575 réponses à ce sujet

[UberuceIAm]

Akka le Vil wrote...


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.

I agree, but I think the mildly depressing reason is that combat, even when magic is introduced, is finite in variety. Regardless of the physics of the game world, all you can do boils down to absorb damage, buff, inflict damage, debuff and disable. Arguably a disable is merely a 100% debuff of movement and attack rate, so it's just those four factors, with variety in area, range, duration and magnitude of effect.

Ideally the more the merrier, as far as variety is concerned, but realistically there has to be a balance struck between it and development time and expense. It's nice to have more species of critter, but whatever they are, they are by the nature of combat always going to be a brew of tank/buffer/damager/disabler/archer.

[Upper_Krust]

Akka le Vil wrote...

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).

Act Scaling is simply the method by which we accomplish the 'history progression' you are asking for.

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.

...which wouldn't be the case if they had applied the Act Scaling of monsters.

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.

Which is why I said you are putting too much emphasis on Level.

The game uses enemy ranks as the primary method of determining how challenging a monster is, not Level.

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 agree with you there.

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.

The ways to differentiate enemies are as follows:

1. Visually (cosmetic changes)
2. Statistical differences
3. Rank
4. Special Abilities
5. Strategy
6. Tactics
7. Formation
8. Morale

Many enemies in the game have no discernible tactics (beyond attack); no strategy; no special abilities; no formation (beyond skirmish) and seemingly no statistical differences. As regards morale, everything seems to want to fight to the death.

If we compare: Hurlock; Genlock; Shrieks; Dwarf; Human; Skeleton; Spirit...they all fight exactly the same. But it would be incredibly easy to differentiate them.

Dwarf
- Special Ability: Use Salves
- Strategy: Push. The defensive square will attempt to push enemies into certain hazards (spiked walls, fires etc.)
- Tactics: Defensive, protect an area or character.
- Formation: Groups (of 6+) will form a Square Formation (good defense/armor bonuses)...the corners of the square are the most vulnerable.
- Morale: Stubborn...will fight to the death

Genlocks
- Special Ability: Can set traps
- Strategy: Genlocks explode if killed before they have used all (3) grenades.
- Tactics: Ranged (initially). Genlocks employ grenades primarily targeting groups of characters, then try to backstab when they run out of grenades.
- Formation: Loose Skirmish Formation
- Morale: Shaky...feign death (while the camera has them onscreen, disappear when you move the camera away from them) when they don't outnumber the enemy (add those who successfully escape to the next encounter) 

Humans
- Special Ability: Use Potions
- Strategy: Leader can Call Reinforcements (no EXP gained from these) if still alive but less than half his starting force is dead.
- Tactics: Defensive.
- Formation: Groups (of 6+) will form a Testudo (massive defense/armour bonus, slight attack/damage penalty)
- Morale: Normal...last man will surrender if outnumbered. You have the choice to free him or kill him (which leads to various roleplaying consequences).

Hurlocks
- Special Ability: Go Berserk (breaking formation) when leader (point of the wedge) is slain
- Strategy: One hurlock beats a drum, while drumming all other hurlocks gain a bonus to attack/damage.
- Tactics: Aggressive
- Formation: Groups (of 6+) will form a Wedge Formation (moderate attack/damage bonuses; slight defense/armor bonus)
- Morale: Stubborn...fight to the death.

Shrieks
- Special Ability: Cocoon - slain targets are cocooned, you have to damage the cocoon before you can revive them. 
- Strategy: Pull/Feint...small groups of Shrieks will attack then withdraw (hoping characters will give chase) only for the larger group to ambush from hiding.
- Tactics: Shrieks like to pick on one, preferably isolated character.
- Formation: Groups use Swarm Formation (attack/damage bonus depending upon how many Shrieks are attacking the same target).
- Morale: Shaky...attempt to flee when outnumbered 2:1 (add those who successfully escape to the next encounter) 

Skeletons
- Special Defenses: Cannot be permanently slain (revive after 5 seconds when slain) until the Necromancer or Unholy Object that empowers them is killed. High resistance to Fire and Cold. Immune to Spirit and Nature damage. 
- Special Weaknesses: Easily knocked down and when they do are knocked back further.
- Strategy: One skeleton will hold the standard (while held, that gives all skeletons a bonus to Defense/Armour). If the standard bearer falls, another skeleton will try to pick it up. 
- Tactics: Mimic tactics of living counterparts
- Formation: Mimic formation of living counterparts
- Morale: Stubborn...fight until destroyed.

Corpses
- Special Ability: Each hit inflicts an injury
- Special Defenses: Massive health totals, but a critical hit kills one instantly. High resistance to Cold and Electricity damage. Immune to Spirit and nature damage.
- Strategy: Can be animated from recently deceased bodies.
- Tactics: Attack the nearest enemy
- Formation: Mob formation, totally engulfs an opponent massively slowing them
- Morale: Stubborn...fight until destroyed, but can be kept at bay by fire attacks

Spirits
- Special Ability: Ignore Armour. Cannot revive fallen targets slain by spirits until the end of the battle.
- Special Defenses: 50% chance to avoid attacks. Immune to Cold, Fire, Nature and Electricity.
- Strategy: For each spirit laid to rest (ie. killed), the remaining spirits gain a bonus to attack/damage.
- Tactics: Attack one enemy until they are dropped to 50% health, at which point they disappear and reappear 5 seconds later beside another enemy. 
- Formation: None.
- Morale: Flighty...fight until destroyed, but occasionally flit in and out of combat (disappearing only to reappear somewhere else).

[Akka le Vil]

Upper_Krust wrote...

Act Scaling is simply the method by which we accomplish the 'history progression' you are asking for.

No, act scaling is still scaling, with most of the bagages still attached.
That random commoner becomes twice as strong as Elite Soldier of the Royal Palace because I'm at the act 3 rather than because I'm level 15 doesn't change how ridiculous it is that he became stronger out of a totally unrelated event.

Which is why I said you are putting too much emphasis on Level.

The game uses enemy ranks as the primary method of determining how challenging a monster is, not Level.

That's precisely the problem, not the solution. Rank is relative to the player's character, which is exactly the problem of SCALING.

[Tabais]

At the risk of being told that I haven't read the Forum (which I have), or that I'm an idiot (which will be a matter of opinion), I think there is a lot to be said for Level Scaling. I mean, lets take, Final Fantasy for example (which story and play is far inferior to Dragon Age, in my opinion). Leaving out the obvious Linearity of the game, when you return to an area, the enemies there are very easy to kill. There is no challenge. Its quite boring, and to be forced to encounter them to get to another section is just a waste of time. I honestly do not have a problem with the leveling, and to disagree, I don't feel it ruins the game. As far as being lazy developers, having actually spent some time in non-gaming software design, what you are describing would take enormous effort, and seems like it would distract from the actual story of the game. This is as much an interactive story as it is a game, and while some of the pieces of you argument make sense, what you're describing seems to be would better belong in a MMORPG rather than a single player game.

[RangerSG]

Erm..no. "Everything doesn't scale." Oblivion is an "everything scales" game. Note the differences. You don't have bandits in top-tier armor hitting you up for 10 silver in DA.



Even in Baldur's Gate 2 the majority of your encounters had tiered opponent encounters. Other than the encounters with the Denerim bandits, I really don't see encounters where this matters. Oh...and even then, those don't scale with you precisely, they have a lvl 10 floor.

[evilhouseboat]

I don't agree. Especially since the first ogre you kill is a boss, and later in the game you have to kill groups of them.



They did level scaling very well. It fits the game.

[Akka le Vil]

Tabais wrote...

Leaving out the obvious Linearity of the game, when you return to an area, the enemies there are very easy to kill. There is no challenge. Its quite boring, and to be forced to encounter them to get to another section is just a waste of time.

Not to defend the scaling of FF7 - which is still a scaling, BTW, not what I defend - but the opposite can be said : there is never something "over your head" in a level scaled game, as everything is always "your level". You can go fight the High Dragon at level 10, or 8, or 16, and it's always killable. So the "challenge" argument feels quite void to me.

As far as being lazy developers, having actually spent some time in non-gaming software design, what you are describing would take enormous effort, and seems like it would distract from the actual story of the game.

Disagree. It just requires imagination and creativity. That's quite one of the main point of making a game.

This is as much an interactive story as it is a game, and while some of the pieces of you argument make sense, what you're describing seems to be would better belong in a MMORPG rather than a single player game.

MMORPG are totally scaled. I don't understand why people bring them often into the fray. They share a very similar design, why are they taken as opposite ?

RangerSG wrote...

Erm..no. "Everything doesn't scale."
Oblivion is an "everything scales" game. Note the differences. You don't have bandits in top-tier armor hitting you up for 10 silver in DA.

Actually, yes it's exactly the same. You may not see the top-tier armor on the bandit, but it's just cosmetics and because the game don't have specific stat for actual armors on NPC. But they are leveled exactly the same as in Oblivion.

Other than the encounters with the Denerim bandits, I really don't see encounters where this matters. Oh...and even then, those don't scale with you precisely, they have a lvl 10 floor.

Not that I havent answer to this about ten times already, but...
First, yes there is "ceiling" and "floor", but they are so LARGE that it comes down to nearly total
scaling anyway. You'll spend the vast majorityof the game between level 9 and 16, which is very close to the bracket for most areas.
Second, these ceiling and floor don't change ANYTHING about the problem of level scaling. They are, even, a perfect example : some random commoner is level 10 just because he live in Denerim, while a supposed elite guard is level 7 just because he lives in Lothering.

I'll never be able to understand how someone can see something so absurd and think "hey it's fine, the elite guard in armor is weaker than the naked commoner, nothing weird here !".

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 05 mars 2010 - 04:03 .

[Tabais]

Akka le Vil wrote...
Not to defend the scaling of FF7 - which is still a scaling, BTW, not what I defend - but the opposite can be said : there is never something "over your head" in a level scaled game, as everything is always "your level". You can go fight the High Dragon at level 10, or 8, or 16, and it's always killable. So the "challenge" argument feels quite void to me.

Fought the High Dragon at level 15.  Died a horrible and painful death without even hardly tweaking the thing...

MMORPG are totally scaled. I don't understand why people bring them often into the fray. They share a very similar design, why are they taken as opposite ?

The MMORPGs I've played haven't been scaled.  If you go into an area that you're not supposed to be in, you die a horrible and quick death.  First experience in point was Everquest, when almost my entire party was slaughtered by a Giant, with him taking us out in one hit per person.  Of course...retreat was the best option at the time....

[Akka le Vil]

Tabais wrote...

Fought the High Dragon at level 15.  Died a horrible and painful death without even hardly tweaking the thing...

Well, others killed it at 8.

The MMORPGs I've played haven't been scaled.  If you go into an area that you're not supposed to be in, you die a horrible and quick death.  First experience in point was Everquest, when almost my entire party was slaughtered by a Giant, with him taking us out in one hit per person.  Of course...retreat was the best option at the time....

They are scaled, just by area rather than the level of the player. In the end, you still have a random monster being lvl 5 at a point, and lvl 50 at another, with a country-threatening boss being lvl 20 at one point, and another being lvl 60 at another.
It's still scaling and completely absurd when you think about the logic of the world, for mostly the same reasons.

[Tabais]

Akka, other than Fallout, which I'm going to set myself up for and say I never really could get into, what other games would serve as an example of the good design you speak of?



I've only seen the type of thing you're describing in pen & paper games, and that's when the GM decides to through the PCs a bone and make them feel all big and bad. Otherwise, even the encounters in those games are scaled for the PCs.

[RangerSG]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Tabais wrote...

Leaving out the obvious Linearity of the game, when you return to an area, the enemies there are very easy to kill. There is no challenge. Its quite boring, and to be forced to encounter them to get to another section is just a waste of time.

Not to defend the scaling of FF7 - which is still a scaling, BTW, not what I defend - but the opposite can be said : there is never something "over your head" in a level scaled game, as everything is always "your level". You can go fight the High Dragon at level 10, or 8, or 16, and it's always killable. So the "challenge" argument feels quite void to me.

As far as being lazy developers, having actually spent some time in non-gaming software design, what you are describing would take enormous effort, and seems like it would distract from the actual story of the game.

Disagree. It just requires imagination and creativity. That's quite one of the main point of making a game.

This is as much an interactive story as it is a game, and while some of the pieces of you argument make sense, what you're describing seems to be would better belong in a MMORPG rather than a single player game.

MMORPG are totally scaled. I don't understand why people bring them often into the fray. They share a very similar design, why are they taken as opposite ?

RangerSG wrote...

Erm..no. "Everything doesn't scale."
Oblivion is an "everything scales" game. Note the differences. You don't have bandits in top-tier armor hitting you up for 10 silver in DA.

Actually, yes it's exactly the same. You may not see the top-tier armor on the bandit, but it's just cosmetics and because the game don't have specific stat for actual armors on NPC. But they are leveled exactly the same as in Oblivion.

Other than the encounters with the Denerim bandits, I really don't see encounters where this matters. Oh...and even then, those don't scale with you precisely, they have a lvl 10 floor.

Not that I havent answer to this about ten times already, but...
First, yes there is "ceiling" and "floor", but they are so LARGE that it comes down to nearly total
scaling anyway. You'll spend the vast majorityof the game between level 9 and 16, which is very close to the bracket for most areas.
Second, these ceiling and floor don't change ANYTHING about the problem of level scaling. They are, even, a perfect example : some random commoner is level 10 just because he live in Denerim, while a supposed elite guard is level 7 just because he lives in Lothering.

I'll never be able to understand how someone can see something so absurd and think "hey it's fine, the elite guard in armor is weaker than the naked commoner, nothing weird here !".

Because 1) you're exaggerating, sorry it's not the exact same. You cannot finish DA @ lvl 1, or lvl 5 even. You can finish Oblivion @ level 1, people have shown the silliness of the leveling system in Oblivion by doing EXACTLY that.

2) I don't go around attacking commoners, so I really don't care what the specs say they MIGHT be rated at.

3) Other than those bandit encounters, it effects nothing of note to the nature of the game. The encounter difficulties are, relative to your level, still appropriately easy or difficult.

4) It is..ahem..a GAME. Not an alternate reality. Some suspension of disbelief in any game is required.

5) I would rather the combat maintain some challenge to me than none. Frankly, part of the problem with combat in The Sith Lords, for instance, was it was so simple it grew monotonous. I don't see how what you're suggesting avoids THAT issue. Which I think is far more real a death-knell to game enjoyment than your obsession with a game mechanic I'm never going to see as a point of fact except on encounters I frankly would WANT to be challenging.

[Upper_Krust]

Akka le Vil wrote...

No, act scaling is still scaling, with most of the bagages still attached.
That random commoner becomes twice as strong as Elite Soldier of the Royal Palace because I'm at the act 3 rather than because I'm level 15 doesn't change how ridiculous it is that he became stronger out of a totally unrelated event.

But from the perspective of the Player characters the commoner won't be more of a challenge than the elite guard. What you are doing is tantamount to meta-gaming.

That's precisely the problem, not the solution. Rank is relative to the player's character, which is exactly the problem of SCALING.

I don't really think you fully grasp the consequences of no Scaling at all in DAO.

Firstly, Bioware don't have the resources to create a completely new roster of monsters for each level, in fact no one does. There are about 30-40 enemy models in the game (compared to a guesstimate of about 150-200 for the original WoW up to Level 70) before considering variants with minor cosmetic changes and near limitless customisable PC races as NPCs.

Thats roughly about 2-3 new models per Level of play (for both games as it happens). By about Level 15 in DAO you have seen every enemy model.

So that leaves the games company with 3 choices or be faced with using the same 2-3 models for all the 20 or so fights you'll have to advance every level.

1. Level Scaling

2. A framework whereby the statistical differences between levels is so small that we don't need Level Scaling (ie. such as games like God of War, Bayonetta, Devil May Cry etc.) For this to work you really need to tone down the relevance (or frequency) of levelling up, as regards things like bonus ability scores and differences between magic items of different materials.

These things are done to give you the illusion of greater character customisation and originality. So removing them reduces PC variety.

3. Level Scaling 'in sheep's clothing' (ie. the Warcraft model whereby you still fight wolves across every level but they may have many different colours or names). This in itself still does take up some amount of resources.

[Akka le Vil]

Tabais wrote...

Akka, other than Fallout, which I'm going to set myself up for and say I never really could get into, what other games would serve as an example of the good design you speak of?

No level scaling :
All the old D&D games (Darksun, Eye of the Beholder, etc.), Gothics 1 & 2, Deus Ex, Risen, Arcanum.
Perhaps BG1 (BG2 had for sure, but I don't remember scaling in BG1, but I've rarely played it so I can't be sure) and The Witcher. I'm pretty sure there is no level scaling in Torment save for very tiny parts in Sigil sewers and perhaps (but then fighting is so much secondary in Torment...).

All this from the top of my head, probably that you could find more with a serious research.

I've only seen the type of thing you're describing in pen & paper games, and that's when the GM decides to through the PCs a bone and make them feel all big and bad. Otherwise, even the encounters in those games are scaled for the PCs.

I would rather the combat maintain some challenge to me than none.

Seriously, it's tiring to see constantly the overused "it's just so you feel like a God !". Can't people stop to be half-blind ?
Static levels have NOTHING to do with "easy content". Static level just means the other creatures don't follow your level. Go fight a static-leveled dragon when you're level 5 and come back saying it's easier than having it auto-down-leveled to 5 with the level scaling.
The point of static levels is to have believable game world, not to make the game a push-over. Seriously...

4) It is..ahem..a GAME. Not an alternate reality. Some suspension of
disbelief in any game is required.

Yes. But seeing everyone being exactly the same and such a complete disconnection between the "lore" and the "gameplay" is handily breaking it.

Upper_Krust wrote...

But from the perspective of the Player characters the commoner won't be more of a challenge than the elite guard. What you are doing is tantamount to meta-gaming.

Actually, that's EXACTLY the TOTAL OPPOSITE.
It's level scaling that is meta-gaming, and it's precisely the relative challenge of the commoner and the elite guard compared to the player that break the suspension of disbelief...

Firstly, Bioware don't have the resources to create a completely new roster of monsters for each level, in fact no one does. There are about 30-40 enemy models in the game (compared to a guesstimate of about 150-200 for the original WoW up to Level 70) before considering variants with minor cosmetic
changes and near limitless customisable PC races as NPCs.

Thats roughly about 2-3 new models per Level of play (for both games as it happens). By about Level 15 in DAO you have seen every enemy model.

So that leaves the games company with 3 choices or be faced with using the same 2-3 models for all the 20 or so fights you'll have to advance  every level.

This doesn't make much sense. You don't need to create monsters for every level. That is, precisely, meta-gaming.
You can just take the bestiary and then evaluate their levels, and build a cohesive world from that. This is the organic (and immersive) method.

2.
A framework whereby the statistical differences between levels is so small that we don't need Level Scaling (ie. such as games like God of War, Bayonetta, Devil May Cry etc.) For this to work you really need to tone down the relevance (or frequency) of levelling up, as regards things like bonus ability scores and differences between magic items of different materials.

These things are done to give you the illusion of greater character customisation and originality. So removing
them reduces PC variety.

How so ?
Toning down the increase in power doesn't alter PC variety. That's completely unrelated.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 05 mars 2010 - 06:11 .

[Realmzmaster]

The issue that has to be considered is that BioWare has a finite amount of resources. EA gives BioWare a finite budget. Everything has to be done within those constrainsts. Tradeoffs are made.

Does Bioware put voice acting in the game? Should the PC be voiced?

Some gamers solo the game on Nightmare. Some gamers quit because the game is too hard on easy.

The game developer tries to balance the game. Bioware balances the game between story and combat. Some gamers play on easy because they are in it for the story not the combat and basically the combat becomes a necessary evil. They really do not care about the combat or the variety in the enemy. Some gamers want combat to be the end and all of the game and numerous types of enemies with special abilities. Most gamers are in the middle. They care about the story and want the combat to be challenging.

So the developers have to make the game appealing to newcomers and old veterans of CRPGs.



So the BioWare ask themselves do I have the resources to make numerous different type of enemies all with different abilities and/or special powers? Does BioWare break up the game into acts or leave an open world?

What is going to appeal to most of my audience? Will Bioware please everyone with their decisions? No. Any developer who tries that is going to make a disaster of a game and please no one.

Will some gamers be put off? Probably But a vast number of gamers are on their fourth, fifth or sixth playthrough according to posts on the forum.

Does Bioware listen to gamers. Yes, they do. Hence one of the purposes of the forum. Is Bioware going to implement all the suggestions? No.

So Bioware reads the forum and one gamer or group of gamers do not like level scaling. In another place a gamer or group of gamers love the level scaling. So what does Bioware do?



In the end it comes down to decisions that involve tradeoffs. Will everyone be satisfied with Bioware's decisions? Obviously Not.

[Akka le Vil]

I'm quite aware about the point of tradeoff. Level scaling don't strike me at something that justify any tradeoff.

And it's not just a point of ressources, but of willingness to follow a design path. I've listed lots of game without level scaling, and AFAIK they didn't had infinite ressources either.

[Tabais]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Seriously, it's tiring to see constantly the overused "it's just so you feel like a God !". Can't people stop to be half-blind ?
Static levels have NOTHING to do with "easy content". Static level just means the other creatures don't follow your level. Go fight a static-leveled dragon when you're level 5 and come back saying it's easier than having it auto-down-leveled to 5 with the level scaling.
The point of static levels is to have believable game world, not to make the game a push-over. Seriously...

Well, since its obvious that we aren't going to have a discussion about this without you resorting to tired old tactics of calling every opinion that disagrees with yours half-blind or overused, I think I'm done.  I was merely trying to find out what systems you thought were best, and now I know.  My opinion...Gothic 1 & 2 sucked.  Most of the early D&D games weren't that great, and while Balder's Gate 1 and 2 were good, they did use area "scaling" the same as...oh...MMORPGS that you just decried earlier...

I don't mind having discussions about this.  Please don't, in the future, decide my opinion is "half-blind" because I disagree.  It's insulting....especially when we're talking about matters of games and opinions, not facts.

[Realmzmaster]

Akka le Vil wrote...

I'm quite aware about the point of tradeoff. Level scaling don't strike me at something that justify any tradeoff.
And it's not just a point of ressources, but of willingness to follow a design path. I've listed lots of game without level scaling, and AFAIK they didn't had infinite ressources either.

Your opinion. So we agree to diagree. Since we are not the developer wedo not know what tradeoffs were made. In your opinion level scaling does not justify a tradeoff. In mine since I want an open world it does.

[Akka le Vil]

Tabais wrote...

Well, since its obvious that we aren't going to have a discussion about this without you resorting to tired old tactics of calling every opinion that disagrees with yours half-blind or overused, I think I'm done.

I don't mind having discussions about this.  Please don't, in the future, decide my opinion is "half-blind" because I disagree.  It's insulting....especially when we're talking about matters of games and opinions, not facts.

I'm a bit at a loss about what to say here.
I point that it's false that "no level scaling = no challenge" (you can have extremely difficult games without level scaling, just overtune them and that's it), and I point that it's irritating to constantly see this argument, and it means I'm not accepting other's opinion ?
But them saying that asking for no level scaling means that I ask for an unchallenging game and to be a God (basically putting words in my mouth) is fine ?

  I was merely trying to find out what systems you thought were best,
and now I know.  My opinion...Gothic 1 & 2 sucked.  Most of the
early D&D games weren't that great, and while Balder's Gate 1 and 2
were good, they did use area "scaling" the same as...oh...MMORPGS that
you just decried earlier...

BG1 didn't really use area scaling. Mobs were always the level they are supposed to be in the Bestiary. You didn't saw lvl 10 kobolds, goblins or wolves.
Guess it's a matter of opinion about the Gothics, because they are held in very high regard by many people. And anyway : was it the lack of scaling that bothered you, or the game in general ?

[Tabais]

I'm not disagreeing that you can't have a game where level scaling = no challenge. I just pointed out that I preferred the scaling, and honestly, I even enjoyed Oblivion's way of handling scaling. Again, as I've said before, you've made good points. And in your opinion you don't like the game's replayability because the fights "feel the same." Not trying to discredit your opinion on the issue. But my point, is that I liked Oblivion and DA:O much more than even Baldur's Gate, for example. I liked the scaling. Yes, its less "immersive," but in Baldur's Gate, when there was an area I wanted to explore, I couldn't, because I had to go somewhere else and grind to level up before I could go to a place I wanted to go. It was annoying, and it was difficult to play since I couldn't get to the city of Baldur's Gate without dying from the Antlions that were in the way. Very frustrating and that's what made me not want to play BG1 twice.

[Upper_Krust]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Actually, that's EXACTLY the TOTAL OPPOSITE.
It's level scaling that is meta-gaming, and it's precisely the relative challenge of the commoner and the elite guard compared to the player that break the suspension of disbelief...

The understanding of Level scaling (and the games mechanics) to begin with is metagaming.

I'm also interested to hear what you think of DAO's 'suspension of disbelief' when it comes to the assignment of ability scores given that its possible for a character at the end of the game to be effectively TEN times stronger than they were at the beginning?

This doesn't make much sense. You don't need to create monsters for every level. That is, precisely, meta-gaming.

You need to have a variety of monsters in the game sufficient to maintain interest. Given that on average DAO is setup for about 20 battles to increase one level (less at lower levels more at higher) and that each battle is comprised of anywhere from 1-4 different enemy types (lets say 2.5 on average)

That means DAO has about 400-500 battles in total (lets say 450 on average). That means you'll face (on average) 1125 potentially different enemy types. Given that the game has only about 35 different enemy models (non bosses) you are fighting the same enemies over the course of the game an average of (approx.) 33 times.

I'm very interested to hear how many enemy types you would deem acceptable (as in not growing stale) over the course of 400-500 battles?

You can just take the bestiary and then evaluate their levels, and build a cohesive world from that. This is the organic (and immersive) method.

You can't do that in DAO without a trade off in what Levelling Up means.

In DAO the monsters have a something like a +/-2 Level, usefulness spread before the mechanics make them either too tough (for 99% of players) or too easy.

In 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons, the usefulness spread is something like +/-5 Levels.

In a game like Bayonetta/God of War, the monsters are useful at any measure of the player characters power (because the PCs don't really get much of a boost for "levelling up".

The more you boost a PC per 'level', the greater the distance between an enemy and itself per level.

How so ?
Toning down the increase in power doesn't alter PC variety. That's completely unrelated.

More ability score bonuses to play with means greater customization (aka variety).

By giving Players more ability score bonuses, they outstrip the power of previous levels at a greater pace.

Thus if we build monsters at a fixed level, their usefulness (as actual challenges) becomes vastly reduced. In DAO that usefulness is probably +/-2 levels (going by the game guide). So a Level 1 monster is (next to) useless for Level 4 and above.

With no Level Scaling in DAO as it currently stands, you would need to create a minimum of 4 times as many enemies  to have the same amount of variety.

[WillowCry]

Damn this thread just made me lose THE GAME







also, im not really a fan of level scaling

I like it better when fighting a monsters not meant for your level meant certain death

[Akka le Vil]

Upper_Krust wrote...

The understanding of Level scaling (and the games mechanics) to begin with is metagaming.

I'm also interested to hear what you think of DAO's 'suspension of disbelief' when it comes to the assignment of ability scores given that its possible for a character at the end of the game to be effectively TEN times stronger than they were at the beginning?

I'm no fan of it - in fact, I've had a long debate about it before the game was released. But it's much less of an annoyance, as unlike level scaling, the mechanism isn't "in your face".

You need to have a variety of monsters in the game sufficient to maintain interest. Given that on average DAO is setup for about 20 battles to increase one level (less at lower levels more at higher) and that each battle is comprised of anywhere from 1-4 different enemy types (lets say 2.5 on average)

That means DAO has about 400-500 battles in total (lets say 450 on average). That means you'll face (on average) 1125 potentially different enemy types. Given that the game has only about 35 different enemy models (non bosses) you are fighting the same enemies over the course of the game an average of (approx.) 33 times.

I'm very interested to hear how many enemy types you would deem acceptable (as in not growing stale) over the course of 400-500 battles?

I'm sorry, but all this makes no sense. The number of enemies to defeat have nothing to do with how a guard should be stronger than a commoner.

You can't do that in DAO without a trade off in what Levelling Up means.

In DAO the monsters have a something like a +/-2 Level, usefulness spread before the mechanics make them either too tough (for 99% of players) or too easy.

In 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons, the usefulness spread is something like +/-5 Levels.

Err... It means that DAO was built with level scaling in mind, which is precisely what I'm complaining about ?
It makes no (logical) sense to have a monster "+/- X levels" relative to the player. The very concept of level scaling makes absolutely no sense outside intensive meta-gaming. Taking a nonsensical concept as a building basis is the problem.

More ability score bonuses to play with means greater customization (aka variety).

By giving Players more ability score bonuses, they outstrip the power of previous levels at a greater pace.

Depends on how much each point increase the power. You can tailor it at will. You're mixing up the tuning with the concept.

With no Level Scaling in DAO as it currently stands, you would need to create a minimum of 4 times as many enemies  to have the same amount of variety.

This reasoning still makes absolutely no sense. There is zero relation between the number of different enemies and the scaling of the game. I really don't get how you can even imagine such a link 0_o

[ladydesire]

Akka le Vil wrote...


I'm sorry, but all this makes no sense. The number of enemies to defeat have nothing to do with how a guard should be stronger than a commoner.

This isn't D&D, where there are NPC classes like Expert or Commoner; both of the above characters are of the Commoner Origin, unless the character is specifically marked out as being the son or daughter of a Noble. The character that you refer to as a commoner (it's even in the NPC name in game, which I think is the source of the confusion) is either a Warrior or Rogue as far as the game engine is concerned, which is dependant on how Bioware created them. In this case, those that are meant to be commoners could be designed to have minimal class abilities compared to the guard. In fact, in many cases, I have seen characters that have certain names that are often used as classes in D&D that are built in the toolset as Warriors.

[2late2die]

I haven't read the whole thread but I want to just point out that if the levels were completely static you couldn't have the kind of "open world" that DAO has. You couldn't go to brecilian forest before circle of magi for example because it would be rated higher than your level and would be extremely difficult. (not to mention the issues with adding DLCs)

Scaling is a necessary mechanic of any "open world" game. However, I do agree that they could've done it better.

Mainly, I think they should've allowed wider range of level differentiation. Certainly, a few more darkspawn variations that would make the later parts of the game seem like you're really dealing with more elite soldiers would've helped.



Having said that, I find that there's plenty of differences between the lower levels and the higher ones. For one, your party's abilities - I find that my tactics change ever few levels simply because I have more tools at my disposal. Yes, some of the fights seem very similar but many also go very differently than how they would've went if I were 5 levels lower. Also, enemies themselves, while they may look the same, have more abilities, it's particularly noticeable with mages. Nothing changes the dynamic of a battle faster than when you suddenly realize your tank has just been hit with curse of mortality or crushing prison.



At the end of the day it's all a matter of pros and cons, in this case the devs have decided that the pros of a scaling system outweigh the ones of a static system.



Oh and also, why not use the difficulty system set it to easy at first, then 1/4 through the game change it to normal, then hard, the towards the end set it to nightmare, and there you go - the game gets progressively harder.

[Akka le Vil]

ladydesire wrote...

This isn't D&D, where there are NPC classes like Expert or Commoner; both of the above characters are of the Commoner Origin, unless the character is specifically marked out as being the son or daughter of a Noble. The character that you refer to as a commoner (it's even in the NPC name in game, which I think is the source of the confusion) is either a Warrior or Rogue as far as the game engine is concerned, which is dependant on how Bioware created them. In this case, those that are meant to be commoners could be designed to have minimal class abilities compared to the guard. In fact, in many cases, I have seen characters that have certain names that are often used as classes in D&D that are built in the toolset as Warriors.

You realize what extreme point of meta-gaming you've reached ?
I'm talking about the absurdity of a commoner being stronger than an elite guard, and you see it entirely in term of complete meta-gaming and rules, while my assessment was made from a "common sense" point of view.

I haven't read the whole thread but I want to just point out that if the
levels were completely static you couldn't have the kind of "open
world" that DAO has.

Well, I haven't read your whole post, because this point has already been shot down about five times by the second page.