302 réponses à ce sujet

[Chromie]

People like doing fedex quests?

[Maria Caliban]

Skelter192 wrote...

People like doing fedex quests?

It worked for Lord of the Rings.

[brushyourteeth]

Avejajed wrote...

Skelter192 wrote...

People like doing fedex quests?

I don't mind doing them. Usually I explore every inch I can anyway, and so I don't even really notice I've done the fedex quests until it's done.

This. Though I don't appreciate picking up a corpse and delivering it to a stranger who I've magically figured out will pay me gold for it. That's super weird.

[fchopin]

Maria Caliban wrote...

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.

 
Bioware has no right to tell people how they should play there games, it is up to the player to decide how they wish to fight or what level they wish to be at.
 
It is like saying i don't like to see the full text when my character has a voice, well put in a toggle for who wants to use it so both players can pick what they like.
 
Same with levelling, give players the choice to decide, if Bioware just wants to do what they like it's up to them but they have to remember that they are maiking games for people.

[Zexiv]

fchopin wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

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.

 
Bioware has no right to tell people how they should play there games, it is up to the player to decide how they wish to fight or what level they wish to be at.
 
It is like saying i don't like to see the full text when my character has a voice, well put in a toggle for who wants to use it so both players can pick what they like.
 
Same with levelling, give players the choice to decide, if Bioware just wants to do what they like it's up to them but they have to remember that they are maiking games for people.

I could be wrong here but it sounds like you are both then in favor of the current level scaling rather than having certain areas not being accessible due to level gating from what you're describing?

All about the full text toggle (BTW)

Take it easy

Modifié par Zexiv, 23 avril 2012 - 07:20 .

[Giltspur]

Why Attributes in DA2 Aren't Great
Say you're a mage.  Okay, the attributes that matter are intelligence (damage), wisdom (mana) and constitution (health).  Do you go all damage?  And then maybe bump the others up when you notice strain or conversely if you notice an excess you go all damage for all while?  Do you divide up by some pattern?  Who really knows.  It depends on what encounters you'll face.  It's like throwing darts at the level-up screen.  At the end of day games are about interesting choices.  Is point distribution among intelligence, wisdom and constitution in an encounter-based combat game interesting?  Not really.  It's fine, but, you know, don't write songs singing its praises.

How Attributes Could Be Cool
Let's say you have a warrior.  And let's say there are pros and cons to each armor type and pros and cons to to being strength-based or dexterity-based.  Maybe heavy armor can only gain so much dodge from dexterity...but it's capped or has diminished due to it being hard to be nimble in plate.   On the other hand, plate has great damage reduction but has a high strength requirement to wear.  Your crap with ranged weapons though because your dex is low.  And you rarely dodge.  On the other hand, you could light armor, dodge a lot, be greats with ranged weapons, daggers and possibly other piercing weapons, hit hard on a first attack due to accuracy and but take harder hits when the enemy makes contact.  There when you're deciding between strength and dex it's impacting the type of character you want to play.  

In other words, attributes are fun if they shape the type of character you play (imaginary example) and sort of boring if they're guesswork about preparedness for future encounters (DA2).  

Level Scaling
I like it.  Using leveling as a means to make the game easier is boring to me.  What about challenging enemies?  Some people go "I like how in BGII there's a lich in an inn.  And I had to level to finally beat it, and I felt a sense of accomplishment when I finally did."  Yeah, okay that's one thing.  But how about this.  That type of enemy can be "your level + 3".  And your sense of accomplishment can come from getting more abilities and using them well so that you can now beat an enemy 3 levels above you, when before you couldn't.  Another way to do it is "level 40 or your level+3, whichever is higher" if you want some optional enemies to be daunting to newbs. 

[Maria Caliban]

fchopin wrote...

 
Bioware has no right to tell people how they should play there games, it is up to the player to decide how they wish to fight or what level they wish to be at.

Yes, they do. BioWare puts in the systems that support what they want the game to be.

What to play DA:O as a first person shooter? Too bad, it's not going to happen. Want to grind XP via respawning creatures? Too bad, it's not going to happen. Want there to be as much emphasis on mere survival as there is epic adventure? Too bad, it's not going to happen.

If BioWare doesn't want the player to become so powerful that the end of the game is a cakewalk, they're not going to remove level scaling. And yes, that's their right.

[Realmzmaster]

The Might and Magic system might be worth a peek. Your characters get experience for killing enemies and quest completion. Your characters cannot progress in level, skills or abilities until they get the proper training. Your party will have to seek out the necessary trainer trade in your experience along with the necessary amount of money for training in a particular skill or ability.

If a warrior wishes to increase in strength you have to find a strength trainer. If the warrior wishes to learn how to better use a sword the warrior must find the appropriate trainer. No training means no advancement. The same with any other class.

Trainers will come in levels (beginner, intermediate, expert, master and grandmaster). Expert through grandmaster could require the applicant perform a quest before the applicant could receive training.

I can see certain enemies scaling, but not a wolf or bear in the wild. Enemies that can learn I can see scaling to the party level.

[hoorayforicecream]

Filament wrote...

I like the sort of level scaling in Zelda where the enemies explicitly become higher-ranked versions of older enemies rather than simply being the older enemy with higher stats.

So, for example, you only encounter Hurlocks from levels 1-6, then Hurlock Mercenaries from 7-12, then Hurlock Marauders from 13-18, and finally Hurlock Deathbringers from 19+? Let's say they have some minimal amount of visual differences (palette/texture swap and the like), and possibly have new skills as you (and they) level up.

Wolf > Dire Wolf > Spirit Wolf > Demon Wolf

This sort of thing?

[fchopin]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Yes, they do. BioWare puts in the systems that support what they want the game to be. 

No they don't,  the reason they do level scaling is because it is easy to do and nothing on what they like included in the game.

[yetiawesome]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Filament wrote...

I like the sort of level scaling in Zelda where the enemies explicitly become higher-ranked versions of older enemies rather than simply being the older enemy with higher stats.

So, for example, you only encounter Hurlocks from levels 1-6, then Hurlock Mercenaries from 7-12, then Hurlock Marauders from 13-18, and finally Hurlock Deathbringers from 19+? Let's say they have some minimal amount of visual differences (palette/texture swap and the like), and possibly have new skills as you (and they) level up.

Wolf > Dire Wolf > Spirit Wolf > Demon Wolf

This sort of thing?

It would of made sense in Origins where NPCs could just talk about how the Blight means the most powerful darkspawn are coming to the front, it gives you a sense of the conflict escalating.

In New Vegas after a certain point through the main quest the two main factions have their elite troops arrive, and you can see them patroling thier encampments. Something similar with hostilies could be cool if properly implemented. 

[hoorayforicecream]

Filament wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Filament wrote...

I like the sort of level scaling in Zelda where the enemies explicitly become higher-ranked versions of older enemies rather than simply being the older enemy with higher stats.

So, for example, you only encounter Hurlocks from levels 1-6, then Hurlock Mercenaries from 7-12, then Hurlock Marauders from 13-18, and finally Hurlock Deathbringers from 19+? Let's say they have some minimal amount of visual differences (palette/texture swap and the like), and possibly have new skills as you (and they) level up.

Wolf > Dire Wolf > Spirit Wolf > Demon Wolf

This sort of thing?

Yes, exactly like that.

I concur. I would totally support this as well.

[Kidd]

I think attributes would feel a lot more "real" and less odd if they didn't increase so much every level. A level 1 smooth talking-specced rogue, in-character-wise, can be very persuasive. Yet that's only some 18 cunning, which is way less than my very undiplomatic Fenris ended up with - ~40. Is Fenris a god who can choose his words more than twice as good as my charming level 1 rogue? I believe not.

There is no reason for an iron sword to require 14 strength if the dragonbone sword requires 40 strength. I mean really, does this mean a normal person couldn't even budge a dragonbone sword off the ground? How about that hunk Alistair after all those years of templar and warrior training, why can't he lift the sword? If he can't even lift it then I doubt Oghren would ever be strong enough to throw it around with such ease.


@ Difficulty scaling, I'd say do it the BG2 style. The crit path has scaling, but not to the ratio of 1:1. If you went to the Windspeare Hills early, it'd be very difficult yet not impossible. Choosing to do a different quest first would allow it to be easier.

Similarly you could take a hypothetical ambush scenario. Imagine that you are attacked by four level 3 rogues if you are level 3 yourself. This will be a difficult battle, but you can win it easily by drinking healing potions. By level 4, the fight would still be the same, hence it'd be easier. Perhaps if you got to the ambush when you were level 6, you'd be assailed by five level 4 rogues instead - still easier than the fight would've been if you had went there right away, but at least not an absolute run-through like four level 3 rogues would be.

Side quests would imho require less scaling because of the fact they're side quests. By their nature, they can be taken on at a later time (perhaps allow scaling for time-exclusive side quests?), so there's no harm in it. I know I've been defeated by dragons in BG2, went back when I'm higher level and delighted in being able to defeat them.

Of course, throwing the difficulty slider down to Narrative/Casual/whatever-the-easiest-setting-is could limit enemies in number and level to the easiest scaling along with the normal empowerment of the PC, too =) Makes for quicker battles.

EDIT: So basically, what hoorayforicecream said  

Modifié par KiddDaBeauty, 23 avril 2012 - 08:18 .

[Firky]

Skelter192 wrote...

People like doing fedex quests?

Normally, I don't.

But in DA2, nightmare was butt-kicking me so badly that I was desperate for the XP.

(So I could just gain one more ability.)

It's a strange way of enjoying fedex quests, but I absolutely did enjoy them for that reason.

[brushyourteeth]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Filament wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Filament wrote...

I like the sort of level scaling in Zelda where the enemies explicitly become higher-ranked versions of older enemies rather than simply being the older enemy with higher stats.

So, for example, you only encounter Hurlocks from levels 1-6, then Hurlock Mercenaries from 7-12, then Hurlock Marauders from 13-18, and finally Hurlock Deathbringers from 19+? Let's say they have some minimal amount of visual differences (palette/texture swap and the like), and possibly have new skills as you (and they) level up.

Wolf > Dire Wolf > Spirit Wolf > Demon Wolf

This sort of thing?

Yes, exactly like that.

I concur. I would totally support this as well.

I'm cool with this as long as it doesn't end up like in Oblivion when you follow the main quest at the beginning.
I'll never be able to get over entering Kvatch and finding that the entire city guard couldn't stop four Clannfears from destroying the whole city.

Leveling enemies? Cool.
But they need to be formiddable even at low levels.

[the_one_54321]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Filament wrote...
I like the sort of level scaling in Zelda where the enemies explicitly become higher-ranked versions of older enemies rather than simply being the older enemy with higher stats.

So, for example, you only encounter Hurlocks from levels 1-6, then Hurlock Mercenaries from 7-12, then Hurlock Marauders from 13-18, and finally Hurlock Deathbringers from 19+? Let's say they have some minimal amount of visual differences (palette/texture swap and the like), and possibly have new skills as you (and they) level up.

Wolf > Dire Wolf > Spirit Wolf > Demon Wolf

This sort of thing?

Isn't this basically just level scaling mixed with re-skins? 

How does it make sense for new monsters to appear as you become tougher? 

[Aly666]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Am I the only one who felt that levels and attributes where pointless in Dragon age 2.
When ever I leveled, enemys leveled with me, so I never got stronger.
Attributes didnt really seem to do anything except when I put alot of them in willpower or constitution.
When you level, you do get Talents points, but I found I most of the talents useless because they only seem to work on low level enemys.
The only time I felt I got stronger was when I found a powerful piece of equipment with the right runes or when I had a lot of potions and poisons.

So should Dragon age 3
1.Get rid of levels and attributes, and focus on equipment
2.Make levels and attributes feel more relevent

or should I stop complaining, play the game on easy if I'm finding it hard and enjoy the story
     

i hate this post for some reason... i actually like having attributes because it makes my character slightly more unique if not i think i would be so mad. When i see a game having a character that looks and is completely diff then anyone else plays such a big role that i hate this post. Focus on armor and leave attributes and levels. Actually focus on important stuff like decisions and diff paths you go down with your character. I wanna be a templar and do templar stuff or i wanna be bandit queen. Bioware shouldnt even have responded to this post and just let him keep it as just his opnion.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Levels and stats serve these purposes in games like Dragon Age:

- A goal to aim for. Skills, talents, spells, specialisations and item restrictions are unlocked via levels and attributes.

- Because of the above, the Search for XP prompts exploration for anything that can be killed, fedex'd, quested, or added to the Codex.

- Meaningless reward. Some people really like getting all the XP they can. It's like a high score or something.

- A reason for combat. If combat didn't exist there'd be almost no reason for levels or stats because every single skill in DA2 besides traps/locks is tied to combat in some fashion, as is every single equippable item.

- The illusion that your character is becoming more powerful as the game progresses, aided by the availability of more 'powerful' and expensive items.

So, no, levels and attributes weren't pointless.

Levelling in some RPGs is a kind of gauge to tell you you *might* be ready to travel into that really dangerous area you've been avoiding because the last time you tried half your party ended up dead and the rest limped back to town nursing first degree burns. In others, like Dragon Age, going up a level is akin to the game telling you it's your birthday (and, I suppose, everyone else's). Your character becomes more versatile, but not exactly more powerful.

That is, more versatile in combat.

I can't say that getting to pick between a dozen ways to deal/heal/mitigate damage was all that rivetting for me. I miss non-combat abilities.

[PsychoBlonde]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

No, it's not an easy problem, because then you have players like me, who would PREFER that the game become progressively EASIER.  Now, the reasons why I have this preference are manifold.  I'll try to sketch them as best I can and maybe help you out.

I expect the fights EARLY in the game to feel hard because I don't really have any clue what I'm doing.  Learning the system also occupies a lot of my attention, so these hard fights don't bore me.  They are fun and exciting.  I'm also leveling very quickly at this stage so the difficulty tends to drop a bit just because my characters are a bit tougher.  I'm also one of the people who picks up EVERY SINGLE THING, particularly early in the game, in the hopes that this will improve my characters and let me get ahead on the difficulty so I can get more into the story.  In general, you guys do this part pretty well.

By mid-game, I know what I'm doing, leveling is slower, and I'm mostly picking up abilities that are duplicates of ones my characters already have in general effect.  Do I get ANOTHER stun, ANOTHER single-target spell, ANOTHER area-of-effect damage ability, stuff like this.  There's no learning going on.  At this stage, I'd prefer that the "armies of mooks" be basically effortless to conquer (assuming you decide to keep the armies of identical mooks).  I don't mind if bosses are hard, in fact, I'd like them to be hard ASSUMING THE MOOKS ARE A JOKE.  If every single damn fight every five damn feet in every single damn mini-dungeon is 3 mini-bosses and 30 mooks that take 15 minutes to take down, I am going to be SO FREAKING BORED I will probably turn the difficulty down to casual just to GET IT OVER WITH.  There is nothing on earth more boring than a repetitive task that nevertheless requires you to pay close attention.  You can't amuse yourself thinking of other things while you do it, but it's not amusing you either.  It's just a chore.

Now, there are other ways to solve this than making the armies of mooks easy.  You can spread them out better.  Make them more individual.  Give the player a reason to want to hack these particular nobodies to bits other than "what happens next?"  Let the PLAYER abuse traps and terrain.  For the most part, you guys fail at this.  You add bigger and bigger hordes as the game goes on.  They're less and less individual, and the reasons why you're fighting them become less and less clear and compelling.  The NPC's try to pull the characters through traps and terrain, but the player doesn't get to do this much.  This all just makes it more annoying and less fun for the player.

The endgame, the way you guys do it, is pretty much an unmitigated disaster as far as I'm concerned.  Leveling is so slow at this point that you'll never get another "big" ability that might actually be interesting to use.  Using your less-effective abilities, in the bargain, is totally pointless, because there are enough mini-bosses and tough enemies at this point that they JUST DON'T WORK.  So 100% of the fights wind up reducing to this cycle of "use major ability" followed by "hack hack hack while cooldown refreshes" followed by "use major ability".

This is the time when the plot twists ought to be coming fast and furious, the feeling of urgency ought to be ramped up to 11, and instead we're still cleaning up the same old side quests and fighting ever-larger armies of pointless mooks.  What's worse, the mini-bosses with the stupidly annoying abilities appear in EVERY SINGLE FIGHT.  They don't make the fights more complex or interesting.  They just make them more repetitive, because every fight becomes a series of "wipe" followed by "using magical foreknowledge granted by the allmighty Quicksave button, position everybody to properly neutralize the mini-boss when he shows up."

Also, major bosses going through phases and spawning ads?  What is this, an MMO?  Bleh.  The fights with the High Dragon and Flemeth in Origins were actually FUN.  And TENSE.  Did they fly off, become invulnerable, and spawn a ****load of pointless little dragons?  NO.  I enjoyed fighting the ARISHOK more even though it was pretty much a 10-minute exercise in running like a little girl (I was playing a mage).

As for crit path vs. side stuff--have the MAIN BOSSES scale with you, but ONLY UP TO A CERTAIN POINT.  Have the non-crit-path stuff yield lots of cash, consumables, and gear that is fantastic for annihilating mooks but is only so-so against bosses due to their greater/differing resistances.  (This is where you should get your "has a chance to stun/instantly kill/curse/molest enemies" gear.)  Put the boss-killing gear on the crit path (no special effects, but big, big armor/resist penetration).  AND LET PEOPLE GO BACK AND CLEAN UP AFTER THEY'VE KILLED OFF THE AREA BOSS.  Once they've killed the area boss, let whatever's left in that area scale freely. This solves several problems:

1.)  People who mostly stick with the crit path won't get screwed for gear to let them defeat the bosses, nor will they get screwed by bosses that are just too tough for them to defeat without grinding gear.

2.) people who do EVERYTHING (for whatever reason), can have an experience of whatever difficulty they desire.  If they charge the boss, it'll be a tough fight, and the leftover stuff (or, gasp, even stuff you intentionally design for them to HAVE to come back for) will also be tough.  The people who have a hard time with the boss will be able to over-level that boss by cleaning out absolutely everything they can BEFORE they tackle that boss, who will then be a bit "underpowered" for their level.

It's not a PERFECT solution, but it'd serve a lot of people pretty well, and the ones who won't be well served by it really only have themselves to blame.  I don't have a lot of patience for people who want some sort of magically tuned "challenge" in games, anyway.  I'd much rather have surprises, funny moments, hilarious kills, stuff like that.  If it's "too easy", just do a playthrough where you never take a healer in party and never use potions.  Or leave the tank at home and try to get by with swapping the aggro around before people get killed.  Or don't upgrade your gear.  You can always make the game harder on yourself if you want to.

[Joy Divison]

Leveling up in DA2 was terrible. The people who soloed the game recommended the best manner to complete the game was *not* to level because it made Hawke weaker.

[Anomaly-]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Filament wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Filament wrote...

I like the sort of level scaling in Zelda where the enemies explicitly become higher-ranked versions of older enemies rather than simply being the older enemy with higher stats.

So, for example, you only encounter Hurlocks from levels 1-6, then Hurlock Mercenaries from 7-12, then Hurlock Marauders from 13-18, and finally Hurlock Deathbringers from 19+? Let's say they have some minimal amount of visual differences (palette/texture swap and the like), and possibly have new skills as you (and they) level up.

Wolf > Dire Wolf > Spirit Wolf > Demon Wolf

This sort of thing?

Yes, exactly like that.

I concur. I would totally support this as well.

I wouldn't mind that, either. I hated the level scaling in DA2, while it didn't bother me much in DA:O. The reason is that in DA:O you made tangible progress from fighting rats and wolves in the early game, to bears and brontos later on. The ogre you fight in the Tower of Ishal is a big deal, while later on they become more common foes. This gives an actual feeling of progression, as opposed to DA2 where you encounter the same enemies over and over and they often actually get harder to kill as you go.

The key to level scaling is to disguise it well and justify it to the player. Think of it like a real-time strategy game. While you build up your strength, your enemy is not idle and is doing the same. However, the experience should be tangibly different later on, fighting ogres, dragons and demons instead of level 20 generic npc enemies. Also, everyone should be playing (and scaling) by the same basic rules. I can't think of any way to justify a common enemy having 3-5 times more health than your character regardless of attribute/skill investment.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 24 avril 2012 - 04:00 .