575 réponses à ce sujet

[Zem_]

Upper_Krust wrote...

Zem_ wrote...

Okay stop.  This is getting old.  Do you SEE me saying it is the "goal" of AI to surprise? 

You said you had never been surprised by AI in games, implying that you thought this important.

Nope.  I'm making the point that because AI can't surprise me, the enemy has to be buffed up to compensate.  Nothing more.  I didn't think it would be such a contentious point.

Dragon Age already has a Tactics and Behaviour System controlling the secondary characters. Is there any reason why this couldn't be used for individual enemies - no. Is there any reason these choices could not be expanded upon - no.

So the question becomes why are the enemies not using these features?

I expect they are using very much the same system and while they could certainly use it better (as you say, potions and more buffing/healing) it's not like they don't use it at all.  They most certainly use the "if attacked by melee, use..." rule.  Go after a higher level emissary with a rogue and you find they favor nailing you with that curse that makes you miss all your normal attacks.  But that system doesn't allow much more than rudimentary team awareness (triggers based on ally health status, or being attacked, etc.)

Then we pretty much agree. What I would say though is that while enemy AI cannot surprise the player. The situation CAN be set up to surprise a player...the first time its encountered. Prompting the possible defeat of the player. Who then has to work out

1. Why they got beat
2. Whats the best strategy to overturn the outcome

To be fair, they do this in DAO with some of their cutscene-ambushes, but in general yes they could use more scripted set-pieces that aren't necessarily cutscenes.  The runaway emissary who tries to draw you over some traps in the Wilds early in the game is a good example.

Automatic scaling seems to be an excuse for using the same enemies far too often in Dragon Age.

I think there is this disconnect between story and game mechanics though in the typical CRPG.  In story terms, there is no reason NOT to run into the same Darkspawn throughout the whole story from Ostagar's beginning to Denerim's endgame.  Sure, introduce a few new specials along the way (like the Shrieks), but the bulk of the enemy forces are those same Genlocks and Hurlocks, Emissaries and Ogres.  Yet in game mechanics terms you are going through what would be an entire PnP adventuring career in the space of a few hard months on the road in this CRPG.  So it's unfortunately come to be expected that we should see an entire "Monster Manual" worth of enemies parade past us in the same amount of time.

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy Zem!

Zem_ wrote...

Nope.  I'm making the point that because AI can't surprise me, the enemy has to be buffed up to compensate.  Nothing more.  I didn't think it would be such a contentious point.

This is the internet - everything is contentious.

I expect they are using very much the same system and while they could certainly use it better (as you say, potions and more buffing/healing) it's not like they don't use it at all.  They most certainly use the "if attacked by melee, use..." rule.  Go after a higher level emissary with a rogue and you find they favor nailing you with that curse that makes you miss all your normal attacks.  But that system doesn't allow much more than rudimentary team awareness (triggers based on ally health status, or being attacked, etc.)

 
Theres no reason why we couldn't add a few new triggers, but even as it stands, the basics of the tactics system could really be used so much better.

On a slightly different note, I also think that the inclusion of "Wall" based spells could be a fantastic addition to the game.

I think there is this disconnect between story and game mechanics though in the typical CRPG.  In story terms, there is no reason NOT to run into the same Darkspawn throughout the whole story from Ostagar's beginning to Denerim's endgame.  Sure, introduce a few new specials along the way (like the Shrieks), but the bulk of the enemy forces are those same Genlocks and Hurlocks, Emissaries and Ogres.

 

Personally I would have enjoyed a majority of Genlocks (as the Darkspawn enemy of choice) over the first quarter of the game (the Genlocks acting as Scouts) with the Ogre as the Boss.

The hurlocks over the second quarter (the soldiers), with the Hurlock General as Boss.

The shrieks (shock troops) over the third quarter with the Broodmother as Boss. 

When facing the Final Battle, the Archdemon could protect itself with demon possessed hurlock alphas and demons in Fort Drakon.

Yet in game mechanics terms you are going through what would be an entire PnP adventuring career in the space of a few hard months on the road in this CRPG.  So it's unfortunately come to be expected that we should see an entire "Monster Manual" worth of enemies parade past us in the same amount of time.

I think Dragon Age suffers from three problems in this regard.

1. Too many of the enemies are basically the same (with no new special abilities, tactics and so forth).
2. There are too few enemy types.
3. The same enemy types comprise about 75% of the game (Genlocks, Hurlocks, Humans, Dwarves).

Looking at some recent videogames I have examined (including CRPGs), they average about 2 new enemies introduced per hour of play (thats not counting variants of the same enemy where that average goes up to about 4 per hour). Dragon Age probably offers about 0.5 new enemies per hour.

In Dragon Age you probably fight about 10 battles per hour (on average). There are 28 'Dungeon' Levels and you level up (although the process is heavily frontloaded) on average every 2 1/2 to 3 hours.

So thats 1 new enemy type per Dungeon (about 2 hours of play). Although in reality, its more like a load of different enemy types at the start and then you face the same enemies over and over again.

Awakening continues this trend with one new enemy type roughly every 2 hours, though this time they are mainly just textured swopped/head swopped and I think only the Children show an actual new power (which you rarely see because they have to 'kill' one of your heroes first).

If each new enemy type was varied and interesting, then we could maybe excuse the lack of variety. But they generally aren't. Its clear Bioware can make interesting monsters (The Ogre and Broodmother are great I think), I wonder did they just not have the resources to either design or implement enough variety?

Modifié par Upper_Krust, 01 avril 2010 - 12:42 .

[tmp7704]

Upper_Krust wrote...

I think Dragon Age suffers from three problems in this regard.

1. Too many of the enemies are basically the same (with no new special abilities, tactics and so forth).
2. There are too few enemy types.
3. The same enemy types comprise about 75% of the game (Genlocks, Hurlocks, Humans, Dwarves).

Looking at some recent videogames I have examined (including CRPGs), they average about 2 new enemies introduced per hour of play (thats not counting variants of the same enemy where that average goes up to about 4 per hour). Dragon Age probably offers about 0.5 new enemies per hour.

Two things to keep on mind here:

* how long are the games you've examined? "new enemies per hour" approach means the overall number of enemy types to produce increase quickly as the length of game grows.

* many games use "one model = one enemy type" approach in the sense all Grey Rats you enounter have exactly the same abilities and equipment. DA has multiple enemy types per model, often with different behaviour attached to them. For example, the genlock you encounter can be a rogue, a sword and board warrior, or a guy with two-hander. There's 7 different kinds of them total (and that's just melee ones) but each is named "Genlock" and looks like one. The Genlock Emmisaries come in 3 variants -- offensive, defensive and balanced but again, you won't tell that from appearance and the name tag. This is applied to most of enemy types and increases the overall number of types you get to face, but goes mostly ignored by the players because "it doesn't look any different".

Modifié par tmp7704, 01 avril 2010 - 01:14 .

[ladydesire]

Upper_Krust wrote...

ladydesire wrote...

They are;

...just not to any extent that would impact an encounter - which is surely the whole point of them.

if you look at the AI Packages, they are exactly the same as the in game TActics and behavior system for companions.

Thats as I would expect. Why build a competent Tactics and Behaviour modelling system and then not use it.

Not all enemies have minimal tactic choices; it's just a matter of how long they are allowed to exist that determines whether or not they are a challenge.

In 500+ encounters I have never seen an enemy heal another nor have I ever seen an enemy drink a potion. Thus Bioware must have set up the tactics wrong (or at least to be inconsequential).

Or your tactics and build are rendering them inconsequential, since I have seen enemy mages use heals on at least themselves and the tactics settings for enemy mages and ally mages are identical when it comes to healing.

Agreed, but should those choice be dictated by the AI, or how the character chooses to build their character?

I think the Boss AI should maybe have a plan A and plan B (plan B for the event that Plan A isn't working). Standard monsters may not need more than a plan A. Neither should be influenced by the character build.

Characters should adapt around the challenges set by the enemies in the game. Enemies shouldn't have to adapt to the player.

Bioware seems to think that the player is part of the difficulty equation, and that the enemies should be set up in such a way that those that want a challenge have to work at it, instead of having it handed to them.

Which is because Golems in DAO are not magical constructs, but rather Living Constructs (like D&D Ebberon setting Warforged); weapon choice shouldn't be the difference between defeating one or dying.

That doesn't make sense. They are made from stone, metal etc. Why wouldn't weapon type be a factor and why couldn't all golems be 90% resistant to magic (and by that I mean they only take 10% damage from spells)?

They should be resistant to magic the same way a Dwarf would be.

Lazy design? I don't think so, since it allows more players with less than super builds to experience a challenge without having to alter their build style significantly. I decided to see what all the complaints were about and built a character that put all the points in one attribute and I found I don't like the lack of real challenge; there is risk, but when the foe falls in about 4 hits, I find that I'd rather continue with a "gimped" build than play where there is no significant challenge.

You have justified everything I have said to date. There is no significant challenge unless you gimp yourself.

Even with an optimised min/maxed party the higher difficulty levels should still be a challenge but they just simply are not...thats lazy design.

That's the opinion of some players; obviously Bioware doesn't share it, or they would have designed four different systems, one for each difficulty level, which would increase the complexity of the game exponentially, which also increases the chance of game-breaking bugs and player complaints about difficulty. It seems they can't win no matter what they do.

[Upper_Krust]

tmp7704 wrote...

Two things to keep on mind here:

* how long are the games you've examined? "new enemies per hour" approach means the overall number of enemy types to produce increase quickly as the length of game grows.

Half a dozen running from 10 hours to 50+ hours.

* many games use "one model = one enemy type" approach in the sense all Grey Rats you enounter have exactly the same abilities and equipment. DA has multiple enemy types per model, often with different behaviour attached to them. For example, the genlock you encounter can be a rogue, a sword and board warrior, or a guy with two-hander. There's 7 different kinds of them total (and that's just melee ones) but each is named "Genlock" and looks like one.

Thats true and ultimately its a subjective point. For me, the litmus test is do they play/feel differently and the answer there for different weapons (archers aside) has to be - no.

Would I count a Genlock Alpha as different - yes. A Genlock Forgemaster - yes. Even though they don't act/attack differently.

Would I count a Genlock Rogue as different - yes. Though they are conspicuous by their absence in the game. Do they show up more than once in the entire game?

But the difference between a two-hander genlock and a sword n' board genlock is borderline non-existent.

Personally I would have loved to have seen the basic Genlock 'Scout' be a Rogue. Then have Genlock Grenadier's instead of Archers. That way you better differentiate them from Hurlocks.

The Genlock Emmisaries come in 3 variants -- offensive, defensive and balanced but again, you won't tell that from appearance and the name tag. This is applied to most of enemy types and increases the overall number of types you get to face, but goes mostly ignored by the players because "it doesn't look any different".

You'd be hard put to tell that from multiple combats either.

This might come down to another point I raised earlier about small differences being negligable in such a game. I've never seen a battle swing because an enemy spellcaster did anything (that might be a disservice to the Elven Alienage Mage you fight, or the Mad Mage in the Forest because they were the main focus of the encounter) but its pretty spot on with regards Emissaries or standard Mages in the game.

[Paromlin]

IF there are 4 difficulty levels to choose from, why not having another option at the start of a new game; Level Scaling: YES / NO.



What do you think?

[Boredmad]

Paromlin wrote...

IF there are 4 difficulty levels to choose from, why not having another option at the start of a new game; Level Scaling: YES / NO.

What do you think?

Its rather silly in my opinion. Level scaling by no means ruins the game experience, though it could no doubt be done better. I like challenge and to some extent level scaling provides that challenge. Whether I'm level 1 or 20 I want to be challenged when fighting my enemies. There are other ways for this challenge to be accomplished and level scaling can be done more intellegently, but level scaling is better than no level scaling in a game like Dragon Age were there is some freedom.

[Paromlin]

You may not like it, but it's not silly.

There's a valid reason for this option. Many threads have been posted about this issue and this particular one has almost reached 20 pages.
Giving players the option to decide whether they want the world to artificially adjust around their level or not would be a great thing.

[Upper_Krust]

Paromlin wrote...

IF there are 4 difficulty levels to choose from, why not having another option at the start of a new game; Level Scaling: YES / NO.

What do you think?

I don't think thats a practical option. Without Level Scaling in DAO, parts of the game (where you have a choice of levels) would become too easy or too hard.

As I have suggested before. Rank Scaling is the best solution, although even it may need minor level scaling (say within a 5 level span).

 

[Paromlin]

Upper_Krust wrote...


I don't think thats a practical option. Without Level Scaling in DAO, parts of the game (where you have a choice of levels) would become too easy or too hard.

As I have suggested before. Rank Scaling is the best solution, although even it may need minor level scaling (say within a 5 level span).

 

Actually yes, it is a practical option. I have played DA with a mod (link posted on the first page) that assigns fixed levels to all enemies. It felt just right. Some areas were harder, some easier - which depends a lot on the order you do them, as it should be.

Rank scaling is just a variation of level scaling and I'm sorry, but I'm against any form of scaling.

[Haexpane]

That's really the debate.



Some people believe that a game should have the same difficulty start to finish (support level scaling)



Others like me believe n00b areas should be easy, and epic areas should be hard (against level scaling)



In DAO:A the last 3rd of the game is the easiest, because of the broken scaling. RPGs should not get easier as you get deeper into dangerous areas.

[Paromlin]

Haexpane wrote...


Others like me believe n00b areas should be easy, and epic areas should be hard (against level scaling)

Yes.
I also think that once a player completes a hard area (relative to his level), earning experience and good items, he should be rewarded with an easier time in areas that would otherwise be much tougher.

[Upper_Krust]

Paromlin wrote...

Actually yes, it is a practical option. I have played DA with a mod (link posted on the first page) that assigns fixed levels to all enemies. It felt just right. Some areas were harder, some easier - which depends a lot on the order you do them, as it should be.

Well I am very interested in how this works because on paper it looks next door to impossible. The mid portion of the game (where you have the choices of where to go), encompassing Levels 7-17 (or 7-21 for those ending at level 25).

That means the only way they could conceivably balance things are by assigning Level 12 to basically everything in the game (during these middle portions) other than optional fights.

Going by my early memories of the Revenant fights with a 3-4 level difference they were next to unbeatable. Of course only one is mandatory (Redcliffe) and its a weakened Revenant. But still the mod set-up allows for the possibility of a +3/+4/+5 Level Boss Fight. I'd be very skeptical that anyone could defeat a +5 Level Boss fight in Dragon Age. I wouldn't say impossible, but it would be single character Nightmare walkthrough type difficult.

So that first Level of Choice is going to be very hard indeed (assuming my Level 12 prediction is correct?).

However. The flipside is going to be that:

Location #1 = Very Hard
Location #2 = Normal
Location #3 = Easy
Location #4 = Very Easy
Location #5 = Trivial at best

In addition we have a second variable being that you encounter Hurlocks and Genlocks in the Korcari Wilds (characters at about Level 3). So at what level do those enemies need to be set at? If we set them at Level 5 (for example), then they are going to be completely pointless at every point past Lothering. Now since 40%+ of the games enemies are Darkspawn, congratulations because you just made almost 40% of the games combat irrelevant.

Rank scaling is just a variation of level scaling and I'm sorry, but I'm against any form of scaling.

Even Dragon Scaling?

The key here is at what level difference does an enemy become to hard to defeat and at what level does an enemy become too weak to matter. Going by the Dragon Age Guide its +/-2 Levels for typical players, up to maybe +4 for masochists.

Thus you can't have a fixed level for enemies without restricting them to a small part of the game (covering approx. a 5 level span). Hence my suggestion to make all enemies Levels 3, 8, 13 and 18. Moving up and down 5 levels but dropping or increasing in rank. This way the statistical math won't ever crush you for more than +/-2 Levels. Meaning you will have areas where you seem more powerful (levels 4-5, 9-10, 14-15, 19-20) as well as areas where you will seem weaker (levels 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, 16-17).

[Haexpane]

Paromlin wrote...

Haexpane wrote...


Others like me believe n00b areas should be easy, and epic areas should be hard (against level scaling)

Yes.
I also think that once a player completes a hard area (relative to his level), earning experience and good items, he should be rewarded with an easier time in areas that would otherwise be much tougher.

And not only does it continue to get easier, because of scaling (this broken DAO scaling)  fights go faster.

In a "standard" harder stuff is harder to kill model, end game fights take longer.

The fact that combat goes faster and faster as you get near the end proves yet again that level scaling is working wrong and has the opposite of the intended effect.

Instead of maintaining a combat flow and feel and allowing players to "go anywhere" it instead speeds the game up artificially and ruins planed pacing.

[ladydesire]

Haexpane wrote...


The fact that combat goes faster and faster as you get near the end proves yet again that level scaling is working wrong and has the opposite of the intended effect.

Instead of maintaining a combat flow and feel and allowing players to "go anywhere" it instead speeds the game up artificially and ruins planed pacing.

There is only one way this happens; if the player optimises his own character and the entire party. It does not happen otherwise, at least in my experience. While some may claim that a non-optimised character is somehow gimped, I feel that Bioware designed the game balance around precisely that kind of character build, since the companions are generally built with points in two to three stats, rather than having all of them in one.

[MrBoomba]

From the games ive played, scaling is an incredibly hard thing to do correctly when coming out with anything that increases level cap. This is due to scaling that happens during the increased levels when the scale was created for the specific level design, in order to correct the scale, it must be completely redone which is most likely why they had this"Expansion" set as a "seperate" game.

However, they will eventually fix this issue I imagine, it is a very tedious problem that takes months of testing to fix which is why it is not one of the things I have openly posted about.

Every time I think of scaling being done incorrectly WoW comes to mind for some reason, but that is aside from the point, DA is a different type of game and they havent had to deal with increased level cap scaling for it before, give it some time and it will most likely be fixed, if you cant give the developers EXACT ways of how to improve the system I wouldnt bother posting on it so they wont have to be bothered with the thread.

[Suron]

level scaling done wrong ruins the game...



and just because you can kill a high dragon doesn't mean a rain of arrows from ambushes or a pack of wild wolves can't give you a hard time and maybe even take you down.



honestly the way it is in DA:O is..not so bad...kinda realistic actually...hit points don't exist in real life....



for instance..just because Mike Tyson can whip yer ass doesn't mean a good sized group ambushing him wouldn't kill him....



now Oblivions level scaling is terrible..and I can only play that game with one of the mods that removes it OOO is the best...



not using level scaling forces you to follow set paths and severely hampers replayability...if I always HAD to go through DA:O in the same path due to levels I'd not of gotten half the play time steam is showing (currently just over 500 hours)..it's a bore.



and all these if/and/or/but scenerios for doing things in certain order is ludicrous to ask for....do you have any idea what that would entail as far as time to program and the nightmare of bugs that would have to be squashed.....



1.03 and awakening are abortions in their own right..I don't even want to think about it if the game had the complexity you think is as difficult as cutting a fart.

[-Spartan]

I for one dont like scaling on principle. I prefer a random level band selection of say plus or minus five levels of the areas target level based on design as well as the same thing for number of NPC for each area. That way every time is different and challenging - in theory at least for me but of course someone will always disagree for the purpose of doing so.

[Upper_Krust]

MrBoomba wrote...

From the games ive played, scaling is an incredibly hard thing to do correctly when coming out with anything that increases level cap. This is due to scaling that happens during the increased levels when the scale was created for the specific level design, in order to correct the scale, it must be completely redone which is most likely why they had this"Expansion" set as a "seperate" game.
However, they will eventually fix this issue I imagine, it is a very tedious problem that takes months of testing to fix which is why it is not one of the things I have openly posted about.
Every time I think of scaling being done incorrectly WoW comes to mind for some reason, but that is aside from the point, DA is a different type of game and they havent had to deal with increased level cap scaling for it before, give it some time and it will most likely be fixed, if you cant give the developers EXACT ways of how to improve the system I wouldnt bother posting on it so they wont have to be bothered with the thread.

I think the more variables you have determining character power, the more complicated Level Scaling definately becomes. I honestly think Bioware have done a pretty good job with Dragon Age Origin's level scaling. However I would say the problem really gets out of hand for Awakening, which means if there is another expansion, they have to examine the level scaling very closely because the more powerful characters get (and thus the more variables governing their power) the greater the gap between Enemies and PCs.

[Paromlin]

Upper_Krust wrote...




That means the only way they could conceivably balance things are by assigning Level 12 to basically everything in the game (during these middle portions) other than optional fights.

No, you're completely off. Levels assigned to areas in this mod are very varied and while you simply can't go to certain "deeper" areas with a level 7 character, there's a big enough choice.

And yeah, it's possible to defeat opponents who are several levels higher than you.

[Hollingdale]

**** level scaling!! gief linearity

[ladydesire]

MrBoomba wrote...

From the games ive played, scaling is an incredibly hard thing to do correctly when coming out with anything that increases level cap. This is due to scaling that happens during the increased levels when the scale was created for the specific level design, in order to correct the scale, it must be completely redone which is most likely why they had this"Expansion" set as a "seperate" game.

As I 've said before, the only variable that the developers have no control over is how you build your character; most players that don't know how to min\\max (or know how to, but refuse to do it)  won't have near the issues with level scaling that others will.

However, they will eventually fix this issue I imagine, it is a very tedious problem that takes months of testing to fix which is why it is not one of the things I have openly posted about.
Every time I think of scaling being done incorrectly WoW comes to mind for some reason, but that is aside from the point, DA is a different type of game and they havent had to deal with increased level cap scaling for it before, give it some time and it will most likely be fixed, if you cant give the developers EXACT ways of how to improve the system I wouldnt bother posting on it so they wont have to be bothered with the thread.

Why fix something that isn't broken?

[Upper_Krust]

Paromlin wrote...

No, you're completely off.

I'm happy to be wrong on the matter, but I am very curious how it does it.

Levels assigned to areas in this mod are very varied and while you simply can't go to certain "deeper" areas with a level 7 character, there's a big enough choice.

Ah, now we are getting closer to the truth. The game has curbed the choices by making certain areas off limit BECAUSE it had to set monster levels too high. So my initial appraisal was correct and the mid portion of the game cannot support the player choosing the area if we don't have level scaling (or rank scaling).

However, even if thats the case can you please explain how it handles Genlocks and Hurlocks? If those monsters have a fixed level then surely they become completely irrelevant after Lothering. Consequently, as Darkspawn constitute 40%+ of the game enemies, your mod just made about a third of the games combats irrelevant.

And yeah, it's possible to defeat opponents who are several levels higher than you.

I agree. But my point is that (based on my encounters with Revenants) it doesn't seem possible to defeat a +5 Level opponent - or at least certainly not possible for typical gamers.

[Paromlin]

Upper_Krust wrote...

The game has curbed the choices by making certain areas off limit BECAUSE it had to set monster levels too high.

 What's so surprising about it?

I don't know the point in history when (some) players started expecting to be able to go EVERYWHERE HERE AND NOW & complete the area. Even in DA you can't do it.

How about a new strategy - this area is too hard for me now, I'll come back later.

However, even if thats the case can you please explain how it handles Genlocks and Hurlocks? If those monsters have a fixed level then surely they become completely irrelevant after Lothering.

No, genlocks and hurlocks have a level tied to the area they're in, just like in the vanilla edition.

[MrBoomba]

I personally prefer games that have tied between linearity and level scaling, IE some places require higher level, but still scale even if you are higher than that designated level. As to never out date a place, but add some sort of difficulty if you really want to take on something hard. Added in, this allows some areas to just be higher level than you in general, much higher than level cap.