I know that, but they don't seem to know the opposite.
So I present the opposing view with equivalent justification to show how baseless the initial assertion was.
Also, I'm roleplaying. What the player wants doesn't matter. Only the character's preferences matter.
I agree. But I think level scaling should only be on Hard and Nightmare. Normal and Easy should keep the enemies at the average level or lower.
I agree that sequence breaking can ruin your XP achievement.
I see both sides and suggest a level window, as there is no way to predict how a player will enter areas or for what reason. When you enter a zone of say 18 the system should validate your character against the area and reset the enemies to at least your level + 20% delta-level and/or the quantity of enemies by ~50% delta-number if you are at or above that zone level. Of Course if you are below the zone level - you have been warned and do nothing.
This would avoid some of the sequence timing issues for say cory.
Nope, completely disagree. Level scaling is awful and makes no sense. Why should random wolves get stronger because I killed some extra giants in a different country? What's the point in levelling up if everything else levels up? I may as well stay level 1 so the enemies are weaker too.
this. i really dont like that bethesda games level-scale.
I prefer the challenge and level scaling in Dragon Age Origins.
Bioware keeps taking steps back in my opinion. I hate how Bioware doesn't realize that the Dragon Age series is popular because of origins, so why would they abandon all the things that made origins great? It doesn't make any sense.
Or level-scaling.
No thanks to "You must be this tall to go on this ride" difficulty zoning. This isn't an MMO.
I want to be able to go anywhere within a game's world and be able to find a decent fight irrespective of what level my character is. I don't want wholesale chunks of the map to be inappropriate to my character because I'm either too high or to low-level for it.
No its an rpg. Most rpgs don't have level scaling. If you do side quests and stuff like that, you get rewarded with xp and levels, that will make it easier later.
If your believable world is a world where 80% or more of it may as well no longer exist for practical purposes because there's no longer anything in it that can test your maxed out character that you've put much work into, then you can have that world.
Or they could just have lots of enemies that actually requires a very high level to beat in the first place.
Not having enemies level scale with you was a good design choice. Vanilla Oblivion was horrible with level scaling.
I'm going to reiterate what I said in the other thread. There should be only upward scaling and only on Hard and/or Nightmare. If you choose to fight a dragon on Hard you should expect a hard dragon fight, not a cakewalk because you "explored too much."
Dragons could indeed be an exception to the rule. Level scaling in this case would make sense. But it would be detrimental as a general rule.
Or they could just have lots of enemies that actually requires a very high level to beat in the first place.
Nope, completely disagree. Level scaling is awful and makes no sense. Why should random wolves get stronger because I killed some extra giants in a different country? What's the point in levelling up if everything else levels up? I may as well stay level 1 so the enemies are weaker too.
This is exactly why the leveling system in Oblivion sucked donkey nuts. If you leveled your character the wrong way, you could potentially become weaker as enemies level up with you and become stronger.
This is exactly why the leveling system in Oblivion sucked donkey noodles. If you leveled your character the wrong way, you could potentially become weaker as enemies level up with you and become stronger.
The reason why Oblivion's system sucked was because enemies not only got stronger when they leveled, they also gained better equipment. The HP gain for enemy leveling was also insane, making higher level fights drag on forever.
Dragon Age doesn't seem to have these problem. Enemies don't get stronger equipment as they level up and it takes about the same amount of time for a level 20 Inquisitor to kill a level 20 red templar as it does for a level 10 Inquisitor to kill a level 10 red templar. Even less depending on how you make your build. That's what makes the game a great candidate for level scaling.
But now there is next to no benafit to going back and doing the storm coast or the area where the Avaar kidnap your men. I get next to no exp for it and weak gear. We should not be punished for doing areas out of some arbitrary order. By all means keep the Dragons and bosses strong but trash mobs and gear should level with you so doing an area is not just a chore to get what little story and power it has to offer.
To sum it up: these areas don't have mobs which give you XP/attractive loot and you are not interested in story and power/completing all the available quests. Have you considered not going to those areas? It looks like that would completely solve your problem.
There are types of RPG game design which can make a good use of level scaling and there are types which can not. Two examples are Mass effect and Oblivion. First has an absolutely beautiful level scaling and second has game breaking level scaling. Is it because scaling is implemented so much better in Mass effect than in Oblivion? No. It's because Oblivion's design is incompatible with level scaling. The same is true about the Inquisition. Scaling can't work with its design and so I'm very glad that the game doesn't have it.
At any rate absence of level scaling and it's negative effects in Inquisition are not a punishment, it's a by product of giving player much freedom, and it's not by any means a horrible choice since its adverse effects are easily avoidable.
I agree that the character should feel as though they can take on any enemy they faced before and vastly out experience with relative ease. However, no matter what level you are, surely there ought to be some challenging foe out there in the world worthy of doing battle with? (and that I don't have to wait the entire game to face, i.e. end game boss).
My problem is that after defeating all dragons and learning that they behave in the exact same way save for their elemental weapons the hope of finding that worthy opponent dissipated. If they made each dragon in the maps unique so much so that they behave almost like their own person with the way they fight and their tactics it would alleviate the lack of a challenge found in the game.
I personally would be willing to overlook the simplicity of the fights if in each map I can always look forward to that one dragon (or enemy) and wonder; how will this one fight? Is it aggressive, cautious, defensive? What attacks does it use? A swipe, a quick slash, will it bluff an attack only to hit from elsewhere? Maybe Dark Souls spoilt me with the variety of bosses but all I really want is a tactical challenge not a tedious grind to bring down 50k worth of health repeating the same mindless sets of attacks over and over again.
The reason why Oblivion's system sucked was because enemies not only got stronger when they leveled, they also gained better equipment. The HP gain for enemy leveling was also insane, making higher level fights drag on forever.
Dragon Age doesn't seem to have these problem. Enemies don't get stronger equipment as they level up and it takes about the same amount of time for a level 20 Inquisitor to kill a level 20 red templar as it does for a level 10 Inquisitor to kill a level 10 red templar. Even less depending on how you make your build. That's what makes the game a great candidate for level scaling.
There's certainly room for a Hardcore mode featuring non stop enemy level scaling for those who prefer that. A gradual increase of enemy AI as you progress and level up might work better. So you would not only fight enemies with higher damage output and threshold, but these same enemies would also fight smarter. Higher leveled enemies using teamwork tactics like flanking, laying down runes, and playing off of each other's strengths.
For instance if you fight a mob of mages and warriors at level 10, this same mob at level 20 would be using more intricate tactics. Like one enemy mage using a barrier, spamming 'weakness to ice' spells at your party, while buff enchanting nearby enemy warrior companions who flank your party instead of charging you head on.
Another enemy mage runs around laying down frost runes and uses dispel to counter any barriers you have, as another enemy warrior tries to force your party members into the frost runes. So even though you will have better stats at you level up, you would now have to fight smarter instead of spamming your favorite moves over and over.
Dragons could indeed be an exception to the rule. Level scaling in this case would make sense. But it would be detrimental as a general rule.
I prefer the challenge and level scaling in Dragon Age Origins.
Bioware keeps taking steps back in my opinion. I hate how Bioware doesn't realize that the Dragon Age series is popular because of origins, so why would they abandon all the things that made origins great? It doesn't make any sense.
http://www.nowgamer....dutys-audience/
Level scaling is a horrible mechanic and a kick in the balls to anyone who wants a believable immersive world. Getting rid of it was a brilliant decision.
Level scaling is a horrible mechanic and a kick in the balls to anyone who wants a believable immersive world. Getting rid of it was a brilliant decision.
I keep hearing this, but I don't quite get how this is the case. Why is the world more believable or immersive when the main character and all his friends constantly gain strength and everything else stays exactly the same?
Level scaling certainly increases believability compared to the situation in DA:I. Because it effectively removes levelling as part of the world, and allows the PCs actual progression to be more sensible.
Having people like Cassandra, Varric, Solas, Vivienne etc be effectively weak helpless kittens compared to whole bunches of random bandits does not make the game believable.
And these enemies would have to be assigned to specific areas within a game's world, so you've missed my point.
They could be tied to quests. Quests that gets triggered when you are at a certain level etc. Some fellow shows up at Skyhold and gives you a quest when you reach level 23 or something.
I keep hearing this, but I don't quite get how this is the case. Why is the world more believable or immersive when the main character and all his friends constantly gain strength and everything else stays exactly the same?
Because everyone else isn't out doing quests and grinding XP via picking flowers for people.
I keep hearing this, but I don't quite get how this is the case. Why is the world more believable or immersive when the main character and all his friends constantly gain strength and everything else stays exactly the same?
Because everyone else isn't out doing quests and grinding XP via picking flowers for people.
Well, they aren't doing our quests and grinding for our XP. They're doing bandit quests, Venatori quests, Red Templar quests, Hessarian blades quests and gaining their own XP.
You can't tell me that my Inquisitor can kill a bunch of wolves to gain battle skill, but the enemy faction can't do the same even though there are instances where we see them do exactly that.
What is believable in the obligatory Dire Rat ™ from the starting zone suddenly levelling up to level 18 when you come back after having gained 20 levels yourself?
Does it gain class levels in Cleric and get renamed to "Dire Rat ™ of Doom +5"?
Can I play the Dire Rat ™ in my next playthrough? or at least recruit it as a companion? It would make for one hell of a party support.
You say that as a joke, and yet Origins had an animal that you brought with you that gained experience along side your party so...
Retour en haut