While I accept that mooks level up as you level up, I highly doubt that mooks get uber gear when you get them.
The point of leveling in DAO is not for you to be able to beat genlocks if you were fighting each other with your bare fists butt-naked. That never happens anyways. The point of leveling is to give your character more options, options that you will be able to use better than the AI. And, so you meet the prerequisites for uber gear with special bonuses, which gives you a 1-up over mooks who may get better standard gear now, but not uber gear with special bonuses.
And I think that's why players don't feel as if mooks are leveling right up with them -- because the players develop an advantage from attack options and gear bonuses, so the fights against genlocks DO become easier.
What is the point of leveling?
Débuté par
spelldreamer
, janv. 26 2010 04:26
Retour en haut
#77
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 02:05
Paromlin
-
- Members
- 260 messages
Peeker2009 wrote...
Paromlin wrote...
Through exploring, trying..
You know, games without level scaling don't come with a map that shows where you can and cannot go; the player is expected to discover it himself. That's the point.
Or, if that's too much like hard work for some, the player can be warned by NPC's or signs. Can actually be a good way to give bartenders, merchants and the like something useful to say, rather than the vague references you get when you ask about the latest rumours.
Indeed. That would be cool.
#78
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 02:35
dragon_83
-
- Members
- 210 messages
From a game desing perspective levelling is a good and needed thing, because it keeps every fight challangeing. But from a roleplay perspective it is not the best solution. I want to feel the strengh of my characters, With levelling, there is not a big difference fighting genlocks on lvl 5 or lvl15, it's challenging both ways. With a wider variety of monsters, this could be improved. (Though I love DAO, there should be more types of enemies in it.)
Let's say we fight with hurlocks and genlocks in Lothering. Since we are on lower level, these battles are quite tough. Than we go adventuring, and we gain several levels. When we arrive at Orzammar, we could defeat the genlocks and hurlocks easily (since they haven't levelled up to our level), but there would be other monsters, which are tougher, and harder to beat. Now you could say that this would make the game more linear, because the player would had to go to Lothering first and Orzammar later, since on low level, Orzammar would be unbeatable.
A.) That's true, but from a roleplaying point of view, it is more 'realistic'. There are places in the world, which are not for inexperianced adventurers. But if the game has a lot of lower level areas, there are a lot of places where the player can go anyway. Ok, the freedom in the games is cut back to 90 % this way, but this doesn't make something linear.
B.) But what if the tougher monsters would only appear, if your level is high enough.
Let's say we fight with hurlocks and genlocks in Lothering. Since we are on lower level, these battles are quite tough. Than we go adventuring, and we gain several levels. When we arrive at Orzammar, we could defeat the genlocks and hurlocks easily (since they haven't levelled up to our level), but there would be other monsters, which are tougher, and harder to beat. Now you could say that this would make the game more linear, because the player would had to go to Lothering first and Orzammar later, since on low level, Orzammar would be unbeatable.
A.) That's true, but from a roleplaying point of view, it is more 'realistic'. There are places in the world, which are not for inexperianced adventurers. But if the game has a lot of lower level areas, there are a lot of places where the player can go anyway. Ok, the freedom in the games is cut back to 90 % this way, but this doesn't make something linear.
B.) But what if the tougher monsters would only appear, if your level is high enough.
Modifié par dragon_83, 28 janvier 2010 - 02:37 .
#79
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 10:38
Kaoschizm
-
- Members
- 63 messages
It makes perfect sense to me from a RP perspective - the more time you waste the stronger the darkspawn get.
#80
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 10:58
Bibdy
-
- Members
- 1 455 messages
I think there's just a lot of RPG puritans out there who don't like change. Just because games in the past have used the model where specific zones contain creatures of specific levels doesn't mean that's enjoyable to the majority of people playing it. I find the progressive scaling a lot more enjoyable, because it means I don't wander into some zone and get completely curb-stomped by a level 50 giant wasp, who looks exactly the same as those other level 10 giant wasps I've been killing. Its frustrating to have entered an area, only to have to jot down in your mind (or paper, if your memory sucks like mine) that you've been there, but you haven't cleared it out, yet.
Is it really that fun to push yourself to clear a tough area, get completely stuck because the next fight is impossible, only to clear out the rest of the game and come back when the place is trivial? That even still exists in DA:O to an extent, because creatures have a certain minimum/maximum level. You can get blocked in that sense, just not as easily as you can with a raw 'this creature standing here is this level..forever' system.
I just don't get why geographical location matters to a creature's strength. I find it more enjoyable that the game remains challenging, and doesn't go from impossible to ******-easy, just because I figured out the 'proper' meta-game direction to play the game.
For a game that gives you freedom of choice to explore, level-scaling is a great idea, because there's no wrong way to do it. You have the freedom to pick whatever path you want, and the game will tailor the encounters to you, not the other way around where you have to 'test the waters' everywhere you go and wander aimlessly until you find the place you're 'supposed' to level through next.
Is it really that fun to push yourself to clear a tough area, get completely stuck because the next fight is impossible, only to clear out the rest of the game and come back when the place is trivial? That even still exists in DA:O to an extent, because creatures have a certain minimum/maximum level. You can get blocked in that sense, just not as easily as you can with a raw 'this creature standing here is this level..forever' system.
I just don't get why geographical location matters to a creature's strength. I find it more enjoyable that the game remains challenging, and doesn't go from impossible to ******-easy, just because I figured out the 'proper' meta-game direction to play the game.
For a game that gives you freedom of choice to explore, level-scaling is a great idea, because there's no wrong way to do it. You have the freedom to pick whatever path you want, and the game will tailor the encounters to you, not the other way around where you have to 'test the waters' everywhere you go and wander aimlessly until you find the place you're 'supposed' to level through next.
#81
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 11:59
Peeker2009
-
- Members
- 108 messages
Bibdy wrote...
I think there's just a lot of RPG puritans out there who don't like change. Just because games in the past have used the model where specific zones contain creatures of specific levels doesn't mean that's enjoyable to the majority of people playing it. I find the progressive scaling a lot more enjoyable, because it means I don't wander into some zone and get completely curb-stomped by a level 50 giant wasp, who looks exactly the same as those other level 10 giant wasps I've been killing. Its frustrating to have entered an area, only to have to jot down in your mind (or paper, if your memory sucks like mine) that you've been there, but you haven't cleared it out, yet.
The wasp example you give is a rather exaggerated. You could have easily used kobolds and ogres as an example but it wouldn't have supported your point quite so well. Actually, I like keeping notes myself, either in a game journal or a note pad. then again I used to enjoy making maps too, so perhaps I'm just a bit weird :blink:Or am I just an rpg puritan? (EDIT: next bit added) Regardless, I don't want modern games to omit maps; I'm over making them now. I have no problem with change at all, but I do like to have a voice (no matter how minute it is) when discussing the state of rpg games today, as I always believed I had in the past.
Is it really that fun to push yourself to clear a tough area, get completely stuck because the next fight is impossible, only to clear out the rest of the game and come back when the place is trivial? That even still exists in DA:O to an extent, because creatures have a certain minimum/maximum level. You can get blocked in that sense, just not as easily as you can with a raw 'this creature standing here is this level..forever' system.
Well no, that's not much fun at all. Personally. I wouldn't wait til I had cleared the rest of the game. Also, just because there is no level scaling, doesn't mean that the player must therefore have access to all areas and foes from the start. The game designer can still choose to lock certain quests until such time as they fit into the story, or (more mechanically) the player is at an appropriate level. Also, in a game like Gothic, you can usually see a huge troll well before you are in its threat range, and even if you do provoke it, there is a good chance you will be able to outrun it if you feel overwhelmed.
I just don't get why geographical location matters to a creature's strength. I find it more enjoyable that the game remains challenging, and doesn't go from impossible to ******-easy, just because I figured out the 'proper' meta-game direction to play the game
The main relationship between location and strength is that powerful foes have to live somewhere too. And I suppose the location itself might add strength (volcanoes for fire elementals for instance). Another example: A Warrior King is bound to be a powerful fella, and he's also bound to live in a sturdy castle, and be surrounded by elite guards. Enter with swords drawn at your own peril.
For a game that gives you freedom of choice to explore, level-scaling is a great idea, because there's no wrong way to do it. You have the freedom to pick whatever path you want, and the game will tailor the encounters to you, not the other way around where you have to 'test the waters' everywhere you go and wander aimlessly until you find the place you're 'supposed' to level through next.
The phrase "freedom to explore" is relative. Personally, I like the "realities" of the world I'm in to challenge or even hinder those freedoms at times. I'm still free to attempt a suicide mission, and I'm free to run like blazes when it goes pear-shaped. I also don't particularly want each battle to be of similar difficulty. I like to lay waste to some measley goblins, only to be humbled by a rampaging giant on the same day. I'm pretty sure that all gamers will have varying views on this though.
Again, I will say though that I can understand why there is some level-scaling in a story driven rpg like DA:O, and wouldn't suggest they get rid of it. It was a great game as designed. As long as we can agree that the term "rpg" is all encompassing, and that many variations on the theme are possible (if not desireable), and that all personal preferences for rpgs in general are equally valid, then it's all good
Modifié par Peeker2009, 29 janvier 2010 - 12:14 .
#82
Posté 29 janvier 2010 - 12:46
TyroneTasty
-
- Members
- 206 messages
Anyone who thinks level scaling doesn't work needs to play FFT. That's a game so well designed that enemies scaling to your EXACT level doesn't matter as much as other RPG hack jobs out there.
Because in Dragon Age you are clearly more powerful with the right equipment, skills and intelligent tactics than you are being "over-leveled" and steam rolling weak mobs to progress or simply feel good. That's not the point of this game, that's not what makes this game work, that's the point of Dragon Quest 1, which came out 20 years ago. Come on, forest for the trees and all that.
Because in Dragon Age you are clearly more powerful with the right equipment, skills and intelligent tactics than you are being "over-leveled" and steam rolling weak mobs to progress or simply feel good. That's not the point of this game, that's not what makes this game work, that's the point of Dragon Quest 1, which came out 20 years ago. Come on, forest for the trees and all that.
#83
Posté 29 janvier 2010 - 02:53
Peeker2009
-
- Members
- 108 messages
TyroneTasty wrote...
Anyone who thinks level scaling doesn't work needs to play FFT. That's a game so well designed that enemies scaling to your EXACT level doesn't matter as much as other RPG hack jobs out there.
Because in Dragon Age you are clearly more powerful with the right equipment, skills and intelligent tactics than you are being "over-leveled" and steam rolling weak mobs to progress or simply feel good. That's not the point of this game, that's not what makes this game work, that's the point of Dragon Quest 1, which came out 20 years ago. Come on, forest for the trees and all that.
I totally agree with what you say about Dragon Age, but do feel you go too far when you use terms like "hack jobs", which I can't quite understand in its context anyway. Also, your example of Dragon Quest 1is an extreme one, implying that anyone who disagrees with your views on level-scaling is living 20 years in the past or simply being absurd - or, in other words that DA:O's system is the only sensible way to go for any modern rpg, which is still up for discussion I think, regardless of your "forest for the trees" metaphor. Why resort to such emphatic language?
#84
Posté 29 janvier 2010 - 03:29
PhaseNW
-
- Members
- 10 messages
For a world like Dragon Age, level scaling is the only thing that makes the game feel passably "realistic" since they decided to use a leveling system.
For games, where it fits the theme of one man being able to "destroy armies", unfettered leveling is ok.
For games which are supposed to have a more gritty, realistic feel, based on fantasy books like George R. R. Martins (which was one of the claims made for the game), gaining huge power may be possible, but it's never done by simply gaining "experience" and "leveling up" (maybe over years, certainly not over months or weeks like the time ranges in DA).
To me, an unfettered leveling system just wouldn't fit DA and personally I would have not gone with a leveling system in the first place (Yes, you can have just as much progression feeling without resorting to levels. Even in Pen and Paper games, there were lots of systems that never used character levels, for example GURPS). Since they took the "conservative" route and did choose to use a leveling system, they needed the world to balance around that, so it could still give the "feel" they were going for. I think they achieved it relatively well (haven't finished yet tho).
For games, where it fits the theme of one man being able to "destroy armies", unfettered leveling is ok.
For games which are supposed to have a more gritty, realistic feel, based on fantasy books like George R. R. Martins (which was one of the claims made for the game), gaining huge power may be possible, but it's never done by simply gaining "experience" and "leveling up" (maybe over years, certainly not over months or weeks like the time ranges in DA).
To me, an unfettered leveling system just wouldn't fit DA and personally I would have not gone with a leveling system in the first place (Yes, you can have just as much progression feeling without resorting to levels. Even in Pen and Paper games, there were lots of systems that never used character levels, for example GURPS). Since they took the "conservative" route and did choose to use a leveling system, they needed the world to balance around that, so it could still give the "feel" they were going for. I think they achieved it relatively well (haven't finished yet tho).
#85
Posté 29 janvier 2010 - 08:33
Kaoschizm
-
- Members
- 63 messages
I wouldn't mind the occasional super tough area in addition to the level-scaled quest areas. Like Peeker2009 mentioned earlier, it would be cool if there were a few really tough areas which didn't scale but came with warnings - maybe a warriors estate or a giant cave that you could plunder if you felt so inclined but the monsters would always be level 25+ no matter what level the character is. These areas wouldn't have quests or be part of the story and would be completely optional for anyone wanting to finish the game; however for those who want a challenge and some nice loot, the option would always be there.
Modifié par Kaoschizm, 29 janvier 2010 - 08:34 .
#86
Posté 27 mars 2010 - 10:16
Draconus Kahn
-
- Members
- 115 messages
Lots of whining on both ends of this spectrum.
I can tell yah right now, I'm all for what DA:O did with the mob level design. Mobs only level to you on initial visit right? So that means you can potentially out-level them by the end of the dungeon... Better yet, I have exploited a zone once. Go in, go out.. wait for about 3-4 levels... When I returned, sure enough... BAM! Even the treasure and loot tables were far below me. I saw tier3-4 weapons and I was wearing tier 7. You can very well play that way in this game if you try hard enough (or if one area is just way too annoying for you).
To me that is what level means... "If you can't outsmart them, you can always outstat them". That's the way some of us like to play. And, to be honest it's a good way to design a game, so kudos on that one BioWare. Leveling done right will cater to all manner of players, and it seems, with this game at least, all of us are here.
The only gripe I have on the issue is the max number of levels you can attain on a playthrough for the original (console version only hehe) game without, and indeed, with expansions. I can't say numbers here but, it's lacking, and I was a bit disappointed. Don't get me wrong.. there is no level cap, but without respawning mobs or ability to "new game+", there is no way to attain 50 levels in a single playthrough without modding or exploits.
There really isn't a reason why we shouldn't be able to take our characters back through a second and third playthrough to get to level 100 lol. They did it with Mass Effect right? Oh well, I guess BioWare is stuck going back in time on that one eh? lol
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FYI: rpg's without level and PC/NPC stats is just another way of saying action adventure game... If I wanted to play one... I wouldn't be here playing this rpg lol.
Stats and even level is just a way to automate things for those of us who like to think tactically and at our own pace (note that one). It is also for those of us that don't have the capacity for twitch reflexes. Please, don't missunderstand those of us who actually like the level system or stat system for people who don't embrace change. But, when some of you propose certain changes that might completely obliterate the genre from what we actually love... You have to expect a few sour words.
Now to empathize with everyone else who has a different opinion... Sure, you can take out level and indeed stats (not that I have even heard of taking stats out), you can still make an rpg without making it feel PnP. If that's the game you want, I am sure there are those out there. They probably feel more realistic too. But, this isn't that game. I believe BioWare had the strictest intention to harken back to the oldschool days of PnP rpg on PC (and consoles now)... Well, simulated of course. My point is: This is one of "those" games... not the "other" rpg's.
I think that's what some people are on about, including myself. This piece of rpg in the genre is different from JRPG grind fests, or Oblivion hack and slashers. It is definately a breath of fresh air in the broadness of the rpg world. You will never find your perfect rpg, unless you are already playing it btw. I still have yet to see one that compares to mmorpg's that I love playing. My perfect rpg is just that: an mmorpg that I can play offline. One that plays exactly the same way (including the battle systems), gives me exactly the same satisfaction, and is perpetual. I will probably never see something offline as good as alot of what I play online, but there is my perfect rpg.
However, I wouldn't presume to change this rpg to reflect the mmorpg's I play. I still very much enjoy this game, despite it being rather "boxed-in" as I like to call it. This rpg is still the best of it's kind I have ever seen, and also the longest (100+ hrs on my first playthrough). For that I give thanks.
I can tell yah right now, I'm all for what DA:O did with the mob level design. Mobs only level to you on initial visit right? So that means you can potentially out-level them by the end of the dungeon... Better yet, I have exploited a zone once. Go in, go out.. wait for about 3-4 levels... When I returned, sure enough... BAM! Even the treasure and loot tables were far below me. I saw tier3-4 weapons and I was wearing tier 7. You can very well play that way in this game if you try hard enough (or if one area is just way too annoying for you).
To me that is what level means... "If you can't outsmart them, you can always outstat them". That's the way some of us like to play. And, to be honest it's a good way to design a game, so kudos on that one BioWare. Leveling done right will cater to all manner of players, and it seems, with this game at least, all of us are here.
The only gripe I have on the issue is the max number of levels you can attain on a playthrough for the original (console version only hehe) game without, and indeed, with expansions. I can't say numbers here but, it's lacking, and I was a bit disappointed. Don't get me wrong.. there is no level cap, but without respawning mobs or ability to "new game+", there is no way to attain 50 levels in a single playthrough without modding or exploits.
There really isn't a reason why we shouldn't be able to take our characters back through a second and third playthrough to get to level 100 lol. They did it with Mass Effect right? Oh well, I guess BioWare is stuck going back in time on that one eh? lol
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FYI: rpg's without level and PC/NPC stats is just another way of saying action adventure game... If I wanted to play one... I wouldn't be here playing this rpg lol.
Stats and even level is just a way to automate things for those of us who like to think tactically and at our own pace (note that one). It is also for those of us that don't have the capacity for twitch reflexes. Please, don't missunderstand those of us who actually like the level system or stat system for people who don't embrace change. But, when some of you propose certain changes that might completely obliterate the genre from what we actually love... You have to expect a few sour words.
Now to empathize with everyone else who has a different opinion... Sure, you can take out level and indeed stats (not that I have even heard of taking stats out), you can still make an rpg without making it feel PnP. If that's the game you want, I am sure there are those out there. They probably feel more realistic too. But, this isn't that game. I believe BioWare had the strictest intention to harken back to the oldschool days of PnP rpg on PC (and consoles now)... Well, simulated of course. My point is: This is one of "those" games... not the "other" rpg's.
I think that's what some people are on about, including myself. This piece of rpg in the genre is different from JRPG grind fests, or Oblivion hack and slashers. It is definately a breath of fresh air in the broadness of the rpg world. You will never find your perfect rpg, unless you are already playing it btw. I still have yet to see one that compares to mmorpg's that I love playing. My perfect rpg is just that: an mmorpg that I can play offline. One that plays exactly the same way (including the battle systems), gives me exactly the same satisfaction, and is perpetual. I will probably never see something offline as good as alot of what I play online, but there is my perfect rpg.
However, I wouldn't presume to change this rpg to reflect the mmorpg's I play. I still very much enjoy this game, despite it being rather "boxed-in" as I like to call it. This rpg is still the best of it's kind I have ever seen, and also the longest (100+ hrs on my first playthrough). For that I give thanks.
Modifié par Draconus Kahn, 27 mars 2010 - 10:47 .
