575 réponses à ce sujet

[Ahzrei]

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.

I approve of this post. Well said.

Modifié par Ahzrei, 04 mars 2010 - 01:48 .

[Akka le Vil]

CybAnt1 wrote...

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

It's the main feeling that disgust me and made me abandon every attempt at making a second walkthrough (and at least two of my friends are in the same situation, as I said before).
Maybe not everyone pay attention to it, but it's definitely here. I only feel two different difficulties : bosses and non-bosses. It doesn't matter if I fight werewolves, beggars, trained assassins, blood mages, treants, spider, dwarves, darkspawns or whatever : EVERYTHING IS EXACTLY THE SAME.

I would think that a five-metres high hulking living tree would be a lot sturdier and a lot stronger (with large HP, high armor, high damage, but low avoidance, slow hitting and maybe low precision) than a regular human grunt.
No, they're the same (at least they feel the same).
You'd think that some blood archmage which, according to the lore, are extremely dangerous and can wipe whole villages, would be something hard to tackle on and could bring havoc. No, the mage apprentice is just as strong.
You'd think the elite guard that has been entrusted with the care of some high-ranked figure, and has been extensively trained and boast a lot of experience, would be a dangerous opponent. Well, he's just the same than the common militiaman you find in a random village. So much for all the speech about needing real soldiers in the game - just take whoever appear, they will always be the same.

I definitely felt this blandness throughout the replays.

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.

I think the challenges should come from the fact that, as we grow more powerful, we take actions that LOGICALLY bring more powerful foes into the fight - like in : when you become more experienced, you will go against the evil Banhorn rather than going against the highway brigands.
Not that challenge should come from the fact that every fight magically scale to the player.

In other words : organic progression, not artificial one. The challenge increase because as you expand your horizon, challenges that were previously deadly are now able to be tackled, not just because deadly monsters spawn out of thin air, or because your character somehow define the power of the entire world.

[Akka le Vil]

Ahzrei wrote...

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.

Level scaling can simulate non-linearity, but if Fallout could be the world benchmark of non-linearity without level scaling, it means that level-scaling is not required, and as such absence of level scaling doesn't IMPLY linearity, which was exactly my point.

The choice is in which area you want to tackle first.

Actually, there is already a differencet level floor between the areas. But anyway, there is plenty of ways to allow people to start whatever area they want first without making them scaled. And the tradeoff is certainly not worth it anyway. A believable world where supposed very dangerous creatures ARE actually very dangerous, and where you CAN rely on "tough foes" to be actually "tough", and where the elite guards are actually better than militiamen, feels much more important to immersion than just being certain that you can win whatever the road you chose.

Taking risks is more interesting than the guarantee of success, progression is more interesting than monotony.

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'm pretty sure you're talking about Fallout 3 and not Fallout.

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.

I don't feel anything satisfying when it comes out automatically. A build is fun, yes, but it's a one-time thing. Progression is not only more logical and natural than scaling, but it last the whole game.

UberuceIAm wrote...

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.

I agree, but this is completely unrelated with level scaling.

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.

Well, kudo to you that you admit it's the raw powergamering that is pleasing  you.
I don't mind powergaming a bit, but I really see ABSOLUTELY NO POINT in hitting twice as hard when foes have twice as much health. Bigger numbers are fun relative to smaller. Bigger numbers everywhere... It has no meaning.

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.

And in DAO you will always first do the Prologue, then do Ostagar, then do the recruiting quests, then do the after-recruiting, then do the end. Doesn't seem to bother you.

Taking your example, there could be the Meadow of Amusingly Angry Rabbits, but ALSO the Sewer of Bad-Tempered Rat AND the Wood of Annoyed Bats for low-levels, then the Castle of Fairly Chunky Undead AND the Graveyard of Somewhat Relevant Grave-Robber for mid-level, and... You get the point.

Or you could also offer alternative ways to finish a segment, so if you're going in too weak to fight on, you could try diplomacy instead, or recruit some help (that you won't need if you're powerful) or other things.

A funny thing is that so many people point that level scaling is good that it allows people to take any path for variety sake.
But at the same time, level scaling KILLS any variety in the whole game, by making it a bland "everything is the same" blob. And what ruins all my attempt at making a second playthrough is precisely this feeling.
So the very supposed justification of level scaling, defeats its very concept.

There is lots of possibilities, level scaling is just the lazy ones that takes the place of the designer's work - and that kills the believability of the world in the process.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 04 mars 2010 - 02:17 .

[Ahzrei]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Level scaling can simulate non-linearity, but if Fallout could be the world benchmark of non-linearity without level scaling, it means that level-scaling is not required, and as such absence of level scaling doesn't IMPLY linearity, which was exactly my point.

I have no qualms with this statement.

Actually, there is already a differencet level floor between the areas. But anyway, there is plenty of ways to allow people to start whatever area they want first without making them scaled. And the tradeoff is certainly not worth it anyway. A believable world where supposed very dangerous creatures ARE actually very dangerous, and where you CAN rely on "tough foes" to be actually "tough", and where the elite guards are actually better than militiamen, feels much more important to immersion than just being certain that you can win whatever the road you chose.

Taking risks is more interesting than the guarantee of success, progression is more interesting than monotony.

You are a hero, your strength is supposed to be exceptional. The common soldier should not rival your power. There are elite mobs within many of the packs of normal monsters that are significantly tougher than the fodder that surrounds them. Many of the monsters in the world are dangerous, Dragon Age was not a ridiculously easy game for me. I had no problems with immersion, I'm sorry you did.

I'm pretty sure you're talking about Fallout 3 and not Fallout.

You're right, I was. For whatever reason, I had assumed you were too. My apologies.

I don't feel anything satisfying when it comes out automatically. A build is fun, yes, but it's a one-time thing. Progression is not only more logical and natural than scaling, but it last the whole game.

What comes out automatically? I choose a new skill myself at every level, none of it is automatic. I think I'm misunderstanding you here.

Progression isn't more "natural," it's more common. Humans are by nature creatures of habit, so I can understand why you feel that way, and your argument makes more sense to me now. I like the idea that I'm the right level for every encounter I come across because I know that if I fail it's because I'm doing something wrong, not because I'm too low level or undergeared. Tactics have always meant more to me than raw power, so it suits me.

I don't mind powergaming a bit, but I really see ABSOLUTELY NO POINT in hitting twice as hard when foes have twice as much health. Bigger numbers are fun relative to smaller. Bigger numbers everywhere... It has no meaning.

Based soley on the words you use here, I'd agree. Twice the damage on twice the health bar is pointless. But with a better character build, and the time it takes to level to it's full potential, let's say you can do 2.5x the damage on a health bar that's twice as large. A smarter build can make that kind of a difference for you, and that's when it starts to matter.

And in DAO you will always first do the Prologue, then do Ostagar, then do the recruiting quests, then do the after-recruiting, then do the end. Doesn't seem to bother you.

Taking your example, there could be the Meadow of Amusingly Angry Rabbits, but ALSO the Sewer of Bad-Tempered Rat AND the Wood of Annoyed Bats for low-levels, then the Castle of Fairly Chunky Undead AND the Graveyard of Somewhat Relevant Grave-Robber for mid-level, and... You get the point.

Or you could also offer alternative ways to finish a segment, so if you're going in too weak to fight on, you could try diplomacy instead, or recruit some help (that you won't need if you're powerful) or other things.

There is lots of possibilities, level scaling is just the lazy ones that takes the place of the designer's work - and that kills the believability of the world in the process.

I agree that level scaling may not be the best way to go about it. But I do think it is a good way. I also think it's unfair to call the Dev's lazy. A lot of work went into this game, that much is apparent and it's good for a hell of a lot more than just its combat systems (which is what we're conversing about).


I also agree that there is a level of progression in DA:O, but that progression is necessary because of story and roleplaying restrictions, not level and gear.

Modifié par Ahzrei, 04 mars 2010 - 02:45 .

[CybAnt1]

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

Yes, more monster variety! And I absolutely agree there should be some way of knowing those things (other than firing up the Toolset or turning to metagame knowledge - I've proposed a Beast Lore skill), and furthermore, this being a tactical RPG, causing you to prepare different tactics. 

Like ... we're going into the Molten Chasm of Lava Monsters ... better bring my mage who knows more frost spells, and forget the fire bombs, they're either immune or highly resistant ... 

Or we're going into the Tomb of Scary Undead ... forget the mind and blood influencing spells, they're immune ... but they're vulnerable to fire, time to bring those fire bombs ... 

Etc. 

[Fishy]

Sight.Op think this game's a mmorpg or God of War.

[Akka le Vil]

Ahzrei wrote...

You are a hero, your strength is supposed to be exceptional. The common soldier should not rival your power. There are elite mobs within many of the packs of normal monsters that are significantly tougher than the fodder that surrounds them. Many of the monsters in the world are dangerous, Dragon Age was not a ridiculously easy game for me. I had no problems with immersion, I'm sorry you did.

Well, the fact that you are a hero and above the power of the common soldier, is supposed to be reflected by the fact that you have a higher level (that's the very concpet and point of level, isn't it ?), which, due to level scaling, is not the case.
Also, the problem is not just about the common soldier compared to the player, but about the fact that the common soldier could be much tougher than the elite guard, only because you encountered him later. Which doesn't make any sense.

It's not a point of DAO being easy or hard (this is the difficulty setting's job, not the level scaling part), it's a point about the game not being consistent because of scaling. Scaling isn't consistent by its very definition.

What comes out automatically? I choose a new skill myself at every level, none of it is automatic. I think I'm misunderstanding you here.

I meant that every foe is automatically adjusted to my level. So once I've put my points, the rest still is the same.

Progression isn't more "natural," it's more common. Humans are by nature creatures of habit, so I can understand why you feel that way, and your argument makes more sense to me now. I like the idea that I'm the right level for every encounter I come across because I know that if I fail it's because I'm doing something wrong, not because I'm too low level or undergeared. Tactics have always meant more to me than raw power, so it suits me.

Yes, progression is more natural. Someone who train in a certain field progresses and becomes better. That's normal, natural, logical - some would say that the AMOUNT of power gained is completely off-scale, and I wouldn't deny, but the general principle of improving oneself through training and experience is still sound.
Scaling isn't logical, normal or natural. Scaling means that because I went adventuring and got experience and trained, everyone everywhere just became better too. That makes absolutely no sense.

I agree with you that tactics are important and fun. But they are not exclusive to progression. Not scaling just means that a foe stay at a more or less fixed level. If you fight him at the same level, it's just the same. But you have the OPTION to fight him sooner or later. And this unlock the whole "make the world sensical" marvel, as you no longer have nonsensical power comparisons, with elite guards weaker than militia, and wolves stronger than treants.

Based soley on the words you use here, I'd agree. Twice the damage on twice the health bar is pointless. But with a better character build, and the time it takes to level to it's full potential, let's say you can do 2.5x the damage on a health bar that's twice as large. A smarter build can make that kind of a difference for you, and that's when it starts to matter.

I still don't see the point of increasing your power by 2,5 if it increases the power of the whole rest of the world by 2.
In this case, just increase the power of the character by 0,25 which is the same in the end, and allows to preserve the logical difference between the rest of the NPC.

I agree that level scaling may not be the best way to go about it. But I do think it is a good way. I also think it's unfair to call the Dev's lazy. A lot of work went into this game, that much is apparent and it's good for a hell of a lot more than just it's combat systems (which is what we're conversing about).

It's not a "good way", it's THE WORST IMAGINABLE.
I can not repeat it enough : it makes absolutely no sense to have elite guards weaker than militia. It makes absolutely no sense that an archmage is weaker than an apprentice, just because you saw him sooner. It makes no sense that everyone is the same everywhere.
And it robs you of the actual possibility to make a choice, as all choices are the same.

And I agree that a lot of work went into this game. But certainly not when it came to the whole level scaling crap. The very idea to put level scaling in a game is already giving in to lazyness - and the very fact it is seen as needed shows underlying flaws that should be corrected, rather than (badly) camouflaged via level scaling.

Level scaling is, by its very definition, a band-aid. You need it because you screwed something somewhere. If you need to scale, it means you made a mistake.

Suprez30 wrote...

Sight.Op think this game's a mmorpg or
God of War.

Actually that's the complete opposite, as action games and MMO are precisely wholly scaled, but then you obviously didn't even attempted to think, so it's not surprising that you so completely fail.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 04 mars 2010 - 03:01 .

[Gecon]

These threads are so laughable.

Nobody ever complained about level scaling before Oblivion existed. And really ALL the games had it. BG, IWD, PS:T NWN1, NWN2, whatever - you name it, yes it has level scaling. ALL Bioware games have it. All Black Isle games have it. All Obsidian games have it.

Morrowind had it too, of course. NOBODY ever complained about it either. Ever.

Then Oblivion was created and seriously overdid the whole thing, so you really always had to fight opponents of exactly the same level all the time no pause ever.

Now we suddenly see threads like this spawn all over the place. What the heck ? It was never a problem before, so why is it a problem now ?

And I can give you a simple trick to avoid level scaling in Oblivion: just start with the dwarves as early as possible. As you're too early and level scaling at the dwarves doesnt kick in, you will face some serious combat challenge this way. Thats how a game without level scaling would feel like. Enjoy.

[Akka le Vil]

You show obvious ignorance of the subject.
Many game had no level scaling, many had it, many had only very restricted scaling.
And actually, many people complained about the scaling in Morrowind.

And in the end, your only point is completely irrelevant on the pertinence of level scaling, your only argument being "it already happened in the past". Plenty of stupid design decisions happened in the past, doesn't make them less stupid.

And you fail hard at understanding what's the problem is with level scaling - your idiotic example of "how to avoid it" is simply "how to eat the arbitrarily decided floor of the level scaling of the zone", which is still level scaling.

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.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 04 mars 2010 - 03:15 .

[booke63]

I'm with you on your desire for a world that is "logical" as you say in regards to level scaling--that the lack of level scaling would be better. A beginning character should have his butt handed to him by an end game type of creature and should by end game mop up generic creatures like wolves or bears. 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?



Now will the game be designed so you can run from every encounter? That would put some pressure from a new angle on common sense, I would think. No doors can lock behind you? You're faster than all creatures? Creatures can't leave a certain area like you can? Moreover, if you CAN run from every creature, the line between megagaming and immersion becomes very thin as you can boldly walk into any encounter and just try running if you get your butt half off. How different is that from simply knowing you can reload?



What do we do with whole sections of the game from which you cannot retreat, leave, and go to another section of the game? If you're not yet tough enough to defeat that section of the game, you're stuck, but as always you can reload an earlier save. Same common sense/logic problems arise. Why would your character suddenly decide NOT to go where you can't win except by crossing that thin line between metagaming and immersion?



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

[Akka le Vil]

booke63 wrote...

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?

I'd like to point that messing with a gravestone when there is heavy magic felt throughout, is already a meta-gaming gamble. You do it because you expect that what will come out will be defeatable. You ignore the warning "beware, it's dangerous", because you meta-game them and dismiss them as "it's okay, it's just the usual bullcrap to make it looks like it's actually dangerous, but I know I can take it, the designers would not have put it here if it wasn't the case".
That's the same problem we always see with the ever-used "elite guards", which are in the end just like regular guards, or the "nobody ever came back alive !" while the actual dangers are automatically well within our grasp.
That's a consequence of meta-gaming. Removing level scaling could make people actually think twice before meddling with unknown powers. That's a big plus in my book. Adds to atmosphere, adds to ambiance, adds to thinking.

Now will the game be designed so you can run from every encounter? That would put some pressure from a new angle on common sense, I would think. No doors can lock behind you? You're faster than all creatures? Creatures can't leave a certain area like you can? Moreover, if you CAN run from every creature, the line between megagaming and immersion becomes very thin as you can boldly walk into any encounter and just try running if you get your butt half off. How different is that from simply knowing you can reload?

I think that giving fair warning, and allowing some sort of escape - but making escape still dangerous, after all someone dangerous is after you - is much more interesting. Again, that makes the whole "world makes sense, and you're part of this world" point very relevant. It makes dangerous zones really dangerous, and elite soldiers really elite. It makes warning actually useful rather than just the usual background noise, and could make "getting information" actually good for once, rather than "whatever, just rush in, we'll be able to overcome it anyway".

What do we do with whole sections of the game from which you cannot retreat, leave, and go to another section of the game? If you're not yet tough enough to defeat that section of the game, you're stuck, but as always you can reload an earlier save. Same common sense/logic problems arise. Why would your character suddenly decide NOT to go where you can't win except by crossing that thin line between metagaming and immersion?

Well, just take care to dutifully warn the player in a way or another, or make sure he's strong enough to take it.
Make it so that the guy guarding the door toward the "closed" section tells you "it's deadly inside, mylord, and you really don't look ready yet". Again, makes the warning actually relevant, and information-gathering useful. There is countless ways to avoid the problems.
But they requires a bit more thinking than the lazy, superficial "let's scale it all !". I don't blame level scaling being the lazy option for nothing. The others DO require more work. It's still really worth it.

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.

I agree that realism MAY be at add with the game, but I disagree that it's always the case. I prefer to see realism, on the contrary, as a BASE upon which you build the game.
Who complain nowadays that shooters include reloading ? It was not the case in most games at the start (you just had X ammo and could fire until you ran out). Designers could have ignored this "realist" part, or they could integrate it in the game in a way that make it actually more interesting (which they did).

Level scaling is just a bad tool to handwave difficulties in design. Actually integrating these difficulties in the game to make it better is a much higher goal I believe.

[Nemorem]

I've long hated level scaling, but it's here to stay and Dragon Age does a pretty good job with it. Still, in the future, I'd like to see more sophisticated level scaling that combines multiple techniques to provide consistent challenge while still maintaining the illusion of a coherent game world. For example, I would do all of the following:



- Fully scale bosses and other named NPCs (why shouldn't they've be getting more powerful while the PC is off gaining experience elsewhere?)

- Only scale minions within a certain, small range (DAO already does this, of course)

- Use different names and appearances to denote tougher versions of creatures (use this sparingly, as this, too, can become ridiculous if overused)

- Scale the number of enemies in some encounters, rather than just their individual power

- Don't scale every creature in an encounter evenly. In other words, scale the encounter as a whole by throwing in one or two tougher enemies. For example, an encounter that features only grunt soldiers at lower levels could include a powerful mage at higher levels.

- Don't scale some encounters at all, especially if they're tough ones that are optional and/or can be avoided. Save the most aggressive level scaling techniques for the game's "critical path."

[soteria]

The thing about comparing this to Fallout is it's a completely different kind of game. The main quest took what, like 20 minutes to complete if you knew where to go? It was an open world. If you're saying you want a game like Fallout, /shrug. I don't.

[Akka le Vil]

soteria wrote...

The thing about comparing this to Fallout is it's a completely different kind of game. The main quest took what, like 20 minutes to complete if you knew where to go? It was an open world. If you're saying you want a game like Fallout, /shrug. I don't.

Morrowind could be also done in 20 minutes. Still it's one of the biggest game ever created. It's completely stupid to use power-rushing as a benchmark.

Fallout could provide tens of hours of game when played organically, had very good dialogues and plot,  was consistent and felt alive. That's what counts.

[ladydesire]

Akka le Vil wrote...


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.

Sure, if you don't specifically create the character template for the placed creature with a specific level range that is different from the area; Bioware didn't do this by defaut, but the toolset shows that it might be an option.

[Eurypterid]

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.

[Kimberly Shaw]

Level scaling is not something I'm a fan of, and I'm certainly taking it into consideration in my future RPG purchases.



I really like a big open world to explore with areas that are dangerous and areas that are full of fodder.



The most important thing, for me, is that the game world makes sense and feels alive and provides immersion.



Tell a story, provide a good path for me to go along that I'm free to veer off of from time to time if I feel I should, and keep an eye out for ridiculousness (I'm looking at you poverty stricken bandits in full glass armor, and wolves/thugs that can wipe out a high dragon) along the way.



For me, solutions:

- don't block off parts of the world, frustrated me that I can see a place on my map in Denerim but can't go there because its "grey". ? why? I should be able to go there if I want, even if its just to be told by a guard that I can't go in. Then I should be able to thump that guard and climb over his dead body, but I digress.

- keep leveling up a slow/steady increase in power, so that getting a few levels doesn't break the challenge without scaling.

- more vareity in encounters/creature types. Alternate random encounters between 1 extremely tough creature, 2-4 tough creatures, 4-8 medium difficulty creatures, 9+ easy creatures. Have those creatures change names and skins and abilities depending on what level you encounter them.

- Random loot should be random but also make sense for the creatures holding/using it (glass armor on bandits problem).

- Unique loot should NOT scale with level. A sword of legends should not be level 5 equivalent because you killed its boss at level 5 and level 10 because you killed its wielder at level 10. It should be whatever level its meant to be no matter when you pick it up (DAO has this problem with tiers, fixable in some cases by the merchant sell back glitch, not with helmets though).

[Akka le Vil]

I approve of the message above (save perhaps the scaled-encounters, it's a lesser evil but it's still evil ).

[Kimberly Shaw]

I approve of the message above (save perhaps the scaled-encounters, it's a lesser evil but it's still evil ).

True. I think I meant:



"Have those creatures change names and skins and abilities depending on when/where you encounter them."



Rather than what level you encounter them. As long as it makes sense. If you've completed some quests or the timeline of the game has shifted, and the story is well written, it should make sense that more/more challenging/higher level enemies are being encountered in an area than before.



eg, the Darkspawn are now stronger than before, thanks to their victories in Ostagar and looting of Lothering. They now have higher numbers, a few generals, and they plundered fine weapons and armor.



DAO doesn't really have true random encounters. The ones on the roads to/from places are all triggered events and finite, just random when you'll bump into them. In a game that has them, I'm not a fan of having to go through the combat process with extremely weak enemies, so there should be an option to have them flee and not chase them down or surrender. But if you wish to fight them to feel bad**** for a second or get more money or small exp, you should have that option.

[Ralnith]

Lack of scaling doesn't force linearity, it is primarily forced through quest structure. Gothic 1 and 2 were both quite linear because of the plotlines, but the game environment itself was static. You could run into a group of 3 skeletons and 2 undead knights right after your first visit to Khorinis, if you are too curious. The quests just made sure you don't have to fight enemies like that when you aren't ready, but they don't have to be arranged that way.



There is an another pen and paper mechanic that forces some linearity in quest structure, but it is in no way necessary for level progression, it is just extremely common: xp gain. Typically, xp is awarded for completion of quests and KILLING ENEMIES. That last part is a double edged blade: while some especially difficult encounters should have some kind of reward for completing them, it also forces players to kill everything hostile for xp.



Therefore, when a quest says "go to the Cave of Horrors and get Shiny MacGuffin", it actually means "go to the Cave of Horrors, kill everything that moves and than get Shiny MacGuffin". In a world that makes sense within its own rules, noone should be able to defeat everything. Sometimes the enemy is just too strong, sometimes there are too many of them, but in the end, the hero should die if he is foolish enough to ignore the obvious warnings and just make a suicidal charge. This simply can't be implemented in a scaled game because the players will expect to be able to win any battle. DA:O is one of the worst examples of this because the zones are one-way corridors that leave the PC no other option but to win. To make a non-linear game means to abandon this mechanic but also give the players other ways to finish quests. It is more difficult for the writers, however, but the other option is to let level and gameplay designers balance the writers lazyness.



There are good examples of games without scaling and with kill xp, but I think removing kill xp is a better option to prevent level grinding. It will happen otherwise.





By the way, scaling encounters by increasing the number of enemies is pointless in any scaling system I've seen. To a high lvl PC, a low lvl enemy is just an annoying fly. Even if there is an entire swarm of them, all they can do is buzz. They can't harm a high lvl character and they die when he just looks in their direction. They simply can't add any chalange to a fight.

Adding high lvl enemies is a different thing and can be fun if done well, but it is by far not the only way to make a fight interesting. The problem with most bosses is not their strength (their hp and dps are always way over top anyway), it is the AI. If the boss doesn't have any good abilities or doesn't know how to use them, than the fight will be boring. That is the reason why most bosses have bodyguards...

[Mordaedil]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Mordaedil wrote...

Dragon Age doesn't have "level scaling" in the sense that Oblivion has it though.

Actually, it is SAID that it's different, but in practice it's exactly the same. The upper and lower level limits are so large that you nearly never encounter them, and anyway even if you encounter them, the enemies are still all the same, just with capped stat.

But it works like NWN, so changing this is... Like kinda asking to make the game more linear.

Linearity has NOTHING to do with level scaling, as it was very often proved (taking Fallout 1 as the usual example).

And even if it was true, I prefer linearity + progression + consistency to non-linearity + blandness + lack of immersion.

I do wish DAO was Fallout at times. But I still don't feel it ruins the game, but it does harm the potential of what game it could have been.

But I don't think we'll EVER have another Fallout. It means I'd have to actually be afraid when I start up a game.

[DargonBlak]

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.

hmmm.... i suppose that means i shouldn't tell Akka that i consider some of his points to be thoughtless id-stuff...

Akka, you almost had me at the beginning, but since then i've become quite lost in your "logic"... you seem to have a bone to pick, and you appear to be trying to make a point that i mostly disagree with... and this seems to be more about you arguing your point of view and telling everyone else that they are wrong or ignorant, instead of welcoming the discourse that you've begun...

i was going to again try and explain my perspective, but.... whatever.  i disagree with you.

[booke63]

I think you make my point, Akka le Vil. You can dress up the dangerous encounter with a credible warning and give your character an in-game reason to avoid said encounter, but eventually you will not heed that warning, and you'll either win, get your butt handed to you and reload, or you'll run. You will still bump into the structure of the game and logic will be threatened. 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.



It's easy to be a critic of a video game, I think, so easy that I doubt I would play many, if I didn't choose to be sympathetic to the game. I let it be what it is, add myself to it, and find that I am immersed...sort of in spite of myself



Thanks

[DargonBlak]

booke63 wrote...

It's easy to be a critic of a video game, I think, so easy that I doubt I would play many, if I didn't choose to be sympathetic to the game. I let it be what it is, add myself to it, and find that I am immersed...sort of in spite of myself

Thanks

Very well stated.  An enjoyable read, thank you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

UberuceIAm wrote...

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.

And I think that's a problem.  I much prefered the level range in Baldur's Gate, where you did go from random peasant to competent soldier, but really not much further.

Level 7-8 on a D&D scale is a good end point for a game that starts you as a nobody.