575 réponses à ce sujet

[Kimberly Shaw]

Sylvius, did you ever play the old Gold Box version fo Pool of Radiance? You started level 1 and the cap for most classes was level 6. I loved that game so much, and think it should be remade today using today's computers.



Slightly linear but so much to do and see and a lot of optional but large content too. And because you leveled up so infrequently and the power increase was rather slow, you never felt like you had outleveled encounters.

[Akka le Vil]

Ralnith wrote...

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.

Strongly agree here.

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.

Well, there is other ways to deal with this : making it so that XP gained by combat can only be "spent" into combat-related ability, giving bonus XP if you avoided combat to compensate, giving option to make monsters kill themselves/flee/depart (traps, dialogues, etc.) which offer quest-XP and the like. Imagination can solve anything if you have enough of it

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.

It depends. If a level is a small increase in power, then even a low-level soldier can be a real threat. Require a more artistic and subtle touch, but subtlety is usually a sign of good design.

[Kut]

I completely disagree with the OP. Here's why:

When I first began the game I had some difficulty. My tank was
constantly getting smashed, my healer was always oom, and I was using A
LOT of healing pots.

As I gained levels and acquired skills (Shield Wall, Mage CC, increased
Rogue damage). I could definitely feel my characters getting stronger.
Before long, I had no problem dealing with a large number of mobs or
even bosses.

I am still on my first play through, and have not finished the game.
But I visited Red Cliff as a second location and had little difficulty
with the High Dragon there.

I went to the Deep Roads as a third location, where I encountered the
Brood Mother (which I heard is a very difficult fight). When I defeated
her on my fist try, without losing a member of the party, I knew that I
needed to bump up the difficuly to Hard. My characters had simply grown
too strong for Normal.

Now, in the Brecilian Forest (my 4th location) seems feel a bit more challenging, but if my characters continue to grow in power, perhaps my first play-through will be bumped up to the Nightmare difficulty before all is said and done.

Modifié par Kut, 04 mars 2010 - 07:07 .

[Akka le Vil]

DargonBlak wrote...

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

You can, if you can seriously back it up.

Akka, you almost had me at the beginning, but since then i've become quite lost in your "logic"...

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.
I want to see an archmage be stronger than an apprentice.
I want to see a demon lord be stronger than a wolf.
I want to see a 5-m high treants be stronger than a regular militiaman.
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.

Is anything I said hard to understand ? Isn't it simple logic ?
What is there that can have someone "lost" in it ?

you seem to have a bone to pick, and you appear to be trying to make a point that i mostly disagree with...

I have a bone to pick against level scaling, as it's an abomination that completely destroy my fun and shatter my immersion. I don't think I've hidden this. It's the main point of the thread.
As you disagreeing with me... You're welcome to, as long as you actually do understand my point and don't put words or deductions in my mouth. I've lashed back at the poster that simply went trolling, but I've nothing against people who disagree as long as they actually read and understand an argument before trying to counter it.

Now, it doesn't mean you will convince me. It means I will listen to you fairly if you make a good case.
But honestly, I've a hard time seeing how it's possible to argue that it's good design to have a powerful demon able to threaten the whole region, being weaker than the random mage in a random group that you fight some time after. THAT is a logic that I'm completely lost in

[Akka le Vil]

booke63 wrote...

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.

Eventually I will not heed the warning, yes. But this "eventually" will happen when I'm some kind of big, powerful hero that can only be challenged by mortal danger. It feels a lot more believable and logical than "whatever danger is, I can tackle it when I want, whatever my skill and power, because it will be adaptated to my level anyway".
A powerful hero not heeding a warning and succeeding is epic. But if the danger is always the same, it makes no sense and it's not epic to overcome it, it's just "normal".

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.

That's what we call an "acceptable break from reality". Save/load games are gameplay feature that are acceptables. Having a world that just does not make any sense is not what I can imagine "acceptable".

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.

I guess it depends on how "purist" someone is. I'm rather extreme in this regard, and I can't buy "convenient" excuses. Just like I can't buy all the "coincidences" that are needed to ignore a large plot hole, or I can't accept when a person is acting completely out of character (unless there is a good storyline reason to do so).
Consistency is paramount.

I wish I could just look the other way when something so "in your face" as the ugly level scaling we see in DAO is smashed into my game, but I'm afraid I can't. And I still think it's not the part of the player to turn an excessively blind eye, but the part of the designer to minimize the suspension of disbelief.

[Akka le Vil]

Kut wrote...

I am still on my first play through, and have not finished the game.
But I visited Red Cliff as a second location and had little difficulty
with the High Dragon there.

I'd advise you to start a new game right after this one and see how it feels.
The level scaling was disgusting for me right from the start, but I didn't felt it as much the first time. I really hit the brick wall when attempting a second playthrough.

[Kut]

Akka le Vil wrote...

I'd advise you to start a new game right after this one and see how it feels.
The level scaling was disgusting for me right from the start, but I didn't felt it as much the first time. I really hit the brick wall when attempting a second playthrough.

Ok, I will. I am hoping that you're wrong... but I have a feeling that you're right.

[Ahzrei]

Kut wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

I'd advise you to start a new game right after this one and see how it feels.
The level scaling was disgusting for me right from the start, but I didn't felt it as much the first time. I really hit the brick wall when attempting a second playthrough.

Ok, I will. I am hoping that you're wrong... but I have a feeling that you're right.

I've beaten the game more than 5 times now, and there is a long argument over the last few pages with Akka that is testament to the level with which I disagree with his point of view.


I decided it was best to end it there, we had stopped making any progress in the discussion. "Agree to disagree" is the phrase.

Modifié par Ahzrei, 04 mars 2010 - 07:43 .

[Upper_Krust]

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.

[Akka le Vil]

Disagree with your idea that ranks are a replacement for levels.

First, a lvl 5 elite is still much weaker than a lvl 15 normal.

Second, they only make a "+" and "++" monster, not a whole distribution. And if you put twenty ranks, then you just renamed "levels" and I wonder what's the point of having levels in the game ^^



And putting only "ranked" monsters in the end would not feel anymore logical. Armies aren't comprised entirely of lieutenants. They are mostly comprised of grunts. It would be rather nonsensical to have exclusively what is supposed to be the top of the pack.

[CybAnt1]

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.

Goshdangit, I think you just said what I was trying to say, perfectly well, and even expressed it better.

That's exactly the kind of "scaling" I'd like to see, too. 

As you're moving along, your equipment tiers and ability tiers are increasing.

So should be your enemy tiers - and not just enemy levels. 

Yeah, you come to encounter point X at lvl 5, there's 5 grunts who are lvl 5 led by a "yellow" lvl 7 alpha. 

Different playthrough: you come to same encounter point at lvl 15, no, there shouldn't just be 5 lvl 13 grunts led by a "yellow" lvl 16 alpha. There should be 6-10 lvl 13-15 "yellow" alphas, led by a team of 2 "yellow" assassins, a "yellow" emissary mage, and a "orange" lvl 19 general. Oh and an ogre. 

Scale encounters, not just levels. 

And yes, I wish there was a way for enemy AI to scale - I mean I absolutely agree that hurlock generals should not just be physically tougher than hurlock alphas, and even have more special abilities/talents, but also be smarter and use better AI against you, too. However, creature AI in these games is often bad or worse than char AI, however since most players want to beat them, and often use all kinds of cheesy exploits to take advantage of it, it's pretty rare anybody wants mods that improve "that*. 

You expect to be able to use the "peel from its peers and ambush" tactic on a low level grunt. You expect that grunt to plummet right into the trap you set for it. The general shouldn't be that stupid. In fact, when it's in command, its grunts shouldn't, either. 

This game could be real dangerous if more creatures used the endless stock of healing potions they seem to have on them but never drink, or more of its occasional mage-type-creatures actually used their healing spells. Too bad there are no summoning spells for you, but heck even your adversaries don't seem to summon much against you, either. Your main advantage vs. the adversary is they almost never do. And you can. 

[Realmzmaster]

So what occurs is a de facto linear game or a linear game by design. Your character is not able to go into that area because the enemy is too big and scary (as you are warned) so go perform some FedEx quests or kill many low level creatures until you are powerful enough to have a chance in the area. But the next area the character tries also has a warning saying you are too low level for this dungeon come back when you are more powerful.

So finally the character finds an area that matches their low level. The character beats all the enemies and does all the quests in that area. Now the character goes to the previosly mentioned dungeon and is warned no your character is still to low for this dungeon. But your character just finished the first area, so you ignore the warning and proceed into the dungeon. Your character has his butt handed to him. So off to find a more suitable area to grow skill and strength.

You learn where you can or cannot go. The game is linear replayability kinda low. You could replay it as a diferent class, but now you know which area you have to visit first to gain strength and skill

Unless the plot and writing are extremely excellent it is going to be a boring second playthrough.

I do not like the railroad effect. I played enough of those types of CRPGs.

I prefer having the ability go any where in the game world. This is why I like Morrowind, Oblivion and DA:O. I will accept the level scaling as long as I have the freedom (even if it is only the illusion of freedom). But YMMV.

[soteria]

Ahzrei wrote...

Kut wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

I'd advise you to start a new game right after this one and see how it feels.
The level scaling was disgusting for me right from the start, but I didn't felt it as much the first time. I really hit the brick wall when attempting a second playthrough.

Ok, I will. I am hoping that you're wrong... but I have a feeling that you're right.

I've beaten the game more than 5 times now, and there is a long argument over the last few pages with Akka that is testament to the level with which I disagree with his point of view.


I decided it was best to end it there, we had stopped making any progress in the discussion. "Agree to disagree" is the phrase.

I agree with you.  I felt much stronger late in the game, and definitely noticed that some types of enemies are a heck of a lot more dangerous than others.  I just can't reconcile the experience I've had playing the game 5+ times with what the OP is saying.

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.

You completely missed the point.  Fallout and Morrowind are both different in that they are open worlds.  Instead of using different types of games, try something more relevant for comparison.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

Sylvius, did you ever play the old Gold Box version fo Pool of Radiance? You started level 1 and the cap for most classes was level 6. I loved that game so much, and think it should be remade today using today's computers.

Yes, that was terrific.  I suspect Baldur's Gate was designed largely following that template.

Slightly linear but so much to do and see and a lot of optional but large content too. And because you leveled up so infrequently and the power increase was rather slow, you never felt like you had outleveled encounters.

That last point is the most important.  Because the difference between the beginning of the game and the end of the game is smaller, a lack of scaling (which is what the people who want a coherent setting would like) doesn't cause as much gameplay harm.

Whereas, in a game like Oblivion or Mass Effect, where a starting character is entirely dissimilar from the character at the end of the game, a lack of scaling forces a very linear path through the game, since there's so little content at each level.

How many hours did we play PoR (or BG) at level 3.  10 hours?  20?  That means there had to be 10 hours of level 3 content in the game.  The order in which you did it was entirely up to you.

[SOLID_EVEREST]

I wish they didn't do anything about the level scaling. I loved the difficult battles. I wonder how much extra babying do next-gen gamers need... If you thought the game was too difficult, just lower the difficulty to casual...

[Kimberly Shaw]

Haha Sylvius, glad to hear you played those. I feel like a dinosaur sometimes on these forums.

Loved how the old games like the Gold Box AD&D Forgotten Realms series, Bard's Tale 1-3, Ultima 4-6, The Magic Candle, Phantasy, etc. never felt like scaling was happening (I honestly don't think it did) but still felt a lot more open than DAO felt to me. I'm entirely willing to believe this is due to me remembering things better than they were though! You had to use your imagination a lot more back then and I was a lot younger too.

You completely missed the point. Fallout and Morrowind are both different in that they are open worlds. Instead of using different types of games, try something more relevant for comparison.

I really don't understand your argument. So, you're saying that DAO is not linear and scaling is necessary to acheive that, at the same time saying "don't compare this against open world games" which is another word for non-linear games. Closed world, without choices of where to go next are linear; open world, where you can go wherever you want and try things in any order you want are non-linear.

DAO is not sandbox open but still pretty open world to a point, not nearly as much as I'd like it to be (although sand box world games are kinda lifeless sadly no one has done it right yet). Other games have been near open to the same extent as DAO and non-scaling and done it well. That's the point I'd like to make.

I still think they could have allowed more freedom in movement and not "greyed out" zones in DAO. You should be able to go back to Lothering, even if its just a burnt out husk. Areas of Denerim for instance should NEVER be closed off (pre final battle) even if you go to a zone only to be locked out of key plot areas by locked gates and such. I really really really dislike artificially being closed from areas in my "immersive" RPGs. It actually bugs me more than level scaling sorta.

Modifié par Kimberly Shaw, 04 mars 2010 - 10:23 .

[Akka le Vil]

soteria wrote...

I agree with you.  I felt much stronger late in the game, and definitely noticed that some types of enemies are a heck of a lot more dangerous than others.  I just can't reconcile the experience I've had playing the game 5+ times with what the OP is saying.

You feel much stronger late in the game for a very simple reason : late in the game, you finally go beyond the ceiling in the level scaling...
So in fact, many mobs stop being scaled. That rather further my point
But for 90 % of the game, there is a perfect, 1 to 1 scaling.

You completely missed the point.  Fallout and Morrowind are both different in that they are open worlds.  Instead of using different types of games, try something more relevant for comparison.

Actually, Fallout is very close to DAO when it comes to the "open world".
Just to be sure : I'm talking about Fallout 1, not Fallout 3

[Upper_Krust]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Disagree with your idea that ranks are a replacement for levels.

I never said they were replacements, but I will say they are the more important factor as regards the 'challenge' to the Players.

First, a lvl 5 elite is still much weaker than a lvl 15 normal.

No its not, at least not in terms of challenge, because the game has Level Scaling. So you'll be fighting that Level 5 Lieutenant while you are at Level 4, whereas you'd be fighting the Level 15 Normal while you are Level 16.

(Normals are set 1 level lower while Lieutnants are set 1 level higher in the game).

Second, they only make a "+" and "++" monster, not a whole distribution. And if you put twenty ranks, then you just renamed "levels" and I wonder what's the point of having levels in the game ^^

Levels are an arbitrary mechanic to determine the power of Player Characters.

Ranks are an arbitrary mechanic to determine the challenge Non-Player Characters and Monsters represent to Player Characters.

And putting only "ranked" monsters in the end would not feel anymore logical.

I didn't say to 'only' put them in, I said to increase the frequency of them.

Armies aren't comprised entirely of lieutenants. They are mostly comprised of grunts. It would be rather nonsensical to have exclusively what is supposed to be the top of the pack.

Rubbish. Any Field Commander (of ancient battles) would primarily surround themselves with the best hand picked troops. Thus it is entirely logical that the closer you get to the "General" the greater the frequency of these superior troops.

Applying that to Dragon Age Origins and we could easily envision whole units of Hurlock Alphas.

[Upper_Krust]

CybAnt1 wrote...
Goshdangit, I think you just said what I was trying to say, perfectly well, and even expressed it better.

I have my moments.

That's exactly the kind of "scaling" I'd like to see, too. 

As you're moving along, your equipment tiers and ability tiers are increasing.

So should be your enemy tiers - and not just enemy levels. 

Yeah, you come to encounter point X at lvl 5, there's 5 grunts who are lvl 5 led by a "yellow" lvl 7 alpha. 

Different playthrough: you come to same encounter point at lvl 15, no, there shouldn't just be 5 lvl 13 grunts led by a "yellow" lvl 16 alpha. There should be 6-10 lvl 13-15 "yellow" alphas, led by a team of 2 "yellow" assassins, a "yellow" emissary mage, and a "orange" lvl 19 general. Oh and an ogre.

To that I would say, just be careful. DAO is set up to have a finite total amount of Experience Points. So you would probably have to balance encounters to have a relatively the same 'percentage' of EXP needed for that Level...though theoretically that figure can even be played with by simply removing one less encounter per dungeon...or my preferred method which is combining encounters.

Scale encounters, not just levels. 

And yes, I wish there was a way for enemy AI to scale - I mean I absolutely agree that hurlock generals should not just be physically tougher than hurlock alphas, and even have more special abilities/talents, but also be smarter and use better AI against you, too. However, creature AI in these games is often bad or worse than char AI, however since most players want to beat them, and often use all kinds of cheesy exploits to take advantage of it, it's pretty rare anybody wants mods that improve "that*. 

You expect to be able to use the "peel from its peers and ambush" tactic on a low level grunt. You expect that grunt to plummet right into the trap you set for it. The general shouldn't be that stupid. In fact, when it's in command, its grunts shouldn't, either. 

I solved all these problems too.

http://social.biowar...39962/3#1553682

As regards the specific point you raised of scaling enemy AI, the best way to do this is to have statistical bonuses for a number of factors: primary strategy, battle formation, etc. I think these work well when linked to the enemy commander (depending upon the morale and discipline of the troops).

This game could be real dangerous if more creatures used the endless stock of healing potions they seem to have on them but never drink, or more of its occasional mage-type-creatures actually used their healing spells. Too bad there are no summoning spells for you, but heck even your adversaries don't seem to summon much against you, either. Your main advantage vs. the adversary is they almost never do. And you can. 

Agreed. I suggested that Lieutenant Rank enemies should drink any potions they have a few seconds after they are dropped below 50% health. Meaning the player would have a window of only a few seconds to kill them and get the potion for themselves.

[frayjog]

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

You started level 1 and the cap for most classes was level 6. I loved that game so much, and think it should be remade today using today's computers.

Slightly linear but so much to do and see and a lot of optional but large content too. And because you leveled up so infrequently and the power increase was rather slow, you never felt like you had outleveled encounters.

I really miss games like those.  The fact that so many players want to end the game with their character being "l33t" and able to solo anything the game throws at them has kind of destroyed any kind of challenge.  Gaining a level should be something significant, not something that occurs every 30 minutes of gameplay.  If it weren't for this mass-levelling, scaling would never even be an issue. 

Lower-level games are more fun and challenging than higher-level games.  This is probably the reason I prefer BG1 to BG2.  But that is another topic entirely. 

As to the issue of level scaling,  I really have no opinion.  I don't play games like DAO for their combat integration.

[Spekdah]

Not bothered about scaling vs non-scaling vs linear vs open ended progression. Yeah as pointed out the enemies are more like re-skinned templates.



Would be better if the AI and abilities were different for all the creatures.



Can't some of the darkspawn have different abilities depending on region/level/type, how about some of the bigger ones charge and knockover a group (ala Left 4 Dead 2). Or some that throw grenades, or have diseases, poisons.



Maybe soldiers had better behaviour, maybe some could flank the back, or if they spotted no mage/archer moved as a group and didn't split up.



Can't the shades/ethereals have some unique attacks?



The variation is missing after a while, and as the poster said, an enemy is either archer, mage or soldier. The only odd variation is a spider with web attacks and the boss mobs with grab.

[soteria]

You feel much stronger late in the game for a very simple reason : late in the game, you finally go beyond the ceiling in the level scaling...

So in fact, many mobs stop being scaled. That rather further my point

But for 90 % of the game, there is a perfect, 1 to 1 scaling.

Negative. It's a simple reason, but it has nothing to do with level scaling of enemies. First, you're wrong because the noticeable increase in power happens before anything hits a ceiling and second because a lot of the enemies you face don't have a ceiling at all, meaning you're still wrong. You say, "many mobs have a ceiling," well, how about listing them? I remember one game in which I was just steamrolling everything, and I had to stop and check if the game was still on nightmare, and to make sure the enemies were still my level (they were).



The reason the game gets easier and easier as you go on is that stat allocation is terrible for the computer and having a greater variety of abilities plays to your advantage, since a player will use them more intelligently than the AI.

[Akka le Vil]

Upper_Krust wrote...

I never said they were replacements, but I will say they are the more important factor as regards the 'challenge' to the Players.

No its not, at least not in terms of challenge, because the game has Level Scaling. So you'll be fighting that Level 5 Lieutenant while you are at Level 4, whereas you'd be fighting the Level 15 Normal while you are Level 16.

So in other words, your solution does nothing about any of the problem that level scaling cause. I don't really see its point then, honestly.

I may have missed something, so you could explain me better how ranks keeps the relative power of the NPC between at a logical level, help the world being consistent, and allow character progression ?

[Upper_Krust]

Akka le Vil wrote...

So in other words, your solution does nothing about any of the problem that level scaling cause. I don't really see its point then, honestly.

That wasn't my solution; I posted that in my first post in this thread where (to reiterate) I said you should have upgraded monsters inroduced per 'Act' (as in the three act structure) of the game.

So that in the first Act you might encounter lightly armed Hurlock Scouts/Skirmishers, in the second act we would also introduce medium armoured Hurlock Infantry and in the third Hurlock heavy Infantry.

The key is to increase the frequency of the more pwoerful troops as the game progresses but still occasionally bring in the weaker grunts to give the impression of character advancement without compromising the overall challenge.

I may have missed something, so you could explain me better how ranks keeps the relative power of the NPC between at a logical level, help the world being consistent, and allow character progression ?

Ranks alone are not the solution, but they are one of the bigger factors in the solution. See my point above for another factor.

The game already has character progression. Most monsters are much easier at the end of the game than they are at the start of the game. The reason for this is because even while statistical bonuses for monsters level scale with the PCs level. They don't scale with secondary factors such as min/maxing; unique bonuses from magic items, stacking effect from buffs etc.

As regards a consistent world however, I think you may be putting too much emphasis on 'level' which is itself just an arbitrary number. The reason level scaling exists is because Bioware have a finite amount of resources with which to create new enemy models and monsters. A better solution is the Warcraft method whereby you simply reskin and rename the same monster model. Bioware do this to a tiny degree with Wolves and Blight Wolves but don't really have the same clarification in place for humanoid troops (of any race).

[Akka le Vil]

Upper_Krust wrote...

That wasn't my solution; I posted that in my first post in this thread where (to reiterate) I said you should have upgraded monsters inroduced per 'Act' (as in the three act structure) of the game.

So that in the first Act you might encounter lightly armed Hurlock Scouts/Skirmishers, in the second act we would also introduce medium armoured Hurlock Infantry and in the third Hurlock heavy Infantry.

Well, some sort of misunderstanding here.
My point isn't really that monsters should be magically improved each act. My point is that history progression lead to a (logical) situation were your increased responsabilities and place in the world make you aim at higher and more dangerous foes, which means that the challenging parts of the missions will lead you against stronger enemies. But that should still make sense (like being sent against a high-ranked officier with his elite guards), not being just an "act scaling" (where every basic soldier has become a toughened soldier).

The game already has character progression. Most monsters are much easier at the end of the game than they are at the start of the game. The reason for this is because even while statistical bonuses for monsters level scale with the PCs level. They don't scale with secondary factors such as min/maxing; unique bonuses from magic items, stacking effect from buffs etc.

Well, the main reason is, as I already pointed, that once you reach lvl 16+ you effectively start to have some monster "capped out". For 90 % of the game you have no noticeable character progression.

As regards a consistent world however, I think you may be putting too much emphasis on 'level' which is itself just an arbitrary number.

It is an arbitrary number in DAO. Normally, it should represent how tough a monster is. I mean, that's the very reason it was invented, to differenciate how powerful a wolf is from a soldier from a dragon and the like. It has been voided of its meaning and made senseless by level scaling, which is exactly what bother me.

The reason level scaling exists is because Bioware have a finite amount of resources with which to create new enemy models and monsters. A better solution is the Warcraft method whereby you simply reskin and rename the same monster model. Bioware do this to a tiny degree with Wolves and Blight Wolves but don't really have the same clarification in place for humanoid troops (of any race).

Well, the whole DAO game is basically a reskin of the four same identical template, which is precisely what makes replaying it so frustrating. Monsters are all the same and feel just like the same foe with a different model, bar some few special abilities.

I would expect very differents stat and tactics from a treant than from a werewolf. But in the game, one has roots, the other has overwhelm, and that's about it, for the rest they are the same. That just feels wrong and destroy immersion.