575 réponses à ce sujet

[Paromlin]

Upper_Krust wrote...


SO, if the same monsters feature in different areas (and almost every monster does) this mod assigns it a different level...how the hootin heck is that any different from Level Scaling?

This is hilarious. You don't understand what level scaling is and yet you're arguing about it for pages and pages with essay-long posts.

Level scaling exists when a monster's level is codependent with the level of the player character. Or simply put; it scales with it.

Level scaling has nothing to do with having monsters of various strength with the same name or look.


As for the rest of your post... you're trying to convince yourself and others, especially yourself, that those who can't accept challenge or defeat or the need to adopt a different strategy are not cry-babies. Alrighty then.

ladydesire wrote...
I'm sure he's thinking of the original Fallout and Baldur's Gate, among others. But as I just said, those had level scaling too, just a different form of it.

Why do you keep talking about stuff you don't have a clue about?

While I haven't played Fallout, I can say that Baldur's Gate doesn't have "just a different form of level scaling". Level scaling in Baldur's Gate is so sparse you have to look for it with a magnifier. Somebody mentioned there are a few more xvarts in the xvart village if you're a higher level character, but I have yet to test that.

Therefore saying willy-nilly that it's "just a different form" is complete misinformation because BG's level scaling is (in volume) light years apart from the horrible all-encompassing level scaling in DA.

[Upper_Krust]

I can only conclude the flaming posts from others has unsettled you a tad.

Paromlin wrote...

This is hilarious. You don't understand what level scaling is and yet you're arguing about it for pages and pages with essay-long posts.

Level scaling exists when a monster's level is codependent with the level of the player character. Or simply put; it scales with it.

As far as I am aware, Level Scaling in Dragon Age means that when players first enter a given area (e.g. The Mage's Tower), all the monsters are scaled (based on their rank as per the DAO Prima Guide) to the players level.

This is explicitly stated on page 142 of the guide.

So for instance if the Characters were Level 10 when they first entered the Mage's Tower, all Abominations (Normal Rank) would be Level 9 (because Normal Rank Monsters are set at PCs Level -1).

So to reply to your question - yes I do know how level scaling works in Dragon Age.

Level scaling has nothing to do with having monsters of various strength with the same name or look.

My point, and in fact one of the main points of this entire thread, was that it made no sense for Hurlocks to be the same challenge to a Level 3 character as a Level 13 character.

Thus if I play through the game and encounter Hurlocks in both the Korcari Wilds (when the PCs are level 3) and the Deep Roads (when the PCs are Level 13) the Hurlocks would be Level 2 in Korcari and Level 12 in the Deep Roads.

As for the rest of your post... you're trying to convince yourself and others, especially yourself, that those who can't accept challenge or defeat or the need to adopt a different strategy are not cry-babies. Alrighty then.

No, I am trying to convince you that what you are suggesting is bad game design - pure and simple.

Why do you keep talking about stuff you don't have a clue about?

No need to be rude, especially to a girl (assuming lady desire is a woman - hey its the internet and stranger things have happened).

While I haven't played Fallout, I can say that Baldur's Gate doesn't have "just a different form of level scaling". Level scaling in Baldur's Gate is so sparse you have to look for it with a magnifier. Somebody mentioned there are a few more xvarts in the xvart village if you're a higher level character, but I have yet to test that.

Therefore saying willy-nilly that it's "just a different form" is complete misinformation because BG's level scaling is (in volume) light years apart from the horrible all-encompassing level scaling in DA.

While I haven't played Baldur's Gate, would its 'superiority' in this area (of level scaling) be down to the fact that it actually uses different monsters at different stages of the game. Unlike Dragon Age, which uses the same monsters at basically every stage of the game?

[Fehrbehr]

If there was no scaling the game would be super lame. Imagine walking into a lvl 5 zone at 15th level!! Pointless. Scaling is the *only* way to give players freedom of choice regarding where to go next. The system may not be perfect but it works a darn sight better than the alternatives of no scaling or having a linear game which you are lead through on a leash.

[gingerbill]

completely disagree with OP , i thought the level scaling was done very well , never bothered me in the slightest . To say fighting darkspawn at low levels and high feels the same is nonsense.

[spicymaguro]

To OP: I've followed 75% of this thread and your posts are well informed (albeit angry in some cases) but I'm curious what exactly you think SHOULD happen.

Lets take a case where you are a Level 4 PC just leaving Lothering.

** i'm grossly oversimplifying just to illustrate here, pls don't comment about what mobs are what level in what zone **

1) You goto circle of magi, fight abominations and blood mages, you finish at level 7
2) You goto brecillian forest at Level 7 and wolves and genlocks there are tougher/higher level than the abominations and blood mages you fought at level 4-7

So the problem is here is that it doesnt make sense the wolves and genlock archers are tougher than blood mages and abominations.

How do we fix this?

1) Make the wolves more suitable to fight for level 4 and the blood mages for level 7. But this would make the circle harder than the forest.... which may or may not make sense? but also limit your options as to which you want to complete first. But you are proposing a non-linear, open world so this doesnt feel like what you are looking for.

2) Does it make a difference if it werent just a level 7 wolf but a level 7 Dire Demonic Wolf?
=> If I goto brecilian forest at level 4, I encounter a level 4 wolf. But if I show up at level 7 I encounter a Level 7 Dire Demonic Wolf. Still scaling, so I presume this is not what you would endorse.

3) Make the PC stay at level 4 after completing both areas -- that way the bloodmages at level 7 feel hard, and the wolves at level 4 feel relatively easy. This also suggests one area is supposed to be done before another. May be a matter of personal preference, but this doesnt feel as fun -- I want my character to progress, and I don't want to grind 3000 wolves and spiders to get there!

I also want to examine your example of why a street Commoner is Level 15 just cos you're level 15, vs. an Elite Guard was Level 3 b/c you were level 2 when you fought him.
- if commoner is supposed to just eat dirt cos you're powerful then Commoner might as well be just 1hp. In which case, whats the point of letting you fight him in the first place?
- why make Elite Guard level 3 just so he's fightable? If he's not meant to be fought then lets make him invicible.
=> To OP, is that what you are proposing the situation be in this case? And would that be more fun?

As a last comment, I enjoyed DAO combat as I think the combat system has an interesting tactical design. The level scaling may not make sense? but it makes every fight relevant (or almost...)

Modifié par spicymaguro, 18 mai 2010 - 05:33 .

[aaniadyen]

Upper_Krust wrote...

I can only conclude the flaming posts from others has unsettled you a tad.

Paromlin wrote...

This is hilarious. You don't understand what level scaling is and yet you're arguing about it for pages and pages with essay-long posts.

Level scaling exists when a monster's level is codependent with the level of the player character. Or simply put; it scales with it.

As far as I am aware, Level Scaling in Dragon Age means that when players first enter a given area (e.g. The Mage's Tower), all the monsters are scaled (based on their rank as per the DAO Prima Guide) to the players level.

This is explicitly stated on page 142 of the guide.

So for instance if the Characters were Level 10 when they first entered the Mage's Tower, all Abominations (Normal Rank) would be Level 9 (because Normal Rank Monsters are set at PCs Level -1).

So to reply to your question - yes I do know how level scaling works in Dragon Age.

Level scaling has nothing to do with having monsters of various strength with the same name or look.

My point, and in fact one of the main points of this entire thread, was that it made no sense for Hurlocks to be the same challenge to a Level 3 character as a Level 13 character.

Thus if I play through the game and encounter Hurlocks in both the Korcari Wilds (when the PCs are level 3) and the Deep Roads (when the PCs are Level 13) the Hurlocks would be Level 2 in Korcari and Level 12 in the Deep Roads.

As for the rest of your post... you're trying to convince yourself and others, especially yourself, that those who can't accept challenge or defeat or the need to adopt a different strategy are not cry-babies. Alrighty then.

No, I am trying to convince you that what you are suggesting is bad game design - pure and simple.

Why do you keep talking about stuff you don't have a clue about?

No need to be rude, especially to a girl (assuming lady desire is a woman - hey its the internet and stranger things have happened).

While I haven't played Fallout, I can say that Baldur's Gate doesn't have "just a different form of level scaling". Level scaling in Baldur's Gate is so sparse you have to look for it with a magnifier. Somebody mentioned there are a few more xvarts in the xvart village if you're a higher level character, but I have yet to test that.

Therefore saying willy-nilly that it's "just a different form" is complete misinformation because BG's level scaling is (in volume) light years apart from the horrible all-encompassing level scaling in DA.

While I haven't played Baldur's Gate, would its 'superiority' in this area (of level scaling) be down to the fact that it actually uses different monsters at different stages of the game. Unlike Dragon Age, which uses the same monsters at basically every stage of the game?

Huh, somebody actually made a thread about this? I feel this way too, it's one of my major gripes with the game. Still a great game, but I'd have enjoyed it more if they didn't take the easy way out and said "To hell with it, let's not pay any attention to the power levels of NPCs at different plot points and just make all combat the same." I still think it's a fun game, and I played through it a good five times. I'd have enjoyed it a lot more though if they didn't use level scaling. It's a bit absurd when you think about it. Challenge rating is kind of a prevention of combat that doesn't make sense. It sounds wierd, but when you think about it, it's true. I mean, what if someone made a modern game where you go from Police officer to Navy SEAL and they had a SEAL team potentially going up against a common gang of thugs and it was a challenge? It makes no sense whatsoever and kills immersion. The only reason why more people don't **** about it is because they managed to pull it off with enough subtlety. I still hate it though, every time I go up against the same parts of the game it bothers me. Orzammar is usually my last stop before the Landsmeet. Every time I go up against the Carta, they're just as strong as me. I always think to myself  "Huh, it's a good thing these dwarves are content plucking straps from the Castes. Otherwise they'd be able to assault and easily conquer Redcliffe, and Denerim." It's ultimately a gameplay vs. RP decision, and when those come up, gameplay ALWAYS wins. If they had to make the choice, I would have perfered what they did. Even beyond that though, I'd have liked them to go through the plot points and made the levels scale naturally to the plot progression, adding some exceptions. The game, as a whole, was a poor representation of the setting, I felt, anyway.  I wouldn't go so far as to say the level scaling ruins the game. It's still fun, but it does definately ruin the setting for me.

Modifié par aaniadyen, 18 mai 2010 - 06:33 .

[Fishy]

Level are only here for gameplay purpose and has nothing to do with the story ..
In LOTR , Aragorn killed 10,000 orc and never leveled up.

I just mean geez .. Ain't it obvious?

Modifié par Suprez30, 18 mai 2010 - 07:50 .

[aaniadyen]

Suprez30 wrote...

Level are only here for gameplay purpose and has nothing to do with the story ..
In LOTR , Aragorn killed 10,000 orc and never leveled up.

I just mean geez .. Ain't it obvious?

Level is indicative of skill and proficiency. The boss of a gang of thugs could be a more difficult encounter than the archdemon  with this system, if you fought the archdemon before the gang leader. It's a grand example, but it feels like the setting isn't solid because there is no basis for proficiency. It is entirely based off of when in the game you encounter them.

[Fishy]

The Howe's leveled up also .I mean he was OJ to me at the beginning and Oj at the end..WTH ... ?What about Duncan?He was OJ TO ME!



Omg.. and he want to kill the Archdemon at the beginning?But the Archdemon was OJ to me at level 20 .. I DON'T UNDERSTAND..Level scaling sucks!!It's ruin the Immersion for MEH!Morrigan talk about shapeshift .That she can shapeshift into basicly anything.But why she can't shapeshift at the beginning?



My character Named Chuck Norris Each time he do a push-up he become stronger.He did so many of them 10000000000000000000 thug would never be a problem for Chuck Norris.Because he never stop doing push-up.

[Fishy]

aaniadyen



I don't want to troll you and i'm not making fun of you.I also understand your point of view.But a thug remain a menace for you during the whole game.Because he can still cut you.

[Dam Wookie]

spicymaguro wrote...

To OP: I've followed 75% of this thread and your posts are well informed (albeit angry in some cases) but I'm curious what exactly you think SHOULD happen.

Lets take a case where you are a Level 4 PC just leaving Lothering.

** i'm grossly oversimplifying just to illustrate here, pls don't comment about what mobs are what level in what zone **

1) You goto circle of magi, fight abominations and blood mages, you finish at level 7
2) You goto brecillian forest at Level 7 and wolves and genlocks there are tougher/higher level than the abominations and blood mages you fought at level 4-7

So the problem is here is that it doesnt make sense the wolves and genlock archers are tougher than blood mages and abominations.

How do we fix this?

1) Make the wolves more suitable to fight for level 4 and the blood mages for level 7. But this would make the circle harder than the forest.... which may or may not make sense? but also limit your options as to which you want to complete first. But you are proposing a non-linear, open world so this doesnt feel like what you are looking for.

2) Does it make a difference if it werent just a level 7 wolf but a level 7 Dire Demonic Wolf?
=> If I goto brecilian forest at level 4, I encounter a level 4 wolf. But if I show up at level 7 I encounter a Level 7 Dire Demonic Wolf. Still scaling, so I presume this is not what you would endorse.

3) Make the PC stay at level 4 after completing both areas -- that way the bloodmages at level 7 feel hard, and the wolves at level 4 feel relatively easy. This also suggests one area is supposed to be done before another. May be a matter of personal preference, but this doesnt feel as fun -- I want my character to progress, and I don't want to grind 3000 wolves and spiders to get there!

I also want to examine your example of why a street Commoner is Level 15 just cos you're level 15, vs. an Elite Guard was Level 3 b/c you were level 2 when you fought him.
- if commoner is supposed to just eat dirt cos you're powerful then Commoner might as well be just 1hp. In which case, whats the point of letting you fight him in the first place?
- why make Elite Guard level 3 just so he's fightable? If he's not meant to be fought then lets make him invicible.
=> To OP, is that what you are proposing the situation be in this case? And would that be more fun?

As a last comment, I enjoyed DAO combat as I think the combat system has an interesting tactical design. The level scaling may not make sense? but it makes every fight relevant (or almost...)

It has been fixed in previous games. Imagine a
single standard map of a country. Instead of the contours of the map
indicating hills and mountains they indicate increasingly dangerous areas with
more dangerous types of foes.



Deep in the depths of the earth, a mages tower full of abominations, a
darkspawn lair, and the centre of a wood where sunlight doesn't reach the
ground. I'm sure you can think of many other logically difficult points on the
map which could contain the darkest and deadliest foes.



The path between two towns known to be rich pickings for bandits, a
disease ridden swamp with disease ridden but sickly
twisted creatures, the outskirt farms which are beginning to be
raided by darkspawn. All possible areas that will be less likely to
contain the deadliest foes however they would likely contain foes who know
how to kill.



Then you have the local woods and valley where you used to hunt rabbits as
a child and deeper into the local wood your father hunts for dear. Areas that
have the odd fox and wolf but there would be little reason for a demon encounter.



Should you stay on the paths or keep to highest ground? You never know where
you will meet a wandering ogre.



You have freedom. You can walk the map where ever you want. However there is a
logical and reasonable reason why your new warden can cautiously scout a
darkspawn lair but cannot just march right in and slay the lot. A new recruit
has 100% of the world available to them. 10% would be beginner fodder land. 30%
would be I'm replaying it and I know how to look after myself land.
25% would be you know with a lot of preparation I think I could
take one of those down land. 25% would be what are you mad? You’re a new
recruit and they will lop your head off without breaking into a sweat land.



You have complete freedom to live cautiously or recklessly. To scout, to keep
to areas fit for your experience as a killer of foes or to run in like a
headless loon and accept your own stupidity. Freedom means more than standing
where you want or selecting a zone you want. There is complexity in world
design that has been completely bypassed in DAO.



The simple answer to your question is that it was never logical as a new
recruit to go into the mages tower and fight abominations
(IT WAS THE STUPIDEST THING TO EVER APPEAR IN A GAME). Think
about it. The most powerful mages in the tower were being destroyed. These
mages had spent decades upon decades aware of abominations and practicing
magic. The most powerful defenders in the land were being destroyed. Warriors
highly trained for years in dealing with magic were being destroyed! You. Who
are you again? Oh yes you are a new recruit who has so far killed a few
straggling darkspawn. You then clear the place out like you were hunting bunny
wabbits just like when you were a young boy or as you do wolves in the next
level or demons in the level after or little pink bunnies in the level
after??!? The people who let you in should have taken one look at you and
unless you had built a reputation as a killer of abominations told you
impolitely to go do one as there was serious strategies to consider. You should
have had the freedom to go in but you should have had the logical payback of
being humiliated in your pathetic defeat.



This type of design has proven past success. The game had zero tactics. It was
a simple case of skill selection. It was simpler than noughts and crosses. The
scaling made everything irrelevant, the plot look silly and contrived and
the world design has gone downhill after every Bioware creation. The answer to
your question is that you create a well thought out logical world.


Forget about the levels for a moment and simplify it down to thinking about the places where the most dangerous would be found and the places where the people who only ever kill a chicken would be found. Maybe a commoner should be able to take advantage of you and try to steal from you when you look like you have never picked a knife up in your life. Maybe they will be very polite when they see you months later striding back into town with an ogres head over your shoulder. You have powerful enemies and weak enemies. You have higher level enemies such as those in areas where fights occurs often and those that have risen to the top such as chieftans and you have low level enemies who have never killed more than chicken. You try to advance in the world by picking your battles and your environment appropriately. This game is simply walking down a long path with level scaling introduced so that you can randomise the chapters. It destroys the sense of what an enemy truly should be.

[Dam Wookie]

Tirigon wrote...

Halkus wrote...


The worst example I can think of is Morrowind/Oblivion. The games actually got harder the higher level you were. You were penalised for gaining levels. This was made significantly worse by the awful leveling system in the game, which essentially ensured that the game became unplayable if you picked the skills you used the most as primary skills.

Whenever I read stuff like that i wonder if the one writing it has ever played Morrowind / Oblivion.....

In the earlygame fights are terribly hard, on midlevel it´s balanced and on level 40+ you need to turn the difficulty a lot higher or you are invulnerable and kill 90% of all enemies with a single spell.................

Imo Oblivion needs a lot more levelscaling.

The problem with Oblivion level scaling power wise is how
you played the game.


Game 1- I purposefully played the game however I wanted, ignoring the rules
as the pre hype made out you could. I never got maximum levelling points and as
the game levelled around me I got weaker and weaker. I then thought maybe I
need a bit of magic help and started levelling some magic. What happened? 5
levels increasing magic without getting maximum levelling points or increasing
fighting stats and I could no longer hit an enemy and do winnable damage. The
world was no longer fightable.

Game 2- I purposefully read about the system and
micromanaged my levels for maximum points. I got stronger and stronger and
stronger. Enemies became too easy. It wasn’t fun. It wasn’t immersive. Casting
a certain spell so you level correctly is not immersive. Neither is trying to
balance gimp your character at every level.

Game 3- I purposefully broke the rules and put my used stats
as minor stats. I increased my skills whilst staying low level. Everything
turned into a 1 hit kill but at least the enemies didn’t go off and buy new
armour every time I levelled up. I didn’t micro manage. It was not fun the game
was broken.

 

In DAO it is

Do what you want.

Level what you want.

Fight what you want.

Go where you want.

We are always there to hold your hand.

 

What where they designing for? A tiger? With its three
thought processes: Can I hump it? Can I kill it? Can I eat it?

  
(In the games case all you need to know is: Can I click it? ...and there is even a button that answers for you and gives you a highlight)

Where is the need for human thought processes in this game?

[Dam Wookie]

MrBoomba wrote...

Paromlin wrote...

ladydesire wrote...
Why fix something that isn't broken?

Level scaling isn't broken - because saying something is broken means it can be fixed in theory.
Level scaling is something absurd and therefore needs to be eliminated.

???? Your logic does not follow from the premises. If you are  going  to attempt logic dont do it incorrectly...
Also, Level scaling is an attempt to eliminate linearity which kills most games and diminishes replay value.

What the original poster has said repeatedly is that level scaling adds a linearity to the enemies. 

[Dam Wookie]

Lord of the Rings, the non linear version (with level scaling so you mash everything you see)(the supposed benefit being that you can select any book after book 1 and until book 6):



Book 1.

The hobbits are pursued by the black riders. The black riders get mashed up.

The hobbits try to take a shortcut through an eerie woodland called the Old Forest, but they are captured by an evil willow tree, which they also mash up.

They blunder into trouble with the Barrow-Wights, which they mash up.

They meet Stryder in the village of Bree. They mash up black riders again.

The party travel to Rivendell and mash up the black riders on a hill.

They arrive in Rivendell all fine. (They gain the help of the elves)



Book 2.

Gandalf was taken prisoner by Saruman. Gandalf mashed up Saruman.

The party heads towards mount doom.

They head over the mysty mountains mashing up some wargs on the way.

They travel through Moria and mash up some goblins, a Balrog and something in the water. Gandalf slips down a hole the silly old man.

The Fellowship travels down river from Lothlórien.(They gain the help of more elves)

At the Falls of Rauros they have a mass mash up and split up.



Book 3.

Merry and Pippin go to Fangorn Forest(they gain the help of the ents)

Most go see King Théoden heal him and have a mass mash up at helms deep.(they gain the help of the Rohirrim)

Merry and Pippin go to Isengard and have a mass mash up with Saruman.

They all meet up and travel to Gondor.



Book 4.

Frodo, Sam and Golum make their way to Mordor mashing everything up on the way including the spider Shelob and a large group of orcs.



Book 5.

Aragorn travels to Stone of Erech and has a mass mash up with dead people (he gains the support of the dead people).

Most meet up at Minas Tirith and have a mass mash up with the Lord of the Nazgûl and his minions.(They gain the support of the generals)



Book 6.

The army has a mass mash up with the Sauron's army.

Frodo and Sam decide not to chuck the ring in as with level scaling they head off and mash up with Sauron

[Stahl33]

I hear the rant of the OP.
A while ago I played a game called maelstrom - pen and paper stuff in a book... was fun.  The thing I loved about it was that no matter what level I was, I could still die if I was too slack.
The way I think the levelling should happen is this way (my opinion):
Start with reasonable health and mana and stamina (reasonable... say what we start with now)... Add extra skills to begin with (not just 2).  Level quite slowly that the whole progress you may only level to level 10.  Every level is a big thing.  As levelling gets higher, it takes more and more experience to get to a higher level.  As you get higher levels, your health gain decreases (health gain per level), and your ability gains get less (like AD&D) and less (say to 1 attribute point per level).  Skills can keep coming at a normal rate.
What does this look like?  The health gap doesn't get much wider as quickly as it does now.  Skill get betters, but damage doesn't increase as quickly (less attributes) and scales roughly with health level comparatively equal.  It also means that monsters don't have to scale as much either, and a well played level 10 character will take down an opponent as well as a poorly played level 15 character.... ie .... players dont get so overpowered....
To make this happen, you would need to scale down the increases in gearing with higher level.. that means that tiers would mean less and you wouldn't have to scale them as much.
Also means that theoretically, a level 20 (scaled) Hurlock wouldn't theoretically kill a level scaled dragon (level 5)... theoretically.  SCaling, which I think is a good thing, would be scaled down, and needed less.  We would still progress and get better, but hard things when we were small would not be scaled, and we would be abel to fight harder things at higher levels (ie. go to harder areas)....
The relatively good starting stats (from years of training) and comparatively (to this game) smaller levelling gains, means that the monsters dont need to scale so much, and I think there should be a limit to their scaling.... (ie... hurlocks can only scale between level 1 to level 8... dragons scale from 10 to 15 etc.....)
I think this would make the game more immersive, and although the player would not be so uber at the end of the game, they would still be forces to reckon with, with more and varied talents and skills, and higher stamina and mana (cause I feel you probably wouldn't need to scale back the mana and stamina gains on levels, only health and attributes)....
My 2 cents worth... well 12 cents, cause I have posted on other forums lol
Cheers

[Dam Wookie]

Realmzmaster wrote...

The basic point of the post is that the tried and true method made for linear games. Everyone had to follow the same path to reach the same point. 
Why should the game world limit where I can go. This is why I like DA:O. I can pick any location and go there. If I want to go to Denerim after Lothering I can (and I have). If I want to go to Redcliffe I can.
I am not  pigeonholed into one set path.
So while some wish to go back to the tried and true method I choose not to go back. I have played many of those CRPGs. I prefer the method that Bioware has adopted. What I meant by Adapt or die is that Bioware moved from the linear design of BG1 and BG2 to a more open design which I like.

You are pigeonholed down a set path in DAO. You have one long path too walk down. Chopping up the path into say 5 pieces and letting you choose the order does not change the path you take. It just changes the order in which you see the scenery along the path. That isn't open at all.

In BG1 you largely had the choice of going N, S, E, W on the map. You had hardly any paths on any of the maps, you could go N, S, E, W in them as well. Every now and then you had to be pushed down a path if you wished to advance the plot and open up new areas which is a very well designed device.

Your:
DAO = non linear
BG1 = linear
comment is as stupid as stupid can get. Really I would be embarrassed to post if I was so clueless. 

[Dam Wookie]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I am on my sixth playthrough of DA:O. I find DA:O to be far more replayable than BG1 or BG2. The different origins are a hook, but the fact that once I leave the wilds or Lothering I can go to any map location is a big draw for me. The point that I can finish a quest in Orzammar and travel all the way to the Brecilian to start another quest attracts me. I do not have to do the quests in any set order. I am happy with that makeup..YMMV

Thats strange because I know exactly what I have to do in DAO. Go onto any map location. Start at the start of the path and work may way to the paths exit. Rinse and repeat. It made not difference if I replayed the game. The paths were always the same.

In BG1 you only had to do the main quest advancements in order. Which made sense to the story. You could do any of the countryside quests in any order in each "main quest advancement stage". The quest difficulties changed unlike in DAO which was the same no matter which order you took. 

[Dam Wookie]

Upper_Krust wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

I fail to see how anyone can be lost in my logic, as it's very, well... Logic ? I mean, I just ask for a game to BE LOGIC.
I want to see an elite guard be stronger than a normal guard.

They are. An elite guard (such as the difference between a Hurlock and a Hurlock Alpha (to use one example) would be considered a Lieutenant rank enemy in the game and have a 'Yellow' Highlighted name.

I want to see an archmage be stronger than an apprentice.

Again, this would be handled by rank.

I want to see a demon lord be stronger than a wolf.

Ranks.

I want to see a 5-m high treants be stronger than a regular militiaman.

Ranks again.
Dragon Age has five effective ranks (technically 7 but two of those are never seen in the game)

1. Weak Normal
2. Normal
3. Lieutenant
4. Boss
5. Elite Boss...the only Elite Bosses are the three High Dragon models.

I want to have dangerous foes where it's logical to have dangerous foes, weak foes where it's logical to have weak foes.
I want that a player think "I could get in way over my head" if he attacks three huge monsters full of fangs when he's himself inexperienced.
I want that a player be confindent in victory when he's going against people that have bad weapons and no experience.

As I mentioned in my previous post. The problems you have don't really stem from Level Scaling at all. They are more to do with too similar enemy types and too similar (most of which are too weak) encounter design.

Where I think Bioware messed up is that the frequency of Lieutenant, Bosses and Elite Bosses does not increase the further into the game you progress. By the end of the game you should be fighting groups of Hurlock Alphas led by Hurlock Generals rather than Hurlocks led by a solitary Hurlock Alpha.

The problem does stem from level scaling. The ranking system doesn't change the fact that you meet a mixture of the ranks throughout the game and the game scales the enemies. Start the game, fight a mixture of ranks, repeat till the end of the game. The fights tend to get easier around the level 20s. Start a new game, choose a different order in which you follow the same single path in the game, fight a mixture of ranks, repeat till the end of the game. The fights tend to get easier around the level 20s.
Everything just smears upwards along with you and it trends towards getting easier.
Your answers don't happen in the game. You fight demons or wolves and some have higher ranks. There is zero point in a demon or a wolf apart from sound effects, models and skill selection. If there is a powerful demon in the game I should be scared of it until I am pretty sure of my abilities. If there is a powerful wolf in the game it should be nothing in comparison to a low rank demon. Maybe you should see more ranks in the game later on but only within the logical reasoning the OP tried to express. It would look stupid meeting 4 high ranking wolves in the wood just because you had gone there at a higher level. It would make sense if you went into an ogre stronghold that there would be larger numbers of higher ranking ogres. High ranks should have intelligent placement based on where they exist in the world.

[Dam Wookie]

booke63 wrote...
However, if you choose no level scaling, you simply create OTHER pressures on our common sense, logic, and our ability to remain immersed. Let's say right out of Lothering you visit the Dalish and very soon mess around with a gravestone in the woods. "Here is your butt" will likely be the result of that as that encounter doesn't fully scale (like most encounters do scale) and is very tough early on in the game.

So with butt in hand, you reload the game. What now? If you don't metagame (and break logic and immersion) you should still be as interested in that gravestone as before. So what happens? Mess with the gravestone and "Here is your butt." So you reload, and again, what now? Mess with the gravestone again and with your butt half off this time, you run! And you survive. Very realistic. Come back later and eventually hand HIM his butt, right?

My general point is realism and gameplay are in some degree always at odds. Common sense, logic, and immersion always run up against THE GAME. Whether you can absorb it "logically" and remain immersed when you do run up against the game is much more a matter of taste than it is a question of what is better or worse, much less what is more or less realistic.
Thanks

That is where an understanding of the world comes in, if you REALLY used logic a
"ooh that looks interesting I should fiddle with it" character would be DEAD at every opportunity in a dangerous world.
A character that saw a gravestone with a powerful aura or massive boulders that appear to be moved by a huge beast (or something to signal high magic or a massive foe) would not just walk up and fiddle with it.
They would go back to the nearest village and ask about it and would likely be warned through an old tale. 

If you introduce detective style thinking or ranger or magician style understanding of the dangerous then you have a warning system for dangerous events.

When I went on holiday and walked along the cliff edge by the sea I DIDN'T start running. I used some common sense about the dangers in this world.

My general point is realism and gameplay with intelligent design are in some degree always at hand in hand. Common sense, logic, and immersion always run WITH THE GAME.

[Dam Wookie]

Eurypterid wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

These threads are so laughable because they sadly attract so many dumb trolls that are unable to even grasps a simple concept and just look for spewing toughtless idiocies that completely miss the point. The points made by people who actually take the time and effort to get it are usually much less laughable. Yours is clearly not one of them.

Akka, you're making some good points, and the thread is spawning some interesting discussions, but keep the insults like the above out of it or I'll shut it down. 

That applies to everyone, btw.

Maybe you should find a way of asking for insults to be reduced without being so blatantly patronising.

[Dam Wookie]

booke63 wrote...
Just being able to reload a life and death scenario is well beyond realistic.

Reload is not, however, beyond gameplay sense, and I think that is what is a most useful goal: gameplay sense. Having a game where you cannot save, reload, and when you die, you have to make a new character and start over. That would just would not work out very well. So we allow the reload "rule" in the game and while it's unrealistic, it fits our gameplay sense and so we remain immersed.

Level scaling is a game structure in DAO. It's easy and reasonable to see where such a thing doesn't come across as realistic. It's just that we can draw out SOOOOOoooo many things in any game and show them as illogical and unrealistic, that "not logical" or "not realstic" in a game quickly becomes a truism. The most immersive approach for me is to work out a gameplay sense for myself, so instead of saying level scaling sucks and is not realistic, I say well those Genlocks must be leveling up as I am. Making that up in my head complements the game, makes gameplay sense, does NOT reveal a game structure as "illogical" (even if is compared to our real world logic) and makes for a more immersive experience.

Reloading is part of a game irrespective of type. However some games don't have it. Try playing the classic RPG Angband or one of its variants.


Genlocks must be leveling up as I am may not be impossible, but it is statistically more and more improbable as the game goes on and the number of encounters increases. It would quickly get to the point that the improbable encounter pattern may just as well be out right illogical. 

[soteria]

Dam Wookie, you know you just wrote like 7 or 8 replies to a thread that died like a month ago?

[Dam Wookie]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Let me see if I have this correct, you have low/mid/high level quests which would require doing them in a certain order.
The player could go to any area but only certain quests could be done. No other quests would be presented until the PC reached a certain level of expertise. What is basically being said is that the game would be more linear than it already is.
Why cannot a wolf grow in strength, speed and stamina. It does in the real world. So at level five you are encountering wolf yearlings lead by an alpha male and female. At level 20, your party is meeting a veteran pack who have hunted together for years. Is it being said that the wolf's abilities should never change?

Is it being said that a person with a dexterity of 20 at level one should have the same chance to avoid an attack as a veteran soldier at level 20 with a dexterity of 20. Where does experience play its part? I am sure that the level 20 soldier has learn a trick or two about avoiding a blow.
Also if I constantly swing a weapon should I not get stronger? If you remove the attributes, how would the increase in strength be guaged?
Unless the Oblivion system is used where the more you use a skill or talent the better you get at it.

Is this what is being stated? Correct me if I am wrong.

Wrong wrong wrong.
Certain quests are logically out of bounds until you have the ability to do them. That is a small amount of structure and you are confusing it with linearity because you are dumbing the point down to the level of it losing part of its meaning and being wrong.
It could mean 80% of quests have no order but some would be wiser chosen. Choice based on using your intelligence from the given evidence is a much richer experience than following one long DAO balanced to suit your needs path and it certianly wouldn't be more linear than having to complete certain goals to then do the last chapters.

Yes a more experienced soldier should have more experience at dodging a blow. A wolf or warrior can grow in ability but within logic limits of their likely lifestyles before you met them.

[booke63]

soteria wrote...

Dam Wookie, you know you just wrote like 7 or 8 replies to a thread that died like a month ago?

Whoa!  And I just notieced that he replied to me even.  He must be really hard up for some entertainment.   Not to imply that your posts are not interesting, Dam Wookie.  You know, have at!  Might be a bit echo-y in here however.

[Paromlin]

I hope they won't ruin DA 2 with level scaling, as well. *fingers crossed*