302 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

BobSmith101 wrote...

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.

I've said for awhile not that they need to remove combat XP altogether and only give XP when you complete quest objectives. Then they can go back to giving us ways to complete quests that don't involve mass slaughter.

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

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 .

It might feel weird. You could do what I've done in my PnP groups: get rid of side quests altogether and simply generate a great deal of ambient content.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 23 avril 2012 - 05:31 .

[brushyourteeth]

Maria Caliban wrote...
I've said for awhile not that they need to remove combat XP altogether and only give XP when you complete quest objectives. Then they can go back to giving us ways to complete quests that don't involve mass slaughter.

This actually makes a lot of sense. I'm ok with killing npc's just for the fun of it.

[the_one_54321]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I need a numerical progression reward. Stat progression is part of why I play these games.

Sorry the_one do not know what that means. (Dutch you know)

Recieve experience points, gain levels, develop character abilities by spending attribute points, choosing new abilities, etc.

Managing character development using numbers and statistics, which result from numerical rewards in the form of EXP.

[paul165]

Alternatively don't give XP for killing things but for completing objectives (heresy I know). Then the side quests can give, relative to difficulty, very small amounts of XP but access to lore, gear, recipes etc..

Hopefully reduces the problem of being overlevelled for content.

Edit: by the Demon sorry

Alternatively get rid of attribute points - there is very little variation in where to put them anyway if DA2's system is retained and having gaining a level give you non combat skill points/ perks eg persuasion, trap finding, lore etc and an ability point for the combat tree.

One of the problems with levelling in DA2 was that as a rogue you only needed Dex and Cunning and it was far too easy to 'break' the game (100% hit chance, 80% dodge, 100% crit chance) at which point boss combat became largely a joke because you could do such horrific damage. End game bosses I'm looking at you here.

Reall liked the skill trees though I felt that was a significant improvement over the linear trees in DAO.

Modifié par paul165, 23 avril 2012 - 05:35 .

[Zexiv]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

I like the linking of challenge level to EXP for side quests but to some degree the game needs to be able to scale enemies since it's hard to know what level a charecters would be at during a certain run. 

Upon leaving lothering you could travel to the Mage Tower, Orzammar, RedCliff, Denerim, or the Elves.  Feeling locked into only one choice due to level range would be a bit of a drawback since based on previous playthroughs or Charecter Origin you might want to take a path other than the expected norm.  Maybe the game could check PC level from last main plot quest and then implement a challenge level for the side quests in the area.

Take it easy

[Tigerman123]

I can't really see how you can deny that levelling up makes the game easier; try beating the prologue ogre on nightmare, or in fact much of the rest of act one and you'll see that the game becomes progressively less challenging

[Maria Caliban]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

(Dutch you know)

'Sjpelkessjpeler' was my first clue you were no Anglo. What does it mean?

[the_one_54321]

Zexiv wrote...
Upon leaving lothering you could travel to the Mage Tower, Orzammar, RedCliff, Denerim, or the Elves.  Feeling locked into only one choice due to level range would be a bit of a drawback since based on previous playthroughs or Charecter Origin you might want to take a path other than the expected norm.  Maybe the game could check PC level from last main plot quest and then implement a challenge level for the side quests in the area.

It's a trade. You lose some freedom, but I think the gains are well worth it in terms of the progression of the game experience. It creates an entirely different feel to the difficulty curve.

[Zexiv]

Well in theory you could then power level the challenge rating system by skipping and/or saving the lower level areas later to then have lower level quest lines feel grossly under powered. (Saving Redcliff for second from last for example)

Modifié par Zexiv, 23 avril 2012 - 05:44 .

[MichaelStuart]

Tigerman123 wrote...

I can't really see how you can deny that levelling up makes the game easier; try beating the prologue ogre on nightmare, or in fact much of the rest of act one and you'll see that the game becomes progressively less challenging

The thing about Dragon age 2 is you can use the same tactics used to defeat ogre, against most enemies making the game simple to beat, but leveling up never seemed to increase the damage I gave or take.    

Modifié par MichaelStuart, 23 avril 2012 - 05:44 .

[the_one_54321]

Zexiv wrote...
Well in theory you could then power level the challenge rating system by skipping and partaking lower level areas later and then have lower level quest lines feel grossly under powered. (Saving Redcliff for second from last for example)

If you implement gating, through prohibitively powered enemies in progressive areas, you can mostly avoid this.

Also, if you are just that much tougher than a group of monsters, it would make sense that the challenge is not so high. So you end up with a kind of balancing act between these two aspects.

[Zexiv]

I think I'd have to play it with the gating to see if I really thought it brought more to the game than the current system. To me the biggest difference in leveling up isn't so much the party's ability to take and deliver damage. The biggest change is the parties ability to perform crowd control as the Casters, Rogues, Tanks have more mana/stamina and CC spells/talents to choose from. I don't mind this since this trend seems to reflect PnP rpgs as well as MMO rpgs.

Take it easy

Modifié par Zexiv, 23 avril 2012 - 05:55 .

[the_one_54321]

Zexiv wrote...
I think I'd have to play it with the gating to see if I really thought it brought more to the game than the current system.

Have you played FFXII? 

(I just can't heap enough praise on this game's mechanics)

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

That requires a much more open world than one that exists in DAO or DA2 (or even older BioWare games..... probably the closest thing is the original BG).

There's a reason why I think the original BG is the best thing BioWare has made.

Which is fine and I can understand that.  But does that mean you're okay with the game being a total cakewalk if the player does a ton of sidequest content before hitting Orzammar, compared to those that just do the major plot points?

Being able to make the game a total cakewalk is, I think, an important option.  The characters should grow more powerful, and that means that they can grow more powerful than their opponents.

That said, another way to approach this is to have a shallower power curve (again, like the original BG) where the toughest opponents are not world-killing monstrosities.

In DAO, given the lore, the creatures in the Deep Roads (particularly the Broodmother) should have been among the toughest creatures in the game.  I would like to have seem the game offer a steep climb in difficulty there, forcing lower-level Wardens to back out and do other quests (like the Circle Tower) first.

Right now, BioWare's games seem to assume that the player will never retreat to try something again later.

Alternately, you could have made golems especially effective at fighting darkspawn, so a Warden would need to be high level to deal with the Deep Roads on his own, but with Shale alongside the fight would be far less difficult (obviously Shale would have needed to have been core content for this to have worked).

Accommodating every path isn't necessary as long as the way in which the player is directed to an actual possible path isn't heavy-handed.  Filling the world with hints that having a golem would be handy is much better than (say) not opening the doors to Orzammar until Andraste's Ashes are found (even though there's no plot-related reason for that).

Going back to BG, BG used three different kinds of gating.  There was gating through the placing of powerful enemies.  There was gating through plot-relevant barriers (like the gates of Baldur's Gate itselt being closed), and there was arbitrary gating that made no sense (the inability to find Cloakwood until Chapter 3, even though there's a side-quest that tells you to go there that you can get as early as Chapter 1).

Powerful enemies and plot-relevant barriers are fine.  Unexplained map holes are not.

Starting with BG2, BioWare has tended to use the unexplained map holes.  D'Arnise Hold doesn't exist until you meet Nalia.  Generic wilderness pops out of nowhere in DAO based on quest acceptance.  Almost every DA2 area ourtside of Kirkwall (and some inside) exist only after quests are given, and then disappear thereafter.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 23 avril 2012 - 06:00 .

[Zexiv]

Nope I think the last final fantasy game my wife was playing was around 10 and was on the PS3. For PC rpg games: (DA:2, DA:0, NWN2, NWN, Diablo2, Diablo) MMOs: Asheron's Call, Asheron's Call2, Dark age of Camelot, and DDO. Lately I've found MMO's to be too much of a time sink now that I have children.

[the_one_54321]

Zexiv wrote...
Nope I think the last final fantasy game my wife was playing was around 10 and was on the PS3. For PC rpg games: (DA:2, DA:0, NWN2, NWN, Diablo2, Diablo) MMOs: Asheron's Call, Asheron's Call2, Dark age of Camelot, and DDO. Lately I've found MMO's to be too much of a time sink now that I have children.

If you're looking to just explore alternative mechanics, I highly recommend playing through FFXII. You may not like the story style or progression at all, but the level design, world design, and combat and progression design are just phenomenal. Very comparable to DA:O, in how characters are freely customizable in combat roles, and the tactics system.

[freche]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I know we're evaluating stuff like this going forward.  I can't say much more than that though


Although I think the idea is that, as you get more powerful, your versatility opens up.  You unlock abilities deeper into trees which are often quite powerful, and in many cases are direct upgrades to already existing abilities.

Part of the challenge of games with non-essential content is providing balance for those that do every little quest and those that prefer to follow only the main story.  I find myself leaning towards making the more difficult content off the crit path for this reason.

Games like BG and KOTOR used level caps, which I know is a huge disappointment for a lot of players because once you hit the cap you're effectively heavily restricted for any more player progression, and I think a lot of what draws people to RPGs is the idea of player progression.

The problem with Attributes when it's designed like DA2 is that it gives an imo bad illusion that you are progressing your character when you are actually standing still.
It was too long ago I played DA2 so I can't remember the actual numbers but say you need 20str to use a Longsword in act1 then in act3 you need to have 40str to use a Longsword.
So do I need to be twice as strong to wield a sword in act3 because the sword is heavier ? Even if it's made with a different material it wouldn't be logical that the new sword would be THAT much heavier.

The only logical reasoning is that even though I have twice the amount of points spent I'm still almost exactly as I was when I began. Thus making attribute points pointless.

It would be better imo if we design the character at the start and that is the attributes the character will have, you might get to increase one or two of them with a point during a playthrough.

[byzantine horse]

Allan, on the matter of difficulty, what about having an in-game option where you can choose how you want difficulty to scale as the game progresses, something like "Alot, Some or Nothing"? I think that is a better compromise than any tinkering with the game's experience itself can be.

And I'd be in favour of doing away with attribute increases as you level. Does it make sense that your character, who perhaps is a beefed up knight or whatever at level 1, can carry 10 times more stuff at the end of the game despite not beeing any stronger visibly? And if it was visible he would look like the Hulk anyway and none would be happy (except for people who make a living out of funny Youtube videos). If you 'had' to spend your attribute points at the start of the game (but can then rearrange them whenever you like at the camp or house equivalent) and can't gain any more I think the game would 
1. be easier to balance (singleplayer games have this problem as well, not just MMOs)
2. be rid of the issue of attribute increases feeling like they matter or not
3. make more sense avoiding the scenario above.

Now to make it clear, I never pictured my Human Noble warrior getting physically stronger as he attained more strength, but at the same time if that is not the case then what is the point of the system? The point of the attributes is to make sure that your character scales at a similar degree as all the enemies you encounter throughout your journey. They are there to give you the feeling that you do more damage, have more health or whatever despite that it is all the same. Origins has this problem too; all games with a traditional RPG structure do, look at Skyrim which is a prime example.

If there was a way to remove the stat increases with each level yet still keep the "RPG-soul" as it were intact I would be all for it.

Modifié par byzantine horse, 23 avril 2012 - 06:30 .

[fchopin]

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.

Why? You don't have to do the side quests for the experience you can do them because you like them so it should not matter to you if other people enjoy getting experience points.
 
As long as you can do the main story quests without requiring the experience points from side quests it should not be a problem for you.

[Xewaka]

Maria Caliban wrote...
I've said for awhile not that they need to remove combat XP altogether and only give XP when you complete quest objectives. Then they can go back to giving us ways to complete quests that don't involve mass slaughter.

That's how it works on PnP: XP is given not for wanton slaughter, but for quest completion. (save for D&D, but that's more because of its heritage than because its merits as a mechanic).
XP for quest completion makes sense. XP for random killing does not.

Maria Caliban wrote...
It might feel weird. You could do what I've done in my PnP groups: get rid of side quests altogether and simply generate a great deal of ambient content.

That's what sidequests ought to be: Fleshing out the world for those who want to explore it more deeply.

[Maria Caliban]

fchopin wrote...

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.

Why? You don't have to do the side quests for the experience you can do them because you like them so it should not matter to you if other people enjoy getting experience points.
 
As long as you can do the main story quests without requiring the experience points from side quests it should not be a problem for you.

1. I like doing side quests.
2. I like challenging combat.

Simply removing level scaling would keep 1 but likely remove 2. I don't care whether or not other people get experience, but I don't want to spend the end of the game mowing through enemies because that's boring.

Level scaling accomplishes this. Having a per Act level cap might also accomplish this while still giving people a feeling of being somewhat powerful. Limiting the side quests or the XP given in side quests could also work. 'More Power' might come in the form of better equipment in that case. If I want a challenge, it's easier to not use the Sword of Awesome Killing than it is to remove XP from my character.

They could also do what the did in BG 2, Chapter 2, and tell you that you had to do *some* side quests, but which ones you did were up to you.

Yes, you could say, "I don't care about your concerns Maria. They should just remove level scaling," but I strongly suspect that BioWare wants people to be consistently challenged throughout their game.