575 réponses à ce sujet

[Paromlin]

Ok, lets put things into perspective.

Level scaling is more annoying than forum grammar police.

Level scaling is more ridiculous than a lead writer's inability to deal maturely with criticism.

Level scaling is more irritating than the whole hoard of smart-alecky fanboys on the Bioware forums.

ladydesire wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

Well for those defending the scaling, how do you explain DAO: Awakenings combat being even easier as your level goes up and the mobs are supposedly scaling too?



People are soloing the Awakenings bosses on Nightmare... the balance is way off.

Is it? Is Bioware supposed to balance the game for the people that use Min/Max builds? If they did that, what happens to the people that don't know how to do it, or refuse to do it?

EASY/NORMAL DIFFICULTY is there for a reason.

And don't even talk about min/max builds in DAO. Any build in this game is either min/max or falls in the category of I'll cripple myself for no reason whatsoever.

I mean, I have option a) put all stats in dexterity and by level 12 be untouchable or dump stats into willpower to roleplay a strong willed rogue/warrior with the computer who doesn't even check for your willpower and get slaughtered in combat. That's just stupid. Also, you really don't have to go out of your way to make the best decision regarding stat/talent allocation in this particular game - it's not like you have to combine and think.

[Upper_Krust]

Zem_ wrote...

What does this have to do with level scaling though?

 

It neatly illustrates that Level Scaling or not, Bioware are having big problems balancing this game.

The problem in this case isn't that enemies levels adjust to match yours.  It's that enemies of the same level are not a challenge in Awakening, presumably.  That's a problem either with the design of the enemies, their AI, or simply that to challenge a human opponent at this level you need to have the enemies scaler to a HIGHER level rather than the same level.

I'd say its probably a case of all three.

The enemy design is flawed in a defensive and offensive sense because it never requires the players to make any hard decisions on how to attack or defend.

The enemy AI is one dimensional, which would be okay if different enemies had different tactics, but they don't.

The PCs clearly benefit from far more variables (equipment being the big one) putting them beyond typical same level opponents. 

Any way you slice it though it's not a problem with scaling vs. not scaling.  You could make the same mistake with fixed spawns if you didn't make them all higher level as well.

Bioware are making the same mistakes...that was my point.

[Upper_Krust]

tmp7704 wrote...

And wouldn't having the low level mobs scaled to the correct level achieve the very thing you claim would be the fix, i.e. "more higher level mobs spawned in those zones"? In the sense it'd result in having 10-20 mobs of level 25+ per encounter instead of them being mostly critters and l.15's.

Of course you can instead just throw even bigger heaps of fixed level thrash on the players too, but that has hardly anything to do with your initial question of 'why doesn't scaling work in the expansion'.

Even if you have perfect balance in the game from level scaling, you are still battling the same darn enemies from beginning to end.

Now that would be reasonable enough if the numbers of those enemies was increased, but it never is (in fact if anything its actually reduced in Awakening).

If a PC is 50 points stronger, has the best armour and weaponry in the game and dozens of new talents and special abilities why should fighting 3-4 hurlocks be the same challenge as it was at the start of the game when the PC was equipped with leather armour and a basic steel sword?

...and more to the point why would Bioware pit the heroes against such a challenge?

Its not even as if the solution requires new character models. At certain junctures of the game just drop the role of the enemy down by one place:

Critter < Weak Normal < Normal < Lieutenant < Boss < Elite Boss

Genlock < Hurlock < Hurlock Alpha/Emissary < Hurlock Omega/General < Disciple

ie. At the tower of Ishal, Hurlocks might be the regular Normal enemies you face, with Alpha's as Lieutenants and Generals as Bosses...

...while at Fort Drakon against the Archdemon you might be battling Hurlock Omega's as the Normal enemies, with Alpha's as Weak Normal and Hurlocks as Critters

[DragonShepard138]

With scaling is it easier to defeat the Archdemon at a lower level or a higher one?

[Zem_]

Upper_Krust wrote...

Zem_ wrote...

What does this have to do with level scaling though?

 

It neatly illustrates that Level Scaling or not, Bioware are having big problems balancing this game.

Well and good but that's not what this thread is about.  The original poster's argument is that level scaling is illogical and immersion breaking, not that it has anything to do with fixing difficulty.  Indeed, if you freeze all the levels and then the player goes about things in the "wrong" order they will have half their battles be much harder and the other half be trivially easy. 

Not sure I see that as much of an improvement but he seems to be saying this sort of thing amounts to "replay value".  Sure, it's different... I guess.  Yay?

[Fountain]

HEY GUYS I"M STUCK AT THE END OF THE GAME,I KILLED THE DRAGON AND AFTER THE THE ENDING I'M STUCK IN THE BLOODY CAMP AND I CAN'T GET OUT OF THERE,ALL THE PLACES IN THE MAP ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO TRAVEL TO...WHAT SHOULD I DO?ISN'T IT POSSIBLE TO CONTINUE THE GAME?????

[Upper_Krust]

DragonShepard138 wrote...

With scaling is it easier to defeat the Archdemon at a lower level or a higher one?

Its (more or less) the same. However, there is a problem in that Player equipment does give a growing advantage throughout the game thats not covered by Level Scaling.

[Fountain]

PLZ GUY...

[Fountain]

guys*

[Upper_Krust]

Zem_ wrote...

Well and good but that's not what this thread is about.  The original poster's argument is that level scaling is illogical and immersion breaking, not that it has anything to do with fixing difficulty.

 

My point was that we already have Level Scaling (which this thread is about) and it doesn't fix difficulty. It was a specific reply to a point someone else raised, I don't see why you have such a bee in your bonnet about it?

Indeed, if you freeze all the levels and then the player goes about things in the "wrong" order they will have half their battles be much harder and the other half be trivially easy.

Which is why I am suggesting you swop Level Scaling for Rank Scaling.

e.g. Lets say Hurlocks are a Level 8/Normal rank. When the players are between Level 6-10; the basic Hurlocks they face will be that level and rank. If the players are between levels 11-15, they can still face those same Hurlocks, but we downshift the rank and boost the level. So a Hurlock faced between Levels 11-15 would be a Level 13/Weak Normal rank. At levels 16-20 players might face Level 18/Critter rank Hurlocks (die with any hit). You would not face Hurlocks beyond Level 21 since there is no rank below Critter.

The benefits of this are that the hit/miss mechanics don't become irrelevant because of the higher level, but the dwindling rank gives us the imersion of progression.

So at the start of the game, a few Hurlocks (Level 3/Lieutenant rank) might be a tough encounter, but by the end of the game you could take on a hundred or more.

The reason I am suggesting a fixed level (with a jump of +/-5 per rank shift) is so that when we first encounter an opponent, they will seem slightly tougher (at the start of that 5 level span) than when we reach the end of that 5 level span. Its an extra little progression boost that is a bit like a rollercoaster.

Level 1 - Party seem weak against first crop of enemies
Level 3 - Party on even footing with first crop
Level 5 - Party dominating first crop
Level 6 - Hit'em with the second crop and downshift the rank of the first crop for comparisons
Level 8 - Party on even footing with second crop
Level 10 - Party dominating second crop
Level 11 - Hit'em with the third crop and downshift the first two crops for comparisons
etc.

Not sure I see that as much of an improvement but he seems to be saying this sort of thing amounts to "replay value".  Sure, it's different... I guess.  Yay?

The more I have thought about the OP's point the more I agree with him.

[Upper_Krust]

Fountain wrote...

HEY GUYS I"M STUCK AT THE END OF THE GAME,I KILLED THE DRAGON AND AFTER THE THE ENDING I'M STUCK IN THE BLOODY CAMP AND I CAN'T GET OUT OF THERE,ALL THE PLACES IN THE MAP ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO TRAVEL TO...WHAT SHOULD I DO?ISN'T IT POSSIBLE TO CONTINUE THE GAME?????

Did you get the ceremony ending?

[ladydesire]

Upper_Krust wrote...

DragonShepard138 wrote...

With scaling is it easier to defeat the
Archdemon at a lower level or a higher one?

Its (more or less) the same. However, there is a
problem in that Player equipment does give a
growing advantage throughout the game thats
not covered by Level Scaling.

Character build and player skill have more of
an impact than character equipment, as long as
we are talking about an unmodified game;
even if we aren't, player skill and character
build are actually pretty much the only
variables in the equation that Bioware has no
control over, which is why there is such a
disagreement over whether the game is too
hard or too easy.

Modifié par ladydesire, 27 mars 2010 - 01:25 .

[tmp7704]

Upper_Krust wrote...

Even if you have perfect balance in the game from level scaling, you are still battling the same darn enemies from beginning to end.

Now that would be reasonable enough if the numbers of those enemies was increased, but it never is (in fact if anything its actually reduced in Awakening).

If a PC is 50 points stronger, has the best armour and weaponry in the game and dozens of new talents and special abilities why should fighting 3-4 hurlocks be the same challenge as it was at the start of the game when the PC was equipped with leather armour and a basic steel sword?

I think i'm possibly missing your point here because as it is fighting 3-4 hurlocks in Awakenings *isn't* the same challenge it was in the core game, since these enemies in Awakenings tend to come 10+ levels weaker than your character. It's why the expansion introduces new enemy types (Children and the intelligent darkspawn along with blighted werewolves and whatnot) to justify increase in strength of the individual enemies you face.

If this is supposed to be argument why increasing numbers of basic enemies would be more preferable route than just scaling the enemies like the scaling system is supposed to work in the first place then i can accept it (since it comes closer to my personal preferences) as long as we can drop the point about Awakenings somehow being proof the scaling system fails to work, because the fact remains the scaling system in the Awakenings is to large extent disabled.

[Upper_Krust]

ladydesire wrote...

Character build and player skill have more of an impact than character equipment, as long as we are talking about an unmodified game; even if we aren't, player skill and character build are actually pretty much the only
variables in the equation that Bioware has no control over, which is why there is such a disagreement over whether the game is too hard or too easy.

Not sure I agree.

I think that Bioware must have taken at least average character builds into consideration for levelling up monsters.

So Enemy Warrior Types probably have +2 Str/+1 Con or +2 Str/+1 Dex as default upgrade along with the level bonuses. That means only if you put all +3 bonuses into one attribute do you pull away from the established level parameters.

However, I don't believe magic items, and in particular magic items with bonuses to attack/damage/ability scores are factor into the consideration as to whether or not Enemies are balanced, even with level scaling.

So if a character puts all their points into strength. Over the course of 20 levels they might be +20 points higher than the average for that level. But by that stage they may also have +10-20 bonus points to strength accompanying magic items.

As to player skill. I think that can plateau very quickly in Dragon Age. Which is why we are seeing so many people complain about Awakening being too easy. Once you learn what works, it always works, because the game throws up nothing new to challenge you.

[Upper_Krust]

tmp7704 wrote...

I think i'm possibly missing your point here because as it is fighting 3-4 hurlocks in Awakenings *isn't* the same challenge it was in the core game, since these enemies in Awakenings tend to come 10+ levels weaker than your character.

It's why the expansion introduces new enemy types (Children and the intelligent darkspawn along with blighted werewolves and whatnot) to justify increase in strength of the individual enemies you face.

None of which represent the same challenge as similarly ranked enemies did 20 levels earlier.

Take the first Ogre Boss battle in DAO and contrast that to the Armoured Ogre Alpha boss battle, or the Withered Boss battles in Awakening, even on higher difficulties these battles are easier.

If this is supposed to be argument why increasing numbers of basic enemies would be more preferable route than just scaling the enemies like the scaling system is supposed to work in the first place then i can accept it (since it comes closer to my personal preferences) as long as we can drop the point about Awakenings somehow being proof the scaling system fails to work, because the fact remains the scaling system in the Awakenings is to large extent disabled.

The point I am trying to make is that regardless of whether level scaling is off (Hurlocks in Awakening) or on (new enemies in Awakening) that neither is balanced (and thus level scaling in this game is broken) because players can roll over these new enemies like they weren't there.

I don't know exactly what Level Scaling takes into account, but its pretty clear that it doesn't take everything into account because the normal rank enemies of levels 1-5 are far tougher (comparitively) than the normal rank enemies of Levels 21-25 etc.

My guess is that bonuses from equipment simply are not factored into Level Scaling. Meaning as these bonuses grow, theres a greater disparity between player characters and level scaled enemies.

[Casper]

I haven't read all the replies so it might be that somebody else already mentioned what I am about to say.

I think they have done this to help people play the DLCs at any time during the course of the original campaign...but I understand the cons also.

[tmp7704]

Upper_Krust wrote...

None of which represent the same challenge as similarly ranked enemies did 20 levels earlier.

Take the first Ogre Boss battle in DAO and contrast that to the Armoured Ogre Alpha boss battle, or the Withered Boss battles in Awakening, even on higher difficulties these battles are easier.

I guess this is case of "your mileage may vary" since i didn't have any memorable issues beating the first ogre boss, and at the same time i found the late game bosses to be of similar (non) difficulty rather than much easier. Granted, this is likely in large part due to conscious effort not to min-max my characters and/or equip them with the best available equipment, things can be certainly made much easier if one bothers to go this route. But then i don't really have problem with the idea the game gets much easier for people who choose to do some focused effort on upgrading their team.

The point I am trying to make is that regardless of whether level scaling is off (Hurlocks in Awakening) or on (new enemies in Awakening) that neither is balanced (and thus level scaling in this game is broken) because players can roll over these new enemies like they weren't there.

I'd argue you are presuming this --the lack of challenge-- isn't something the developers intended in the first place. Could the equal level enemies be made more threatening? Certainly. Why they weren't is anyone's guess.

I don't know exactly what Level Scaling takes into account, but its pretty clear that it doesn't take everything into account because the normal rank enemies of levels 1-5 are far tougher (comparitively) than the normal rank enemies of Levels 21-25 etc.

My guess is that bonuses from equipment simply are not factored into Level Scaling. Meaning as these bonuses grow, theres a greater disparity between player characters and level scaled enemies.

I'd guess as much, the player is allowed power creep through gear bonuses, runes etc while the enemies are limited to stock equipment. This is combined with the fact the player simply cannot lose a fight as long as they bother to carry with them the heal/mana pots because that gives them practically unlimited health while enemies don't heal at all.

Again though ,wouldn't be so quick to declare the system is "broken" because of this. Broken carries implication of not working as intended, while we simply don't know if that's actually the case.

[Upper_Krust]

tmp7704 wrote...

I guess this is case of "your mileage may vary" since i didn't have any memorable issues beating the first ogre boss, and at the same time i found the late game bosses to be of similar (non) difficulty rather than much easier. Granted, this is likely in large part due to conscious effort not to min-max my characters and/or equip them with the best available equipment, things can be certainly made much easier if one bothers to go this route. But then i don't really have problem with the idea the game gets much easier for people who choose to do some focused effort on upgrading their team.

Did anyone have problems beating anything in Awakening though?

I'd argue you are presuming this --the lack of challenge-- isn't something the developers intended in the first place. Could the equal level enemies be made more threatening? Certainly. Why they weren't is anyone's guess.

I am presuming that either they intended the game to be challenging and that didn't work or they intended the game to not be challenging...either way seems to be a mistake on Bioware's part.

I'd guess as much, the player is allowed power creep through gear bonuses, runes etc while the enemies are limited to stock equipment. This is combined with the fact the player simply cannot lose a fight as long as they bother to carry with them the heal/mana pots because that gives them practically unlimited health while enemies don't heal at all.

Exactly its a stacked deck.

Again though ,wouldn't be so quick to declare the system is "broken" because of this. Broken carries implication of not working as intended, while we simply don't know if that's actually the case.

So it was Bioware's intention for Awakening to be no challenge at all?

I fail to see their reasoning here...I can't imagine them sitting round a table and saying, "Hey lets make Nightmare difficulty really easy".

[tmp7704]

Upper_Krust wrote...

I am presuming that either they intended the game to be challenging and that didn't work or they intended the game to not be challenging...either way seems to be a mistake on Bioware's part.

Well, that's the thing. It's possible the game is intended not to be challenging -- the spammable heal pots and heals as well as player's advantage would seem to point to that, after all people who set things up this way aren't idiots and realize how it affects the gameplay. Would making the game not challenging be a mistake? I honestly don't have a firm opinion about that, although i'm inclined to believe it's less harmful if the game is too easy rather than too hard, if just because nothing prevents the player from setting up their own rules to make things harder for themselves... while the opposite isn't as easy.

So it was Bioware's intention for Awakening to be no challenge at all?

I fail to see their reasoning here...I can't imagine them sitting round a table and saying, "Hey lets make Nightmare difficulty really easy".

I think it's possible, given the complaints about the core game being too hard. Certainly, making the player face mostly weakened mobs must've been a conscious choice, whatever the reasons for it.

[Upper_Krust]

tmp7704 wrote...

Well, that's the thing. It's possible the game is intended not to be challenging

Thats illogical and (if true) idiotic. Surely that cannot have been the intention.

-- the spammable heal pots and heals as well as player's advantage would seem to point to that, after all people who set things up this way aren't idiots and realize how it affects the gameplay. Would making the game not challenging be a mistake? I honestly don't have a firm opinion about that, although i'm inclined to believe it's less harmful if the game is too easy rather than too hard, if just because nothing prevents the player from setting up their own rules to make things harder for themselves... while the opposite isn't as easy.

Agree with you on the emboldened text. But thats the whole purpose of difficulty levels in the first place. 

I think it's possible, given the complaints about the core game being too hard.

Then you make the lower difficulty settings easier. But you don't make the harder settings easier - especially since the feedback from Hard/Nightmare difficulty players was that the game wasn't challenging enough.

Personally I think it smacks of laziness. Bioware listened to the feedback and made the core game less challenging but did nothing to change the mechanical variables between the different difficulty levels.

Certainly, making the player face mostly weakened mobs must've been a conscious choice, whatever the reasons for it.

Laziness.

The more intelligent you make a combat system the more you need to playtest it to hit the sweet spot.

[ladydesire]

Upper_Krust wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

I guess this is case of "your mileage may vary" since i didn't have any memorable issues beating the first ogre boss, and at the same time i found the late game bosses to be of similar (non) difficulty rather than much easier. Granted, this is likely in large part due to conscious effort not to min-max my characters and/or equip them with the best available equipment, things can be certainly made much easier if one bothers to go this route. But then i don't really have problem with the idea the game gets much easier for people who choose to do some focused effort on upgrading their team.

Did anyone have problems beating anything in Awakening though?

Yes, on Normal/Easy, and a few fights I had to spam heals and stamina potions to win them.

I'd argue you are presuming this --the lack of challenge-- isn't something the developers intended in the first place. Could the equal level enemies be made more threatening? Certainly. Why they weren't is anyone's guess.

I am presuming that either they intended the game to be challenging and that didn't work or they intended the game to not be challenging...either way seems to be a mistake on Bioware's part.

Or, as I said up the page, they designed the game and expansion difficulty with a different build in mind than what most people complaining are likely to use.

I'd guess as much, the player is allowed power creep through gear bonuses, runes etc while the enemies are limited to stock equipment. This is combined with the fact the player simply cannot lose a fight as long as they bother to carry with them the heal/mana pots because that gives them practically unlimited health while enemies don't heal at all.

Exactly its a stacked deck.

Maybe the foes don't use healing potions, but most groups have Mages in them, and the Mages do use their heals, unless of course you take them out first.

Again though ,wouldn't be so quick to declare the system is "broken" because of this. Broken carries implication of not working as intended, while we simply don't know if that's actually the case.

So it was Bioware's intention for Awakening to be no challenge at all?

I fail to see their reasoning here...I can't imagine them sitting round a table and saying, "Hey lets make Nightmare difficulty really easy".

It is challenging, just not for Min\\Max builders.

[tmp7704]

Upper_Krust wrote...

Thats illogical and (if true) idiotic. Surely that cannot have been the intention.

I can't think of single BioWare game since KotOR (and including it) which would be actually challenging (and i simply didn't bother to play earlier games fully, up to the point i saw they weren't exactly challenging either). Considering this lack of difficulty did not affect overall opinion on their games in negative way, i'd say "illogical and idiotic" is a strong opinion but not exactly supported by facts.

Personally I think it smacks of laziness. Bioware listened to the feedback and made the core game less challenging but did nothing to change the mechanical variables between the different difficulty levels.

I think it can be equally well if not better explained by tight schedule for the expansion -- setting up the base difficulty and then tweaking the individual levels afterwards takes more time and effort than just setting up the base difficulty, and that extra time and effort can be instead allocated to development of another aspect of the game which would otherwise had to be cut or reduced. Also, changing the difficulty of individual modes might irk the players who would expect some sort of consistency in this regard between base game and the expansion (why does 'hard' in base game makes mob hit 10% harder but 100% harder in expansion?") and finally i don't know if it's even possible to have difficulty levels set up in different manner in separate modules, or if it's some universal mechanics.

Modifié par tmp7704, 27 mars 2010 - 11:03 .

[dragon_83]

Upper_Krust wrote...


So at the start of the game, a few Hurlocks (Level 3/Lieutenant rank) might be a tough encounter, but by the end of the game you could take on a hundred or more.

The reason I am suggesting a fixed level (with a jump of +/-5 per rank shift) is so that when we first encounter an opponent, they will seem slightly tougher (at the start of that 5 level span) than when we reach the end of that 5 level span. Its an extra little progression boost that is a bit like a rollercoaster.

Level 1 - Party seem weak against first crop of enemies
Level 3 - Party on even footing with first crop
Level 5 - Party dominating first crop
Level 6 - Hit'em with the second crop and downshift the rank of the first crop for comparisons
Level 8 - Party on even footing with second crop
Level 10 - Party dominating second crop
Level 11 - Hit'em with the third crop and downshift the first two crops for comparisons
etc.

Not sure I see that as much of an improvement but he seems to be saying this sort of thing amounts to "replay value".  Sure, it's different... I guess.  Yay?

The more I have thought about the OP's point the more I agree with him.

I kind of agree with this type of scaling. But I wouldn't downshift the lower tier enemies at lvl 6, 11 (as in your example).  It would be enough to set a fix level for them (so they only auto level until level 6). With time, my character would outlevel them, and this would give a sense of progression. And to keep the game challanging, it would introduce higher ranked enemies in the battles.

[Upper_Krust]

ladydesire wrote...

Yes, on Normal/Easy, and a few fights I had to spam heals and stamina potions to win them.

So even then you didn't get beat?

Or, as I said up the page, they designed the game and expansion difficulty with a different build in mind than what most people complaining are likely to use.

So you agree then that Bioware don't seem to comprehend what different difficulty levels mean in most games?

Maybe the foes don't use healing potions, but most groups have Mages in them, and the Mages do use their heals, unless of course you take them out first.

Never seen an enemy mage heal an ally in Dragon Age. Not saying it never happens, but its certainly never happened to any degree that it would matter.

It is challenging, just not for Min\\\\Max builders.

That brings us back to the question of multiple difficulty levels? Why even have them if all difficulty levels = Easy?

[Upper_Krust]

tmp7704 wrote...

I can't think of single BioWare game since KotOR (and including it) which would be actually challenging (and i simply didn't bother to play earlier games fully, up to the point i saw they weren't exactly challenging either). Considering this lack of difficulty did not affect overall opinion on their games in negative way, i'd say "illogical and idiotic" is a strong opinion but not exactly supported by facts.

I don't have any history of playing Bioware games before DAO.

But it seems to me that you don't create multiple difficulty settings and make them all easy for a vast percentage of gamers.

I think it can be equally well if not better explained by tight schedule for the expansion

Why did it have a tight schedule?

-- setting up the base difficulty and then tweaking the individual levels afterwards takes more time and effort than just setting up the base difficulty, and that extra time and effort can be instead allocated to development of another aspect of the game which would otherwise had to be cut or reduced.

To me it seems that some degree of challenge is at least 50% of what makes it interesting.

Also, changing the difficulty of individual modes might irk the players who would expect some sort of consistency in this regard between base game and the expansion (why does 'hard' in base game makes mob hit 10% harder but 100% harder in expansion?")

 
As opposed to the greater number of complaints they have now about the lack of challenge.

and finally i don't know if it's even possible to have difficulty levels set up in different manner in separate modules, or if it's some universal mechanics.

Its just math so of course it could be changed. Not that I actually think tweaking the math in this way would have made the game necessarily better. We actually seem to have went off at a tangent in that regards.