85 réponses à ce sujet

[spelldreamer]

When all your surroundings level with you. Would it perhaps not have been better to abandon levels instead. It seems silly to me.

[MprezdNZ]

So you don't want a sense of progression?

[Xionraserai]

but im always happy when i get a new level and points to spend for stats and talents >.>

where would be the motivation to seek battles? you could just evade most of the battles and go straight for the story and then the game would be over in like 3 hours >.>



levelups are essential to such rpgs

[konfeta]

Ideally you should be looking forward to the battles. Because, you know, it's a game. Gameplay should be something sought, not avoided.

[Calzier]

I agree somewhat with the op. leveling should make you more powerful re. the environment; it shouldn't scale exactly with you. But game needs to be kept challenging... maybe needs a greater edge to the player.. so there is a greater sense of power and effectiveness - otherwise it's too much like original D&D, where lvl 1 PCs went to level 1 of the dungeon, lvl2 PCs to level 2, lvl3 to level 3 etc etc... Some areas, challenges should be too hard until PCs reach particular levels, others should be easier if you come to them later... there may be some of this already in DAO.. so I'm not commenting directly on the game - just a response to the original post.

[Paromlin]

spelldreamer wrote...

When all your surroundings level with you. Would it perhaps not have been better to abandon levels instead. It seems silly to me.

With Bioware's "next-gen" level scaling, levels are indeed pointless and silly.

[Xionraserai]

your thought is right calzier but in da:o there is no restriction which area you go first ... so if you choose to go to orzammar with level 5 the monsters cant be as hard as the monsters in for example the magi tower entered with level 15

if you set strict monsterlevels you cut out the option to go whereever you want in dragon age

[Valmy]

spelldreamer wrote...

When all your surroundings level with you. Would it perhaps not have been better to abandon levels instead. It seems silly to me.

Because things do not scale perfectly.  There are a couple key skills and spells that once your character takes them makes the game much easier.

[Flamesz]

What's the point in life? Ugh.

[Xionraserai]

42

[Gaidren]

Having just finished playing two games that *don't* have enemy scaling (Borderlands, and Divinity 2), I can tell you that having enemies scale is far *FAR* better game design.



Nothing is worse than having big sections of the game trivialized because you "outlevel" it. Divinity 2 was a great game but it occasionally made me want to kick a puppy. Borderlands was a so-so game that *often* made me want to kick multiple puppies. Both games lacked scaling, and suffered for it.

[DoctorPringles]

Just thought I'd mention that level scaling is done intelligiently. Critters only scale partially, while elites and bosses scale above your own level. Also, in Orzammar and Sacred Ashes, the monsters don't even start scaling until level 10... Which is why those two areas are so difficult early on.



You can read up on level scaling on the DA Wiki.

[Bryant84]

Burp sory beg my pardon

[Ratnix]

If you are playing on the PC, start a new character, get them to level 25 during the Origin part and play the entire game at lvl 25.

Even on games that don't have levels, there is usually some sort of progression to getting better powers/skills/weapons/armor.

As someone else said, If you don't have to level, what is the point of doing all that combat? I certainly wouldn't fight every single mob out there if I didn't have to. If all I wanted to do was kill stuff, I would be playing a H&S game instead of an RPG.

The problem with leveling and not having the mobs scale with you is the fact that people just power level, fight everything at a higher level than the mob, making those tough battles that much easier. The only way to combat this is to make the game 100% linear. While linear games are all well and good, they are a different type of game than this.

Modifié par Ratnix, 26 janvier 2010 - 05:06 .

[Bumbus]

spelldreamer wrote...

When all your surroundings level with you. Would it perhaps not have been better to abandon levels instead. It seems silly to me.

Would you prefer that your character and your companions just start the game with any and all of the available talents and spells and powers? I would personally find the game a lot less enjoyable that way.
Are you suggesting the “surroundings” should be only accessible or possible to complete until your characters have reached a certain level? This would take a lot of the choices on where to go next out of the game.

[spelldreamer]

Hmm yes I actually would prefer areas that was matched with levels, even though I realize it would somewhat limit my ability to move around the world.



Because I really love the feeling of progression, but with this level scaling I just dont really feel I progress at all. I am just standing still.



I find teh levelscaling absurd (and yes I know this is just a game), because if u think about it in real life. Imagine you acquired some sort of skill, and then the whole world would more or less do the same. It would make life absurd. Why would you even bother. In real life and in games you acquire skills (and levels) to rise above your surroundings in the competition that is life. If the world just scales with you...well...

[MGeezer]

First the game, unlike Oblivion, an otherwise decent game almost wrecked by extreme level scaling, DAO is not perfectly level scaled. You cna access places that you will find very difficult and others you will find easier throughout the mid game. As to feeling superior, the game constantly throws opponents at you that remind you of how far you have come. Low level dark spawn of the kind you met at Ostagar are a joke in the final battles; that Ogre that was your first really tough single opponent--well you will take on multiple ogres with ease later in the game. So the game offers plenty of opportunities to note you improvement since you started.



From a gaming viewpoint, one of the key ways to keep combat interesting for dozens of hours is to vary the combat by providing you and your opponents with new tactical skills and weapons. Without the new things gained in level gains particularly spells and fighting skill and tactics, the many hours of combat would become truely drearily repititious--even many longer simple action games have the equivalent of levels for this reason.

[Ratnix]

spelldreamer wrote...

Hmm yes I actually would prefer areas that was matched with levels, even though I realize it would somewhat limit my ability to move around the world.

There would be no SOMEWHAT to it. If the mobs don't scale with you, you will either be too low a level to fight in an area, or you will be much too high to fight in an area. The only way to combat this would be to say you have to do this, then you have to do this, then this.....and so on.

You couldn't have 2 areas the same level because by the time you get done with one of the areas, you will be too high a level for the other one, making that area pointless since you can walk all over the mobs in that area, and any freedom to chose which area you go to would mean that you can go to areas you cannot beat becasue the mobs are much higher than you are.

Level scaling might not be perfect, but right now it is the best solution to having either a linear game or having a game where players just outlevel mobs and have  no challenging fights.

[Bumbus]

spelldreamer wrote...

I find teh levelscaling absurd (and yes I know this is just a game), because if u think about it in real life. Imagine you acquired some sort of skill, and then the whole world would more or less do the same. It would make life absurd. Why would you even bother. In real life and in games you acquire skills (and levels) to rise above your surroundings in the competition that is life. If the world just scales with you...well...

I understand your point and wouldn’t it be great if the real world did wait for us or change with us so it was possible for everyone to “win” in life. As you mentioned though it is a game and playing these types of games is how I get away from real life. As far as the game goes I think this is something that is debatable from either side. Some people like to be ale to go anywhere and not worry about an area being to difficult for their current levels. Others would prefer that the game would be more realistic and include areas that do not change accordingly.

Modifié par Bumbus, 26 janvier 2010 - 06:13 .

[Chas1024]

I always liked the concept of the Travel RPG where you 'built' your character at the start to get the skills set you then used for the rest of the game. You can then get on with the role playing and not worry about all the experience hunting just to get the skills you need.

[LyonVanguard]

I agree. There is no point in leveling. You can earn talent point etc other ways. They point of getting experience is that everything else becomes easier. If you are fighting a simple monster like an orc, if you are low level it should take you a few swings. If you are higher leveled he should be able to be killed in fewer swings if just only one.

[LyonVanguard]

Double post FTW!

Modifié par LyonVanguard, 26 janvier 2010 - 06:27 .

[Krilral]

When you level up you get new abilities and stuff.

[wwwwowwww]

Wow seems like a whole lot of people who don't understand the point of an rpg. ah well.



I think it's fine the way it is.

[herwin1]

Chas1024 wrote...

I always liked the concept of the Travel RPG where you 'built' your character at the start to get the skills set you then used for the rest of the game. You can then get on with the role playing and not worry about all the experience hunting just to get the skills you need.

The lack of progression in Traveller was probably its greatest weakness. 

On Practicing

• Ref: Philip E. Ross (2006) “Secrets of the Expert Mind”, Scientific American, 295(2):46-53, August 2006. There is also an article in New Scientist reporting the same results
• Expertise turns out to be knowledge-guided perception (apperception)—structured knowledge, not analysis—and is usually the result of intensive training over at least 10,000 hours, not talent.
• What matters is not experience per se, but “effortful study”, involving continually tackling challenges just beyond one's competence.