53 réponses à ce sujet

[Navasha]

Wulfram wrote...

Navasha, I believe the proposal is to remove the automatic level scaling of enemies - that makes them increase in power to match the players progression - rather than abolishing levels entirely.

But you can't take away the level scaling of enemies without also taking away the leveling of the player.    They are integrally tied together.    People complain that it isn't realistic for a street thug to be tougher, yet don't see the irony that it isn't realistic for the player to also be tougher.   

An arrow to the heart kills even the most seasoned warrior just as easily.

[Wulfram]

Navasha wrote...

But you can't take away the level scaling of enemies without also taking away the leveling of the player.

You absolutely can.  Levels existed long before level scaling did.

[edeheusch]

Navasha wrote...

Level scaling is pretty much a necessity if you at all want any kind of openness and player choice in choosing where your character is headed.

To take away level scaling requires that the game be made into a linear path with NO deviation whatsoever. No thanks. Level scaling can be done well and it can be done poorly.

I will take well done scaling over a forced linear progression every time.

It seems that you have never played Baldur’s gate. The BGs where not linear (or at least not more than DAO and DA2), they did not contains any level scaling and many players still consider them as the best cRPGs never released.

I am not one of the BG fans that consider that they were perfect and that no recent game was as good as BG/BG2/PST but they they existed years before the games with level scaling and they invalidate completely your point.

Personally I am not against some kind of level scaling like in DAO but in DA2 it was done the worst possible way.
To my point of view they should not play only with the number of enemies but more on the type. Depending on your level the same zone could contain just a weak pack of Hurlock with bad equipment or a strong pack of well equipped Hurlock leaded by an alpha and supported by an few emissary and 1-2 Ogres.  

[Rawgrim]

Navasha wrote...

Level scaling is pretty much a necessity if you at all want any kind of openness and player choice in choosing where your character is headed.

To take away level scaling requires that the game be made into a linear path with NO deviation whatsoever. No thanks. Level scaling can be done well and it can be done poorly.

I will take well done scaling over a forced linear progression every time.

The Baldur`s Gate games didn`t have level scaling. Worked perfectly.

[AlanC9]

BG2 had scaling. I'm told BG1 did not, because the main plot was purely linear and the optional content could be hit whenever the player thought he could handle the creatures. This wouldn't work with a plot like BG2s where you could do Nalia's quest at level 9 or at level 16.

However, AFAIK BG2 bosses don't scale, and some low level stuff never scales either. This can produce the illusion of no scaling until you play the sidequests in a different order.

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 juin 2013 - 04:04 .

[AlanC9]

lemarcheur wrote...

I fail to see the problem with removing Level Scaling ?

Just bring back scouting / stealth (who is stupid enough to enter a room without peaking first ?)

Enable fleeing (no more doors that “magically” lock behind you)

This should take care of accidently meeting big bosses.

How does this work with the KoTOR/DA:O/ME1 plot structure, where the plot is broken into areas which the player experiences in whatever order he chooses. Do things just get easier as the game progresses?

[tfcreative]

Actually, as I recall KOTOR, each planet was indeed easier than the one before. It didn't matter what order I took them in, I was more powerful by the time I got to the fourth. Seemed to work out fine.

Thinking more about it, back in the original Quest for Glory (Hero's Quest), the player had access to pretty much the whole map right from the get go, but surviving farther from safe zones wasn't always guaranteed. There was some sense of scaling in that tougher monsters wouldn't appear as often until you got more powerful, but it was actually possible to get superkilled by something very powerful if you ran out looking for trouble before getting prepared.

[MisanthropePrime]

Just having more, weak enemies would basically make AOE builds dominant at the end game. It'll be like World of Warcraft circa Wrath of the Lich King, where no one used any strategy other than "the tank rounds up as many weak mobs as possible and everyone AOE them to death in a second".

[Lennard Testarossa]

AlanC9 wrote...
However, AFAIK BG2 bosses don't scale, and some low level stuff never scales either. This can produce the illusion of no scaling until you play the sidequests in a different order.

I've played the game in more or less every order imaginable and never noticed any scaling apart from a few groups of monsters which have a different makeup if you have a sufficiently high level when you first enter the area in which they spawn.

No scaling in equipment and some very limited scaling in irrelevant monster encounters.

[Boycott Bioware]

I have an idea...how about

i.low grade enemies will always 2 level lover than main character
ii. the boss of that low grade enemies always the same level with main character
iii. the elite enemy always 2 level higher than main character
iv. the boss of a place/quest always 4 level higher than main character
v. the boss of the game level is fixed

Their skills, weapon, armor and magic will always upgraded. The low grade enemy at level 1 only give normal attack, but level 5 starting use special attacks

In this way, the low grade enemy or the mobs are not trash anymore when the player level up, the mob boss provide a challenge to the player because they are same level, the elite bossess will always provide a challenge because being always higher level than the player. The boss of the game is fixed and the most highest level because the purpose of character build is to beat the boss of the game isn't it?

[Lennard Testarossa]

Filament wrote...
The only way the incremental increase of numbers would replace level scaling would be if the RPG system were changed so that severely underleveled mooks are still a potential threat to the PC. (or some kind of "combat fatigue" mechanic) Otherwise it won't matter how many you throw at the player, it won't be a challenge.

Disregarding the fact that I want level scaling neither in enemy level nor in enemy number, enemies of lower levels being completely harmless is beyond retarded anyway. It simply does not fit with the game's lore.

Mechanics should always try to be at least vaguely consistent with lore. If a single high level hero can kill ten thousand normal soldiers according to the mechanics of the game, then this should also be the case in the game's lore. It is most certainly not the case in Dragon Age lore, so it should also not be the case in any DA game's mechanics.

[Wulfram]

I'd love it if levelling mostly gave just gave you new or upgraded abilities. That way a level 1 enemy could remain somewhat relevant for the whole game.

Though not too relevant when you've got an upgraded Firestorm to clear them out, of course.

[hoorayforicecream]

There are other considerations that need to be made, too. Since, AFAIK, they've stated that DAI will be on both next-gen and current gen consoles, that means the number of animated dudes on the screen will have to be capped as a technical consideration.

[Amycus89]

Plaintiff wrote...

Amycus89 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

I've never been a fan of level scaling. By the end of the game, you're a powerhouse of destruction; a veritable master of combat. You have the best armor, the best weapons. Yet, the same type of street thugs that caused you problems in the beginning of the game give you problems now? Why? Where did THEY get their training? Their experiences? And where the HECK are they getting all that rare armor and weapons from?!?

Considering they survived for so long in a world that contains the PC, it only makes sense they'd be tougher.

That they ALL are tougher, and that there wasn't any that strong at lv 1, doesn't make any sense though. Unless of course we assume that the whole universe our character lives in was just created as soon as we started to take control of him... Needless to say though, that doesn't make any sense. There must have been enemies born and raised before the protagonist's time. Or did they just conveniently die out as soon as the protagonist was born, leaving only the still inexperienced bandits?

I have yet to fins any system of level scaling in a game that I have liked, only some that are slightly less annoying than others. So as far as I am conserned, they can remove the levelscaling completely.

Well, why is the protagonist only level 1 when he's generally been alive for at least twenty years by the time the game starts?

Sorry, I'm not following here, why would that be a problem? It says "lv 1", not "AGE 1". 

Navasha wrote...

Amycus89 wrote...

I have yet to fins any system of level scaling in a game that I have liked, only some that are slightly less annoying than others. So as far as I am conserned, they can remove the levelscaling completely.

Would you also be willing to accept the necessary consequences of removing level scaling?

As in... an arrow to throat would still kill even the most skilled combatant.   
 

Actually no, I don't have a problem with that. That's in fact how it usually is when you remove level scaling. But it's not like I want tomeet a lv 9999 bandit on the open road as a random encounter. It's usually that you start off really weak, and as such, heading out into the wilderness can be really dangerous if you aren't strong enough. Bandits should, unless it'ssome kind of leader in a certain quest, be limited to a certain randomized range, like lv 1-5. Trained mercenaries, that you might expect to be stronger, have a range of lv 5-10, while wild animals can be anything fromlv 1-15, depending on the species. A dragon can be lv 60-100. For example. You don't usually see a dragon in the middle of the town square as a random encounter during the night though, and thus you don't risk encountering any high level enemies as long as you wander the "relatively" safe areas. And if you DO come across an enemy too tough to beat, you come back for it later when you are stronger.

Modifié par Amycus89, 28 juin 2013 - 06:10 .

[Wulfram]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

There are other considerations that need to be made, too. Since, AFAIK, they've stated that DAI will be on both next-gen and current gen consoles, that means the number of animated dudes on the screen will have to be capped as a technical consideration.

Though they could have different versions for different systems.  I seem to recall reading that they did that with DA:O - PC had more enemies

Modifié par Wulfram, 28 juin 2013 - 06:03 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Wulfram wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

There are other considerations that need to be made, too. Since, AFAIK, they've stated that DAI will be on both next-gen and current gen consoles, that means the number of animated dudes on the screen will have to be capped as a technical consideration.

Though they could have different versions for different systems.  I seem to recall reading that they did that with DA:O - PC had more enemies

While this is possible, it would mean that combat designers/programmers/QA/etc. would need to create, tune, and test SKU-specific encounters and thus multiply their workload. It's possible, but not probable. The whole point of level scaling is a development time-saving device... the system will automatically try to scale the enemies to provide a reasonable challenge, rather than needing a human to spend hours trying each encounter at different levels in order to figure out the proper tuning for that encounter alone. I can see them doing this for key critical encounters like boss battles, but when you've got a game with the scope of Dragon Age, it becomes impractical to do so for all combats.

[Plaintiff]

Amycus89 wrote...
Sorry, I'm not following here, why would that be a problem? It says "lv 1", not "AGE 1". 

Okay, let me break it down for you.

"Levels" are an abstract representation of a character's accumulated skill in various areas, yes?

You argue that systems that scale the level of opponents to the level of the player "don't make any sense", because an enemy who's lived longer than the PC would be more experienced than them, and thus at a higher level, while an enemy younger than the PC would be less experienced. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that all characters, including the protagonist, accumulate experience at roughly the same rate.

By that logic, the enemies that the PC encounters later in the game are naturally tougher than the ones faced earlier because (all other factors being equal) they've been alive longer and they've accumulated more experience.

However, by that same logic, our PC has been living in this fictional universe prior to the events of the game (and often, our charcter is supposed to already be a skilled warrior). If levels represent experience, and our character is already experienced, why is he only level 1? Why isn't he the same average level as any other character his age?

Also, in a game like Dragon Age, where one can approach the different areas in a non-linear order, your logic actually works for level scaling, not against it, because while your character has been levelling up in area X, the enemies in areas Y and Z have been accumulating experience at roughly the same rate. So when you finally get to areas Y and Z, it only makes sense that the enemies would be tougher than they would've been if you'd gone to those areas first.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 28 juin 2013 - 06:30 .

[Rawgrim]

Plaintiff wrote...

Amycus89 wrote...
Sorry, I'm not following here, why would that be a problem? It says "lv 1", not "AGE 1". 

Okay, let me break it down for you.

"Levels" are an abstract representation of a character's accumulated skill in various areas, yes?

You argue that systems that scale the level of opponents to the level of the player "don't make any sense", because an enemy who's lived longer than the PC would be more experienced than them, and thus at a higher level, while an enemy younger than the PC would be less experienced. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that all characters, including the protagonist, accumulate experience at roughly the same rate.

By that logic, the enemies that the PC encounters later in the game are naturally tougher than the ones faced earlier because (all other factors being equal) they've been alive longer and they've accumulated more experience.

However, by that same logic, our PC has been living in this fictional universe prior to the events of the game (and often, our charcter is supposed to already be a skilled warrior). If levels represent experience, and our character is already experienced, why is he only level 1? Why isn't he the same average level as any other character his age?

Also, in a game like Dragon Age, where one can approach the different areas in a non-linear order, your logic actually works for level scaling, not against it, because while your character has been levelling up in area X, the enemies in areas Y and Z have been accumulating experience at roughly the same rate. So when you finally get to areas Y and Z, it only makes sense that the enemies would be tougher than they would've been if you'd gone to those areas first.

The way i see it is experience has to do with your class. Everything that happens, up untill you pick a class and become level 1 in it, is general experience and basic training for the class you picked. Everything from there on out is you gaining experience by using your class training to get it. Its like you have a cop education, but you haven`t worked as a cop untill just now - when the game starts.

And not everyone spends their every waking moment gathering experience. In rpgs you usually only get experience from killing stuff or doing quests. If thugs in some area has just been camping out for weeks, they wouldn`t have gained any experience. However, the PC, having killed a bunch of highwaymen and rescued the princess during that time, would have gotten alot more experience. No matter what age he is.

[FaWa]

Conduit0 wrote...

I'll take even bad level scaling over the linear progression and endless grinding that comes with games that have set enemy levels.

[Rawgrim]

FaWa wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...

I'll take even bad level scaling over the linear progression and endless grinding that comes with games that have set enemy levels.

The Elder Scrolls 4 had that. Beat the main villain when I was level 6. Took me 3 attacks. Didn`t leave me with a feeling of having achieved anything.

[Eveangaline]

But then how does the loot scale?