184 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

I don't mean the enemies - that makes sense. Rather, the problem is that the antagonists stay fixed in time and wait for you to get stronger by murdering wild boards, for example.

Assuming the antagonists do that.  We don't see what they do off-screen.  They could be growing stronger all the time.

But in one reality, they take 100 gameplay hours to reach their final power level, and in another reality they take 60 hours to do that.  We don't know what difficulties befall them.

In an RPG, more strength = more time off the beaten path to explore, find treasure, etc. but that nebulous amount of time doesn't actually translate back into things changing for the antagonist.

A metagame concern.

Any rational person would take the time to do all of the quests to reduce the difficulty of the main encounter, because the game stands still.

Assuming the rational person knew the world was waiting for him, which he has no reason to know (and it may not even be true, as we cannot check without reseting the reality).

[In Exile]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Well, I don't even like the excuse I'm making, but it could be argued that he is, at least for main story content you don't see in advance. For all we know, Loghain's "noble" support is the result of his actions during the time we were out killing bears.

That doesn't work as well for places like the Circle where we can go there and see what's happening--perhaps those places should work like Redcliffe: it's locked in time until you actually encounter it, and then it gets some type of timer.

Don't get me wrong, I get that this is a game and this is just the game-y element.The world being static is just one of my big pet peeves with RPGs. Contrast it with a game like Romance of the Three Kingdoms X, for example, which isn't really an RPG but does a much better job of creating a dynamic world.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

I apologize if I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that the antagonist should get stronger. I mean that the antagonist should advance his plan.

If I spend all of DA:O murdering bears in the Brecillian Forest so I can get to level 100, Loghain should be winning the civil war and massacring his enemies while the Blight ravages the land and the mages get turned into abominations.

In Mass Effect, on Ilos, we see Saren start heading down the long tunnel.

Later, we see that he has activated the conduit.

What does he do in between those two things?

We don't know.  We don't see it.  Sometimes, Shepard chases him immediately, barrelling through the trench run in the Mako - in those cases, Saren clearly moves quickly.  But in other realities, Shepard takes her time, walking the trench run, doubligh back to get the Mako later - in those cases, Saren takes much longer.

Why?

We don't know.  This is my point.  There are things we don't know - we cannot complain about inconsistency when we've invented it out of nothing.

[Zjarcal]

Milan92 wrote...

No level scaling please, none what so ever. Let me be the overpowered overleveled character that beats everything with a click and a whistle.

Play on easy then.

[Provi-dance]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The distribution of levels within the population of bandits should be roughly static.  Sure, some will grow stronger, but others will die or retire, and new inexperienced bandits will enter the ranks.

I don't mean the enemies - that makes sense. Rather, the problem is that the antagonists stay fixed in time and wait for you to get stronger by murdering wild boards, for example. 

If we're talking about things that make sense... an antagonist not improving within, say, 6 months, a year, 2 years - can perfectly make sense.
The antagonist evolving or devolving based on the PC's level - never makes sense.

The world doesn't stand still. You encounter the enemy at a point in his/her/its development (set by the designer for a particular place or story), which should never be tied to your level.

[Milan92]

Zjarcal wrote...

Milan92 wrote...

No level scaling please, none what so ever. Let me be the overpowered overleveled character that beats everything with a click and a whistle.

Play on easy then.

Oh I always do. I guess the best of both worlds would be if Bioware was somehow able to implement an option that lets you turn Scaling off or on. But I doubt that would happen.

In my eyes, level scaling is stupid. Makes the whole leveling process completely pointless, since no matter how powerfull you become, the enemies become too..

But you don't have to agree with that ofcourse. 

[Big I]

What I hate about level scaling is how lore breaking it is. I'm the Uber Hero of Awesome at max level, but I'm still having problems taking out the same type of skeletons I fought when I was the Mysterious Newcomer at level 1? Wth? Or I'm fighting bandits who are tougher to beat than demons, and who drop elite gear when they die. Why are they bothering to hold up merchants for a few gold when they each have a sword worth 100 times that?

[devSin]

Zjarcal wrote...

Personally I would prefer something like, dynamic scaling but with certainy areas having a minimum level requirement, just so that there would still be that sense of "oh sh!t, this area is probably too hard for now".

Uh, that's exactly how Origins handled it (except it also had a maximum, so that it could never be tougher than was reasonable).

[Cimeas]

There HAS to be level scaling in the game.

We already know that there will be an element of choice in the narrative, quest wise. So at level 10 I can go 'here' or 'there'. Imagine if one of those 2 places gets me up to level 15. Will I now have to do the other at level 10 pacing- ie. really easy content?

[Mark of the Dragon]

I love that their is no level scaling, It gives a sense of power to the player. A sense of progressions as a character.

It also makes the world feel more realistic because you cant instantly run around and dominate everything in the game.

I for one loved Dragons Dogma my character truly felt like he progressed.

I feel like with no level scaling and no health gen. no only will we have better gameplay but a moew realistic and immerse world. I for one am excited!

[Mello]

I don't see the problem with this, fight things on your level simple as that. Don't go off to areas that are 4x your level unless you have the balls to do it. You wan't to feel like an overpowered bad ass? Play it on easy or if Bioware is nice enough, they might even give us a Level Scaling toggle. But that's doubtful. The only thing that I can see happening that would suck is if you're one of those people who like do the primary quests, then you would probably end up a few levels behind since you didn't do any of the side quests because the mission is way too hard for you. Which happens to me all the time.

[RydeCrash]

I am reminded of WoW, the “Con” color indicated the strength level of a target, and Purple meant your Slaughter, Red etc.

This is a balance that many have failed at.

Ryde…

[Darth Death]

http://social.biowar.../index/15828495

For anyone who hasn't seen it.

Modifié par Darth Death, 16 août 2013 - 02:54 .

[Kalas Magnus]

ugh

if daI has level scaling im not gonna buy it. It is a deal breaker.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cimeas wrote...

There HAS to be level scaling in the game.

We already know that there will be an element of choice in the narrative, quest wise. So at level 10 I can go 'here' or 'there'. Imagine if one of those 2 places gets me up to level 15. Will I now have to do the other at level 10 pacing- ie. really easy content?

What if they're both level 12, and the gap between 10 and 15 isn't very big?

So the first one would be challenging, but not punishingly so, and the other would be somewhat easier.

A shallower power curve solves so many problems.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 16 août 2013 - 05:27 .

[Rawgrim]

How about this. No level scaling. If you hear about an area in the game that is riddled with dragons, you just don`t go there when you are level 5. Plan ahead.

[Maria Caliban]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

As a completionist, I prefer limited level scaling. Even if the general world doesn't scale, I'd like 'important battles' to have some challenge at the end of the game.

That's difficult when the game has to accommodate people who've picked up every codex, done every side quest, and explored every random ruin, as well as people who do almost no exploration or side quests.

You should change that to "as a completionist who prefers a challenge to ease," because completionism alone doesn't indict non-level scaling.

That said, I see your point.

Yes. I'm okay with kicking the ass of random bandits when I'm level 35, but I'd rather important battles or major antagonists still be challenging.

[Fredward]

Yes and no?  Like I want bandits to be a challenge TO A POINT. I want dragons to be impossible to kill TO A POINT. Every enemy should have set parameters when it comes to leveling. Bandits from 1 - 15 and dragons from 15 - 30 for instance. Actually this might just be how level scaling works anyway but yeah.

And bosses should always be a challenge.

[Vaeliorin]

Rawgrim wrote...
How about this. No level scaling. If you hear about an area in the game that is riddled with dragons, you just don`t go there when you are level 5. Plan ahead.

I can firmly agree with no downwards level scaling. But I feel punished for being a completionist when I end up stuck with completely unchallenging areas as a result of doing everything (or doing thehard areas first.) As such, I like upwards level scaling (or floor but no ceiling scaling) because then I'm not bored out of my mind with entirely pointless non-threatening enemies.

[fchopin]

What use is exploring in an open world if you end up with the same experience if you explore or not.

Level scaling is a complete waste of time with open world games.

[Wulfram]

fchopin wrote...

What use is exploring in an open world if you end up with the same experience if you explore or not.

Level scaling is a complete waste of time with open world games.

Did they climb Everest so that they'd get better at killing dragons?