575 réponses à ce sujet

[oblivionenss]

What is it with the obsession to be as powerful as a god with no challenges, I actually just loved the way DA: O dealed with this so that you had a good challenge all the way through.



And anyway you have a good amount of time to feel op in the end

[Akka le Vil]

DargonBlak wrote...

in my normal pen&paper world (old school), Encounter Level tables, and Challenge Ratings are easily used to scale any given encounter to be Easy, Normal, Hard, or Very Difficult...
So, i suppose, if we can do it in our short words, and we can develop a table and equations that can relate Party Level, Challenge Rating, and Difficulty to Encounter Level, i suppose they could do it in software... but i also suppose that this is what they are in fact doing (in a certain way)...

so, while i agree with some of your points, i think we should keep in
mind that because of the current "level scaling" we are not forced to
follow a specific path or order as to which quest we do first... if they
did require us to follow the exact same path each time we played due to
the fixed encounter level of each quest, i think many people would find
the game far less enjoyable...

All this is useless. A world is better when it simply makes sense.
Just build a world where some mosnters are dangerous (those ones, you flee when you see them until you're strong enough), some are weaker (those you can take them early on), strong people are strong, weak people are weak. And then let the player navigate its way logically.

THAT is non-linearity.
I would gladly exchange the ability to do the quest in any order for the feeling that the world actually make sense. Especially as we don't really get non-linearity, we simply get non-significance - everything is doable and everything is available and everything has exactly the same difficulty than everything else...

"hello, I'm OverDemon Terrificus that can destroy a whole village with my burning magic, but well, a wolf can kick my ass because you saw it later than me"
Does this really is worth the ability to just jump in everywhere without a worry that you may be over your head ? Not likely...

i agree the Encounter Level Scaling could be done better, but it's not as bad as Oblivion (imo).

Yes it is. It's even worse, as in Oblivion, the whole worls leveled with you, just like in DAO, but at least you had the visual cue that made SOME sense (I can see that a bandit in daedric armor is stronger than a bandit in leather armor, though of course it's completely stupid and absurd to even HAVE a bandit in daedric armor). In DAO, you simply have everyone at the same level, everytime, everywhere. Wow, just SO interesting !

[Akka le Vil]

oblivionenss wrote...

What is it with the obsession to be as powerful as a god with no challenges, I actually just loved the way DA: O dealed with this so that you had a good challenge all the way through.

And anyway you have a good amount of time to feel op in the end

What's with the unability to read ?
I talk mostly about how bland it is to have everything always at the same difficulty level, and how ridiculous it is that monsters' power is defined not by what/who they are but by what level the PC is, but the only thing the selective reading of some people get is "you want be so strong as there is no challenge !".
God, just how can you miss the point so hard ?

[Elanareon]

Did you patch at 1.02? I think they fixed level scaling there. Made all enemies weak. And i think Darkspawns scales their level with you because. Well they are another race of beings, they have 20 levels as well just like us. And the game almost only have darkspawns in it so you are feeling what you are feeling right now.

[oblivionenss]

Akka le Vil wrote...

oblivionenss wrote...

What is it with the obsession to be as powerful as a god with no challenges, I actually just loved the way DA: O dealed with this so that you had a good challenge all the way through.

And anyway you have a good amount of time to feel op in the end

What's with the unability to read ?
I talk mostly about how bland it is to have everything always at the same difficulty level, and how ridiculous it is that monsters' power is defined not by what/who they are but by what level the PC is, but the only thing the selective reading of some people get is "you want be so strong as there is no challenge !".
God, just how can you miss the point so hard ?

Well, go and play (insert random Hack & slash) then

[Akka le Vil]

Elanareon wrote...

Did you patch at 1.02? I think they fixed level scaling there. Made all enemies weak.

No, on the contrary. They just had some mosnters that actually didn't scale and were by default at their "ceiling" level (the infamous backalley brigands), and the patch made them scale again.
And I don't want to have "every enemy weak". I want to have "every enemy having a sensical level based on what they are, not what level I am". Which has absolutely nothing in common with wanting enemies being weak.

And i think Darkspawns scales their level with you because. Well they are another race of beings, they have 20 levels as well just like us. And the game almost only have darkspawns in it so you are feeling what you are feeling right now.

Please, I'm asking for a world that make sense, not far-stretched rationnalizations...
No problem with some individual darkspawns being very tough (just like some high-level character are very tough) or some platoons being made of "elite darkspawns". But this is completely different than having every darkspawn "coincidentally" being exactly as strong as you...

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 04 mars 2010 - 12:11 .

[Akka le Vil]

oblivionenss wrote..
Well, go and play (insert random Hack & slash) then

Go troll elsewhere ?

[Eurypterid]

Let's keep things civil, please.



I can see Akka's point, but it's a tough juggling act. I certainly don't enjoy wading through hordes of fodder that presents no real threat or challenge, but there certainly is merit in the complaint about a wolf being more powerful than that demon just because you happened to encounter the demon 7 levels ago.



But it does lead to linearity if you have zones of specific levels (i.e. you can't go into area E because you aren't strong enough until you've completed areas A,B,C, and D first), and I'm not a big fan of that either.



I'm not sure what the optimal solution would be that would keep the game both fun, interesting, challenging, and have replay value. If you have no level scaling at all, most of the creatures you run into just end up becoming filler cannon fodder. Perhaps more variety in the creatures encountered would help, so you don't end up with the problem of running into level 15 wolves and level 13 commoners.

[oblivionenss]

Akka le Vil wrote...

oblivionenss wrote..
Well, go and play (insert random Hack & slash) then

Go troll elsewhere ?

Same to you.

You cant comprehend that Darkspawns can get exp and level up precisely as you.

So yeah, troll...

[Akka le Vil]

oblivionenss wrote...

Same to you.

You cant comprehend that Darkspawns can get exp and level up precisely as you.

So yeah, troll...

Oh yes, and all the darkspawns (and all the spiders, and the wolves, and the brigands, and everyone) just get the same level than you at the same moment !

Haven't you enough forums on the Internet not to go trolling this thread ? Go away.

[oblivionenss]

Akka le Vil wrote...

oblivionenss wrote...

Same to you.

You cant comprehend that Darkspawns can get exp and level up precisely as you.

So yeah, troll...

Oh yes, and all the darkspawns (and all the spiders, and the wolves, and the brigands, and everyone) just get the same level than you at the same moment !

Haven't you enough forums on the Internet not to go trolling this thread ? Go away.

Just trying to bring up a discussion with you, but you wont even listen.

I feel that this is the best way to maintain the challenge in the game without making this game linear a'la Dungeon siege.

[Akka le Vil]

Eurypterid wrote...

Let's keep things civil, please.

I can see Akka's point, but it's a tough juggling act. I certainly don't enjoy wading through hordes of fodder that presents no real threat or challenge,

The designers don't need to make you wade through hordes of boring fodder.
That's where creativity (rather than lazy design "let's make everything the same") kicks in.

They can make the power gained with a level small enough that a regular soldier is still dangerous all game long (less and less dangerous as you improve in power, but still a credible threat, especially in numbers).
They can simply have a some canon fodder for realism sake (not EVERY soldier can be an elite commando) but put the true challenge in the personnal guard of the bad guy, which are highly trained and provides the real deal.
They can make so that weak foes recognize that it's pointless to get slaughtered by you, and avoid you/surrender when you are high enough in levels/fame, so that you don't have to wade through them.
They can make it so that the high-level quests send you in places where it's LOGICAL that you don't encounter weak foes.
Etc.

Fallout didn't had waves of cannon fodder to wade through. And Fallout had ABSOLUTELY ZERO level scaling.

But it does lead to linearity if you have zones of specific levels (i.e. you can't go into area E because you aren't strong enough until you've completed areas A,B,C, and D first), and I'm not a big fan of that either.

"level zones" are absurd, as I tried to point out with the "I'm a commoner in Denerhim so I'm stronger than an elite guard in Ostagar because my level zone is stronger !"
I'm not (and I'll never) advocate "level zone".
What I advocate is "sensical world". Elite guards are strong, regardless of where or when you see them. Rats are weak, regardless of where and when you see them. And so on.

Linearity ? No. You can have several "low-level quest", that pits you against realistically low-level foes. Then several "mid-level" quests, then several "high-level" quests, and so on.
Again, let's use Fallout : it had ZERO level scaling. And it was probably the most open-ended game ever made, with also zero linearity.

"linearity" just a poor excuse for the lazy design option that is level scaling.

I'm not sure what the optimal solution would be that would keep the game both fun, interesting, challenging, and have replay value. If you have no level scaling at all, most of the creatures you run into just end up becoming filler cannon fodder. Perhaps more variety in the creatures encountered would help, so you don't end up with the problem of running into level 15 wolves and level 13 commoners.

Creature that are weak ends up canon fodder. How is it a problem ? They are simply not challenging anymore, that's okay.
There is no problem if you also have strong creatures that can logically provide a challenge. Once you are a powerful warrior, you will simply start to look for powerful foes. You don't need to make every wolf a Superdemon, you just need to provide the possibility to encounter some higher-level foes.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 04 mars 2010 - 12:32 .

[Eurypterid]

Akka, this is what I mean: you suggest several areas for low levels, several for mid levels, and several for higher levels. That's fine, but that's where my suggestion of more variety in creatures comes into play because frankly, I don't want to do 4 low level areas that offer me all the same creatures. It's one of the things that started to drive me nuts in NWN. Every low level module had you pitted against either goblins and kobolds, or some low level bandits, it seemed.



I'm not arguing about the possibility of encountering higher level foes, that's great, but how do you do that? Do you make them random encounters? If so, you're running the risk of that encounter happening to a very low level character and that player will get wiped out. Not fun, especially if you can't flee or if a reload only takes you back to that encounter again. Or do you put them in their own specific area? If so, you start to end up with either a 'level zone' where all the creatures are high level, or you end up with a 'cannon fodder' zone where the bulk of what you meet is low level and unchallenging with only the odd super-sized boss/sub boss and his few powerful minions. Again, not fun, IMO.



And sorry I can't run with your Fallout example, as I've not played it.

[Red Frostraven]

The workaround is to spawn more difficult enemies; Better creatures, instead of leveled up animals...

AND to have different creatures at different difficulty levels.

...
Say, wolves could be dangerous between level 6 and 9, and stop leveling at nine.
THEN if the party is level 10 -- there's a chance a corrupted wolf appears with the pack.
You SLAUGHTER the wolves, but the large beast poses a threath.

It's all about immersion: Wolves are not dangerous, and should stop beeing too dangerous at a certain level. That goes for all animals, except of course lions and tigers -- but those are not in the game.

I absolutely LOVE how you face darkspawn grunts in the later game. It's FUN to notice that you have progressed immensely from when you struggled with the grunts at level 4, and when one ogre was a boss.

By all means. Ogre Alpha, Ogre Chieftain... As long as they're DIFFERENT in name and appearance, they're a heck of a lot better than an ogre of the player's level with generic loot.

Modifié par Red Frostraven, 04 mars 2010 - 12:50 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Wait so you want all enemies to have a consistent threat level but not scale in level with you? Not much consistence there.

The level scaling (at least how I see it) gives us exactly that consistence. A Genlock is still a Genlock even though you just dinged and magically got more powerful.

[Red Frostraven]

That is also the problem.

You start with the dagger (3 damage)
Which needs 5 hits to kill a rat. You kill 50 rats, then you get the shortsword (4 damage)
Which needs 5 hits to kill a rat, because the rat levels up with you. You kill 50 rats, then you get the longsword (6 damage)
Then you kill the boss who needs 50 hits to go down. You kill 50 rats, then you get the magical longsword (8 damage).
Which needs 6 hits to kill a rat, because the rat levels up with you. You kill 50 rats, then you get the magical greatsword (12 damage).
Which needs 7 hits to kill a rat, because the rat levels up with you. You kill 50 rats, then you get the cannon (15 damage).
Which needs 5 hits to kill a rat, because the rat levels up with you. . You kill 50 rats, then you face the boss.
Who needs 50 hits with the cannon to go down, and you get the plasma rifle (20 damage).
Which needs 6 hits to kill a rat, because the rat levels up with you. Then you get the magical plasma rifle (50 damage).
Which needs 6 hits to kill a rat, because the rat levels up with you.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa..!
THAT is Oblivion in a nutshell, right there. DA isn't THAT bad, but it's not too far away.

Modifié par Red Frostraven, 04 mars 2010 - 01:02 .

[Ralnith]

Ah, levels... The problem is the leveling system itself,  not the level scaling. Encounters scale to provide a challenge to high level players, but that itself is merely a workaround that exists to hide the old flaw in gameplay design without actually fixing it.

Leveling, at least the way it works in most rpgs, is just another relic from pen and paper games. It doesn't fit into a computer game and it causes more problems than it solves if pressed there, but it seems popular enough with the developers and customers and thus doesn't want to die.

The examples like "greater demon in area A weaker than a drunk beggar in area B" demonstrate how levels don't make any sense when applied to NPCs. But it is the same for the PCs as well: noone can progress from "Joe Average"-strength to "Superman on steroids"-strength in a few days, but it is absolutely possible for a PC who gains a few levels. Not to mention the increase of health that can eventually allow a PC with a high enough lvl to survive ridiculous amounts of punishment from low-lvl enemies. You'd think being hit in the head with a huge sledgehammer should hurt no matter who you are, but no...

Removing leveling entirely would unfortunately also remove any progression of the characters skills. The best way I see is to remove stat progression. In other words: you still level up and gain new skills/spells, but you don't get any points to spend on strength, dexterity etc. Also, health is dependent only on the characters constitution (so, a lvl 20 warrior with 20 const has exactly the same amount of hp as a lvl 1 warrior with 20 const), just as the damage dealt depends only on the approapriate attribute (strength for melee attacks, magic for spells...) and the used weapon.

This allows players to get new skills each level, but it doesn't make them overpowered at high level. It also completely removes the need for any kind of scaling and eases the balancing: since dps and hp only change slightly, you can add effects with simple constant power. No need to worry about how much different it would be at high or low lvl. NPCs can have constant stats and inventory and will automatically provide just as much challenge as they should according to the lvl of the PC (you don't have a lot of tricks to use at low lvl, so the fight will be comparably hard. At high lvl the character has many different abilities and thus more/better counters to the monsters attacks).

[soteria]

Ultimately, I think this comes down to preference, and I just can't agree with it in this case. I hated the grunts at the end because the battles felt meaningless and incredibly boring. Likewise, I prefer level scaling to the lack of it because I don't want to run into hordes of enemies that just die or surrender. Some people want that feeling--fine, just be aware that many other people don't.

As for not feeling like you're getting stronger as the game goes on, I disagree vehemently. By the time I reach level 14 or so and get good gear and high defense and a decent spread of abilities, I think the game is a cakewalk. I can definitely tell a difference in power after I get some of the level 12+ abilities .

One thing people have mentioned a lot is substituting different monster types instead of scaling them. This is not DnD where we have a ginormous monster library with gnolls, orcs, goblins, trolls, ogres, various demons and devils, and bunches of undead. As for the idea that we should have "specialer" enemies within a monster class (bandit archer, veteran bandit archer, bandit archer captain, greater bandit archer of epic doom, etc), I think it's more immersion-breaking than the alternative. I can ignore the level because my character doesn't know it. It's hard to ignore when you're fighting an enemy that logically should be rare but now comprises an entire enemy force simply because you're a high level.

I do agree that the game could use a greater variety in enemies and their tactics, though.  I just diagree that doing away with level scaling would make the game more fun, and I think it's a false premise to say that you don't get (relatively) stronger as you level up.  At level 20, I can kill an even-level enemy much faster than I can at level 5.

Modifié par soteria, 04 mars 2010 - 01:13 .

[Red Frostraven]

How about adding more dangerous (both more, and more dangerous) creatures instead of leveling creatures up alongside you?

Read my previous post.

Things like that SAPS the joy out of a game, to ALWAYS struggle with the same opponents.



After killing 300 rats and having gone from a rusty dagger to a magical sword, attacking thrice per second instead of the measily one per second before, putting more power into each blow than ever before... my character feels ready for new challenges, not more of the same.

An upgrade from rats to wolves. From wolves to bears. From bears to lions.

From goblins to orcs. From orcs to ogres. From ogres to trolls.

Lizards -> Salamanders -> Basilsks -> Wyverns -> dragon hatchlings -> Dragons

Skeletons -> Zombies -> Ghouls -> Vampires -> Liches.



Progression. New challenges.

[Akka le Vil]

Eurypterid wrote...

Akka, this is what I mean: you suggest several areas for low levels, several for mid levels, and several for higher levels.That's fine, but that's where my suggestion of more variety in creatures
comes into play because frankly, I don't want to do 4 low level areas
that offer me all the same creatures. It's one of the things that
started to drive me nuts in NWN. Every low level module had you pitted
against either goblins and kobolds, or some low level bandits, it
seemed.

Hey, that's not what I said ! What I suggested was several QUEST for low/mid/high levels
Area should be, well, areas. Depending on what there is in, they could have very widely different creature levels (a city would have lots of very low-level commoners, and could have mid-level soldiers and some high-level elite guards or experienced adventured) or not (a farmstead would have only the farmer's family, all very low level). The point I wished to make is : what should determine the strength of a creature is purely what the creature is, not when we encounter it.

I'm not arguing about the possibility of encountering higher level foes, that's great, but how do you do that? Do you make them random encounters? If so, you're running the risk of that encounter happening to a very low level character and that player will get wiped out. Not fun, especially if you can't flee or if a reload only takes you back to that encounter again. Or do you put them in their own specific area? If so, you start to end up with either a 'level zone' where all the creatures are high level, or you end up with a 'cannon fodder' zone where the bulk of what you meet is low level and unchallenging with only the odd super-sized boss/sub boss and his few powerful minions. Again, not fun, IMO.

Some zones could be more dangerous, yes. The depths of a dangerous forest from where nobody ever came back sounds pretty dangerous, and would feel a logical place to have quite a bit of dangerous foes. You could have low-level quests that bring you in the outskirts of the forest (the "buffer zone" like you call it), and later quests that would bring you in the depths of the forest, where the danger is far greater.
You could also encounter high-level foes "randomly" if it makes sense. Not necessarily as a confrontation (a nobleman and his personnal guard of highly-trained soldiers, that you could talk with peacefully).
You could allow fleeing, so that the player would retreat if encountering something above his head.

All this makes for a more logical, vivid, immersive world than "whatever I encounter is scaled to me, regardless of where I am and what it is".
You SHOULD be wary of the elite guards, because they ARE elite, and wonder if you CAN take them on, not just think "they will be just dangerous enough to give a challenge, but not too much so I can't win". That's meta-thinking, and it should not happen.
You SHOULD be very afraid of large, dangerous monsters, and try to flee from them, not think "hey if I see it now, it means I can kill it now, so no sweat".

Isn't it much more interesting to gauge the strength of the enemy from what it is, and not meta-gaming-thinking it ?

And sorry I can't run with your Fallout example, as I've not played it.

You don't know what you missed. Great game.

[MorGothic]

Eurypterid wrote... 
 
I'm
not sure what the optimal solution would be that would keep the game
both fun, interesting, challenging, and have replay value. If you have
no level scaling at all, most of the creatures you run into just end up
becoming filler cannon fodder. Perhaps more variety in the creatures
encountered would help, so you don't end up with the problem of running
into level 15 wolves and level 13 commoners.

 
 
The problem is I don't think there is an perfect solution to this "issue" and Bioware have done their best to compromise. 
 
What you also must remember is that you a Gray Warden (one of most likely thousands) not a Demi God/Legendary
Hero and as such you are only human, and while you are an incredible
talented Warrior/Rouge/Mage you are not capable of defeating the Blight
alone. 
 
Leveling in DA is there to give to a sense of progress
as you move through the game in the way you gain access to new talents
and skills, but because you are still human your enemy advances with
you so the playing field is kept as level as possible. People say "Its
stupid that the level is set when I first enter an area", now
considering nothing respawn's this argument doesn't make much sense to me. For Example I get to Lothering
I won't immediately go elsewhere then come back a few levels later and
then complain that level scaling ruins the game because I chose to
advance further along the story rather then doing everything in Lothering first then move on as you are expected to do. 
 
@ The OP  
 
Why
don't you set your level to 25 via the console and avoid Level Scaling
altogether if it bothers you so much? (Oh and if you say I can't I have
it on the Xbox 360/PS3
that's your own fault, not that I'm saying there anything wrong with
playing DA on a console, but it is well know that PC games are easier
to mod to your liking).

[Jax Sparrow]

I think the O.P. Might benefit from choosing to see the equation differently. There is always 'something' on the other side of the equation. If there were no level scaling then the game would not be nonlinear in its gameplay. We would be forced to fight the same foes in exactly the same progression through the game. Of course, I think locking monsters onto the same level progression mechanics our characters experience is a wonderful thing. Dungeons & Dragons started this idea and I wish more game makers understood how much locking enemies to our own game/level mechanics adds to the game.

Also, I think the O.P. is wrong about the mobs being the same. As the mobs grow in level they seem to gain abilities that they were denied access too at lower levels. Of course, one can only really get a sense of this dynamic after playing the game through multiple playthroughs. As the they said they are having trouble getting through a second playthrough; I think another game and/or something outside Dragon Age: Origins is affecting their experience of playing the game.

Modifié par Jax Sparrow, 04 mars 2010 - 04:04 .

[Akka le Vil]

The examples like "greater demon in area A weaker than a drunk beggar in area B" demonstrate how levels don't make any sense when applied to NPCs. But it is the same for the PCs as well: noone can progress from "Joe Average"-strength to "Superman on steroids"-strength in a few days, but it is absolutely possible for a PC who gains a few levels. Not to mention the increase of health that can eventually allow a PC with a high enough lvl to survive ridiculous amounts of punishment from low-lvl enemies. You'd think being hit in the head with a huge sledgehammer should hurt no matter who you are, but no...

Hey, I don't disagree on this point either. I think it's acceptable for the hero to gain levels quickly (he's The Hero after all, and usually is exceptionnal precisely because he rise up in power), but yes it feels weird that everyone on your party quickly rise at the same pace and ends up at the same power, while one is the "grizzled veteran from many campaigns" and the other is "the little flowergirl that was bring along with you".

As I said before in the thread : if it's to make them pointless through level scaling, then just remove levels.

But if you put levels in the game, at least get them right !
No point in putting a leveling system if it's to make it useless and end up in ridiculous situation (like the archdemon weaker than a wolf).

I do agree that the game could use a greater variety in enemies and
their tactics, though.  I just diagree that doing away with level
scaling would make the game more fun, and I think it's a false premise
to say that you don't get (relatively) stronger as you level up.  At
level 20, I can kill an even-level enemy much faster than I can at level
5.

Actually, I was striken by the intensity of the level scaling when I started a game right after finishing the first.
I went right from the pinnacle of baddassery to the starting beginner, and... It was nearly the same. That landed heavily on my head.

And the problem is not the variety of tactics. The problem is that a huge 5-m living tree is just as easy to kill than some random guy. A huge living tree should be a terror to fight, not just "skin C for a same-level monster". It should not be of the same power than some regular guy, or some regular animal. That makes no sense.

Jax Sparrow wrote...

There is always 'something' on the
other side of the equation. If there were no level scaling then the
game would not be nonlinear in its gameplay.

This is false,
and it has already being answerer THREE TIMES
in the thread, so if you could maybe actually read before answering, it
would be much appreciated, thanks...

I know I'm not being very gentle, but it's extremely annoying to CONSTANTLY see the SAME falsety every five messages, even when you already have proved them wrong SEVERAL TIMES in the VERY SAME thread...

[Elanareon]

Cmon we all know that wolves and spiders are strong because of overwhelm. Not his scale. Archers are strong because of scattershot. And you can get thise at early levels. Lol

[Ralnith]

Elanareon wrote...

Cmon we all know that wolves and spiders are strong because of overwhelm. Not his scale. Archers are strong because of scattershot. And you can get thise at early levels. Lol

True, and that is exactly what lvl-diffrence should be all about. Not stats, hp and dps: those are just numbers, they don't exist inside the game-world. A "powerful" enemy has many different and effective abilities, a "weak" enemy doesn't. Everything else about the level progression is a useless burden inherited from DnD and I think all rpgs would only benefit if it was removed.