Are we keeping that in DA3? I'm guessing so, but I thought I'd ask.
Are there any plans to avoid the annoying thing where levelling up a couple of times turns your fancy armour into expensive tissue paper?
As an alternative, I liked the system in Divinity 2 where instead the XP you got from combat was heavily scaled to level - you get lots of XP if you're taking on something higher than you, and barely any if you're beating up on something weak. That means that ultimately you end up with a similarly levelled character, avoiding the issue where a completionist gets ridiculously easy final battle or the guy who wants to focus on the main plot gets nearly impossible one. But you can still get situations where the area you're in currently is very tough and you might want to go and level up a bit before taking it on. And it conceptually makes sense - you should learn more from fighting tough opponents than steam rolling goblins
Enemy Level Scaling
Débuté par
Wulfram
, oct. 25 2012 10:55
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 25 octobre 2012 - 11:28
Salaya
-
- Members
- 851 messages
Yes, the scaling system was pretty ridiculous. Not only because made the battles extremely repetitive, but also because loot and shops ceased to make sense.
I like the Divinity 2 system, too. It makes sense, since you acquire exp. based on the enemy/charlvl, and also prevented absurd level ups, keeping the balance. On the other hand, if something makes Divinity series great, is the system for leveling up your main characters
I like the Divinity 2 system, too. It makes sense, since you acquire exp. based on the enemy/charlvl, and also prevented absurd level ups, keeping the balance. On the other hand, if something makes Divinity series great, is the system for leveling up your main characters
#3
Posté 25 octobre 2012 - 11:44
fchopin
-
- Members
- 5 071 messages
Yep, the lower your level in DA2 the stronger you are.
#4
Posté 25 octobre 2012 - 01:01
hexaligned
-
- Members
- 3 166 messages
I liked DA2's scaling system. DAO's was horrible, in that it didn't exist after level 15. The easier difficulties I don't give a crap about. On Nightmare however death should always be a near certainty regardless of your level.
#5
Posté 25 octobre 2012 - 01:46
Aulis Vaara
-
- Members
- 1 331 messages
I liked Skyrim's system. Levelling up, you would encounter more powerful enemies more, instead of just giving your enemies a health boost. It also had some serious flaws, but that part of it I really liked.
I don't like that enemies level up with you at all. It makes levelling up completely pointless. Personally, I would much prefer to see a system where enemies don't level up, with maybe the exception of bosses. To counter your growing strength, however, stronger and more dangerous enemies are added to enemy squads. These enemies would be added to specifically go after your character, meaning the rest of the squad is just intended as cannon fodder. These enemies might even be named character, who rather than being defeated, retreat if you knock down their health to 10% or so, until you finally take them down in the last encounter with that faction.
This is feasible to some groups and not others, of course, but it would add a little more depth to combat, in my humble opinion.
I don't like that enemies level up with you at all. It makes levelling up completely pointless. Personally, I would much prefer to see a system where enemies don't level up, with maybe the exception of bosses. To counter your growing strength, however, stronger and more dangerous enemies are added to enemy squads. These enemies would be added to specifically go after your character, meaning the rest of the squad is just intended as cannon fodder. These enemies might even be named character, who rather than being defeated, retreat if you knock down their health to 10% or so, until you finally take them down in the last encounter with that faction.
This is feasible to some groups and not others, of course, but it would add a little more depth to combat, in my humble opinion.
In other words, it's difficulty that needs a tweak in DA:O, not the levelling system. On higher difficulties, the game should remain hard after level 15. Valid complaint, but it doesn't say much about the quality of the levelling systems. The only thing this shows is that if you're going to have a levelling system, it should persist through all levels. At least for you, others (including me) find this makes levelling pointless and a better system should be thought up.relhart wrote...
I liked DA2's scaling system. DAO's was horrible, in that it didn't exist after level 15. The easier difficulties I don't give a crap about. On Nightmare however death should always be a near certainty regardless of your level.
Modifié par Aulis Vaara, 25 octobre 2012 - 01:52 .
#6
Posté 25 octobre 2012 - 03:15
Lennard Testarossa
-
- Members
- 650 messages
Divinity 2's system was absolutely horrible. It uses a MMORPG leveling system, which is a terrible idea for a singleplayer game. It makes gaining experience at all completely pointless, might as well let your character gain levels by advancing the main story.
I hate level scaling. Enemies should have fixed or only slightly variable levels. If the character has leveled up too far, just replace some of them. Sometimes, however, it'd be nice to just waltz through some quests and areas. Why must every bandit camp be a challenge for a group of battle-hardened veterans?
I hate level scaling. Enemies should have fixed or only slightly variable levels. If the character has leveled up too far, just replace some of them. Sometimes, however, it'd be nice to just waltz through some quests and areas. Why must every bandit camp be a challenge for a group of battle-hardened veterans?
#7
Posté 25 octobre 2012 - 03:17
CaptainBlackGold
-
- Members
- 475 messages
Just want to add my two cents here; I hate enemy level scaling. To me, it robs the character of any real sense of advancement because no matter how "stronger" you become, the enemies get just as strong. And of course, there is that whole "Awesome Weapon of Doom" and "Incredible Armor of Ultimate Defense" that becomes "worthless tooth pick" and "dirty rags" three levels later thingie...
I do appreciate the level designer's difficulty in making encounters challenging while still giving the character a sense of progression - not to mention how this relates to the flow of the story. I am certainly glad I am not the one responsible for making these things balance.
But I do wish some creative genius on the development team would go back to first principles and re-think this whole mechanism. A sword is a sword - some might be made of better steel, or better balanced or whatever, but remains a sword. The difference between a weapon at the beginning of the game and one used at the end should not be all that different. Armor is armor, made or leather or steal - some might fit better, or be made of slighter better material, but the difference over the game ought not to be all that radical.
And enemies should "scale" likewise. Earlier games had areas that were simply beyond your ability at low level, requiring you to withdraw, train up and come back if you wanted to win the encounter. This might not have been ideal, but at least it seemed "real." I realize there are game play mechanics that makes this approach less satisfactory today, but I do miss it.
Oh, and one final gripe before I go tell those kids outside to get off my lawn; can we please not suddenly change the battle dynamics for a boss fight? You know, where you have played the entire game handling battles one way, wiping the floor time after time, only to discover that in a boss fight, none of those tactics work any more? That's not challenging, just frustrating. We should not have to use meta-gaming information to win an encounter.
I do appreciate the level designer's difficulty in making encounters challenging while still giving the character a sense of progression - not to mention how this relates to the flow of the story. I am certainly glad I am not the one responsible for making these things balance.
But I do wish some creative genius on the development team would go back to first principles and re-think this whole mechanism. A sword is a sword - some might be made of better steel, or better balanced or whatever, but remains a sword. The difference between a weapon at the beginning of the game and one used at the end should not be all that different. Armor is armor, made or leather or steal - some might fit better, or be made of slighter better material, but the difference over the game ought not to be all that radical.
And enemies should "scale" likewise. Earlier games had areas that were simply beyond your ability at low level, requiring you to withdraw, train up and come back if you wanted to win the encounter. This might not have been ideal, but at least it seemed "real." I realize there are game play mechanics that makes this approach less satisfactory today, but I do miss it.
Oh, and one final gripe before I go tell those kids outside to get off my lawn; can we please not suddenly change the battle dynamics for a boss fight? You know, where you have played the entire game handling battles one way, wiping the floor time after time, only to discover that in a boss fight, none of those tactics work any more? That's not challenging, just frustrating. We should not have to use meta-gaming information to win an encounter.
