575 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

LH000 wrote...

Yes, I do agree. And it could also make
the whole thing more believable. On the other hand, I like getting
really powerful.

You can still do that; it just has to
happen over several games in a series.  Or just not start as a nameless
peasant.  The two Noble origins would be consistent with starting the
game at or near level 12.  So would the Mage origin (just rewrite the
lore a little bit).

Moogliepie wrote...

I apologize. You're right. It's much more believable that you can go from a nobody to a god-slaying superhero in a world of dragons, demons, werewolves, and fireball blasting mages in a very short time span.

Your sarcasm merely reinforces my position.  We need a shallower power curve, or a game that takes place over a much longer period.

[Akka le Vil]

Moogliepie wrote...

I apologize. You're right. It's much more believable that you can go from a nobody to a god-slaying superhero in a world of dragons, demons, werewolves, and fireball blasting mages in a very short time span. Damn the devs for making a gameplay design decision, instead if insisting on absolute realism and historical accuracy in this entirely fictional world.

Actually :

1) There is no need to go from "nobody" to "god-slaying superhero". You can go from "nobody" to "quite competent" or "very competent" to "dragon-slavying". It depends on how the designer put the power curve. Once again, people arguing in favor of level scaling just put in it plenty of points that are unrelated.

2) Actually, even if it's stretched, it's still, in fact, much more believable. Because "exageration" have still an underlying sense, while "totally nonsensical" hasn't.
The typical increase in power is certainly a bit exagerated, but the idea in itself (you get experience so you get stronger) is still logical.
Having someone totally unrelated to you becoming stronger just because you become stronger, having a world where there is totally nonsensical power scale (commoner stronger than an abomination because you encountered him later), have absolutely no logic.
So yes, an exagerated power increase is still a hundred times more logical than level scaling - not that it's a good idea to begin with, but level scaling is worse.

[LH000]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LH000 wrote...

Yes, I do agree. And it could also make
the whole thing more believable. On the other hand, I like getting
really powerful.

You can still do that; it just has to
happen over several games in a series.  Or just not start as a nameless
peasant.  The two Noble origins would be consistent with starting the
game at or near level 12.  So would the Mage origin (just rewrite the
lore a little bit).

And I should also admit that when I was last night writing sentence "I like getting more powerful" (and I would stress the word "getting" more than word "powerful") I failed to realize that in the context of the whole thread it is little nonsensical. In "non-level-scaled" world you would probably feel progression of your character more than in scaled world, even if absolute "power increase" would be smaller. 

[Kralyx]

I guess at the end of the day, it simply boils down to level-scaling vs. linear play. I suppose both have their place. I'm old school; I liked Might and Magic VI as the best example of this. The game world was very large and each region had monsters of a certain level and power (now than I think about it, World of Warcraft is like that too). You start off in easy regions against easy foes and if you traveled to a difficult region before you were experienced enough (read leveled), you died in 5 seconds in the first battle. Overall, that gives the best sense of progression.

Though I really do like DA:O and have played through a couple times, I'd like it better if the game was designed that way. I think one of the main reasons it isn't is that in truth, the game world is actually not that large and you can't explore. You just move from one set encounter location to another. Oh well, maybe someday some company will go back and do an old school CRPG like MM6 *sigh*

Modifié par Kralyx, 13 mars 2010 - 02:59 .

[hpjay]

I don't see what all the fuss is about. It's not like you're fighting kobolds all thru the game and they keep getting tougher along with you. Each of the main quest areas has its own unique enemies so that the level five baddies you face in one area at the beggining of the game bear little if any resemblance to the level 15 baddies in another at the end of the game. As for a commoner late in the game being tougher than an abomination earlier in the game; well, my character wasn't battling commoners throughout Fereldan so I'm not speaking from first hand experience but I'd think that statement is ridiculous hyperbole that bares no relation to actual game play.

[Realmzmaster]

The basic problem is no matter what the developer does someone is not going to be satisfied. The other problem is the resources already invested in the game engine. I do not see any radical changes in the forseeable future. It is simply not economical. Radical changes would simply delayed future games. Bioware is on a roll and must strike while the iron is hot unless everyone would rather wait three to five years for the sequel to DA:O to appear.

[linkrulesx10]

As this blight progresses thje darkspawn get stronger?

*one in character reason*



Well weak bandits aren't stupid enough to attack a grey warden, only the strongest and most game would dare such a thing.



I have no explination for wolves still killing you apart form the fact that wolves are hard!



If you enjoyed the non linear game then you have to put up with level scaling. else it would be really silly say you do mage tower first it is hard, then you do dwarves it is easier then the elves then it is super easy. no fun.

[LH000]

Realmzmaster wrote...

The basic problem is no matter what the developer does someone is not going to be satisfied. The other problem is the resources already invested in the game engine. I do not see any radical changes in the forseeable future. It is simply not economical. Radical changes would simply delayed future games. Bioware is on a roll and must strike while the iron is hot unless everyone would rather wait three to five years for the sequel to DA:O to appear.

I don't know nearly anything about programming games, but I think that while changing scaling system (or removing it) would be quite a radical change gameplay-wise, it will not add so much work to programmers to implement it. And since they claim to be changing (at least) graphics quite a lot, they are probably planning to make some changes except of new story etc. It just depends what their goals with the game are.... 

   

[hpjay]

Rob_R wrote...

hpjay wrote...

 As for a commoner late in the game being tougher than an abomination earlier in the game; well, my character wasn't battling commoners throughout Fereldan so I'm not speaking from first hand experience but I'd think that statement is ridiculous hyperbole that bares no relation to actual game play.

I think 'commoner' was just a random example.  If you want a realistic one, then one annoying little deep stalker in a later Thaig would have slaughtered the Ogre of Ishal in about two spits.  Suspension of disbelief, anyone?

Hmmm... I need to go back there as I don't recall any memorable deep stalkers.  Was there a mommy deep stalker around there.   Or was that a  Lieutenant.  And if it was the mommy deepstalker, who's to say it shouldn't be able to defeat an Ogre.  I had a tough time with that first Ogre, but by the end of the game I had absolutely no problems with even Alpha Ogres  - if I scouted ahead and only found a few Ogre's waiting  I'd have no problem rushing them.

[LH000]

hpjay wrote...

Rob_R wrote...

hpjay wrote...

 As for a commoner late in the game being tougher than an abomination earlier in the game; well, my character wasn't battling commoners throughout Fereldan so I'm not speaking from first hand experience but I'd think that statement is ridiculous hyperbole that bares no relation to actual game play.

I think 'commoner' was just a random example.  If you want a realistic one, then one annoying little deep stalker in a later Thaig would have slaughtered the Ogre of Ishal in about two spits.  Suspension of disbelief, anyone?

Hmmm... I need to go back there as I don't recall any memorable deep stalkers.  Was there a mommy deep stalker around there.   Or was that a  Lieutenant.  And if it was the mommy deepstalker, who's to say it shouldn't be able to defeat an Ogre.  I had a tough time with that first Ogre, but by the end of the game I had absolutely no problems with even Alpha Ogres  - if I scouted ahead and only found a few Ogre's waiting  I'd have no problem rushing them.

He was talking about a "casual" stalkers, and that is the point. There would be no problem if  3 meters tall stalker of legends would be able to kill an ogre. And yes, ogres are exactly those enemies, which were used to make you feel your character progression. But arguing with a fact that later you have no problems even with ogres alpha (while supposing they do not scale down) , while it is a known fact, that most enemies are at level 7 similarly dangerous like at lvl 14, is like sinking your own ship.

[hpjay]

LH000 wrote...

hpjay wrote...

Rob_R wrote...

hpjay wrote...

 As for a commoner late in the game being tougher than an abomination earlier in the game; well, my character wasn't battling commoners throughout Fereldan so I'm not speaking from first hand experience but I'd think that statement is ridiculous hyperbole that bares no relation to actual game play.

I think 'commoner' was just a random example.  If you want a realistic one, then one annoying little deep stalker in a later Thaig would have slaughtered the Ogre of Ishal in about two spits.  Suspension of disbelief, anyone?

Hmmm... I need to go back there as I don't recall any memorable deep stalkers.  Was there a mommy deep stalker around there.   Or was that a  Lieutenant.  And if it was the mommy deepstalker, who's to say it shouldn't be able to defeat an Ogre.  I had a tough time with that first Ogre, but by the end of the game I had absolutely no problems with even Alpha Ogres  - if I scouted ahead and only found a few Ogre's waiting  I'd have no problem rushing them.

He was talking about a "casual" stalkers, and that is the point. There would be no problem if  3 meters tall stalker of legends would be able to kill an ogre. And yes, ogres are exactly those enemies, which were used to make you feel your character progression. But arguing with a fact that later you have no problems even with ogres alpha (while supposing they do not scale down) , while it is a known fact, that most enemies are at level 7 similarly dangerous like at lvl 14, is like sinking your own ship.

You need to be more clear because I can't really tell what your going on about.  Rob_R thought that a deep stalker taking on the Ishal Orge was an example of bad level scaling.  I responded that I thought the deep stalkers weren't that tough (and I really don't see one of them taking on the Ogre  (i.e. I don't see the level scaling problem with that example)). 

You're bits about the Ogres -  I'm not sure what you're trying to say.   Are you saying Ogres at the end of the game were made easier than the Ogre at Ishal?  Can you rephrase your argument?

[Loc'n'lol]

Rob_R wrote...

I think 'commoner' was just a random example.  If you want a realistic one, then one annoying little deep stalker in a later Thaig would have slaughtered the Ogre of Ishal in about two spits.  Suspension of disbelief, anyone?

Yeah, realistic, indeed...
You realize that if a deep stalker could actually do that, it could also one-shot your level 20 PC, right ? <_<

[Tietovallu]

I don't think the OP has ever played the game past normal difficulty, not that the game would be any hard on nightmare either. In my experience all the enemies use a bigger variety of skills in nightmare which makes countering them really interesting. Even the threat system is much better.



For example: If you see a Genlock Emissary, you're going to guess he will probably cast crushing prison in the next few seconds to your tank. Holy smite him or your tank is ****ED.



The game is meant to be very easy and noobish on normal.

[Upper_Krust]

LH000 wrote...

I don't know nearly anything about programming games, but I think that while changing scaling system (or removing it) would be quite a radical change gameplay-wise, it will not add so much work to programmers to implement it. And since they claim to be changing (at least) graphics quite a lot, they are probably planning to make some changes except of new story etc. It just depends what their goals with the game are....

I don't think there would be a direct problem removing it. The problem is that when you do remove it you are going to have very few enemies across a given number of levels.

So if you have 40 total enemies in the game with level scaling we can pick and choose between those 40 at any point in the game. Once you remove the level scaling you will have something like 10 enemies to choose from over the course of maybe a 5 level span. Therefore if you are having about 20 battles per level up (on average) and each battle has maybe 1-4 enemy types (2.5 on average lets say), thats 250 potential enemy types over a 5-level period for which we'll only have a choice of 10 enemies. Lets see how we could break that down, might not be too bad:

Levels 1-5: Wolf, Spider, Rat, Bandit, Corpse, Skeleton, Dragonling, Bear, Mabari Hound, Desire Demon...boss = Ogre (we can use that boss in the next 5 levels)

Levels 6-10: Ogre, Genlock, Genlock Emissary, Blight Wolf, Deepstalker, Corrupted Spider, Bereskarn, Drake, Ghoul, Wisp, Guardsman, Pride Demon...boss = Uldred (Demon Ogre)

Levels 11-15: Demon Ogre, Sloth Demon, Hurlock, Hurlock Emissary, Golem (Stone), Dragon, Shade, Werewolf, Wild Sylvan, Bronto, Qunari Merc, Elite Guard...boss = Broodmother

Levels 16-20: Broodmother, Shriek, Golem (steel), Revenant, Arcane Horror, Hurlock General, High Dragon, Rage Demon, Abomination, Ash Wraith...boss = Archdemon

Awakening Levels 21-25: Archdemon? (maybe animated Archdemons from the past?) Disciple, Disciple Emissary, Charred Sylvan, Blight Werewolf, Inferno Golem...boss = ? (Queen of Black Marsh?)

Awakening Levels 26-30: Spectral Dragon, The Children (3 types), Armoured Ogre, ...boss = Architect

Might work, what do the rest of you think?

[LH000]

hpjay wrote...

LH000 wrote...

hpjay wrote...

Rob_R wrote...

hpjay wrote...

 As for a commoner late in the game being tougher than an abomination earlier in the game; well, my character wasn't battling commoners throughout Fereldan so I'm not speaking from first hand experience but I'd think that statement is ridiculous hyperbole that bares no relation to actual game play.

I think 'commoner' was just a random example.  If you want a realistic one, then one annoying little deep stalker in a later Thaig would have slaughtered the Ogre of Ishal in about two spits.  Suspension of disbelief, anyone?

Hmmm... I need to go back there as I don't recall any memorable deep stalkers.  Was there a mommy deep stalker around there.   Or was that a  Lieutenant.  And if it was the mommy deepstalker, who's to say it shouldn't be able to defeat an Ogre.  I had a tough time with that first Ogre, but by the end of the game I had absolutely no problems with even Alpha Ogres  - if I scouted ahead and only found a few Ogre's waiting  I'd have no problem rushing them.

He was talking about a "casual" stalkers, and that is the point. There would be no problem if  3 meters tall stalker of legends would be able to kill an ogre. And yes, ogres are exactly those enemies, which were used to make you feel your character progression. But arguing with a fact that later you have no problems even with ogres alpha (while supposing they do not scale down) , while it is a known fact, that most enemies are at level 7 similarly dangerous like at lvl 14, is like sinking your own ship.

You need to be more clear because I can't really tell what your going on about.  Rob_R thought that a deep stalker taking on the Ishal Orge was an example of bad level scaling.  I responded that I thought the deep stalkers weren't that tough (and I really don't see one of them taking on the Ogre  (i.e. I don't see the level scaling problem with that example)). 

You're bits about the Ogres -  I'm not sure what you're trying to say.   Are you saying Ogres at the end of the game were made easier than the Ogre at Ishal?  Can you rephrase your argument?

OK. So first, I apologize, but my english is quite a bad, so I am usually not able to express myself properly. But I will try to explain this to you.


So first: Basically, this is a thread where some people write why they do not like level scaling (and others oppose them) for various reasons. One of them is lack of feeling that your character is progressing/getting more powerful. Also, some do think, that fights seems to be more repetitive. Thing we are talking about is a problem with "believability/consistency" of the world.

Second: Some people do not like that "average skill" in the world is totally correlated with yours one (skill). This is quite understandable, since it is just weird (unless somehow explained in the game lore, but it is not). We were talking about one special problem raising from this mechanism.(Example:)  Because you meet both "casual", badly trained, badly equipped, unexperienced (battle-wise) bandits and highly trained and equipped soldiers (for example templars) through the whole game since the very beginning to the end, it is inevitable, that templar at the beginning is radically weaker than casual bandit from the end of the game. (I assume that you are gaining quite a much strenght thorugh the game [as you do in DA:O] and that both bandits and templars are "engageable" though whole game [it is just example, so we can assume  it is true]. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to use world "inevitable" in the sentence before this bracket.) And this just bothers some people.

Third: Rob was using similar example : just substitute bandit -> deep stalker; templar-> ogre. He was saying that ogre in the tower of Ishal is (probably, but truth is irrelevant in this case) weaker than little deep stalker in the late game. (This does not mean that ogre is weaker than stalker in same  location.)

Fourth: You were saying that you have not problem killing an alpha ogre in late location. Yet, killing a bandit in Denerim is similarly difficult as killing one in some of origin stories (if there are bandits, but again, this is just example). If we suppose that ogre in tower of Ishtal is not weaker than alpha ogre in late location, considering how difficult was Ishal-ogre to kill, and considering how "hard" it is to kill stalker in late game, you should deduce that your argument with ogres was in fact supporting those claiming that lvl-scaling is bad. 

I hope this helped.   

[LH000]

_Loc_N_lol_ wrote...

Rob_R wrote...

I think 'commoner' was just a random example.  If you want a realistic one, then one annoying little deep stalker in a later Thaig would have slaughtered the Ogre of Ishal in about two spits.  Suspension of disbelief, anyone?

Yeah, realistic, indeed...
You realize that if a deep stalker could actually do that, it could also one-shot your level 20 PC, right ? <_<

There is an misunderstanding between you and this thread . Please read my last post, or some other here explaining this.

[hpjay]

LH000 wrote...
OK. So first, I apologize, but my english is quite a bad, so I am usually not able to express myself properly. But I will try to explain this to you.


So first: Basically, this is a thread where some people write why they do not like level scaling (and others oppose them) for various reasons. One of them is lack of feeling that your character is progressing/getting more powerful. Also, some do think, that fights seems to be more repetitive. Thing we are talking about is a problem with "believability/consistency" of the world.

Second: Some people do not like that "average skill" in the world is totally correlated with yours one (skill). This is quite understandable, since it is just weird (unless somehow explained in the game lore, but it is not). We were talking about one special problem raising from this mechanism.(Example:)  Because you meet both "casual", badly trained, badly equipped, unexperienced (battle-wise) bandits and highly trained and equipped soldiers (for example templars) through the whole game since the very beginning to the end, it is inevitable, that templar at the beginning is radically weaker than casual bandit from the end of the game. (I assume that you are gaining quite a much strenght thorugh the game [as you do in DA:O] and that both bandits and templars are "engageable" though whole game [it is just example, so we can assume  it is true]. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to use world "inevitable" in the sentence before this bracket.) And this just bothers some people.

Third: Rob was using similar example : just substitute bandit -> deep stalker; templar-> ogre. He was saying that ogre in the tower of Ishal is (probably, but truth is irrelevant in this case) weaker than little deep stalker in the late game. (This does not mean that ogre is weaker than stalker in same  location.)

Fourth: You were saying that you have not problem killing an alpha ogre in late location. Yet, killing a bandit in Denerim is similarly difficult as killing one in some of origin stories (if there are bandits, but again, this is just example). If we suppose that ogre in tower of Ishtal is not weaker than alpha ogre in late location, considering how difficult was Ishal-ogre to kill, and considering how "hard" it is to kill stalker in late game, you should deduce that your argument with ogres was in fact supporting those claiming that lvl-scaling is bad. 

I hope this helped.   

No problem.  I think though, that if level scaling is an issue,  it's an issue applicable to the genre in general, not DAO in particular.  

I think the whole argument comes down to this bit you said here:  " If we suppose that ogre in tower of Ishtal is not weaker than alpha ogre in late location, considering how difficult was Ishal-ogre to kill, and considering how "hard" it is to kill stalker in late game, you should deduce that your argument with ogres was in fact supporting those claiming that lvl-scaling is bad. "

I think on general, the Alpha Ogres late in the game are more powerful than the Ogre early in the game.  Is that not the case?  Assuming the Alpha Ogres were more powerful, my relative ease defeating them late in the game demonstrates my character becoming more powerful and  is an argument that level scaling is not an issue at this juncture.

Also, I did not find the deep stalker difficult to kill later in the game.  I thought the deep stalkers were, on the whole, rather easy enemies.  I wouldn't think a single deep stalker from that part of the game would stand a chance with the Ogre early in the game.  Maybe there was a "boss" deep stalker that possibly could take on the early Ogre, but I would not necessarily see that as an example of how level scaling is bad.  Perhaps a boss deep stalker is suppose to be tough.  Bottom line, deep stalkers (common or boss) were fodder for my characters.  



I think this discussion is better suited to a "spoilers allow" forum.  We could be close to spoiler territory the more we talk about specific encounters.  What was the OP thinking by posting here instead of the spoilers allow forum.   EPIC FAIL.

[tmp7704]

Akka le Vil wrote...

I hate level scaling because it remove the very reason why we level up, and because it makes the game-world completely unbelievable.

As long as you have any kind of power growth in the game at all then the "game world being completely unbelievable" is going to be issue no matter if you have level scaling or if it's set up in the way you champion.

Why? Simply, because it means the world has in the end still be artificially tailored to the player's level, to allow them to navigate through the story from the beginning to end. If you intend to put the player in the spotlight from the get-go then you can't have 'realistically strong' enemies in the beginning of the story because the player would be simply too weak to overcome them. So you have to create artificial setups which justify lack of such enemies.. and that winds up just as unbelievable as the level scaling.
 
The 'world that makes sense' would have to have regular strength darkspawn around Ostagar, meaning enemies of level 15-20. And then an even stronger ogre up in the tower. And packs of l.10 or so wolves. Now have fun "navigating" that as small group of l.1-2 characters. Believable? Certainly but hardly playable and that's the point -- it's normal for a game to bend rules of reality. If that bothers you then it's unfortunate but at least please recognize your proposed solution to that is suffering from the same flaw.

[wowpwnslol]

Tietovallu wrote...

I don't think the OP has ever played the game past normal difficulty, not that the game would be any hard on nightmare either. In my experience all the enemies use a bigger variety of skills in nightmare which makes countering them really interesting. Even the threat system is much better.

For example: If you see a Genlock Emissary, you're going to guess he will probably cast crushing prison in the next few seconds to your tank. Holy smite him or your tank is ****ED.

The game is meant to be very easy and noobish on normal.

The game is very easy on Nightmare too. No amount of difficulty is going to change this game's awful AI.


PS Your tank dies in a crushing prison? Good one.

[LH000]

hpjay wrote...

I think on general, the Alpha Ogres late in the game are more powerful than the Ogre early in the game.  Is that not the case?  Assuming the Alpha Ogres were more powerful, my relative ease defeating them late in the game demonstrates my character becoming more powerful and  is an argument that level scaling is not an issue at this juncture.

Also, I did not find the deep stalker difficult to kill later in the game.  I thought the deep stalkers were, on the whole, rather easy enemies.  I wouldn't think a single deep stalker from that part of the game would stand a chance with the Ogre early in the game.  Maybe there was a "boss" deep stalker that possibly could take on the early Ogre, but I would not necessarily see that as an example of how level scaling is bad.  Perhaps a boss deep stalker is suppose to be tough.  Bottom line, deep stalkers (common or boss) were fodder for my characters.  

You are right that ogres themselves demonstrate your characters growth.(1)

Also you are right that deep stalkers are easy enemies.   But because of (1), late ogres are not so strong at all (relatively to you).  Now, to be as clear as possible let suppose this example:  WARNING: Minor spoilers regarding enemies-composition in some areas will folow.




Let's say that you went to Brecilian forest at lvl 8 [just to remind,in DA:O area lvl is set upon your arrival there, and remains same in future]. You let one of the ogres alive there. Then you leveled up somewhere else, and visited Deep Roads at lvl 17. Ogres there would be (in absolute meaning of the word) much stronger than those in Brecilian forest ,(although relative to your strenght they would be similarly chalenging). There would also be deep stalkers, which would be quite weak, but still, they can do a little damage to you and also, most of the party members will not on-shot kill them. I think that if you would return to Brecilian forest, that one remaining ogre would be lesser challenge than a deep stalker in lvl17 area. (But maybe I am wrong, but anyway, this illustrates logic beyond "unbelievability" arguments.) You addressed this very argument in your post, I have to admit I haven't read it carefully first time, but I'll post this anyway, because of  what is written in bracket.


And to formulate why is argument about ogres getting weaker through the game in fact supporting "unbelievability" caused by lvl-scaling in different words:  Ogres are getting weaker relatively to you while most other creatures do not; and this is it.    

[TheRealIncarnal]

Although the Dragon Age system isn't perfect, I found it to be far better than many others I've played in the past. Sure, there's still some "WTF? Why are these wolves so incredibly badass?" and "If the criminals in Denerim are so strong maybe we should have had them fight at Ostagar?" moments, but on the whole I found that keeping the enemies scaled to my level in each area worked fairly well.



Mind you, I've once made the mistake of going straight to Brecellian Forrest from Lothering and trying to fight the Revenants, and that was a mess but they're supposed to be very strong. All I had to do was come back later and the encounters were much more manageable. Of course, they're optional though.



I mean, no one wants the Ogre in the tower to be level 16, even though that seems like a reasonable power level for an Ogre when I think about it. It's just that it's no fun to be Forced to run into a brick wall.



For example, if you wait too long to complete the Main Quest in Oblivion, meaning you go around and do everything else before hand, then you've actually made the Main Quest almost impossible to win. After a point equipment doesn't get any better, but enemies keep getting stronger and stronger. I've played Oblivion at level 100 before (a community character), and you absolutely wouldn't believe how weak you are at that point, as you'll be playing against level 100 Daedric Enemies who continued to get more powerful even when you've run out of ways to become more powerful yourself a LONG time ago.



That doesn't really happen so much in this game, and I appreciate that.

[Tietovallu]

wowpwnslol wrote...

Tietovallu wrote...

I don't think the OP has ever played the game past normal difficulty, not that the game would be any hard on nightmare either. In my experience all the enemies use a bigger variety of skills in nightmare which makes countering them really interesting. Even the threat system is much better.

For example: If you see a Genlock Emissary, you're going to guess he will probably cast crushing prison in the next few seconds to your tank. Holy smite him or your tank is ****ED.

The game is meant to be very easy and noobish on normal.

The game is very easy on Nightmare too. No amount of difficulty is going to change this game's awful AI.


PS Your tank dies in a crushing prison? Good one.

That was just an exaggerated example what MIGHT happen to someone. No, he doesnt die.

[Loc'n'lol]

Rob_R wrote...

No it couldn't.  What I mean is that the Ishal Ogre is designed for weak, low level players.  It is a tough opponent for those (weak/fresh) players.  A deep stalker is a weak opponent, but has been scaled up to provide a (minor) challenge for tough level 20 players.  Therefore .... hypothetically, if the level 20 deep stalker met the level 3 Ishal Ogre, the deep stalker would probably win.  Although in story terms (of course), one is an 'epic' boss and the other is just a nuisance.  That is what makes level scaling ridiculous.

No... simply no. This isn't DnD where 1 level = 1 HD.

Aeducan Thaig, PC = level 17
The average deepstalker is a level 13 critter (yeah, it will never be more than level 13 no matter what your level is) has a little under 200 hit points and hits for negligible damage (single digit).

Tower of Ishal, PC = level 5
The ogre is a level 7 boss, it has over 500HP (possibly quite a bit more, it's difficult to keep track of damage done without a battle log...) and hits for 30-40 damage...

Creature rank is much more significant than the displayed "level". A one-hit kill Archdemon would be just what the name says, a one-hit kill, even if it was level 25.
But of course, the level 5 PC who triumphed over the ogre would probably get raped by the pack of level 13 deepstalker critters that pose no challenge at all to the level 17 PC, but individually, each deepstalker doesn't stand a chance against that ogre, don't be ridiculous...