575 réponses à ce sujet

[Zanderat]

That's why I was looking for a mod like OOO. I am not suggesting that there be an Official fix for the level scaling.

[TheRealIncarnal]

Well, if we want to discuss how to make an RPG Nonlinear and without level scaling (which for the record I made a post here earlier saying that it was more or less good in DA:O), then you need to look at the old Might & Magic series. No level scaling in that game!



Might & Magic VII is often considered to be the best in the series, and I think it is, so let's look at that. Just a note, Spoilers for M&MVII will abound, if you care.



Pretty much it just has variation of creatures, each one being more difficult than the last. You start out on the "newbie" island, where you have to deal with dragonflies, bats, rats, giant spiders, and a few rather rile-some swordsmen. However, there's a dragon's den on the island. Now, you don't have to fight the dragon, but it's there for you to fight if you want to. You're just going to die almost every time, heck I've only killed it once.



Then you go to the mainland, which is the entire continent of Erathia. There is a rather clear goal set out in-front of you, but you can ignore that if you want and go off anywhere you want. It's just if you go to the wrong places you're going to die. I mean, at level 6 (out of 100) you can reach the Titan's Stronghold if you really try. However, all of the Titans who live inside are level 50 to 85 and you're going to die every time.



I'm not sure if that applies much to Dragon Age, but it is an example of how you can have an non-linear game without level scaling.

[Zanderat]

A way to level scale, without sacrificing immersion, would be to allow the player to go anywhere, BUT certain areas will rather tough (but static) until you reach a higher level. Wizardry 8 did this very well, just like MM mentioned above.

[Haexpane]

Realmzmaster wrote...
 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.

I also love open design, but I don't remember BG2 being any more linear than DAO?   I don't equate level scaling with non linear.

MMOs for instance are often very open, and the classic like Everquest did not scale.  Plane of Fear was level 45+ only... no scaling.  Not level 45?  You had hundreds of other zones to chose from.

I guess the way DAO was designed they needed some sort of scaling for storytelling, but quite frankly which zone I went to first in DAO didn't really make a difference to me, I really didn't feel it was any more open.  The quests were all linear so the game feels just as linear to me as BG2, and just as open.  It's sort of a hybrid.

LInear is FF13.  True open is Morrowind or Deus Ex

To me it's lame that the toughest opponent on my toon log that I defeated is not a dragon, only because of the scale.  The easiest boss battle was the dorf town underground boss, yet that was listed as my toughest opponent, simply because of scaling.

Totally false, the toughest opponents were the dragons

[Haexpane]

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

I am the hack and slash defender it seems these days.  The best hack and slash games do NOT level scale.  The hardest stuff is at the bottom, and it's the highest level stuff.  As it should be in classic RPG gameplay.  The deeper you go, the more dangerous... makes sense no?

Rats = easy,  Gods = hard.  

[Haexpane]

booke63 wrote...

Haexpane wrote...
This scaling idea that "everything is about the same no matter where you go" simply violates out 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.

Wow can't believe I typed "are" instead of 'our"  I'm red faced for that one.

Sports, good point on your end, and exactly what I don't like about level scaling.  However in sports, if you are winning every time, it's your choice whether to play it safe or move to a tougher region/league.

Boxing is a good example, many HWs often just keep fighing chumps (rats) to build up wins, then finally take on a real contender (and they often get pounded)  while other boxers fight tough opponents and seek out, go to dangerous places, new exotic locations to find new challenges.. and better themselves even if they lose.

Now imagine if you chould just sit in your local Gym, and never have to travel or explore, and better boxers just magically show up from all over the world?   Not as exciting of fun no?

Soccer is the same deal, you see various countries w/ great soccer players, and they all must travel to more elite leagues if they want real risk and real reward... yes?

[Haexpane]

k9medusa wrote...

-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.

Technically it didn't "ruin" DAO for me.  But I was having a real hard time from level 1-8, then it was medium from 8-13 or so, from level 13-21 the game has been trivial in terms of battles.

I haven't had a tough fight since the dragons back at level 12 or so

[k9medusa]

I guess also depends what type of build you have -- Power Build for battles or more RP build to help with dialogs of NPCs. It is very hard to do both at the same time. If a player have a power build, then the game will be easier while if a player put more points in stats that the class does not need but good for RP reasons, then the battles will be harder -- Level Scaling is trying to level out the monsters for either type of builds

[Realmzmaster]

DA:O allows you to build either Power builds or RP builds or a mixture. Example at the Landsmeet you take on Ser Cauthrien. If your PC is a Power Build you will probably attack and take her out. Because unless the Power Build has maxed out persuasion or cunning/persuasion the Power build will not get the persuade option or simply fail it. If you PC is of RP build you may use the Persuade option and get her to back down. But Bioware does not use total level scaling.

You meet the same Ser Cauthrien attempting to rescue Anora. She is much tougher in that encounter than at the Landsmeet. She can still be beaten by the Power build, but the RP build is going to have a hell of a time beating her and probably end up going to prison.

The Power build can decide to go to prison also for role playing purposes, but the power build has a better chance of beating Ser Cauthrien.

I have no problem with the level scaling, it works for me but YMMV.

[Haexpane]

k9medusa wrote...

 -- Level Scaling is trying to level out the monsters for either type of builds

Exactly, Level Scaling is *trying* to do something, and it's not working.  It never does, in any game.

[Haexpane]

DAO is also pretty simple in terms of how to build certain classes. For example a warrior, dump every single point into STR and maybe some DEX or CON or WIL just because you have extra points...



But if you went 100% STR 2H build you'd have no problems. So this further shows how the scaling is only making the game too hard at first, and too easy later

[k9medusa]

Haexpane wrote...

k9medusa wrote...

 -- Level Scaling is trying to level out the monsters for either type of builds

Exactly, Level Scaling is *trying* to do something, and it's not working.  It never does, in any game.

May be it does not work in every case, but it also works in some cases. It can not be perfect everywhere.  RPG is a fantasy game so the player still need to have a fantasy about some aspects of the game...

[k9medusa]

Also, the old 8-bit Nintendo games, people can make that world come to life and think it is true while they play it and why can't people do the same action with a higher end game?

[London_Liche]

I have mixed feelings about level scaling. On one hand, I hate it. It's gratifying to fight your way through a level and KNOW for a FACT that you were able to do it because you rose to the occasion. Level scaling totally displaces that feeling because you know the difficulty is based on YOU and nothing else. On the other hand, without level scaling, it's annoying when you take on the wrong quest just to get your **** handed to you. More realistic, yes, but annoying. It would be cool if level scaling could be turned on or off. That would be ideal.

Modifié par London_Liche, 18 mars 2010 - 10:48 .

[Akka le Vil]

booke63 wrote...

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?

Nope, not at all. The different groups were already here when you started playing tennis, and did not appear/jump in skill just because you improved. They are group of similar level players, they are not scaling - scaling doesn't exist in real life, at all, nowhere, which is precisely why the very concept is bogus.
Your analogy looks more like having untrained/trained/veteran/elite guards/soldiers, being assembled in squads.

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.

The nearly entire problem with level scaling is precisely that it ruins immersion. It's just too much "in your face" to not notice it.

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.

I have not thrown the good parts of the game, but the intrusive and completely senseless level scaling has severely reduced my enjoyment of it. It's everywhere, rotting the core of the game (seriously, everything is entirely based on scaling, it's impossible to get rid of it, even the inner working of the toolset works on auto-scaled loot sheets and autoscaled characters ; you really wonder what was the point of putting levels in the game at all), and it constantly reminds me of how gamey and artificial the game is, rather than letting me immerse into it.

[Paromlin]

It's on my list of things that ruined DAO, as well. It's battling for the top position with the combat system.

Lets just hope they won't do the same mistake with DA 2.

"Without level scaling it has to be linear".. WTF? Even Bioware managed to create a non-linear game without level scaling: Baldur's Gate.

[Ahzrei]

Is this thread still going on? Are you still arguing the same points you were seven pages ago? You are a damn fine troll, sir.



If you hate the game so much because of one feature, why spend so much of your time on its forum?





You'd prefer your games to feel more like mashed potatoes? How do you make a game not gamey?

[LH000]

Ahzrei wrote...


If you hate the game so much because of one feature, why spend so much of your time on its forum?

Because he does probably hate the feature, not necessary the game (or future of franchise).

[Paromlin]

Ahzrei wrote...

Is this thread still going on? Are you still arguing the same points you were seven pages ago? You are a damn fine troll, sir.

If you hate the game so much because of one feature, why spend so much of your time on its forum?


You'd prefer your games to feel more like mashed potatoes? How do you make a game not gamey?

He has every right to enlighten the misinformed posters about the supposed need of level scaling in non-linear games.

What's the matter with this troll word? Is it the new synonym for "I don't have any arguments to counter yours so I'll simply call you a troll"?

I hadn't even noticed he has replied. I'd have raised the topic anyway.

[Ahzrei]

Paromlin wrote...

Ahzrei wrote...

Is this thread still going on? Are you still arguing the same points you were seven pages ago? You are a damn fine troll, sir.

If you hate the game so much because of one feature, why spend so much of your time on its forum?


You'd prefer your games to feel more like mashed potatoes? How do you make a game not gamey?

He has every right to enlighten the misinformed posters about the supposed need of level scaling in non-linear games.

What's the matter with this troll word? Is it the new synonym for "I don't have any arguments to counter yours so I'll simply call you a troll"?

I hadn't even noticed he has replied. I'd have raised the topic anyway.

I spent a long time arguing with him earlier in this thread, oh misinformed one. And he never has something different to say. He repeats the same argument over the same points over and over and over. It's not a debate, it's like talking to a brick wall. I fell under the "agree to disagree" banner with him a while ago, whether or not he has.


I just wanted to know which games he talks of playing that didn't feel like games. He certainly has the right to "enlighten the misinformed" as much as he wants. And I have the right to call him a troll for no reason other than I think he's a troll, or at least acting like one.

[Paromlin]

Ahzrei wrote...


I spent a long time arguing with him earlier in this thread, oh misinformed one. And he never has something different to say. 

That's maybe because you're repeating the same shenanigans over and over again so he doesn't have to say anything different.

 

He repeats the same argument over the same points over and over and over. It's not a debate, it's like talking to a brick wall. I fell under the "agree to disagree" banner with him a while ago, whether or not he has.

And yet you're still here, on the same topic, debating.

 And I have the right to call him a troll for no reason other than I think he's a troll, or at least acting like one.

Then don't expect people to treat you any better, misinformed goblin.

[Akka le Vil]

Ahzrei wrote...

I spent a long time arguing with him earlier in this thread, oh misinformed one. And he never has something different to say. He repeats the same argument over the same points over and over and over. It's not a debate, it's like talking to a brick wall. I fell under the "agree to disagree" banner with him a while ago, whether or not he has.

It couldn't be, of course, because, you know, other people ALSO repeat endlessly the same already-disproven arguments over and over again, hence requiring the same evidences to be also repeated ?
Oh, you mean THIS was ALSO already pointed, but you pretend you didn't notice.

I guess I know who's the troll then.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 24 mars 2010 - 12:24 .

[Grovermancer]

@ the OP and like-minded...


Do you consider KOTOR (I & II) as fitting what you're advocating?


In the beginning, you struggle w/ regular human opponents.  By mid-levels, epsecially once you've regained your awareness of the Force, you maul through them when you encounter them.

Though by that time, either higher level opponents start appearing (Bounty Hunters, alien animals, enemy Force-users, etc) 'cause you're moving up through the ranks of the enemies , OR you're in difficult scanarios (large number of older, weaker opponents, no weapons, adverse environments, etc) to keep it challenging.

And when you encounter 'regular' humans who seemed tough at the beginning... you destroy them later on after you've grown.

In KOTOR, if you were to put in a cheat and start the game at a high level, the enemies do not scale up with you, and you demolish everything (at least till you hit formidable bosses).

[booke63]

Akka le Vil wrote...

booke63 wrote...

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?

Nope, not at all. The different groups were already here when you started playing tennis, and did not appear/jump in skill just because you improved. They are group of similar level players, they are not scaling - scaling doesn't exist in real life, at all, nowhere, which is precisely why the very concept is bogus.
Your analogy looks more like having untrained/trained/veteran/elite guards/soldiers, being assembled in squads.

When you say:  they "did not appear/jump in skill just because you improved" I would agree since they improved not because I did but because THEY did by practicing and training as I did.

Plus what does "groups already there" mean?  Current top tennis players Federer and Nadal and others are not playing Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Becker, Edberg, much less McEnroe or Borg, even less Laver or Kramer or Tilden--those last 2 players being dead.  They're playing those of their own era who grew in skill over time from childhood to adulthood.  I guess I don't see where that is not akin to level scaling.

Perhaps we simply see level scaling from different prespectives.  You as one looking from the outside in, as metagamer, who sees something like tennis et all as ranked squads whereas I'm looking from the inside out, as a roleplayer, actually playing tennis day to day, who keeps seeing dangerous opponents to fight as they and myself move faster, hit harder, hit more accurately, and improve in fitness.

Are you saying that the mechanic of spawning monsters in DAO is in some
mathmatical way tied to the PC's level, and that you therefore cannot
imagine Darkspawn training and improving like your PC does?  If so, doesn't it then bother you that the ENTIRE video game is really just endless lines of zeros and ones?

Modifié par booke63, 24 mars 2010 - 01:43 .

[Ulicus]

I think I've said this before, so I apologise for the repetition, but combat mechanics aren't canon.

Your characters don't really level up, or become ten times more powerful over the course of the adventure, nor can warriors make people fall over with a shout.

Dragon Age isn't Dungeons and Dragons.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'd be totally opposed to level scaling if it was. I hated that, in BG2, suddenly every common street thug began at level 7 or 8 when your character had spent the entirety of BG 1 getting to that point... but that was because, in DnD, levels are supposed to be an accurate (if abstract) reflection of the setting's reality.

In Dragon Age: Origins, this is not the case. Now, by all means, argue that it would be better if it was... but don't pretend that it already is and that as such levelling scaling is ridiculous. The only thing that seems to really reflect "reality" in DA:O are your characters' classes and specialisations: not their level and abilities.

I actually get far more irritated and dragged out of the setting by how loot scales, and that everyone is wearing dragonbone armour and carrying mountains of silver by the end.

EDIT: That said, the OP's point isn't about levelling scaling being stupid or "making no sense" (as are most other arguments against it I've seen) but unenjoyable, which is fair enough.

Modifié par Ulicus, 24 mars 2010 - 02:02 .