50 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

you wouldn't be asked to go kill some kobolds anymore, other adventurers would do it. It's like killing a fox with a tank...

leveling gives you more spells/abilities and renders your equipment useless which force you to get new equipment which make a need for money or higher level resources which keeps you looting things and this whole progress is called RPG. If you don't like it, well... Monsters should scale with party's level otherwise why do they dare call it hard let alone nightmare difficulty. What's hard about one shotting monster and finishing off whole group on enemies in 5 seconds?

There should be more powerful monsters. But they should always have been there.

In BG, if you head south right from the start of the game, you'll meet Droth the Ogre Mage when you're level 1. There is almost no chance you can kill him at level 1. But if you meet him when you're level 7, he'll be fairly easy.

That's progress.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Reminds me of http://media.wizards...kersKobolds.pdf

It's possible that's where I got the idea. My brother subscribed to Dragon back then.

[Meave]

There should be more powerful monsters. But they should always have been there.

In BG, if you head south right from the start of the game, you'll meet Droth the Ogre Mage when you're level 1. There is almost no chance you can kill him at level 1. But if you meet him when you're level 7, he'll be fairly easy.

That's progress.

 

then you don't know how to play the game, he's easy, just use one character and walk him in circles while other shoot him with whatever you bought or use command spell or ray of enfeeblement... and there are no low lvl monsters later in game either

[Sylvius the Mad]

then you don't know how to play the game, he's easy, just use one character and walk him in circles while other shoot him with whatever you bought or use command spell or ray of enfeeblement... and there are no low lvl monsters later in game either

Sure there are.  The xvart village is always full of 1HD xvarts.

 

But more importantly, there should be low level monsters all the time.  The distribution of levels among bandits in the world should be roughly constant.  Each individual bandit might be getting stronger over time, but old bandits die or retire and new bandits join the trade.  There's a bandit bell curve, and it should always be there.

 

And the more open world the game is, the more evidence this needs to be in order to maintain the coherence of that world.  In a linear game, sure, you just happen to be following a path where your enemies are of ever increasing power.  But in an open world game, there are whole populations of monsters, and at any given moment that population needs to make sense.  Otherwise the whole world seems contrived.

[Sylvius the Mad]

One thing a lot of us, myself included wanted from DAI was that enemies come back, repopulate and don't stay dead.

I generally don't like that.  The respawning enemies were basically the only thing wrong with Wizardry 8, for example.  I would rather they stayed dead.

 

But then, I don't particularly enjoy combat for combat's sake.  I enjoy roleplaying combat, but roleplaying is harder to do when the world doesn't make sense.

 

From my perspective, I think DAO had the best combat in the series, and possibly BioWare's best combat in any game.

[DAO MAdhatter]

In my most thorough playthrough, I reached level 25 upon completion of the final battle, and there was just nothing more I could really do, since that included killing every dragon and whatnot.

As for level scaling, good riddance. Like, just imagine in Origins, if you were able to do Lothering later in the game, and you encountered those filthy peasants looking to get you for the reward money. Why would these backwater rubes be level 18? In Inquisition, I'd have level 25 nugs walking around post-campaign.

Origins did have level scaling. I remember using the darkspawn blood exploit to get to level 20. Then finding level 20 loot in every region after lothering & fighting level 20 enemies.

[Cz-99]

Some people say you never feel like you've become stronger in Skyrim, 'cause the enemies scale with you.

 

Some people haven't 1-shotted a dragon with a single arrow. Or 1-shotted a bandit with a single arrow so smoothly that the other bandits sitting around the table thought the wind killed their comrade.

 

I agree with trying to find a mixed system. Maybe make certain opponents scale with you - such as dragons or other semi-intelligent beings capable of improvement, while keeping other lesser creatures a set level forever.

[Meave]

But more importantly, there should be low level monsters all the time.  The distribution of levels among bandits in the world should be roughly constant.  Each individual bandit might be getting stronger over time, but old bandits die or retire and new bandits join the trade.  There's a bandit bell curve, and it should always be there.

 

And the more open world the game is, the more evidence this needs to be in order to maintain the coherence of that world.  In a linear game, sure, you just happen to be following a path where your enemies are of ever increasing power.  But in an open world game, there are whole populations of monsters, and at any given moment that population needs to make sense.  Otherwise the whole world seems contrived.

 

you can't bring real life things into a game. Even smallest, most stupid one eye limping kobold could kill you with one lucky arrow thru the skull or chest, but they can't in any game, there are no one hit kill shots (or real life shots). So tell me what's the fun of constantly meeting underpowered mobs? Games should be fun and challenging, not near reality experience...

[wepeel_]

Even smallest, most stupid one eye limping kobold could kill you with one lucky arrow thru the skull or chest, but they can't in any game,

 

But they can. Ask any Baldur's Gate-player how easy it is to get killed at the start of that game. If you play a mage, chances are decent you'll die to the very first enemy you encounter.

 

So tell me what's the fun of constantly meeting underpowered mobs? Games should be fun and challenging, not near reality experience...

 

It's not about the game putting underpowered mobs in your path with an intent to seem like a challenge, but about the integrity of the world remaining the same even though your personal power level changes. Like Sylvius pointed out, in a game that herds you from one area to another you may only pass through each area once, and the inhabitants of those areas can consequently become successively stronger to suit your character's power level. This isn't very hard to do as the developers know how much experience the player can get along the way and thus what level ranges are possible for each area.

 

In an open world though, you decide for yourself where to go first and you can often backtrack as much as you like. If an area has level 1 kobolds the first time you visit and then level 20 kobolds for no good reason when you return much later, immersion would be reduced and the integrity of the world would be affected.

 

That said, I agree that for enemies more plausible to achieve very high power levels (e.g. dragons, major demons, various bosses etc), scaling makes much more sense. Even as a master mage or extremely accomplished warrior, a high dragon should still be a serious hazard.

[Meave]

But they can. Ask any Baldur's Gate-player how easy it is to get killed at the start of that game. If you play a mage, chances are decent you'll die to the very first enemy you encounter.

 

 

 

what are you talking about? ofc low lvl mob can one shot lvl 1 mage, I was saying that kobold is no match for lvl 9+ (well more like 4+) drunken hero wearing only a toothpick and a hat... in reality check, HP shouldn't scale with level cos it makes no sense, but they do in pretty much all rpgs so monster lvl need to scale as well or you might as well go play candyland and find more challenge in it

[Sylvius the Mad]

you can't bring real life things into a game. Even smallest, most stupid one eye limping kobold could kill you with one lucky arrow thru the skull or chest, but they can't in any game, there are no one hit kill shots (or real life shots). So tell me what's the fun of constantly meeting underpowered mobs? Games should be fun and challenging, not near reality experience...

I don't agree that roleplaying games are games. Roleplaying games are toys. Roleplaying games are simulations.

But the roleplaying doesn't work if the setting doesn't make sense from the perspective of the people living in it.

Moreover, in early versions of D&D, players were advised not to bother naming their characters before level 5, because most of them wouldn't live that long anyway.

Some RPG systems do mimic the fragility of humans.

[Sylvius the Mad]

what are you talking about? ofc low lvl mob can one shot lvl 1 mage, I was saying that kobold is no match for lvl 9+ (well more like 4+) drunken hero wearing only a toothpick and a hat... in reality check, HP shouldn't scale with level cos it makes no sense, but they do in pretty much all rpgs so monster lvl need to scale as well or you might as well go play candyland and find more challenge in it

I think it's GURPS where hit points are something you need to buy on level-up if you want more of them. But they're expensive, so if you spend your points on health you don't get better at skills.

[AlanC9]

then you don't know how to play the game, he's easy, just use one character and walk him in circles while other shoot him with whatever you bought or use command spell or ray of enfeeblement... and there are no low lvl monsters later in game either

Are you talking about an ogre mage, or a regular ogre?

[AlanC9]

I think it's GURPS where hit points are something you need to buy on level-up if you want more of them. But they're expensive, so if you spend your points on health you don't get better at skills.

Many PnP systems are non-levelled, so you have to buy hit points if you want more. Some systems, typically SF, are purely skill-based and don't let you buy more HP at all. Such systems tend to have relatively flat power curves if the campaign isn't about gear progression.

[wepeel_]

what are you talking about? ofc low lvl mob can one shot lvl 1 mage, I was saying that kobold is no match for lvl 9+ (well more like 4+) drunken hero wearing only a toothpick and a hat... in reality check, HP shouldn't scale with level cos it makes no sense, but they do in pretty much all rpgs so monster lvl need to scale as well or you might as well go play candyland and find more challenge in it

 

That says more about the limitations of the d20/thac0/AC design than about the design intentions though. It's true that after a certain level a single hit is unlikely to kill you, but the system works both ways: no matter how skilled or well equipped you get, you are still never farther away than 5% from getting hit by anyone - so if the HP didn't go up your character would essentially never be farther away than a 1/20 chance of dying to everything. Under old D&D rules you could put a 12-year old kid in the boxing ring with Mike Tyson in his prime, and relatively often the kid would roll a 20 and land a clean blow on Tyson's chin. 

 

In  short, D&D combat was abstract from the start, representing the sum of actions during rounds rather than every blow, thrust and parry. As you rise in levels there's still (most of the time) a theoretical chance for a kobold to defeat you, but the odds turn heavily in your favour, as they should. This doesn't mean that the DM has to beef up the kobolds to your level though, as there are other enemies you can encounter. But the world in which your character lives still contains kobolds, and those kobolds are still around level 1.

[danielkx]

I think it's GURPS where hit points are something you need to buy on level-up if you want more of them. But they're expensive, so if you spend your points on health you don't get better at skills.

This is also the case in Drakensang

[Sylvius the Mad]

This is also the case in Drakensang

Right. Excellent ruleset.

[Meave]

That says more about the limitations of the d20/thac0/AC design than about the design intentions though. It's true that after a certain level a single hit is unlikely to kill you, but the system works both ways: no matter how skilled or well equipped you get, you are still never farther away than 5% from getting hit by anyone - so if the HP didn't go up your character would essentially never be farther away than a 1/20 chance of dying to everything. Under old D&D rules you could put a 12-year old kid in the boxing ring with Mike Tyson in his prime, and relatively often the kid would roll a 20 and land a clean blow on Tyson's chin. 

 

that's an interesting idea, but DnD rules covers it. It's combat without weapons and the kid would have strenght like 4 or 5/-3  The damage of childs fist would be like 1d2 so even on hit it would do no damage before applying dmg resistance. Hitting Tyson wouldn't seem much of a problem, but inflicting dmg on him would be nearly impossible even on critical hits. Considering Tysons reputation, he would have dmg reduction of +-3 from this type of attacks. I can imagine even 12years old could knock out Tyson by repeatly hitting his manhood, but they are wearing cups and that would provide him immunity to critical hits...

[RMP _]

Some enemies should scale. If my companions and I can improve with experience and better gear, why shouldn't there be some enemies out there that are also getting better with experience and gear, "off screen", so to speak?

 

Of course, this doesn't mean that all enemies should scale.

[Requiemslove]

@Sylvius the mad.

 

How can repopulating enemies NOT make sense? So in your world you would extinct all animals you happen across or not bother with any combat with them to try and preserve them? And in your world those you are against should have no ability to send reinforcements to an area to waylay you. It would just be you kill something, it stays gone forever, and you potentially EMPTY the landscape of any life. Yes, because that REALLY makes sense. See here we are looking at things from different perspectives. YOU are looking at things from what appeals to you in a role play specific way. I on the other hand would like a evolving and believable world. Which lends itself more to role play elements anyway, because it allows for new foes to come along with the passage of time. 

[Meave]

"believable world" well... how come there are level zones then? Shouldn't all zones be populated by mixed groups of experiened and noob monsters? How come bandit groups won't merge together and lure you into a trap (good luck facing 30 archers at once) there isn't even attempt to assassinate you. "Normal" group of bandits would be like 1 experienced leader like lvl 8+, one or two "lieutenants" lvl 6+, core force +-10 lvl 4+ bandits and some noobs lvl 1-2 let's say 2-3 of them. Good luck killing them on lvl 1...

 

so explain to me how come same group of monsters is more powerful in du Lion than in Hinterlands? You can't search for this kind of logic in a game. Monsters should scale all the time with no cap at least on hard and nightmare difficulties...

[katokires]

Level scalling is vital for achieving max level in a game like Inquisition. And since the only point of RPG is MAKING A CHARACTER BUILD (hope you all understood that by now), there is nothing more important than achieving higher levels. I don't care if it makes sense or not, story is this stupid bullshit getting in the way of building the character so just give me the ****** level scalling and remove level caps! This is another reason DA2 was better than DAI, you had a build, you had stats AND enemies scalled, if only the game had infinite respawning enemies it would be amazing! And don't forget, RPG is building character and battling with your build, the story bullshit is all genres.

Nobody cares what your drow did in the last adventure it only matters how much damage he can deal in a single turn. Also nobody cares if your mage had a harsh childhood, if he can cast fly, confusion and fireball and beat enemy SR THAT is the only thing that matters. Just accept the truth. Levels, stats and feats, that is RPG, rest is dellusional bullshit.

[AlexMBrennan]

In D&D terms, a kobold should just be a kobold. It would be very odd if all kobolds were eventually level 20 and wielded awesome magical weapons just because you did.

In D&D terms, if you are hired to kill a kobold and wait a few years while you deliver flowers and such you'd expect to end up fighting a lot more than just one kobold.

Also, what's the point of growing more powerful if everything grows powerful with you? We saw how that worked in Oblivion where there was a disincentive to leveling.

The point is to make non-linear games with optional side quests possible: if you have multiple quests that can be done in any order then the player will end up either getting bored or getting curb stomped unless they do the quests in the exact right order, so throw that idea out of the window.

You also can't have optional quests that give xp or equipment - you'll either end up being too powerful, making the rest of the game boring or the game might be balanced to require you to do most of the supposedly optional tasks to stand a chance in the fight.

Oblivion might have been a bad implementation of this idea, but in general the alternative to having enemies scale to the player's level are much worse.

Oblivion and Bethesda do not do things the same way. Using a Bethesda game as an example nullifies your example. It is better to use DA games and ME games as one instead. One thing a lot of us, myself included wanted from DAI was that enemies come back, repopulate and don't stay dead. The single biggest flaw with the previous DA games revolved around that you have NOTHING to do really after you have completed the quests and gone through each area. Enemies would be dead for good.

No offense, but you should just go back to playing Skyrim. There is nothing wrong with wanting an open world open ended bear killing sandbox, but let's not turn all games into bear killing sandboxes. It is OK to have games that actually have an ending.

[Requiemslove]

@AlexBrennan. First of all I don't "want" a bear killing sandbox game. I want a game that is fun, that has locations and regions with a vast array of foes and situations, and I want repopulation of foes in a general sense, and yes that would include the dragons. I don't want main story specific foes coming back [meaning story bosses], or large side quest bosses coming back. I just want each individual region of the game to always have life. I must question exactly if you have played the previous DA games. Complete lack of life in those games after you have cleared a location became nothing short of torturous. It was forgivable in the ME titles, because you rarely visit the same location twice. Just to explain why I include the dragons in what I would like to see bioware do for repopulating enemies, is because dragonlings are YOUNG dragons and I refuse to believe they just die if you kill the big one. I also refuse to believe there are only 10 of the big dragons that exist and that Bioware have NOT got the ability to have dragons repopulate. Understand I couldn't give two figs about the often woeful gear you get for slaying the dragons, its not about gear, its about what people should EXPECT to see.

[Requiemslove]

@Maeve. I feel you have not quite cottoned on here, so please read the comment of mine that directly precedes this one.