15 réponses à ce sujet

[darkwolff90]

Going back and playing origins and dragon age 2, I had forgotten how terrible the pacing of the leveling system was. The slowness of leveling combined with the extreme amount of gating on skills ei. Level requirements, attribute requirements and such lead to most of the game using the same one or two abilities and by the time your character has any real choice in abilities the game is nearly over. Some suggestions would be to allot more talent points on the first level, have the character just start at a higher level, or have the character gain more levels in the "tutorial" area. Combined with less gating this would greatly improve the first 50-75% of the game feel like much less of a grind.

[HopHazzard]

Maybe something like Mass Effect where you get more points to spend at lower levels and fewer points as you approach the cap?

[darkwolff90]

Maybe something like Mass Effect where you get more points to spend at lower levels and fewer points as you approach the cap?

That is a very good suggestion.

[Andraste_Reborn]

I can't say I really found that to be a problem. Maybe a bit more in DAO where the best abilities were often (thought not always) at the end of the talent lines. I'm doing another run of DA2 right now, though, I by the end of Act II I already had all the abilities I wanted and was working on the upgrades.

[Wulfram]

I agree that the game can be a bit boring in the earliest levels with limited abilities.

 

I think the problem is not wanting to overwhelm new players (potentially to the whole genre, not just the game) by making them select and handle lots of talents with no real gameplay experience.

 

With level scaling there was an easy answer - just let people who imported or completed the game once start at a higher level.  But without level scaling that could be hard to balance.

[Fast Jimmy]

I think more passive or non-combat abilities could help out with this. Not a five skills for a new player to have to manage, but a healthy mix of ways to customize your character starting out that could result in different playstyles, even if the amount of actually action skills are relatively low.

[Lebanese Dude]

I think more passive or non-combat abilities could help out with this. Not a five skills for a new player to have to manage, but a healthy mix of ways to customize your character starting out that could result in different playstyles, even if the amount of actually action skills are relatively low.

I wanted to like this but I ran out. There's a quota? Lol

Anyway, I approve of this. More "Passives" options can increase both replayability and immersion through roleplaying.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I completely disagree with the OP.  I find the early parts of RPGs the most fun, largely because of the limitations of the characters.  If anything, I'd like to see the characters start weaker, gain levels slower, and then finish the game weaker (perhaps at something like level 12 on the DAO scale).

[darkwolff90]

Its not an issue of power or difficulty but one of monotony. Thiers little strategy or even enjoyment to be had when your first 5 or so hours of the game involve using the only two abilities you have over and over again. The depth of combat in the original was largely wasted and makes subsequent playthroughs a pain.

[Fast Jimmy]

Its not an issue of power or difficulty but one of monotony. Thiers little strategy or even enjoyment to be had when your first 5 or so hours of the game involve using the only two abilities you have over and over again. The depth of combat in the original was largely wasted and makes subsequent playthroughs a pain.

That's due to the lack of difficulty, in my opinion.

You didn't have to conserve resources, because everything auto-regened after every fight. You didn't have to concern yourself with unit placement except maybe in the most stringent of boss fights. You didn't have to worry about enemy tactics, since you could use the same approach for the vast majority of encounters. And you could use your most powerful attacks/skills every fight, never having to conserve them for when they were needed most (or had to plan ahead on what spells you'd need to use in the situation you were entering).

Baldur's Gate, as an example, doesn't play that way. You always need to be aware of where your units are, what they are doing and who they are going up against. You need to leverage and capitalize on every move, every enemy strategy, every skill in your arsenal.

It wasn't just "auto-attack until my two/three cooldowns are ready to tap again." The fact that you could play the first two DA games that way except on the highest difficulties (and only due to huge HP pools, punishing damage and random immunities) speaks volumes about how easy they made encounter design. And why you may find it so boring without a dozen cooldown skill clocks going at once.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Baldur's Gate, as an example, doesn't play that way. You always need to be aware of where your units are, what they are doing and who they are going up against. You need to leverage and capitalize on every move, every enemy strategy, every skill in your arsenal.

My favourite example of that in BG is fighting Greywolf with a level 1 party.  Level 1 AD&D characters can hardly do anything, and defeating even a low-level enemy like Greywolf requires that you work together to maximise your effectiveness.  The tactic I favoured involved Commanding him to sleep, and then having everyone throw darts at him (3 attacks per round with darts, automatic hits on a sleeping target).  If you're lucky with the damage rolls, he'll die before he wakes up.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I somewhat agree with this, but not completely. I do have a question for you though. How do you reconcile this desire with the desire for mages to be overpowered?

I think magic should be overpowered.  Mages may not be if their access to magic is limited.

[Fast Jimmy]

I think magic should be overpowered.  Mages may not be if their access to magic is limited.

I always thought the idea of Mage/demon possession is one that could be interesting if incorporated into the gameplay of the DA series.

Of course, instead of becoming an abomination would be instant game over, so that's out. But what if the game worked in the manner of if you had a random chance for demonic possession, which would never turn you into an abomination, but where it would sap your Willpower in an attempt to fight them off?

This would maybe be a counter, whereby using your most powerful spells would accelerate you faster towards the next penalty, with lower spells moving you slowly towards it (or maybe not at all). I would suggest not using a "% chance" of this happening, as I can see lots of save/reloads. Rather just a clean "X number of casts of Y level spells would result in such an attack). This would be best if the exact numbers weren't visible to the player.

That could even be a good tie in for blood magic - not relying on Willpower for casting spells, but Constitution, this would circumvent the Willpower saps. However, there would have to be some bottom level, whereby even a blood Mage would not gain from using nukes every time (after all, you need at least SOME Willpower to cast sustained spells).

[Maclimes]

When I read the OP, I thought, "Man, this thread is gonna packed full of Fast Jimmy and Sylvius." You guys are becoming predictable.

 

But in regards to the topic, I thought the pacing felt about right in DAO. In DA2 I actually found it to be a little fast. Although I much preferred the skill system of DA2. Branching trees instead of linear boxes felt right. I also like the little boost abilities connected to certain skills. It was the equivalent to putting an extra point or two into a skill you already had. I'd like to see more of that.

[Fast Jimmy]

When I read the OP, I thought, "Man, this thread is gonna packed full of Fast Jimmy and Sylvius." You guys are becoming predictable.

I've found consistency to be an underrated quality in today's world.
 

But in regards to the topic, I thought the pacing felt about right in DAO. In DA2 I actually found it to be a little fast. Although I much preferred the skill system of DA2. Branching trees instead of linear boxes felt right. I also like the little boost abilities connected to certain skills. It was the equivalent to putting an extra point or two into a skill you already had. I'd like to see more of that.

I did like the branches in DA2 more than the direct lines of DA:O. I had some qualms with what I feel was overuse on the "you must have X number of skills in this branch to unlock a certain skill," as I feel such things are better accomplished with level gating, not investing skill points in "junk" skills. And I also disliked how each branch needed to be balanced, where roughly the same number of skills existed in a branch of magic as did, say, Subterfuge. I felt it made the magic skills overly contained and compartmentalized, while forcing the skills in Subterfuge to not even be worth looking at, due to the large sink of skill points required to make it effective.

I actually really liked the concept behind ME3, where a skill/attack was leveled up and had branching ways to evolve the skill. I don't feel it was executed particularly well, since there seemed to be a slant towards one branch more than the other and in many cases, didn't truly change the method and circumstances why the skill was used... but the thought was interesting. I also liked Skyrim, where you were given a perk each level that could be applied to any skill to further unlock its potential (more interesting to me than the Perk system of the FO games, which were more generic in their application in most cases).

Again, with leveling, the more options, the better. If you give the player enough valid options, it won't matter how date you progress them, as there will always be new things to unlock and experiment with. But, regardless, good level pacing does not replace gameplay that doesn't challenge the player to explore the mechanics outside of a cooldown timer stopwatch.