575 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

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.

[Ralnith]

NPCs stay with fixed character sheets for the sake of simplicity. It is easier to create and balance encounters when not every wolf is different. It doesn't mean that ALL wolves should be the same, however, you can still make as many types as you want. It just means that once a wolf is placed into the game world, it will always stay the way it is.



And, yes, a person with 20 dex will have exactly the same BASE chance to avoid an attack as any other person with 20 dex, no matter what levels they have. If one of them is an experienced fighter who has the skill "Advanced Dodge" he would get a bonus, sure, but levels should never be included into any calculation, otherwise it would create an artificial imbalace which than has to be corrected again by scaling NPCs and items.



Stats should stay about the same throughout the entire game because skills depend on them. For example, more strength automatically improves melee damage. If you allow PCs to increase their strength at each level up they will eventually reach a point where no enemies present a challenge because the melee damage is so high that PCs can just one- or two-hit everything they encounter.



That means that you can either allow stat increases but than balance the resulting increase in hp and dps in the stats of NPCs (the normal lvl scaling system) or you can restrict stat changes to few special occasions. In this case, no additional adjustments of NPCs are needed.



You create a character and can distribute a limited number of points between different stats at will. Than your stats stay the way you set them and you only gain new abilities on lvl up. If you do something special (drink a "Permanent Strength Increase Potion") or achieve something (become very experienced in the use of melee weapons) where it makes sense that your stats change, they do. However, such occasions are few and even though the character becomes more powerful, those minor changes won't make him godlike.

[Vincent Rosevalliant]

Akka le Vil wrote...

"hey, I'm just a standard commoner, but I'm in Denerim so I'm stronger
than the elite guard that actually fought the darkspawns at Ostagar,
because HEY I'M IN A LEVEL TEN ZONE YOU SEE !"

I tend to agree, actually. I also dislike the random item drops and item upscaling. All this randomness has no place in a single player game. But back on the subject: I think it's partly done because you can't run away from or avoid any encounters.
In Baldur's Gate there was allways the (good) tension that there could be someone stronger nearby. Allways saving before entering an inn, or scouting the wilds, so I don't run into a band of mercenaries unprepared. So many could actually kill me easy, that completing that game became something of an accomplishment. You had to be wary, survive long enough, become strong enough to be able to beat them. Until that time, avoid the strong, pick your battles. In DAO none of this seems present. Random encounters are straight up fights, with no escape. Every foe scaled to fit your level. It's the reason why so many attack the sleeping dragon, immediately, too. It breathes, we can kill it. Probably my level.

[Vincent Rosevalliant]

Ralnith , You're almost describing Baldur's Gate. Static stats, only to-hit and skills improve at lvl-up.

[CybAnt1]

Akka le Vil wrote...
You realize that the point of the thread is that encounter should NOT scale with level ?

Yes, but maybe I wasn't getting the exact point; was it boredom from lack of challenge or too much challenge? I have found the game gets a bit too boring at higher levels and that's because it only scales the level of adversaries, and not the nature of adversaries and/or # of adversaries. Again, it's really not too much of a challenge to run into 2 grunts at lvl 5 and if I revisit the same area on a different playthrough at lvl 15 the 2 grunts are level 15; but it is a challenge if now they have some "boss" leadership and/or greater numbers. 

The bottom line is, you have to make a game design choice, and trust me, you will end up alienating people one way or the other.

You can make non-scaleable adversaries in a character progressing/levelling game (which is what 95% of crpg's are) IF you make sure the quests and areas have to be gone through in a linear order. That way all the early areas have lvl 1 giant rats, the middle areas have lvl 10 hurlocks, and all the endgame areas have lvl 20 revenants. 

But: what if you allow players to do the quests in any order? Many people like that open-ness in a CRPG. DA doesn't have a freely explorable world but it gives you quite a bit of leeway in freely doing the mainquests (let alone the side ones.) That's what DA does. You can't force people to go to Redcliife first, then something else later. So how do you know whether they're getting to Redcliffe at lvl 5, lvl 10, lvl 15, maybe even lvl 20? For that reason, the enemies there have to scale. 

So pick what you're going to get rid of: leaving mainquest order free/open; character levelling/progression; or scaling of adversaries. Too many people like the first two, therefore for good design they have factor three. And as I said, my quibble might be that they need to do it viz. power/number of adversaries, not just pure "level". 

[Jax Sparrow]

Akka le Vil wrote...

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...

No... I fail to see the need to spend the time necessary to read what your 'counter arguement' is. You clearly prefer to categorize and summarize, instead of spending the time necessary to read what I wrote. Ultimately I simply tried to help by giving a way, that may lead to a more positive outlook. What you choose to do with that is your business, and not mine.

[Realmzmaster]

@Ralnith,
Basically what you are describing is the old AD & D system, which unfortunately made for some very linear CRPGs.. Baldur's Gate being one of them. Not to say that BG was not a great game, but it was linear.
Many gamers now are looking for a more open world, where it is not completely dictated where the character can go.

In DA:O, once the PC leaves Lothering he/she can go to any location that is visble on the map. If the PC wants to go to the Frostback Mountains, the PC can. The party may get wiped trying to get to the Dwarven city, but there is nothing preventing them from trying.
Many gamers also like level progression and improving the base attributes of the character. The system is just different.
There are other RPG systems not based on D & D like Tunnels and Trolls or GURPS which allow additions to the base attributes. DA:O borrows from those systems.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 04 mars 2010 - 04:22 .

[CybAnt1]

One potential reason for this is that Hurlocks cap out at level 14 while Genlocks cap out at level 13 (in both cases for standard "white" versions).

Is that something that was introduced by Patch 1.02 or was always already there? 

I think it's a bit bad that your "whites" cap out at 13-14, whereas esp. in the endgame, even if you never do sidequests, you're likely to be 17-20, let alone 23-25. 

It's a shame fighting the game's most common adversaries (hurlocks and genlocks) suddenly becomes trivial right when the game becomes interesting. That "ceiling" seems at the wrong point. 

I know I'm going 180 degrees against the OP's theme, but ... should be no ceilings. 

[Loc'n'lol]

Personnally, I'd take encounter scaling over individual monster scaling anyday (ie : as you level up, you face more -relatively weaker- monsters, or a higher proportion of tough monsters)

[e-ver]

Red Frostraven wrote...

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.

But this how Oblivion did it (in addition to your 5 hits to kill a rat at level 2 --> 50 hits to kill a rat at level 20 example). Your character, who has only ever encountered wolfs, levels up and suddenly all the wolves are gone and replaced by timber wolfs, who in turn have a few levels to enjoy their freedom before they are all wiped out again and replaced by boars. This goes on until the game runs out of enemy types and then the highest tier enemy will stay and just level with the player infintely. Horrible!


Regarding scaling in DA:O, it's dificult to balance these things in a game. In a RPG, people expect to feel a sense of character progression, so level scaling that takes away from this feeling of advancement is really bad (see Oblivion). At the same time, people want to be challenged throughout the game. And there are the developers who have a budget of time and money, so they can't just implement 40 additional enemy types and 20 additional areas. Baldurs Gate 1 had all those areas and I always went to every single one of them, because I'm an obsessive completionist in games and to be honest: I found it increasingly boring. (Still loved BG of course, but thats a given.)

I agree - of course - with the OP, that it's ridiculous and immersion breaking, that a demon, if encountered at level 4, is less dangerous than a back alley thug, if encountered at level 15, so the thug would wipe the floor with the demon, if they ever met.
But what is the alternative? No encountering demons until level 18? Wading through waves of back alley thugs who fall in one strike at level 12 and above? It has been suggested in the thread, that certain enemies should flee, once the player has reached a certain level. But what does that accomplish (apart from a moment of feeling all powerful and ridiculously awesome)? An enemy that the player doesn't have to fight is, basically, a waste of game ressources - not something you want as a developer when your game should have appropriate minimum hardware requirements.

I don't have a solution. I agree with many points that have been brought up in this discussion, from both sides of the fence.  I guess for me it comes down to how a game "feels" and I'm glad that DA:O "feels" fine for me. I can understand though, that it doesn't for Akka.

Modifié par Allerleihrau, 04 mars 2010 - 07:40 .

[Ahzrei]

I completely disagree with the OP.



In my opinion, the level scaling is brilliant. It lets me choose where to go and know that I should be able to handle every monster I come across because they're never way beyond my current level. If I want a challenge, I play on Nightmare.



But what the level scaling does most brilliantly is let you know what works in terms of a character build. If you're having trouble with a particular area you know right away it has nothing to do with your level. You can't just go grind out a few levels and face roll over it. You need to rethink your tactics, or even what direction you've been taking your character in. I love the way the game scales challenges to my level, and I wouldn't want it any other way. I love feeling powerful when I've hit a good build and party comp, knowing the power doesn't come from a simple grind any idiot can do blindfolded. On the flip side, it's good to play a game that irrevocably tells me when I'm just plain wrong.

[UberuceIAm]

Gameplay and RP plausibility don't mix well when it comes to levelling. The problem isn't with the monsters, it's with the player character. The difference in the likes of NWN and DAO isn't, as the RP would have it, the difference between a raw recruit and a veteran hero. It's more like a toddler and a giant robot T-Rex. I wouldn't have it any other way since I love me a wee bit o'powergame.



I don't begrudge having to turn a blind eye to the "mildly angry spaniel>huge demon" silliness that scaling imposes because I'm already turning my other blind eye to the silliness of how much stronger my character is at endgame compared to the start.

[Vuokseniska]

i donno how this ruins the game. it is an open world by using levelscaling you can go anywhere you like. Though the difficulty isn't always the same... i.e. final battle is a breeze, i find it very decent. Otherwise you get a very boring linear replay value where you have to go to the same area's to level up

[Akka le Vil]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Yes, but maybe I wasn't getting the exact point; was it boredom from lack of challenge or too much challenge?

Neither.
The annoyance comes from :
- Illogism (the "demon weaker than a commoner because you encounter it sooner" example).
- Blandness (regardless of where you go and who you fight, it's always the same relative difficulty, everything is the same everywhere).
- Lack of progression (as everything is scaled to you, you effectively always stay at the same point, which defeat the entire point of leveling).
- Shallowness (you never have to wonder if you're in over your head or not, you never have to actually evaluate a situation, the scaling means you're always exactly at the sufficient level).
- Breaking of immersion (the world doesn't seem real, as nearly everything stop making sense ; elite guards or rag-tag rabble have the same strength and potential, natural vermin or magical monsters dito).

The bottom line is, you have to make a game design choice, and trust me, you will end up alienating people one way or the other.

In a RPG, immersion and consistency should be paramount. That's the point of "roleplaying".

But: what if you allow players to do the quests in any order? Many people like that open-ness in a CRPG.

That's both not really interesting, and anyway it doesn't hold true in DAO either.
It's not interesting to have everything possible right from the start. Being able to finally go where it was too dangerous to go before has never displeased players. Forced linearity has NOTHING to do with that - forced linerarity is arbitrarily preventing you to go somewhere you should logically be able to go.

And anyway, you can't go "everywhere" in DAO either. There is things you need to do before going on with the next part of the scenario. So this argument doesn't make any sense. The non-linearity is a strawman.

So pick what you're going to get rid of: leaving mainquest order free/open; character levelling/progression; or scaling of adversaries. Too many people like the first two, therefore for good design they have factor three. And as I said, my quibble might be that they need to do it viz. power/number of adversaries, not just pure "level".

As I have already answered what, four or five times already in the same thread, Fallout had neither level scaling, nor linearity. Your argument holds no water, level scaling is not a cure to linearity, it's only an easy solution for lazy design. A game can be non-linear without level scaling (Fallout, as said), and it can be very linear with level scaling (Final Fantasy for example).
LEVEL SCALING DOES NOT OFFER NON-LINEARITY.
It only offers lack of significance. "everything is the same everywhere" is not "non-linear", it's "bland".

Vuokseniska wrote...

i donno how this ruins the game. it is an open world by using levelscaling you can go anywhere you like.
Though the difficulty isn't always the same... i.e. final battle is a breeze, i find it very decent. Otherwise you get a very boring linear replay value where you have to go to the same area's to level up

As I have already answered what, four or five times already in the same thread, Fallout had neither level scaling, nor linearity. Your argument holds no water, level scaling is not a cure to linearity, it's only an easy solution for lazy design. A game can be non-linear without level scaling (Fallout, as said), and it can be very linear with level scaling (Final Fantasy for example).
LEVEL SCALING DOES NOT OFFER NON-LINEARITY.
It only offers lack of significance. "everything is the same everywhere" is not "non-linear", it's "bland".

Many gamers now are looking for a more open world, where it is not
completely dictated where the character can go.

In DA:O, once the
PC leaves Lothering he/she can go to any location that is visble on the
map.

As I have already answered what, four or five times already in the same thread, Fallout had neither level scaling, nor linearity. Your argument holds no water, level scaling is not a cure to linearity, it's only an easy solution for lazy design. A game can be non-linear without level scaling (Fallout, as said), and it can be very linear with level scaling (Final Fantasy for example).

LEVEL SCALING DOES NOT OFFER NON-LINEARITY.

It only offers lack of significance. "everything is the same everywhere" is not "non-linear", it's "bland".

Maybe if I point it enough time, people will start to read and stop using a COMPLETELY FALSE argument ? :-/

so level scaling that takes away from this feeling of advancement is really bad (see Oblivion).

And it's exactly the same with DAO, which is just as bad as Oblivion in the level scaling department.
In fact, no, scratch that. It's MUCH WORSE, because Oblivion could be easily modded to remove the level scaling. The ENTIRE ENGINE of DAO is so based on level scaling that it's nearly impossible to get rid of it.

In my opinion, the level scaling is brilliant. It lets me choose where to go and know that I should be able to handle every monster I come across because they're never way beyond my current level. If I want a
challenge, I play on Nightmare.

So you prefer mindless zerging and never having to ever wonder about the strength of something before jumping to attack it ?
That feels pretty boring and shallow, honestly.

The problem isn't with the monsters, it's with the player character. The difference in the likes of NWN and DAO isn't, as the RP would have it, the difference between a raw recruit and a veteran hero. It's more like a toddler and a giant robot T-Rex. I wouldn't have it any other way since I love me a wee bit o'powergame.

Nothing prevent a designer to make a power scale that is more realistic. That's not a problem with the concept, that's a problem with the execution. You can make gaining level a much less steeper increase in power.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 04 mars 2010 - 10:42 .

[Akka le Vil]

Damned double post, I hate this forum...

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 04 mars 2010 - 10:40 .

[UberuceIAm]

Level scaling offers non-linearity. People keep saying it because it's demonstrably true. Bland non-linearity is still nonlinear. Not that I agree with the assertion of blandness because I'm not really bothered by the skin on a critter. Yeah, it'd be nice to see Genlocks replaced by something that looks gnarlier rather than just autolevelled, but in function it'd be the same thing.

[Akka le Vil]

UberuceIAm wrote...

Level scaling offers non-linearity.

Wow, you manage to spew this crap while it's answered three times in a row in the post JUST ABOVE !
...

/facepalm

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 04 mars 2010 - 11:38 .

[Ahzrei]

Akka le Vil wrote...

So you prefer mindless zerging and never having to ever wonder about the strength of something before jumping to attack it ?
That feels pretty boring and shallow, honestly.

The problem isn't with the monsters, it's with the player character. The difference in the likes of NWN and DAO isn't, as the RP would have it, the difference between a raw recruit and a veteran hero. It's more like a toddler and a giant robot T-Rex. I wouldn't have it any other way since I love me a wee bit o'powergame.

Nothing prevent a designer to make a power scale that is more realistic. That's not a problem with the concept, that's a problem with the execution. You can make gaining level a much less steeper increase in power.

You're missing the point. I like your repeated copy/paste argument btw, makes me want to pay attention to you. Really.

And wouldn't making each level a lesser increase in power be entirely counter-productive to what you say you want in the OP? I thought the point was to feel like you were getting more powerful over time. You can copy and paste your argument as many times as you want, you're still wrong. The level scaling allows you to choose which area to begin in whatever order you want. This is, by definition, a less linear method to progress through the game than without the scaling. You'd have to go through the Brecillian Forest to get enough experience to progress though Orzammar before you'd have the level/gear required to.... etc. While I admit there is a level of rail-roading in the game as it is, there'd be a lot less choice on the player's part if every area in the game had a set level.

[Upper_Krust]

Eurypterid wrote...

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.

I think the solution is to have limited level scaling dictated by the games 'Acts' as abridged by unavoidable tentpole moments. In DAO those moments would be:

Act One: Beginning of the game up to Ogre Battle at Ostagar
Act Two: Gathering the Allies (everything between Ostagar and the Landsmeet)
Act Three: The Landsmeet to the end of the game.

Thus if we are to encounter the same enemies in each act we can make some cosmetic differenciations.

ie.
Act One: Hurlock Scouts ~ Lightly Armoured
Act Two: Hurlock Infantry ~ Medium Armoured
Act Three: Hurlock Heavy Infantry ~ Heavily Armoured

For other monsters they might get a replacement rather than an upgrade:

Act One: Wolf
Act Two: Blight Wolf
Act Three: Bandersnatch

Some enemies can only be fought within one or two Acts. Werewolves and Wild Sylvans for instance.

However, I think this tweaking, while a nice cosmetic touch, doesn't really solve the two major problems inherent within the games combat and encounters. They are that many of the enemies are FAR too similar and secondly that many of the groups you face are also feel identical. Without treading over the same ground here are a few posts I have previously made on the subject:

1. How To Pace 'Dungeon' encounters in DAO
http://social.biowar...79465/13#729841

2. Complete Revamp of Darkspawn in DAO
http://social.biowar...79465/13#770056

3. Complete Revamp of Undead in DAO
http://social.biowar...79465/14#840413

4. Complete Revamp of Golems in DAO
http://social.biowar...79465/14#880813

5. Complete Revamp of Demons in DAO
http://social.biowar...79465/15#952909

6. How To Build Bosses in DAO
http://social.biowar...1299697#1315177

7. Top 6 Tips on Improving Combat in DAO
7a. Enemy Identity
7b. Enemy Strategies
7c. Enemy Battle Formations
7d. Enemy Group Composition
7e. Enemy Reinforcements
7f. Blocking (Inability to move through another characters space except under certain circumstances)
http://social.biowar...44436/2#1160568

8. More Ideas for Monsters
http://social.biowar...79465/12#631422

Modifié par Upper_Krust, 04 mars 2010 - 12:05 .

[Akka le Vil]

Ahzrei wrote...

You're missing the point. I like your repeated copy/paste argument btw, makes me want to pay attention to you. Really.

Yeah, because it's fun to answer an argument, and still seeing it repeated ten times over by people who never paid attention ?

And wouldn't making each level a lesser increase in power be entirely counter-productive to what you say you want in the OP? I thought the point was to feel like you were getting more powerful over time.

I fail to see how "slower increase in power" is counter-productive with "getting more powerful as you level up".
And the main point was more about how ridiculous it is to have ALWAYS the same feeling of difficulty for the whole game whatever the opposition is. I should feel a very different challenge from beggars than from elite guards. In DAO, there isn't, because the differences are just cosmetics and they both are exactly as strong. Which makes no sense.

You can copy and paste your argument as many times as you want, you're still wrong. The level scaling allows you to choose which area to begin in whatever order you want.

You're welcome to try to prove that Fallout was linear. I'm waiting.

This is, by definition, a less linear method to progress through the game than without the scaling. You'd have to go through the Brecillian Forest to get enough experience to progress though Orzammar before you'd have the level/gear required to.... etc. While I admit there is a level of rail-roading in the game as it is, there'd be a lot less choice on the player's part if every area in the game had a set level.

Where is the "choice" when anyway everything is at exactly the same level ? Yeah you can start anywhere. Doesn't MEANS anything though, because everywhere will present the same challenge anyway. Not changes, no variation, no thought required, no different expectation.

[Hel]

What Ralnith proposes would have my support.

Not only would it make the world and its inhabitants more believable, but it would also open up other strategies to consider when facing hostiles. Contrary to what people believe, this would not take away from the game's non-linearity.

Your Warden would still be able to travel to Kinloch Hold to learn of the Circle of Magi's troubles. It would no doubt be a dangerous undertaking, seeing as you are up against possessed mages who wield the power to kill you with a single utterance, but not an impossible one. Remember, they are living beings, running them through with a sword or arrow will end their lives. How you accomplish this is up to you; use your head and the abilities and weapons at your disposal.

Your Warden would also still be able to explore the Deep Roads, despite being a new recruit. It is a foolish idea, sure, the place is overrun with darkspawn, so unless you want to meet the Maker you should better steer clear of it or bring a large enough force to fend off their attacks when needed. The darkspawn  would be a threat due to their sheer numbers, yet in one-on-one fights they would perish almost as easily as the next bandit.

Sadly the game caters to all sorts of players, so this is not an option.

(Though, I wonder in how far we can modify the game to make this possible. To make the game play more like the stories from The Stolen Throne and The Calling, where the characters were vulnerable people, regardless of their experiences.)

Modifié par Helekanalaith, 04 mars 2010 - 12:35 .

[Akka le Vil]

Helekanalaith wrote...

Your Warden would also still be able to explore the Deep Roads, despite being a new recruit. It is a foolish idea, sure, the place is overrun with darkspawn, so unless you want to meet the Maker you should better steer clear of it or bring a large enough force to fend off their attacks when needed. The darkspawn  would be a threat due to their sheer numbers, yet in one-on-one fights they would perish almost as easily as the next bandit.

That is how it SHOULD be. Sadly, level scaling ensure that whatever level you are, everything is exactly as dangerous as anything else.
I never understood how anyone could deem acceptable and appropriate that the danger is always exactly the same everywhere in the world, but it just go so completely against all logic and sense that my mind just boggle at it.

(Though, I wonder in how far we can modify the game to make this possible. To make the game play more like the stories from The Stolen Throne and The Calling, where the characters were vulnerable people, regardless of their experiences.)

The game is horribly geared toward an ENTIRE level scaling. EVERYTHING in the game is based on level scaling. When I see the xls files about the area I want to puke, there is no thought about the creatures themselves, just a level for the area. You can throw whatever you want inside, everything will be exactly the same.

And keeping even powerful hero "mortal" is easy. You just need to make the power increase through levels small. But designer prefer to give large increase in power, and then totally nullify it because of scaling. Never made any sense to me.

[CybAnt1]

I don't agree that the danger is everywhere always the same.



It's just that to generate additional danger, what's required are numbers & presence.



There are definite hard points. Boss battles, mini-boss battles (i.e. ogres), the final deep trenches ambush where you cross the bridge only to find yourself practically surrounded.



What's interesting is those encounters are found everywhere.



But BTW in reference to the statement of "no feeling of growing power," well all I can say is the boss battles were tough at lvl 10, and still tough at lvl 20, but the available responses and tactics I had at lvl 20, made me feel a lot more confident in handling them.



So OP, before jumping all over me, remember one thing; I'm in favor of the proposed idea of encounter scaling as well as level scaling. To make the point I've been making clear all along, what should be happening at lvl 20 vs. lvl 10 is MORE TOUGH ENCOUNTERS, by bumping up numbers and/or bosses/minibosses at encounter points. And yes, I *do* agree you should be facing tougher creatures, not just levelled up versions of the same.

[Ahzrei]

Akka le Vil wrote...

You're welcome to try to prove that Fallout was linear. I'm waiting.

I never said Fallout was linear. Perhaps they found a different solution to the same problem. That doesn't mean level scaling cannot also solve the problem in a different way.

Where is the "choice" when anyway everything is at exactly the same level ? Yeah you can start anywhere. Doesn't MEANS anything though, because everywhere will present the same challenge anyway. Not changes, no variation, no thought required, no different expectation.

The choice is in which area you want to tackle first. Sure, most of the grunts will offer the same level of challenge to any particular player character, but they're grunts. Their job is to die. Different characters will have different experiences though, depending on how you make them. Elite mobs, or the full-fledged bosses offer tactical problems which are not the same in each level. The level designs are also greatly varied from place to place. Navigating the Deep Roads, for example, is more difficult than finding your way through the Brecillian Forest.

You also have a great amount of freedom in your character builds. Your PC isn't going to be like example player B's PC, unlike many other games. However, Fallout did allow that kind of customization too. Something I didn't like about fallout though was the fact that it was Oblivion with guns. I hate grinding away at monsters to level up, I don't have to do that in DA:O because everything scales. If you ask me, that alone is worth a certain amount of ambiguity among the soldiers.

I'd like to say again that your character build is more important in determining your overall power than the number of levels. If you want something to think about in the game, put some work into that. It feels very satisfying when a plan comes together after working through the levels to gather all of the stats and abilities you wanted, and then putting them to use to destroy some Darkspawn. A better build might give you the power increase you feel your levels alone don't give you.

[UberuceIAm]

(Though, I wonder in how far we can modify the game to make this possible. To make the game play more like the stories from The Stolen Throne and The Calling, where the characters were vulnerable people, regardless of their experiences.)

I might just be misinterpreting, but Dragon Age hammers the knowledge of my character's mortality into me. If I make sometimes a single mistake, the fight is lost, which I rather like, except when it infuriates me.

For me the toddler to T-Rex power curve is far more interesting than a gentler one. Maybe I'm just a sucker for big pretty numbers eventually coming out of my characters heads. If so, then woo: the game caters to me.

The upshot of a wide power gap is that an unscaled game just gets to claim to be open, when in practise you'll wander into the Lair of Huge Horrorshow Looking Gigantosaurs, get pwned and either escape or reload, then try the Cave of Large Scary Beasts, get soundly beaten and either escape or reload, then try the Castle of Fairly Chunky Undead, narrowly win and then try the Meadow of Amusingly Angry Rabbits, which is a walkover. Every subsequent  time you play, you're either a masochist or will go Meadow/Castle/Cave/Lair.

I wouldn't mind more variety in monster types, but that's more in terms of immunities and vulnerabilities than a scaling/plausibility issue.