184 réponses à ce sujet

[Blazomancer]

The challenge scaling in DA2 kept the encounters challenging throughout (relatively speaking, it was ****** easy anyway) regardless of the sequence in which I approached the quests. Whereas in Origins, there were upper and lower level caps for enemies in each area - essentially meaning if my dwarf went to Orzammar first I would earn a bit more XP than usual, and then if I visited Lothering or the Circle as the last questline, I can literally faceroll without even using my face. May be it's fun for some, for me it isn't.

The worst thing in Origins that bugged me was capping the elite bosses at such low levels. The max for ArchD was 22, which was pathetic, for High Dragon 20, yes pathetic. I request Bioware, no matter what you do with regular or even boss level foes, at least have some decent lower level cap for elite bosses, say some value higher than the PC could ever achieve in a playthrough or say player level + 10 if there will be scaling. (I'm not sure exactly how elite bosses scaled in DA2 though, but whatever it was, it didn't feel enough)

Generally speaking, I prefer level scaling although I admit some things are really weird about it. May be they can have different level ranges for each creature instead; say smaller for a spider but larger for an Ogre. Regardless, please let elite bosses hand down my ass to me no matter which legendary armor I'm wearing. Even the warden should be nothing in front of a freakin archdemon.

[Provi-dance]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Provi-dance wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

fchopin wrote...

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

You don't end up with the same experience because an experience isn't solely defined by the amount of XP you end up with.

You end up with the same experience, in the context of the topic about level scaling, because level scaling does precisely that; alters and bends enemies towards a similar combat experience for PCs at different levels.

I'd disagree. The player's experience during the game is much different without level scaling, since you know that any fight you come across may be way out of your league. With level-scaling, you know you can beat anything you come across.

Sure, you may have a few companions fall or may even have to reload, but you never have the feeling of coming across something your character can't handle by stabbing it enough times. That feeling of nigh invulnerability is a shallow experience in many gamers' eyes. 

Exactly. I can't locate the disagreement part.

[Fast Jimmy]

I mean, if you started at level 10, worked very slowly up to level 13 and then had to work incredibly hard to stay there, and our NPC companions, since they're all usually experienced, were already at the peak level their talent would allow, that might be defensible as based in reality. But that's not what we get, at all. We go from "I can cast a single spell and just about defeat large rats" to "I am the master of all magic, fear me mere dragons!"

Largely because that's a lot more fun a way to do it, and a lot easier for new players to get a handle on, though I think we can definitely stand to flatten out the power curve, particularly with open world and no level scaling

Even with a flattened experience power curve (like I've played in some PnP), equipment (in terms of either armor/swords or in terms of healing/buff items) winds up being the driving factor in terms of advancement - in my experience, at least.

[Wulfram]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Even with a flattened experience power curve (like I've played in some PnP), equipment (in terms of either armor/swords or in terms of healing/buff items) winds up being the driving factor in terms of advancement - in my experience, at least.

Well, you ought to be able to keep that in check at least somewhat, too.

Mount and Blade is probably the progression I think manages to keep it "realistic".  Though that's got a strong action component, which always takes emphasis away from mechanical progression.

[Blazomancer]

@fastjimmy - The archdemon was weaker than the warden's party, well at least level-wise assuming the warden crossed level 22. The case for Meredith was weird though, jumping like Mario and all.

[Blazomancer]

^The old generation of final fantasies.

[Fast Jimmy]

Blazomancer wrote...
@fastjimmy - The archdemon was weaker than the warden's party, well at least level-wise assuming the warden crossed level 22. The case for Meredith was weird though, jumping like Mario and all.

On Nightmare, that Level 22 Archdemon is a little tougher, but I agree - with a power build and a grasp on the tactics involved, all combat was fairly easy in DA:O. And Meredith being more powerful because of red lyrium is... well, let's just say Act 3 was lacking in strong narrative support.

I'm thinking DA:I's final boss in the main quest will also be low-leveled by comparison, simply because not all players do side quests and gain the extra levels. As the party advances, things on the Critical Path will become weaker by comparison, simply because some parties will be levels above where other player's parties will be who don't do any extra content.

Unless, of course, the Inquisition Reputation system Mike Laidlaw discussed spurs the Main Plot Critical Path forward as you complete ANY quest, such that there are no side quests (all quests make the Inquisition more famous) and once you reach a certain Reputation, it will automatically initiate the next sequence in the plot? This way, they could give the player total freedom in what quests they do (and, if they weight the Reputation gained to be equivalent roughly to the XP earned by completing the quest, they can gate how high of a level each party would be) but no player would be able to do all the quests on a single playthrough?

That might be an interesting attempt to balance things. It would, of course, be required that level grinding not be an option, which may be difficult in an open-ish world setting.  

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 16 août 2013 - 06:55 .

[Iosev]

While I do not mind certain enemies or areas having recommended level ranges, I also like enemy scaling to a degree, because it helps to keep the game challenging. I think that it's important to remember that level/stat scaling is only one aspect of character progression, as your characters also gain abilities as they gain experience which helps offset enemy scaling.

For example, while enemies scale in Dragon Age 2, a high-level mage is going to have a much easier time than a low-level mage, because of their access to more spells, specializations, and so on. With that said, I personally would love to see higher-level enemies use more abilities than lower-level enemies.

I thought that Dragon Age: Origins got far too easy the further you progressed through the game, which only got worse in the DLC if you imported your character. In contrast, I felt like I was always challenged in Dragon Age 2, in both the main game and post-release content. I'm uncertain of how Bioware is going to handle enemy scaling exactly in Inquisition, but as long as the later portions of the game remain challenging despite having a higher-level, completionist character, I won't complain.

Modifié par arcelonious, 16 août 2013 - 07:07 .

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Blazomancer wrote...

^The old generation of final fantasies.

Which generation? As I recall they didn't scale the normal enemies either--they just used more and more powerful enemies as opposed to the weaker ones. That's not scaling.

Anything before 7. Pre-Playstation. OLD. 

Geez, man, don't make us dinosaurs feels older than we already do. 

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Anything before 7. Pre-Playstation. OLD. 

Geez, man, don't make us dinosaurs feels older than we already do. 

What, like III?

It didn't do that. It gave you different enemies, based on where you were and somewhat on your level, if I recall. They did not scale--I can go back to the area you first arrive at and the enemies there are a joke.

I seem to recall a game that did this, though I don't remember what one, where the bosses weren't level scaled, the result being if you grinded a lot then the bosses ended up being unusually easy compared to regular mooks at that point.  

I'm pretty sure the enemies in 3 (and 1 and 2)  were based on area alone, not level. If you grind enough, every enemy is a joke. If you don't grind at all, even normal enemies will bulldoze you. I don't think there is any scaling at all. 

[Sylvianus]

Filament wrote...

I never got the sense that level scaling was an "all or nothing" kind of mechanic. I don't see what would stop them in a system with level scaling to have some monsters who aren't level scaled, and are much more powerful than you are if you encounter them at the first available opportunity. Evidently they don't have a problem tinkering with the system, with areas in DAO having level scale regions rather than being simply scaled to your level.

I seem to recall a game that did this, though I don't remember what one, where the bosses weren't level scaled, the result being if you grinded a lot then the bosses ended up being unusually easy compared to regular mooks at that point.

True. I felt the same.

[Blazomancer]

@EntropicAngel - I meant upto FFVI; a couple of them were released even before I was born, so they are OLD for me I guess.. heh. It's the bosses, optional or otherwise, that can be renderred very easy by farming XP, an example of what filament was talking about.

I'm aware that the normal enemies didn't level-scale; it was rather like each area was scaled, with a fixed probablity for an encounter with a certain arrangement of higher level enemies out of a finite set of arrangements.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Well in the first sentence of his post there Filament says that he's not thinking of level scaling as an all-or-nothing concept. Telling me that the scenario he presents will have some level scaling and some NON level scaling. He goes out of his way to point out that the bosses do NOT scale, so that tells me that he's saying the enemies level-scale. That's my logic.

That could be false.

Edit: I think I may have read his post wrong and focused on the level scaling part and not the area scaling part. Alright, I see.

Ah, you are correct. I was looking at the part I quoted alone, not the other area which discussed having scaled regular enemies. 

[Blessed Silence]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Non level scaling doesn't mean that you can't beat enemies at a higher level than you. It just means you'll have to be more clever about it than normal.

No level scaling is a wonderful idea. Level scaling means the world around you grows in power with the character--meaning that your character doesn't actually get more powerful. you might as well be playing a game without levels, if they scale.

This is one of those things, like no health regen, that's giving me this weird Final Fantasy vibe.

Oh lord please don't implement like Oblivion did.  You leveled so fast so the creatures went from easy to holy bleep *dead in one hit*.  And so your gear was never able to catch up.

I very used to games that have enemies in area X are levels # through # and don't change from that.  I guess I like a bit of control ....

I mean, what about a creature than can range from level 1 through 60 and can show up anywhere creatures of those ranges can be found?

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

To return to FF, fundamentally those older games' scaling system was based on the random encounter thing--if the game could force you to fight at any point in time, it needed to be doable. I personally prefer the FF XIII style, which has various leveled enemies persistent on the open world and gives you the option to fight them.

I'm of a mixed opinion. In earlier Final Fantasy games, enemy creation was as simple as a fairly static model and a set of attacks. In 3-D games, enemy models are much more details and animated, so having a large host of different enemies that can fit different level plateaus is much more difficult. 

For instance, would there be a Lesser Rage demon, a Rage demon, a Greater Rage Demon, a Master Rage Demon and a Bacon Rage Demon? Would they all have different skins and models? Etc.? What about bandits? Or Templars? Etc.? Certain enemies are easily re-skinned, but others make less sense/would require more work.

Having different enemy types scale to the encounters, rather than have the same enemies with scaled levels, becomes a pretty hefty investment. I think a system that limits open-world/non-encounter-specific fights would be better.

Or, to tie it into the idea I suggested earlier about the Reputation... maybe killing random enemies increases the Inquisition's Reputation. This would make sense (killing monsters is heroic and all) and it would also move the plot forward, limiting the amount of straight grinding that could be done?

[Wulfram]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Unless, of course, the Inquisition Reputation system Mike Laidlaw discussed spurs the Main Plot Critical Path forward as you complete ANY quest, such that there are no side quests (all quests make the Inquisition more famous) and once you reach a certain Reputation, it will automatically initiate the next sequence in the plot? This way, they could give the player total freedom in what quests they do (and, if they weight the Reputation gained to be equivalent roughly to the XP earned by completing the quest, they can gate how high of a level each party would be) but no player would be able to do all the quests on a single playthrough?

I really doubt they'll stop people doing a completionist playthrough.

If they want to control peoples XP at various points in the game, they should do what Divinity 2 did and scale the XP rewards according to how far ahead/behind of the level of the enemy you are.  If you do that aggressively, you can keep very firm control of things - I'm not sure if it's even really possible to finish that game outside of couple of levels range, despite a lot of openness and sidequests.

[Fast Jimmy]

I really doubt they'll stop people doing a completionist playthrough.

If they want to control peoples XP at various points in the game, they should do what Divinity 2 did and scale the XP rewards according to how far ahead/behind of the level of the enemy you are. If you do that aggressively, you can keep very firm control of things - I'm not sure if it's even really possible to finish that game outside of couple of levels range, despite a lot of openness and sidequests.

The game Betrayal at Antara had a system where you couldn't gain anymore experience, despite doing quests/killing enemies/etc. beyond a certain level until you passed into the next plot section. That could be a solution as well.

EDIT: Also, I'd be really impressed if they dared offend the completionists. I count myself amongst their ranks, so if they sequestered off content where I'd never be able to do every side quest in any given playthrough, I'd scream internally, but be very impressed with the decision. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 16 août 2013 - 08:55 .