I complete or enemies I kill.

This is the opposite of what I want to see in any BioWare game. If you follow this suggestion, I won't buy the game and I'll tell all my friends that you kick puppies while brainstorming new game ideas.
:pinched:

Also, why are people concerned about overpowering a character by spending extra time developing levels? Having a character that kicks butt is a reward for spending extra time.



Comes down to whether it is intentional or unintentional and also just what a level means in real terms.  If a game gets too easy I will get bored unless there is some other factor at work,like a great story.

#59
the_one_54321

the_one_54321
  • Members
  • 6 112 messages

BobSmith101 wrote...
If a game gets too easy I will get bored unless there is some other factor at work,like a great story.

Sounds like the difference between a good game and a mediocre one.

#60
A Crusty Knight Of Colour

A Crusty Knight Of Colour
  • Members
  • 7 472 messages
Rather than level scaling and all these complex mechanisms, why not just ground the amount of progression (statistically) to something that fits the setting better. It stands to reason that with a smaller power curve, balance becomes less of an issue because there's a smaller range to account for. Consequently, specific moments of progression (getting a new talent or proficiency) become more profound.

Without going into detail of my ever changing ideas of a good Character System for Dragon Age 3 ™, I'd like to see a sense of verisimilitude and the notion that stats = abstraction, so it ought to be logically grounded, not arbitrarily adapted.

In regards to the "Crit Path" debate, build up the challenges, quests and events in the world as you'd reasonably expect them to be according to story without scaling. Let the chips fall where it may.

It's gameplay oriented storytelling and it's a way to reinforce narrative themes or plot points as players learn to respect the environment and story you've laid out to them. There's no sense of cognitive dissonance if hobo thieves are never as strong as Dragons because you're a higher level.

There's something to be said about balancing non-essential content against player progression, but if progression were more measured to begin with, the extra levels wouldn't be such a massive deal. The biggest reward for non-essential content exploration should ultimately be an enhanced exploration of the setting - whether it be through characters, environments, events, etc.

You don't even have to tie it to EXP or combat, or the progression systems. Alpha Protocol's Dossier System, which had both story and gameplay implications, are a good example.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 23 avril 2012 - 04:58 .


#61
the_one_54321

the_one_54321
  • Members
  • 6 112 messages
No, I feel that side quests that offer no bonuses in EXP would feel like something of a cheat. Where's my "tangible" reward for the effort?

#62
SmokePants

SmokePants
  • Members
  • 1 121 messages
I use the supercrit player cheat on subsequent playthroughs as a poor man's new game plus (how about some new game plus for God's sake? Progression is fine... for the first playthrough...) both in DA 1 and 2. I noticed that it is MUCH more effective in DA1. There's some kind of weird math going on in DA2 that limits the effectiveness of sky-high attributes. You start off 1-shotting people, but by Act 2 or so, it's really hard to tell that your character is juiced, other than the massive health bar.

#63
Allan Schumacher

Allan Schumacher
  • BioWare Employees
  • 7 640 messages

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Allen, to your comment and point... I don't think determining the difficulty of the Critical Path to match up with the lowest common denominator of experience of not doing any side quests is a wise idea. While it does make the side quests more enjoyable by making them difficult, it has two major flaws.


I wasn't necessarily thinking that all side quests are more difficult, just that (without level scaling) that seems to be a safer place to put side quests.  So SOME side quests will be particularly challenging.  At it's core though, what I'm saying is that without level scaling, we still need to be mindful of the game experience of those that tend to only do the crit path because they like the stories we present.

One, for a completionist such as myself, it makes the main quest, which should be the true struggle and where you would want a greater level of difficulty in order to feel a sense of accomplishment, a cake walk. This is not a reward. While I do not want untold, horrific difficulty at every turn (at least on my first playthrough, I'll go back and muck around with Nightmare later), I feel like a super easy main quest experience cheapens the entire journey. Case in point is ME3 - the new way of doing their Reputation system (while not a true level up mechanic, is based on how many side quests you do and less on staying true to a particular style of behavior) let me do everything in the main quest with the best possible outcome, hands down. No challenge or sense of loss or choice, I can just select "Auto-Win" every time because I did side quests. That detracts from the meaning of choice and, while there should be a best case scenario that can be achieved, it shouldn't be as simple as beating someone over the head with my High Level Hammer.

Two, if you make all side quests harder, then that penalizes my ability to pick and choose what side quests I do. For instance, if, at the beginning of the game, I want to skip all the side quests about saving kittens from trees because they sound like time killers, but then late in the game, I want to tackle really interesting side quests, such as "Forging the Armor of The PROTAGONIST!" will I not have a high enough level to this without countless reloads or starting over, because I skipped the kitten saving?

My solution is that you make the game progressively hard, regardless of if you are doing the main quest or a side quest. You make the end of the main quest the hardest part of the game, not make it a footnote (hello, Skyrim). And then you give a way for the player to level grind. After all, are we REALLY to believe that the only enemies you can fight in all of Thedas just HAPPEN to be the ones we run into in our quests?

Keep the necessity of level grinding at a minimum, if possible. And give multiple approaches to situations OTHER than just strict combat, so that a player with the right skills and some creative problem solving could get past an area, despite being a lower level than what one would think would be required if they were doing the combat route.

Its not an easy task, and I don't want to pretend it is not. But there is a fine line between making the game incredibly easy for anyone who is a completionist and then making every fight the same difficulty throughout the game, which alternates between boring and infuriating.


Based on your expectations of the game getting progressively more difficult, it almost sounds like you'd be in favor of a level scaling system that does scale, but gradually tips itself to scaling against the player to provide an ever increasing challenge.  I'm pretty sure this is not what you're trying to say though.


How do you reconcile the idea of the main plot line being increasingly more difficult for the player, when the player can presumably do any number of sidequests to make himself more powerful, while at the same time not forcing players to do optional sidequests.  It seems like you're suggesting that all side quests be equal in terms of difficulty (to prevent forcing you from doing the quest to save the cats in order to forge the armor of the protagonist).

Wouldn't your solution of allowing players to grind require those that are only interested in the story to paradoxically do a larger share of the grinding in order to proceed through the main story?


Maybe side quests shouldn't be scaled but the crit path should be, to ensure the crit path continuously provides additional challenge?  But then people that do all the side quests feel like the extra time they put in was unproductive, or worse, counter productive.  I agree it's not a simple problem.

#64
Maria Caliban

Maria Caliban
  • Members
  • 26 094 messages

the_one_54321 wrote...

Also, why are people concerned about overpowering a character by spending extra time developing levels? Having a character that kicks butt is a reward for spending extra time.

I don't do sidequests to develop levels. I do sidequests because they interest me and I'm a completionist. Having large parts of the main questline become too easy because I've leveled passed the difficulty curve isn't a reward. It's boring. It's a punishment.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 23 avril 2012 - 05:07 .


#65
the_one_54321

the_one_54321
  • Members
  • 6 112 messages

Allan Schumacher wrote...
At it's core though, what I'm saying is that without level scaling, we still need to be mindful of the game experience of those that tend to only do the crit path because they like the stories we present.

The way is to make sure that a character that experiences the minimal progression along the critical path is still capable of completing the game.

This can be accomplished by managing the progressive challenge level and available EXP rewards along the critical path. Another method is the inclusion of "story mode." Wherein a player chooses the easy mode and can complete the game with relative ease, only traversing the critical path. Or, also do the side quests and kick the crap out of the critical path.

It's possible this could provide an even greater range of difficulty options as a result of player style.

#66
AkiKishi

AkiKishi
  • Members
  • 10 898 messages

Allan Schumacher wrote...

How do you reconcile the idea of the main plot line being increasingly more difficult for the player, when the player can presumably do any number of sidequests to make himself more powerful, while at the same time not forcing players to do optional sidequests.  It seems like you're suggesting that all side quests be equal in terms of difficulty (to prevent forcing you from doing the quest to save the cats in order to forge the armor of the protagonist).


Final Fantasy Tactics Advance (GBA) did the opposite of that. The side quests (random stuff) were scaled but the plot was not.

Having played KOA and Xenoblade. I would simply go with diminishing returns much like you would find in a MMO. That pushes you along without feeling like you have to kill every single spawn or pick up every piece of junk.
You progress because it's no longer worth doing anything in the current area, and that is really down to each individual to determine. By reducing XP as the level exceeds the quests, things become self regulating.

Another way is to give people a fixed ammount of quests before something happens to propel the plot forward. For example do 10 side quests and then something happens. People do tend to hate that, but as long as it's made clear it gives the game better pacing rather than getting bogged down in nothing but side quests.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 23 avril 2012 - 05:10 .


#67
A Crusty Knight Of Colour

A Crusty Knight Of Colour
  • Members
  • 7 472 messages

the_one_54321 wrote...

No, I feel that side quests that offer no bonuses in EXP would feel like something of a cheat. Where's my "tangible" reward for the effort?


Gold? Equipment? Specializations? Cascading choices affecting other plots?

Also, I'm curious, with the release of Witcher 2 for the 360 and impending Risen 2 release, what's everyone's opinion of a reverse difficulty curve?

It'd remove the need for level scaling.

#68
the_one_54321

the_one_54321
  • Members
  • 6 112 messages

Maria Caliban wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Also, why are people concerned about overpowering a character by spending extra time developing levels? Having a character that kicks butt is a reward for spending extra time.

I don't do sidequests to develop levels. I do sidequests because they interest me and I'm a completionist. Having large parts of the main questline become too easy because I've leveled passed the difficulty curve isn't a reward. It's boring. It's a punishment.

Being a completionist and playing for interest is kind of counter intuitive to finding the main story boring if it gets easier.

#69
Maria Caliban

Maria Caliban
  • Members
  • 26 094 messages
What is a reverse difficulty curve?

the_one_54321 wrote...

Being a completionist and playing for interest is kind of counter intuitive to finding the main story boring if it gets easier.


I like side quests AND I like challenging combat. How is that counter intuitive?

A hard or soft level cap, or enemy scaling can give me both of those things.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 23 avril 2012 - 05:12 .


#70
Guest_sjpelkessjpeler_*

Guest_sjpelkessjpeler_*
  • Guests

the_one_54321 wrote...

No, I feel that side quests that offer no bonuses in EXP would feel like something of a cheat. Where's my "tangible" reward for the effort?


There could be other rewards for doing them.

And this doesn't have to apply to all the side quests. You would have EXP for some and tangible stuff for other.

#71
Maria Caliban

Maria Caliban
  • Members
  • 26 094 messages
You could simply not give XP for sidequests.

#72
AkiKishi

AkiKishi
  • Members
  • 10 898 messages

Maria Caliban wrote...

You could simply not give XP for sidequests.


That does not make sense though. If you get XP for killing stuff in general, to not get any while on a sidequest would be seen as a bug.
Likewise if some quests give rewards and some don't it's not going to make much sense.

#73
the_one_54321

the_one_54321
  • Members
  • 6 112 messages
I need a numerical progression reward. Stat progression is part of why I play these games.

#74
Guest_sjpelkessjpeler_*

Guest_sjpelkessjpeler_*
  • Guests

Maria Caliban wrote...

You could simply not give XP for sidequests.


If the side quest would involve fighting enemies and not searching for something/someone that doesn't need for you to fight it would feel wierd if no EXP would be given.

But that's just me Image IPB.

#75
brushyourteeth

brushyourteeth
  • Members
  • 4 418 messages

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I wasn't necessarily thinking that all side quests are more difficult, just that (without level scaling) that seems to be a safer place to put side quests.  So SOME side quests will be particularly challenging.  At it's core though, what I'm saying is that without level scaling, we still need to be mindful of the game experience of those that tend to only do the crit path because they like the stories we present.

*snip*
Wouldn't your solution of allowing players to grind require those that are only interested in the story to paradoxically do a larger share of the grinding in order to proceed through the main story?

*snip*
Maybe side quests shouldn't be scaled but the crit path should be, to ensure the crit path continuously provides additional challenge?  But then people that do all the side quests feel like the extra time they put in was unproductive, or worse, counter productive.  I agree it's not a simple problem.


I just want to say Allan, that you guys have the opportunity to create something in DAIII that can only be described as art, in a video game. Monet wouldn't make his paintings smaller or simpler to please a crowd.  Tolkien refused to abridge Lord of the Rings. Please, please, please don't cut out gameplay intricacy or difficulty just to please those that don't have an appreciation for it. They're only one part of your player demographic, and the rest of us would suffer for their lack of interest in the gaming part of gaming.

I appreciate that you guys are considering new ways to handle game difficulty and what experience will actually mean for gameplay, but please just... don't start with catering to the fans that only want story. We have novels, comic books, a new dvd, and youtube for that.