1390 réponses à ce sujet

[Heimdall]

They said there is level scaling so they can only guess what level the player will be.
I think we can also pick what part of the story to do first so we would control what level we would be.
How would they know what level we would be before we play the game?

They don't need to know, we'll know whether the area is intended for our characters at that level when we run into enemies.  That said, we don't know how the enemy levels differ from region to region.  It may be that areas requiring significantly higher levels are only available after we complete the main story in one or two initial regions.  We don't know how that's organized though, so I can't say.

 

Orzammar had a difficult bounty hunter encounter at the beginning to discourage players from going there too early, they may try something similar.

[Heimdall]

How will they know what level the player will be without level scaling?

Why would they need to know?  If you're fighting enemies of much higher level, you're probably not supposed to be there yet.

[pdusen]

But somehow your storyline doesn't crumble if chemicals can heal better than magic and are more readily avaiable and easy to use and more instant?

 

Well, the lore is more supportive of that view than of the easy-access heal magic, so... no?

[fchopin]

No level scaling means that they cannot see that the player is level 10 so they add 5 levels to enemies in the area. They can set the level of enemies before we play the game but not after.
That is what they did with DAO but not what they are supposed to do with DAI.

[Heimdall]

No level scaling means that they cannot see that the player is level 10 so they add 5 levels to enemies in the area. They can set the level of enemies before we play the game but not after.
That is what they did with DAO but not what they are supposed to do with DAI.

And this is a problem...?

[KoorahUK]

How will they know what level the player will be without level scaling?

They won't. They will know that a level seven party has somewhere between [x] hit points and [y] hitpoints and access to [z] potions after leaving camp. That is a calculable health pool.

 

They can then build encounters for level seven enemies designed to chip away at that health pool and through balance testing work out how many encounters to place between camp 1 and camp 2. 

If you go to that area and you are level seven, you get an evenly balanced encounter. 

 

if you go to that area and you are level eight, your journey is easier

 

If you go to that area and you are level six, your journey will be tougher. 

What we don't know is how BioWare will be spreading these encounters around the map or tying them into your mission progress, but its unilkely you will be able to undertake missions that drop you into areas that are too high for you. You may be able to wander off into them, it is semi-open world after all, but they will be completely avoidable. 

[PhroXenGold]

A lack of level scaling means they can design the encouters around the level the players are expected to be when they enter the area. Instead of trying to make it so an encounter can scale - not an easy task given that the players' power does not scale linearly - they can focus on designing more complex and interesting encounters.

[Althix]

 areas requiring significantly higher levels are only available after

as example in DkS, game whispering you that this area you currently in, should be solved later on after some other areas. However, if you want go here that bad, you may proceed. Such approach is healthy, but on the other hand in DkS games there is no strong connection of actual gameplay with the plot.

 

In DAO player is moving through plot, step after step. you can't just go to Denerim, to a Fort Drakon and kill Archy by ballistas. You need to complete some areas and quests first.

In DA2 it is even worse. Game is linear as it can be.

 

So for DAI i believe BW would use DAO approach, when you will have few quest areas of similar or close levels. You will have freedom to choose what area to do first. And when you are done you will face next arc of the plot.

[fchopin]

And this is a problem...?

No problem, this has been done many times in JRPG’s and any time you have low health you go back to camp or another city to refresh.

[Heimdall]

as example in DkS, game whispering you that this area you currently in, should be solved later on after some other areas. However, if you want go here that bad, you may proceed. Such approach is healthy, but on the other hand in DkS games there is no strong connection of actual gameplay with the plot.

 

In DAO player is moving through plot, step after step. you can't just go to Denerim, to a Fort Drakon and kill Archy by ballistas. You need to complete some areas and quests first.

In DA2 it is even worse. Game is linear as it can be.

 

So for DAI i believe BW would use DAO approach, when you will have few quest areas of similar or close levels. You will have freedom to choose what area to do first. And when you are done you will face next arc of the plot.

I agree, though only for the critical path.  I don't doubt that there will be areas of each level designed to be accessed in later game than the critical path.

[Heimdall]

No problem, this has been done many times in JRPG’s and any time you have low health you go back to camp or another city to refresh.

The trick is to not let your health get too low for as long as possible.

[Xilizhra]

You can do, and if you think thats fun then... that is your choice I guess. The game isn't designed for you to do that though, and that is certainly not how combat design was intended. If you are playing at the correct difficulty for your skill level and you are utilising the tools available to you, you should be able to make the distance from one camp to another on a single stack of potions. 
 

The point is, the combat design is to chip away at the parties finite health pool, rather than outright kill you by overwhelming your health pool each and every encounter. 

And I still can't figure out why that's a good thing; it adds the annoyance of attrition on the player's end and also makes the various mooks in the world seem even weaker, and thus the PCs even more weirdly superhuman, because individual groups can no longer be threatening.

[Elhanan]

And I still can't figure out why that's a good thing; it adds the annoyance of attrition on the player's end and also makes the various mooks in the world seem even weaker, and thus the PCs even more weirdly superhuman, because individual groups can no longer be threatening.

For me, it alters the type of focus from the past games to one like the ME series; from healing to prevention. It removes Injuries, and replaces it with little regeneration. Etc.

I have enjoyed both systems, and do not see the same problems as others.

[Heimdall]

And I still can't figure out why that's a good thing; it adds the annoyance of attrition on the player's end and also makes the various mooks in the world seem even weaker, and thus the PCs even more weirdly superhuman, because individual groups can no longer be threatening.

I suppose it remains to be seen whether attrition will prove annoying.  It does mean that the player will have to be more careful than in previous games, that's all I can say for sure without experiencing it.  As to mooks being less threatening, that may be true when you encounter the first one, but when you're waist deep in a dungeon and have just run out of potions you may reconsider.

[Xilizhra]

I suppose it remains to be seen whether attrition will prove annoying.  It does mean that the player will have to be more careful than in previous games, that's all I can say for sure without experiencing it.  As to mooks being less threatening, that may be true when you encounter the first one, but when you're waist deep in a dungeon and have just run out of potions you may reconsider.

That's not the point. The point is that they're inherently weaker and can only prove a challenge through attrition, as opposed to the previous two games where single groups could be threatening.

 

As for how annoying attrition is... well, I was annoyed just by watching it in the gameplay videos.

[Heimdall]

That's not the point. The point is that they're inherently weaker and can only prove a challenge through attrition, as opposed to the previous two games where single groups could be threatening.

 

As for how annoying attrition is... well, I was annoyed just by watching it in the gameplay videos.

Granted, most of those single groups only provided much challenge because they significantly outnumbered the party (Especially in DA2), with the exception of special encounters and boss battles (Which I imagine will still be designed to wipe the party in DAI).  Point being that I don't think either of the previous games did much to dissuade you of the notion that your character is absurdly powerful by comparison and most of the gameplay videos I saw of DAI used smaller numbers of mooks per encounter.  The mooks might not actually be weaker, just less numerous unless you're assaulting a fort or something.

 

Like I said though, I'll have a better feel for this when I get my hands on it.

[KoorahUK]

That's not the point. The point is that they're inherently weaker and can only prove a challenge through attrition, as opposed to the previous two games where single groups could be threatening.

Well this is going to be a flavour thing. I see your point and don't disagree with it, but it remains to be seen how the feel of combat is affected in the long run. 

I think initially it may feel like we are cutting through mooks, but when we don't regen health after every fight we will stop seeing encounters as individual unconnected fights but as the whole journey from camp a to resolution. I think it may be more heroic to limp into camp in a sliver of health having fought our way through an army than brightly skip in, everyone on full health, becasue you just finished the last of an unconnected set of scraps on the way after which you went back to perfect health again. 

Its a perspective change for sure. 'Combat over time' instead of 'burst combat'. As I said I don't disagree with your point but I'm not convinced combat will feel like a cake walk either just due to the paradigm shift in how it is approached.

[Medhia_Nox]

What was threatening in DA:O or DA:2 if you actually took a second to plan your combat?  

 

Contrivances like locking you in a tiny square with some stalactites to hide behind might be "threatening" - but it's also the height of tedium to me.  

 

Combat can be so exploited in these games precisely because I knew after the battle I'd just be healed.  It didn't ruin my fun - but I'm definitely excited about attrition. 

[Xilizhra]

Granted, most of those single groups only provided much challenge because they significantly outnumbered the party (Especially in DA2), with the exception of special encounters and boss battles (Which I imagine will still be designed to wipe the party in DAI).  Point being that I don't think either of the previous games did much to dissuade you of the notion that your character is absurdly powerful by comparison and most of the gameplay videos I saw of DAI used smaller numbers of mooks per encounter.  The mooks might not actually be weaker, just less numerous unless you're assaulting a fort or something.

 

Like I said though, I'll have a better feel for this when I get my hands on it.

Arguably, I suppose.

 

 

Well this is going to be a flavour thing. I see your point and don't disagree with it, but it remains to be seen how the feel of combat is affected in the long run. 

I think initially it may feel like we are cutting through mooks, but when we don't regen health after every fight we will stop seeing encounters as individual unconnected fights but as the whole journey from camp a to resolution. I think it may be more heroic to limp into camp in a sliver of health having fought our way through an army than brightly skip in, everyone on full health, becasue you just finished the last of an unconnected set of scraps on the way after which you went back to perfect health again. 

Its a perspective change for sure. 'Combat over time' instead of 'burst combat'. As I said I don't disagree with your point but I'm not convinced combat will feel like a cake walk either just due to the paradigm shift in how it is approached.

It's not that I see combat as a cakewalk, but that I see it as a huge grinding pain in the ass that actually discourages exploration.

[Heimdall]

Arguably, I suppose.

 

 

It's not that I see combat as a cakewalk, but that I see it as a huge grinding pain in the ass that actually discourages exploration.

I sort of agree with that concern, and that levels no longer scale adds to the effect.

 

My hope is that it will only make exploration more cautious, and not actually prove a significant barrier.

[Xilizhra]

I sort of agree with that concern, and that levels no longer scale adds to the effect.

 

My hope is that it will only make exploration more cautious, and not actually prove a significant barrier.

Why would you put more of an emphasis on exploration and then have a combat system that discourages it and encourages backtracking?

 

I also don't like the lack of level scaling. Levels are very abstract and not at all related to the lore, and when there's level scaling, it makes levels seem less meaningful and less like inherent characteristics of the world--which is a good thing for me. Without level scaling, not only are ordinary humans in one area stronger than ordinary humans in another area, thus creating apparent gigantic discrepancies in training between one group of Venatori and another (in addition to making rabble like the Freemen stronger than many Venatori and Red Templars), but it's very easy to get absurd WoW-like situations, where you have Northrend bears and wolves being significantly stronger than demon lords in Outland.

[In Exile]

Allow me to ask you one question - how do you propose to those stupid ancient and medieval people to fight with swords and pikes without entering a killzone or charging?

These ancient and stupid medieval people didn't fight in fire teams in a world that had what amounts to personal artillery. 

 

If you want to say that DA:O was a medieval farmer melee simulator... I'm not sure how that's even close to an argument about DA:O being "tactical". 

 

Medieval battles tended to descent into morale conflicts, whereby each side basically tried to terrify the other into running away. And, generally, you'd see basic battlefield mobility moves like flanking, pincers, etc. 

 

People also didn't primarily use swords as a weapon (that's just a media thing) and those with pikes were generally set up in ways that tried to force enemies to engage them. But those tactics don't work when you're literally in 4 person fire teams and can take pot-shots at each other from cover. At that point you have an expy of modern military encounters. 

[Heimdall]

Why would you put more of an emphasis on exploration and then have a combat system that discourages it and encourages backtracking?

 

I also don't like the lack of level scaling. Levels are very abstract and not at all related to the lore, and when there's level scaling, it makes levels seem less meaningful and less like inherent characteristics of the world--which is a good thing for me. Without level scaling, not only are ordinary humans in one area stronger than ordinary humans in another area, thus creating apparent gigantic discrepancies in training between one group of Venatori and another (in addition to making rabble like the Freemen stronger than many Venatori and Red Templars), but it's very easy to get absurd WoW-like situations, where you have Northrend bears and wolves being significantly stronger than demon lords in Outland.

Yup, I have mixed feelings about that whole situation.  If they can provide some sort of reason for a group of red templars in one region to be more powerful than those in another, that's fine, but if they treat it the same way they have in previous games we'll have a problem.

 

EDIT: However, I do feel that the combat system itself doesn't discourage exploration too much.  It does encourage you to be prepared and cautious as you tromp into the wilderness, but I think its a benefit that we won't feel invulnerable.  We'll have to worry about biting off more than we can chew.  If anything, its great for immersion.

[In Exile]

While I agree with your actual point, I think military history is mostly a long account of people making really stupid mistakes, and sometimes other people exploiting them. Hannibal's famous envelopment mostly relied on the Romans walking into his kill zone. Age of Sail combat entirely consisted of drifting into each other's kill zone or  running away. The First World War had people zerg rushing machine gun nests. Early Second World War air combat had Spitfires flying in a close formation that left them completely unaware of attacking 109s. Of course people learn a lot from these mistakes, but the mistakes keep getting made.

 

Also consider that in DA the enemy is often a poorly trained farmboy with a close combat weapon.

 

There's nothing wrong with exploiting stupid mistakes, and you can have something like Agincourt that relied on arrogance, smart positioning, and the best equivalent of 15th century mortars to decimate your enemy. That's different for a lot of reasons from what we have in DA, though, because like I said those aren't fire teams.

 

And in no way is the enemy in DA poorly trained famers. In fact, we fight very sophisticated and well-trained enemies most of the game, with (for the setting) very rare weapons, armour, etc. The closest we get to "untrained" would be professional brigands, who in DA aren't a bunch of smelly, starving forest people in rags, but rather well-armed marauders who often fight in full plate and have expert mages. Even the Carta have "assassins", who are supposed to be highly skilled killers.

 

Basically everyone in the game is an expert at combat.  

[Medhia_Nox]

Actual exploration has always been dangerous (far more dangerous than it will ever be in a video game) - and oddly enough, people still explored.  Sure, not pampered armchair heroes who's 1st World lives find rough toilet paper to be "hard living" - but the "heroes" of DA:I should be plenty accustomed to danger.

 

It isn't a barrier... it's a need for caution.  Which should be part of exploration... otherwise, it's just "taking a walk somewhere."