575 réponses à ce sujet

[booke63]

I've read quite a bit in this interesting thread, and the particulars at issue are really part of the overall interpay between gameplay, realism/immersion, and metagaming. The "problem" with DAO is it's not real and we humans living on Earth do not abide in the game.



If we did abide in the game then level-scaling or not would never be evident--and who would care? Is your level printed on your forehead? Is that how you know you're getting stronger? No, you would be a GW who sees Blight/Darkspawn as a continual threat to kill you, kill everyone, and take over the planet. As you got stronger, more skilled, and learned more spells, you would continuously discover that the Blight/Darkspawn are still super dangerous and still a threat. Always. Big surprise. Seems to be the whole point of the continuous existence of the GWs and plenty of reason to be very glad when you get stronger or learn a new spell. Consider that Duncan, who DOES abide in the game, shows little evidence that he feels very superior to the Blight/Darkspawn. You should? Only if you don't abide in the game.



Ok, so we are "by nature" metagamers because we cannot abide in the game, so the other two elements I mentioned, gameplay and realism/immersion, are always in our perspective, always available to our individual minds, here, living on Earth.



My assertion, here, is that there is always a tension between gameplay and realism/immersion where realism or logic or common sense butts up against gameplay, immersion breaks, and we here on Earth are disappointed. Metagaming kicks in, we complain about the gameplay design and say it's wrong because it feels unrealistic to my metagaming perspective. My immersion is broken. Consequently we discuss how the game "should be" (as metagamers) and have discussions like level scaling good, level scaling bad, arguing that one (or the other) is required to make an immersive game experience.



Fair enough. Pick your side. But I say, level scaling or not, from our metagame perspective you will always be able to detect THE GAME and bump into its structure. The almost too obvious example is saving and reloading the game or another is all games are beatable. The key to developing and implementing a good game isn't level scaling--or not. It's in hiding, disguising, in myriad ways burying the gameplay's hard edges, helping us keep immersed in play and metagaming at bay. And this thread has many interesting solutions to do just that using the genre, story, areas, ranks, power curve, more monsters, etc. These would be the solutions to the problem, not simply the decision to avoid level scaling. Don't forget, we've all seen how BOTH level scaling and not can be implemented badly.



I think the main argument here, level scaling or not, is really a minor issue compared to all that would be necessary to developing/implementing well either choice, and the value to the thread is in all the interesting suggestions as to how to do it. I also have a sneaking suspicion that the best developing done on this would discover that level scaling and not, while in opposition, are NOT fully mutually exclusive.

[Realmzmaster]

@booke63,

You are correct that we are engaging in metagaming. The point is that which is immersion breaking to one group may not be for another group. Some of the solutions presented can have the same immersion breaking potential for a particular group. No game will or has completely satisfied everyone.

It is easy for gamers to sit back and be an armchair general. Hindsight is always 20/20.

You are correct that the big point is how well the developer can hide the game. But at the end of the day it is still a game. The minute you Save and Reload you know it is a game. I want to be able to get lost in the game between save and reload.

There have been examples given of level 7 ogres and level thirteen deepstalkers. In my point of view I do not care about the enemy's level. My PC only sees an enemy to be removed. It can be a level 7 wolf or level 18 wolf, it simply must die for the PC to reach the goal.

In the end the only question I ask myself is "Am I having fun?". If I can answer that question with a yes that is all that matters.

[Haexpane]

Level scaling in ANY game is usually broken, annoying and hurts immersion. Fallout 3 ALMOST gets it right.



Oblivion was outright broken for 70% of the game because of lame level scaling. It made some areas way too hard (oblivion gates) and tedious while other areas way too easy (random bandits in high level armor, get rich quick)



I prefer the tried and true method, the further away you get from n00b town, the harder the enemies get. So rats outside the gate are easy at level 20, but the god in his plane is hard for everyone.



Why is that so hard to implement in a single player RPG these days? Everyone is trying to sell more units to the halo teabagging dimwits.

[Upper_Krust]

Figured out the solution to all this. We replace level scaling with RANK SCALING.

Lets say we have 5 humans (warriors, wizards or rogues) of differing levels.

Novice = Level 3 Normal rank
Journeyman = Level 8 Normal rank
Expert = Level 13 Normal rank
Master = Level 18 Normal rank
Grandmaster = Level 23 Normal rank

Lets say the PCs are between Levels 6-10 when we fight ALL the above. The game changes the opponents ranks by +/-1 rank for every 5 level difference.

Novice = Level 8 Weak Normal rank
Journeyman = Level 8 Normal rank
Expert = Level 8 Lieutenant rank
Master = Level 8 Boss rank
Grandmaster = Level 8 Elite Boss rank

So fighting a Grandmaster at Level 8 and he will be as hard as the Archdemon, fighting him at Level 13 and he'll just be a Boss rank, at level 18 a Lieutenant rank, Level 23 normal rank and Level 28 weak normal rank.

Hurlock = Level 3 Boss
Hurlocks = Level 8 Lieutenant
Hurlocks = Level 13 Normal
Hurlocks = Level 18 Weak Normal

Hurlock Alpha = Level 3 Elite Boss
Hurlock Alpha = Level 8 Boss
Hurlock Alpha = Level 13 Lieutenant
Hurlock Alpha = Level 18 Normal
Hurlock Alpha = Level 23 Weak Normal

Hurlock Emissary = Level 8 Elite Boss
Hurlock Emissary = Level 13 Boss
Hurlock Emissary = Level 18 Lieutenant
Hurlock Emissary = Level 23 Normal
Hurlock Emissary = Level 28 Weak Normal

Hurlock General = Level 13 Elite Boss
Hurlock General = Level 18 Boss
Hurlock General = Level 23 Lieutenant
Hurlock General = Level 28 Normal
Hurlock General = Level 33 Weak Normal

Hurlock Disciple = Level 18 Elite Boss
Hurlock Disciple = Level 23 Boss
Hurlock Disciple = Level 28 Lieutenant
Hurlock Disciple = Level 33 Normal
Hurlock Disciple = Level 38 Weak Normal

etc.

What do you think?

[Realmzmaster]

There is a reason why developers are trying to get away from the tried and true method, it makes for a linear game. I have played many games using the tried and true method. The replayability of the game takes a hit. The tried and true methods had your party doing quests in a certain order. If your party was not of a high enough level to get to the next area you had to run around trying to trigger random encounters so you could level up and get stronger which was very boring.

If you played the Bard Tale series (other early CRPGs are also guilty) part of the tried and true methods was to have combat every five to ten steps.

The problem with the tried and true methods is that it has kept the CRPG market in its small niche. If the market is to expand and grow it has to try a different formula to attract newcomers.

Level scaling may not be the answer, but going back to the tried and true methods may attract the old school faithful gamers, but where does that leave the genre in the future.

The old adage is still true as the market and audience change , Adapt or die. Consoles gamers are here to stay and companies like Bioware need to tap that market. We may not like it but there is nothing as constant as change (for better or worse).

[tmp7704]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Completely false.
You do not, at all, experience the same thing with level scaling or small power increase. You do become stronger, not stay at the same relative level, and, more importantly, the foe has a logical power, not an absurd one, which make for more variance and a more believable world.

You become minimally stronger (any other case it's the failure of supposed "small power increase" in the first place) and this is by no means "completely false" unless we're going to get hang up on the semantics. Or to tackle it from the other end, exactly how is your minimal gain in power making the experience so much different?

And please, let's not try to involve "logical and believable" when we talk about settings where people take multiple stabs in the eyes with two-hander and keep kicking. And where "the wizard did it" is equivalent of 42. There's no logic in this, just personal threshold of what feels too absurd to accept.

That's called "tuning". Adjust the actual increase so it's noticeable but not too high.

That's called "handwaving" or "everything is simple for armchair quarterback". "Noticeable but not too high" is bound to vary from person to person, just like the mentioned earlier threshold of absurdity. For one person 'not too high' will be 1% per level, for another 10% and for another 20% except that will make the first guy freak out because now it means character with 5 extra levels is 2x as powerful and you no longer get the 'low level character is still a threat" enough for him. For that matter he'll probably freak out at the 10% as well because it means 2x the power in just 10 levels. Seriously, i don't wish upon anyone to have to "tune" that.

I generalize because the general impression I get is that I'm just going nowhere when it comes to the supposed increase of my character. I'm able to kick the butt of a supposed kingdom champion at level 1, and the fight is the same challenge (easier in fact) than when I fight some random bandits later and I'm level 12.
Now, fighting a champion at level 1 should get me trashed, not an easier feat than killing a rag-tag bunch of losers.

This has hardly anything to do with auto-scaling the way DA does it, and much more with the story setup of the game. You can beat the supposed kingdom champion at l.1 because the game plot expects you to do so. Yes, they could've "realistically" make him a yellow- or orange-con l.16 guy of revenant-like power and that'd simply mean the story of your character would end right there and then.

The thing is, if this was game without auto-scaling but with fixed levels instead you can bet as long as the story expected you to beat this guy in order to proceed, he'd be given the level which would actually allow you to beat him while you're yourself l.1. And everything you'd run into afterwards would feel equally 'too powerful' compared to that "champion". And you'd have exactly same reason to complain.

Well, that's your opinion. I didn't saw any linearity in Fallout for my part. You will get killed if you rush to the Supermutants base directly, or if you go toes to toes with a Deathclaw (as it SHOULD BE), but that's about it. Nearly everything else can be done at any level, and without level scaling.

It's not like Fallout has that many places to visit after you exclude that too-hard end-game content, but fine. How about the other point then, which was how despite being based on supposedly superior fixed level system the combat in Fallout is absolutely nothing to write home about and fails to provide any notable variations in the player's experience?

[JBurke]

Level scaling is why I like New Game+ modes. When you play a New Game+ you're likely at the highest level possible and thus the enemy can never really scale up past the point of its minimum and maximum pre-sets and the story's difficulty changes merely from progression and not an artificial difficulty modifier. I'd prefer the story progression dictate the difficulty of the fight, not my level.
This is one of the reasons why I adore games like ME2 with the "New Game+" system. On my current Insanity run the enemies are the same difficulty but the fights are tougher by their numbers and my disadvantages when approaching situations.

Modifié par JBurke, 17 mars 2010 - 04:30 .

[LH000]

booke63 wrote...

 As you got stronger, more skilled, and learned more spells, you would continuously discover that the Blight/Darkspawn are still super dangerous and still a threat. Always. Big surprise.

No, you are wrong. Either you didn't get stronger, or you've encountered more powerful Darkspawn member, or you have encountered same Darkspawn and they are weaker then before.

booke63 wrote...

Seems to be the whole point of the continuous existence of the GWs and plenty of reason to be very glad when you get stronger or learn a new spell. Consider that Duncan, who DOES abide in the game, shows little evidence that he feels very superior to the Blight/Darkspawn. You should? Only if you don't abide in the game.

Most people complaining here about lvl-scaling would not see it a problem, if there would be much shallower power curve or just different enemies as you grow stronger.

booke63 wrote...

My assertion, here, is that there is always a tension between gameplay and realism/immersion where realism or logic or common sense butts up against gameplay, immersion breaks, and we here on Earth are disappointed.

(Bold letters are not part of original post.)
Although it is quite often true, it is not true always. In  fact, some portion of realism is always necessary.

booke63 wrote... 

Fair enough. Pick your side. But I say, level scaling or not, from our metagame perspective you will always be able to detect THE GAME and bump into its structure. The almost too obvious example is saving and reloading the game or another is all games are beatable. The key to developing and implementing a good game isn't level scaling--or not. It's in hiding, disguising, in myriad ways burying the gameplay's hard edges, helping us keep immersed in play and metagaming at bay. And this thread has many interesting solutions to do just that using the genre, story, areas, ranks, power curve, more monsters, etc. These would be the solutions to the problem, not simply the decision to avoid level scaling. Don't forget, we've all seen how BOTH level scaling and not can be implemented badly.

I think you are right. But keep in mind that most people here are complaining about implementation of level scaling in DA:O, not idea of level scaling itself.

booke63 wrote...

 I also have a sneaking suspicion that the best developing done on this would discover that level scaling and not, while in opposition, are NOT fully mutually exclusive.

As far as I know, it is one of basic principles (axioms) of logics, that a predicament and it's negation are mutually exclusive. Either you are shifting your definition of level scaling while you jump from thinking about level-scaling-yes to thinking about level-scaling-no, or you are referring that some portions of the game could be scaled while others not, or something, Anyway, your sentence is wrong .


[edit]:quoting and one typo

Modifié par LH000, 17 mars 2010 - 09:43 .

[booke63]

@LH000: Good comments!



All I'm really getting at in my weird way with "abiding in the game" is to say many of the gripes about level scaling can be roleplayed away as you pretend to abide in the game. In real life a football player can get stronger and faster and be "the best" but still be consistantly challenged and the potential to be beat on any given play is ever present. That's just a way to look at it but translated to in-game; it's roleplaying. Or, you can look at it from a metagame perspective and understand it as the level scaling problem and worry about the game mechanic. Go for it. A broader base to one's roleplaying is just another way to "solve" the problem of realism as given in a video game.



As to you saying there always needs to be some realism...of course. It's just you will bump into THE GAME no matter what because it's...not real life. So you use your imagination and work out some kind of game sense, like common sense but based as much as possible according to what is given in game. Or, you can consider and critique the game mechanic and...well have a long thread discussing it on a forum, I guess. It's cool and hopefully valuable to development of new games. But there always will be a tension between gameplay and realism, and I expect always to give the developers assistance no matter how well gameplay is implemented which is to say I will roleplay as well as I can.



Some are clearly advocating no level scaling as THE way to go, not merely that DAO implemented level scaling badly.



Oh and read Hegel for example. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Perhaps the "statements themselves" of "level scale, not level scale" can't be reconciled, but the ideas they represent could be, the way they are to work in a specific game could be.

[k9medusa]

Sometimes, I found "realism" gets in the way of the game -- For example, some mods that I played before made you carry 500 pounds of stuff/juck/crap to camp (rest) or will not let you rest in some areas, all in the name of "realism" Since, I played a mage 90% of the time, I have to rest a lot and can not carry a lot of crap either -- Oh how I hate camping, the worst idea on the earth -- even hell sounds more fun Did I say I hate the whole camping idea?



On side note: I do really live to camp in RL...

[LH000]

booke63 wrote...

@LH000: Good comments!

Well, thank you... unless it was sarcasm !

booke63 wrote...

All I'm really getting at in my weird way with "abiding in the game" is to say many of the gripes about level scaling can be roleplayed away as you pretend to abide in the game. In real life a football player can get stronger and faster and be "the best" but still be consistantly challenged and the potential to be beat on any given play is ever present. That's just a way to look at it but translated to in-game; it's roleplaying. Or, you can look at it from a metagame perspective and understand it as the level scaling problem and worry about the game mechanic. Go for it. A broader base to one's roleplaying is just another way to "solve" the problem of realism as given in a video game.

As to you saying there always needs to be some realism...of course. It's just you will bump into THE GAME no matter what because it's...not real life. So you use your imagination and work out some kind of game sense, like common sense but based as much as possible according to what is given in game. Or, you can consider and critique the game mechanic and...well have a long thread discussing it on a forum, I guess. It's cool and hopefully valuable to development of new games. But there always will be a tension between gameplay and realism, and I expect always to give the developers assistance no matter how well gameplay is implemented which is to say I will roleplay as well as I can.

I think I got your point and mostly, I agree. Still, as you surely know after reading this thread, this mechanism is making roleplaying quite a harder for some people.

booke63 wrote... 
Some are clearly advocating no level scaling as THE way to go, not merely that DAO implemented level scaling badly.

Here, I surely cannot argue. But people posting ideas on modifications of DA:O scaling system were probably aware of a fact that they do not advocate no-level-scaling-way.

booke63 wrote...
Oh and read Hegel for example. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Perhaps the "statements themselves" of "level scale, not level scale" can't be reconciled, but the ideas they represent could be, the way they are to work in a specific game could be.

Do you have any more specific idea about how it would be? I find it to be rather interesting, since I do not see any way like that myself.

Thanks for your response (this one, I'm not forcing you to answer my last question ).

[Bibdy]

The concept of Level Scaling lets players get cooler, more awesomely insanely powerful abilities, without the game becoming retardedly trivial.



How many RPGs have you played where you unlocked one specific item/power and the game became 10 times easier?

[Haexpane]

Realmzmaster wrote...

  , Adapt or die. Consoles gamers are here to stay and companies like Bioware need to tap that market. We may not like it but there is nothing as constant as change (for better or worse).

This is the biggest myth in all of gaming.  That somehow "console gamers" enjoy dumbed down, easy experiences.

Demon's Souls, despite Sony passing on it for NA/Europe, sells 250k and wins GOTY from GS.

Deus Ex Invisible War?  Dumbed down PC game, "console gamers" hated it just as much as "PC gamers"  this is a false distinction as well.  I've been gaming on both consoles and PCs for many years. 

Gamers have different tastes, and sure there is the halo teabagging douchlords that drive sales of crap like Halo 3 and Gears 2.  But this idea that you have to dumb things down, make everything a cover shooter and easy to get sales is false. 

Molyneux is one of the leaders in chasing this red herring with the Fable Franchise, every time he dumbs the game down more and more with powerpoints explaining how "gamers didn't understand the depth" of Fable 2... which is simply him not understanding that Fable 2 was NOT DEEP, press a button to fart is not deep complex gameplay.

"adapt or die" is a generic cliche that also implies previous generations of games did not adapt.  That is false, games developers are constantly adapting.

Level scaling is a bad mechanic that no one has able to get right.   It's a workaround to a non-problem.  It was a mechanic developed with the INTENT to achieve something, it has never been a success.

Oblivion is the poster boy for scaling ruining RPGs and being a worthless mechanic that often works in reverse.

It's human nature to assume, the closer to "home" you are, the safter you are. That is how we are wired from thousands of years of evolution.  Cave = safe spot, 5 mile hike to go hunting = more dangerous.  

This scaling idea that "everything is about the same no matter where you go" simply violates are understanding of the world at the most basic level.  New/far away = dangerous BUT possibly rewarding too.

Close to home = safe, and not as exciting.  Why fight it?

[Haexpane]

tmp7704 wrote...

 
It's not like Fallout has that many places to visit after you exclude that too-hard end-game content, but fine. How about the other point then, which was how despite being based on supposedly superior fixed level system the combat in Fallout is absolutely nothing to write home about and fails to provide any notable variations in the player's experience?

The expansions fixed the problem with no high end combat, and "too easy" everything.  level 20-30 with new enemies is much more reasonable in FO3.  Enemies are much stronger, and have some perks that really give them an edge to help their broken AI fight back.

[Haexpane]

Bibdy wrote...

The concept of Level Scaling lets players get cooler, more awesomely insanely powerful abilities, without the game becoming retardedly trivial.

How many RPGs have you played where you unlocked one specific item/power and the game became 10 times easier?

The concept of level scaling never quite works on tho in reality.

How many RPGs have I played where 1 item or spell or class breaks the game?  Every single RPG ever (pre patches for MMOs)

Scaling has never worked to balance a game, ever.

[Akka le Vil]

tmp7704 wrote...

You become minimally stronger (any other case it's the failure of supposed "small power increase" in the first place) and this is by no means "completely false" unless we're going to get hang up on the semantics. Or to tackle it from the other end, exactly how is your minimal gain in power making the experience so much different?

Seriously, you can't tell the difference between the character gaining experience getting slight increase of power, and everyone in the world getting several large increase in power ?

And please, let's not try to involve "logical and believable" when we talk about settings where people take multiple stabs in the eyes with two-hander and keep kicking. And where "the wizard did it" is equivalent of 42. There's no logic in this, just personal threshold of what feels too absurd to accept.

Well, I'm afraid that having the champion of a country that spent all its time fighting the darkspawn, being weaker than a random pest, is actually quite too absurd by any standard.

This has hardly anything to do with auto-scaling the way DA does it, and much more with the story setup of the game. You can beat the supposed kingdom champion at l.1 because the game plot expects you to do so. Yes, they could've "realistically" make him a yellow- or orange-con l.16 guy of revenant-like power and that'd simply mean the story of your character would end right there and then.

Both go hand in hand. I already pointed that the problem in DOA is that they tried to put a concept of "you start as a greenhorn and ends up as a mighty battle machine" in a story where you are already a very strong hero right from the beginning. They tried to cope by using a fundamentally flawed concept (level scaling) rather than simply going with a more logical "let's just let the player begin at a higher level", but keep the levels static.

It's not like Fallout has that many places to visit after you exclude that too-hard end-game content, but fine.

This is a joke, right ?
There is a little part of the map in the south-west where you encounter centaurs and supermutant. Basically everything else is fair game. Maybe a bit dangerous, but you can flee.
Are you talking about the game ?

How about the other point then, which was how despite being based on supposedly superior fixed level system the combat in Fallout is absolutely nothing to write home about and fails to provide any notable variations in the player's experience?

Err... And so what ?
The combat system has nothing to do with level scaling. I could just as well argue that level scaling is bad because DAO had a brown colour theme ? That would be such an argument !

[GeorgeZip]

The scaling works fine because you aren't retreading old ground all the time. The reason scaling was soooooo terrible in Oblivion was old areas you cleared respawn and now have new and improved bandits or wolves to knock you off your horse. In this game you rarely travel the same place twice and the fights are always fairly challenging. So for the most part it works well.



They could spice it up a bit by placing a really hard optional monster in an early zone that you'd want to revisit later for revenge. I'm thinking of the BG2 demi-lich's that you can meet and get owned by very early. It was satisfying to come back later and smack them down. **spoiler** I guess Morrigans mother might count as this depending on how you handle the dialogue.



I would agree on the lack of variety in monsters.

[68italianwarlord]

yeah monster and tactics variety really killed the replay value for me. you fight an army of the same 5 or 6 generic mobs over and over, usually with the same generic strategy of aoeing them behind a wall. i feel like the game is the same level 6 as it was 25 as it is on your second playthrough level 6. they spent way too much time on animating the morrigan sex scene and too little on making a long lasting title.

[Realmzmaster]

Haexpane wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

  , Adapt or die. Consoles gamers are here to stay and companies like Bioware need to tap that market. We may not like it but there is nothing as constant as change (for better or worse).

This is the biggest myth in all of gaming.  That somehow "console gamers" enjoy dumbed down, easy experiences.

Demon's Souls, despite Sony passing on it for NA/Europe, sells 250k and wins GOTY from GS.

Deus Ex Invisible War?  Dumbed down PC game, "console gamers" hated it just as much as "PC gamers"  this is a false distinction as well.  I've been gaming on both consoles and PCs for many years. 

Gamers have different tastes, and sure there is the halo teabagging douchlords that drive sales of crap like Halo 3 and Gears 2.  But this idea that you have to dumb things down, make everything a cover shooter and easy to get sales is false. 

Molyneux is one of the leaders in chasing this red herring with the Fable Franchise, every time he dumbs the game down more and more with powerpoints explaining how "gamers didn't understand the depth" of Fable 2... which is simply him not understanding that Fable 2 was NOT DEEP, press a button to fart is not deep complex gameplay.

"adapt or die" is a generic cliche that also implies previous generations of games did not adapt.  That is false, games developers are constantly adapting.

Level scaling is a bad mechanic that no one has able to get right.   It's a workaround to a non-problem.  It was a mechanic developed with the INTENT to achieve something, it has never been a success.

Oblivion is the poster boy for scaling ruining RPGs and being a worthless mechanic that often works in reverse.

It's human nature to assume, the closer to "home" you are, the safter you are. That is how we are wired from thousands of years of evolution.  Cave = safe spot, 5 mile hike to go hunting = more dangerous.  

This scaling idea that "everything is about the same no matter where you go" simply violates are understanding of the world at the most basic level.  New/far away = dangerous BUT possibly rewarding too.

Close to home = safe, and not as exciting.  Why fight it?

Interesting that you took one sentence from my entire post. I never said that console gamers were looking for a dumbed down experience. But the very nature of the controls and interface will make the experience different. You are correct that gamers look for different things in the gaming experience.  
The basic point of the post is that the tried and true method made for linear games. Everyone had to follow the same path to reach the same point.
Why should the game world limit where I can go. This is why I like DA:O. I can pick any location and go there. If I want to go to Denerim after Lothering I can (and I have). If I want to go to Redcliffe I can.
I am not  pigeonholed into one set path.
So while some wish to go back to the tried and true method I choose not to go back. I have played many of those CRPGs. I prefer the method that Bioware has adopted. What I meant by Adapt or die is that Bioware moved from the linear design of BG1 and BG2 to a more open design which I like.

[Realmzmaster]

I disagree with the lack of replayability. I am on my sixth playthrough and still having fun. But YMMV.

[Lancer347]

Level scaling does allow you to determine your path through the game, but I agree with the OP about the surrealisticness of it. Maybe there could be a compromise, using the most tried pen and paper approach?
More bad guys!
Say we set genlocks to be level 8 all the time, and a certain encounter calls for them. You're level 8? You have to fight 2-3, you're level 20? You have to fight a dozen. You could justify this by saying the blight is becoming worse and darkspawn are becoming more prevalent as the game progresses. A couple variations could be thrown in, like Genlock Veterans, or something. They could be larger or have some other clear visual difference, but they would need to be leading a party of chump genlocks or we're back to level scaling anyway. So say for every 5 genlocks, a veteran appears with them, for every 10, an emissary.
For the purpose of DAO, armor and armor penetration effectiveness would need to be globally adjusted from their currently scaling (with levels) to a more constant average.

Just throwing the idea out as a compromise to allow scaling but still can obviously tell you're growing stronger.

Modifié par Lancer347, 18 mars 2010 - 04:27 .

[Jackalofdeath]

im going to agree, level scaling ruins the point of leveling up in the first place.



1) you never get stronger because your enemies are always the same level as you.

2) there is no sense of an RPG and it basically boils down to a dungeon crawler hack and slash game

3) there is no sense of progression, your character doesnt feel powerful after slaying dragons, because he could end up being killed by a wolf 5 minutes later

[booke63]

Haexpane wrote...
This scaling idea that "everything is about the same no matter where you go" simply violates are understanding of the world at the most basic level. 

I would suggest it depends on your peer group.

Let's say you're destined to be a world class tennis player.  As a kid, a beginner, you might win everything.  Then you scale up to Juniors Tennis and find yourself pretty evenly matched and you're good but not the top junior.  Then you get on the college path and as a freshman, you win the top prise, the NCAA.  So you scale up to Pro.  You struggle for a few years but soon begin beating everyone (not literally, not every single match) and winning most all of the top tournaments (not literally every one) but still easily become the world's number one player.  Is this not an example of level scaling in the real world?

Now, in DAO terms, this analogy might work well with wardens and darkspawn as they are of a peer group something like tennis players.  At least they all share the taint, can sense the arch demon, and are in committed opposition to each other.  It's less easy to see how to implement this well Thedes-wide.  For example, why do bandits scale?

So to me, I think the key would be how well developers can hide and soften the game mechanics, so you don't bump into them so harshly on the one hand, and on the other hand how sympathetic we gamers are to roleplaying our way to an immersion keeping game sense rather than breaking away and letting a game mechanic undermine a game for us.  I have no criticism of those for which level scaling "ruins the game,"  by the way.  On the other hand, it's a shame if you throw out the story and the character interaction in DAO, for example, merely because of level scaling, and I do assume that most who post here have not thrown out the game based on any one aspect of it.

Modifié par booke63, 18 mars 2010 - 03:48 .

[Zanderat]

Haven't read all 12 pages..... But, I am disheartened to hear that there is aggressive level scaling. Is there a mod (like Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul) to correct this deficiency (in my view)? Thanks!

[k9medusa]

-shrugs- I been reading this post as well since the start and I have not noticed any problems with current system over all -- I guess some players are easier to please then others. While I play, I don't think of such ideas, thus, level scaling does not ruin the game for me. Here again, everyone plays this game differently and have different wants/needs/desires then other players. The same can said about cheating -- to do that or not to do that. Some players think this game is to easy while others say this game is to hard. To me, right now, fixing bugs is far more important then tweaking the level scaling system.