575 réponses à ce sujet

[frayjog]

Level scaling is here to stay, like it or not. This is just the beginning.

[Damar Stiehl]

If DA:O was a free-roamer like Oblivion or Risen, then level scaling would have been bad. If you are free to roam, some places are off limits to you until you get stronger, whereas others are not. You can't go fighting the Big Bad in his Dark Tower™ in your starting armor and expect to win, but you are free to try and die. The feeling of being "herded" to some places and away from others is offset by the ability to free-roam, and you don't notice the "herding" factor.



DA:O is just not that kind of game. You are given rigidly defined equal choices, and you are expected to be able to beat them at any level, while experiencing appropriate challenge. Therefore, level scaling is a must. Otherwise, some locations would be deathtraps early on, and others would be super-cakewalks later on. You then would be forced to progress in a certain fashion, and would feel herded from location to location. I would guess you would not like it.

[MassEffect762]

I think this was my biggest frustration with DA that eventually lead me to cheat my way through the game.

I've enjoyed it for it's story and characters but gave up on playing legit, no regrets.

[ladydesire]

Dahmar, Akka seems to want exactly the sort of game that allows you to go anywhere you want, but makes it quite difficult to progress outside of a specific order; he keeps making reference to the original Fallout as the ideal that Bioware should have used when designing DA.

[vania z]

After I finished the game at level 20 and found it difficult to kill Revenant, I was disappointed when my new 7 lvl character had the same difficulty killing it. There is no reason to level up

[Helmets]

The level scaling should be less so, with weaker monsters leveling at half the rate that you do. For example as a level 3 you fight level 3 genlocks but as a level 10 you fight level 6 genlocks.

Also, weaker monsters should appear in greater numbers as you progress. It would definitely enhance the sense that you are progressing - without making the game significantly easier. Also, it would never be boring because there is some constant tactical adaptation required (and visual reward of epic-ness) when you encounter increasingly weaker regular enemies in increasingly larger numbers.

In fact, this can be done without changing overall difficulty.  However, this may result in overspecialization in AOE abilities if stronger lieutenant creatures and new high level creature variants are not steadily added into the mix.

A battle with hundreds of level 8s, a few dozen level 16s, and a handful of matching level commanders on both sides in some sort of final battle would be a great way to lead up to the end of the game.  I hope technology is advanced enough to allow this without too much lag in coming games.

Modifié par Helmets, 07 mars 2010 - 10:41 .

[VanDraegon]

Thread title should read....

" Level scaling ruins the game for me. "

[Red Frostraven]

Let me repeat myself:
Level scaling RUINS any feeling of accomplishment and progress.

Example:

You are level 6. You fight wolves with a dagger. You need 10 hits dealing 10 damage to kill one wolf. There are 5 wolves per encounter.

You level up to level 7. You fight wolves with a shortsword. You need 10 hits dealing 15 damage to kill one wolf. There are 5 wolves per encounter.

You level up to level 11. You fight wolves with a longsword. You need 11 hits dealing 20 damage to kill one wolf. There are 5 wolves per encounter.

You level up to level 15. You fight wolves with a magical longsword socketed with grandmaster runes. You need 10 hits dealing 40 damage to kill one wolf. There are 5 wolves per encounter.

...
So.
Your feeling of progress gets sapped out of the game, when you can't see any progress.
The numbers grow, but ingame, the numbers don't seem to matter at all.
For goodness sake, replace 5 wolves with 4 wolves + 1 blight wolf.
Let the four wolves be cannonfodder, and the blight wolf be hard.

The next time you face wolves at a higher level, let there be two blight wolves. Scale the ENCOUNTERS including more dangerous enemies, do not scale the enemies themselves.
And let there be cannonfodder sometimes.
Cannonfodder helps players realize they have grown.

Like in Castlevania, symphony of the night, when you face the first demon bosses from early in the game again as regular 10-of enemies in the inverted castle.

In Dragon Age, they did well with the Ogre "boss" that eventually turns into a 3-of encounter towards the end. That and the darkspawn grunts that litter the battlefield late in the game. That helped me feel that my character has developed. But even ogres scaled a whole lot.

Modifié par Red Frostraven, 07 mars 2010 - 05:53 .

[Ahzrei]

If you need 11 hits to kill a wolf...



Sir, you are bad.

[Akka le Vil]

ladydesire wrote...

Dahmar, Akka seems to want exactly the sort of game that allows you to go anywhere you want, but makes it quite difficult to progress outside of a specific order; he keeps making reference to the original Fallout as the ideal that Bioware should have used when designing DA.

Yeah, because Fallout was forcing so much a specific order on the player <_<
I mean, it's not like it was pointed several time that NO, in fact, it WAS NOT a "forced path" game, on the contrary. But well, when someone only hear what he WANTS to hear...
Try telling people you want a "believable world", they will twist it in "you want a forced order world"... Go figure.

vania z wrote...

After I finished the game at level 20 and found it difficult to kill Revenant, I was disappointed when my new 7 lvl character had the same difficulty killing it. There is no reason to level up

Yep, that's the kind of experience that frustrate me A LOT and ruins any feeling of progression.

Ahzrei wrote...

If you need 11 hits to kill a wolf...

Sir,
you are bad.

He may be bad at DAO to require 11 hits to kill a wolf.
But you're much worse at getting a point for only seeing  this about his example.
In fact it's so ridiculous it looks very much like trolling.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 07 mars 2010 - 08:01 .

[Patrickblah]

if u don't like it play morrowind or the original fallouts

[soft sugary thing]

So the basic issue is that level scaling in DA:O provides the same feeling of fighting challenge no matter where in the game you are?

My experience is different...I had an extremely difficult time in the beginning of DA:O. I remember complaining that I hoped not all the battles would be so challenging as the ones at first. I had to play them multiple times to survive while reasonably intact.

Now that I've reached level 16, the game has gotten far easier. I have better equipment, far more abilities, more companions to choose from, access to more supplies, better knowledge of terrain and tactics, etc.

I don't think my main character could have soloed a white-name enemy at the start of the game. Now it's easy; I could probably take on two. My companions are similarly powerful.

This is a spoiler-free forum, so I don't want to name specifics, but in fact I could not have done certain boss battles, personal quests and random encounters without being decimated if I'd attempted them earlier. I really tried on some, and had to come back later. So there is evidently some progression in comparison to enemies even with level scaling.

I understand you feel a sort of battle "blandness" during the replays as opposed to the first playthrough. Any time we redo something, there is experience and memory applied--which is why we practice.

I think it's a bit too much to expect replays to always be as fresh as the first time. But I do find that by using different companions for the same encounter, the tactics and strategy are altered enough to keep things interesting...for me, anyway...

As for the absurdity of a common bandit being stronger than a rage demon, well, there are a lot of things that have broken me out of any suspension of disbelief in this game. I forgive DA:O because the overall feeling of the game is so good, despite inconsistencies.

If it makes a difference, I am playing on Normal setting. Just wanted to post my thoughts. 

Modifié par Tierce Cousland, 07 mars 2010 - 09:22 .

[vania z]

Tierce Cousland wrote...


This is a spoiler-free forum, so I don't want to name specifics, but in fact I could not have done certain boss battles, personal quests and random encounters without being decimated if I'd attempted them earlier. I really tried on some, and had to come back later. So there is evidently some progression in comparison to enemies even with level scaling.

Thats because lvl is set then you enter the area. After that you can leave, lvl up somewhere and it will be easier indeed. But anyway, you can't become stronger than your opponents because of lvl ups. You can just have more tactics to fight different kind of enemies, but you don't get any stronger.

[Damar Stiehl]

TBH it could have been worse. Much, much worse. As in, Oblivion-worse.

Sure, at the end of the game I was fighting scaled enemies that would've walked all over me in early levels. A darkspawn grunt at the endgame is a battle titan compared to the darkspawn grunts in Ostagar. But even with scaling, me and my party outgrew the enemies by a wide enough margin to defeat them with authority. Not "I looked at them and they died", but by a very comfortable and confident margin.

Consider Oblivion by the way of comparison. Today, you are level 10 and meet a level 10 thug wearing leather. You beat him with an effort. Tomorrow, you are level 20, and the thug's twin brother is ALSO level 20, and he's wearing a full Daedric suit. Despite being better equipped, you apply the same, if not greater, effort to beat this new thug. Same thing happens at level 30...

Yes, it could have been a LOT worse.

[EternalWolfe]

Damar Stiehl wrote...

TBH it could have been worse. Much, much worse. As in, Oblivion-worse.
Sure, at the end of the game I was fighting scaled enemies that would've walked all over me in early levels. A darkspawn grunt at the endgame is a battle titan compared to the darkspawn grunts in Ostagar. But even with scaling, me and my party outgrew the enemies by a wide enough margin to defeat them with authority. Not "I looked at them and they died", but by a very comfortable and confident margin.
Consider Oblivion by the way of comparison. Today, you are level 10 and meet a level 10 thug wearing leather. You beat him with an effort. Tomorrow, you are level 20, and the thug's twin brother is ALSO level 20, and he's wearing a full Daedric suit. Despite being better equipped, you apply the same, if not greater, effort to beat this new thug. Same thing happens at level 30...
Yes, it could have been a LOT worse.

I agree, they've actually done a rather good job in DA:O.

If you look at it from a metagame view, some things are going to seem odd.  A level 10 peasent and a level 4 demon?  Ignoring of course, your stats are getting 5x more powerful then they start . . .

But when you pull back into the game, and look from a closer view, you see what is accomplished.  You grow in power far slower in comparison to what the meta-game view shows.  A Darkspawn grunt is dangerous far longer then would be so with static levels.  Much of your newfound power and ability lies in the skills you've picked up on the way - the enemies stay within the same level of challenge for you(after all, you haven't been training for years in between, now have you?), however, you have new skills which would make it far easier for you to take the battle.  The fans of big shiny numbers get their big shiny numbers, and the both you and the enemies have a more gradual 'actual' power slope.  A more beliveable slope, imo - you're not leaving the enemies you faced, what, a month(2?) ago, in the dust as you become a god-like figure capable of flinging them into the hands of death like insects.

Not that there aren't problems with the system - some enemies are too easy or too powerful for what they are, even to keep within the gradual power slope.  The ranks help a little, but there should have been more of them, imo, and a some more enemies that grow in 'types'(like the ogres) as you move on would have been nice.  Still, the game is far from 'ruined', at least in my opinion.

Note, I'm not exactly disagree with the OP - a level scaling system CAN ruin a game, or at least part of the immersion of the game.  And in DA:O there are some parts that push at it for me.  But it isn't nearly bad enough to cause me any real problem.

[asaiasai]

I like this system much better because it does add a bit of replay IMHO, i do not always have to do this quest line first out of Ostagar. If some of the suggestions were implemented, then it would no longer be possible to do the game in any order. This in itself would make the game more linear not fix it, if you HAVE to go to OZ first everytime, then do the Mage Tower next, followed by going to Redcliffe, and this sequence of quests CAN NOT be changed because the player would not be able to survive Redcliffe if they skipped The Mages Tower. I do not want to see that in DAO, part of what is nice about DAO is that i as a player can decide what, where, and who i deal with in any order. I do agree that the mobs should not really have a ceiling they should grow as i do so i should never be outclassing mobs that way every fight from start to finish regardless of the order i do the areas in will be tough and scale the challange to the players level.



Asai

[vania z]

Actually, after first walkthrough everyone will visit first tower and after that - village:)

[asaiasai]

vania z wrote...

Actually, after first walkthrough everyone will visit first tower and after that - village:)

It actually depends on the class i play, if i play a mage i can heals for the time being, if i play a non heal class then yes probably. But it is not locked in stone, if i had to do them in a certain order because of level constraints then i feel the game has become more linear. Just because the order is preffered does not mean it is a have to order.

I think what kills me sometimes is that even if i want to do the tower first i still go to the Dailish to buy elf roots, if i understand how it works then the mobs in that area are locked at level 7, even if i actually do the forest area last?

Asai

[vania z]

That's not because healing, but saving npc. Can't say more for spoilers are forbidden:)

About lvling - you should visit forest first, not just enter their camp

[Vincent Rosevalliant]

Upper_Krust wrote...

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.

[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

Etc ....

I had to cut most of it out, but those ideas are great!
I would pay to play this game.

[Upper_Krust]

Vincent Rosevalliant wrote...

I had to cut most of it out, but those ideas are great!
I would pay to play this game.

Glad you like them, hopefully someone at Bioware will take note.

By the way I posted links to other ideas in my opening post in this thread (on page 3 I think) just incase you were interested.

[Upper_Krust]

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.

Unfortunately thats not the case though, because these factors are linked as I previously showed.

I'll outline the facts again.

1. The mechanics of Dragon Age Origins are set so that a Level difference of +/-2 is the limit of usable enemies.

The mechanics are set like this to give players a massive amount of customisability.

2. Bioware only have the resources to make x amount of character/monster models.

Put fact #1 and fact #2 together and it means you have a very limited number of enemy models to draw from because you have to have completely new monsters (and thus new models) every 5 levels.

The way to avoid this is Level Scaling.

Another solution would be to make 4-5 times as many monsters.
Yet another solution would be to dramatically reduce the bonuses gained from levelling up so that they were next to insignificant.

Err... It means that DAO was built with level scaling in mind, which is precisely what I'm complaining about ?

The only way to avoid level scaling of monsters is by reducing what is meant by levelling up so that it means next to nothing.

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.

It makes sense when faced with the alternative, that Levelling Up must mean next to nothing.

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

Maybe thats because you are not a game designer.

The more Levelling Up adds something to a character the greater disparity between each level.

Yet a game still needs to hit something close to the 'sweet spot' as regards enemy variety otherwise it appears too stale.

Thus you have to find a trade off between what levelling up means and the number of enemies you create. The way to circumvent this trade off is by Level Scaling the monsters.

[UberuceIAm]

Red Frostraven wrote...

Let me repeat myself:
Level scaling RUINS any feeling of accomplishment and progress.

Example:

You are level 6. You fight wolves with a dagger. You need 10 hits dealing 10 damage to kill one wolf. There are 5 wolves per encounter.

You level up to level 7. You fight wolves with a shortsword. You need 10 hits dealing 15 damage to kill one wolf. There are 5 wolves per encounter.

You level up to level 11. You fight wolves with a longsword. You need 11 hits dealing 20 damage to kill one wolf. There are 5 wolves per encounter.

You level up to level 15. You fight wolves with a magical longsword socketed with grandmaster runes. You need 10 hits dealing 40 damage to kill one wolf. There are 5 wolves per encounter.

...
So.
Your feeling of progress gets sapped out of the game, when you can't see any progress.
The numbers grow, but ingame, the numbers don't seem to matter at all.

The numbers are stupid. They're shiny and pretty and I love their silly little heads, but in terms of immersion and roleplay plausibility, the hitpoint system is a disaster zone.

Ingame, you get hit a bundle of times, but unless they happen to be special disabler attacks(which in the case of Dirty Fighting and Pommel Strike don't even inflict damage) you fight on as if you're uninjured, then you suddenly keel over dead. I've seen a few threads on NWN boards trying to justify the hitpoint system in a roleplaying sense, but really I think it's best to admit defeat and just-a-game it. Maybe some people are hardcore enough to play a game where damage is realistically simulated, but I'm not.

The real progression comes from the feats and stats, and this is where your example fails, if one should be so foolish as to ask me.
If your character has taken offensive feats and stats, then they won't still be taking ten hits to kill a wolf.
If your character has taken status effect feats and (if applicable)stats that boost their effectiveness, then the wolves would not be fighting back as well during the fight.
If your character has taken defensive feats and stats, then the wolves would do less damage to your character during the fight, and at least some of their own offensive and status feats would be nullified.

To use Dragon Age as example: since you mentioned a dagger, then shortsword, then longsword in the singular and no other weapons, let us assume we are dealing with someone who will by level 15 have Shield Wall+Expertise+Mastery active. Our pack of wolves can't flank him or her, misses more often, does 5 less damage per hit when they do land a canine, and I think it makes their dreaded Overwhelm useless too, although I'm not sure about that.

Modifié par UberuceIAm, 08 mars 2010 - 07:46 .

[Akka le Vil]

Tierce Cousland wrote...

I don't think my main character could have soloed a white-name enemy at the start of the game. Now it's easy; I could probably take on two. My companions are similarly powerful.

It's probably because you discovered the game at first, and now you start to get the grip of it.
Because you can easily solo two or three white enemies at the start once you're used to the controls.

I think it's a bit too much to expect replays to always be as fresh as the first time. But I do find that by using different companions for the same encounter, the tactics and strategy are altered enough to keep things interesting...for me, anyway...

Well, I don't complain about the "freshness". I know you never have an experience like the first. But I complain about the lack of progression, breaking the suspension of disbelief and the damage to immersion.

If it makes a difference, I am playing on Normal setting. Just wanted to post my thoughts. 

You're welcome

[Akka le Vil]

Damar Stiehl wrote...

Consider Oblivion by the way of comparison. Today, you are level 10 and meet a level 10 thug wearing leather. You beat him with an effort. Tomorrow, you are level 20, and the thug's twin brother is ALSO level 20, and he's wearing a full Daedric suit. Despite being better equipped, you apply the same, if not greater, effort to beat this new thug. Same thing happens at level 30...
Yes, it could have been a LOT worse.

Well, I don't know, because that's EXACTLY how I felt until I reached the ceiling of monsters.

EternalWolfe wrote...

A Darkspawn grunt is dangerous far longer then would be so with static levels.

I disagree. It depends on how levels improve your power.

If some of the suggestions were implemented, then it would no longer be possible to do the game in any order.

This line comes again, and again, and again, probably twice per page, and it isn't any more truer despite the repetitions.

Upper_Krust wrote...

Unfortunately thats not the case though, because these factors are linked as I previously showed.

I'll outline the facts again.

1. The mechanics of Dragon Age Origins are set so that a Level difference of +/-2 is the limit of usable enemies.

The mechanics are set like this to give players a massive amount of customisability.

I don't really see the link between customisability and level scaling, honestly.

2. Bioware only have the resources to make x amount of character/monster models.

Put fact #1 and fact #2 together and it means you have a very limited number of enemy models to draw from because you have to have completely new monsters (and thus new models) every 5 levels.

Well, a commoner is low-level, an elite guard is high-level, both are humans sharing the same models. Not applicable everywhere, sure, but I don't think the number of models is really the problem here.

Yet another solution would be to dramatically reduce the bonuses gained from levelling up so that they were next to insignificant.

The only way to avoid level scaling of monsters is by reducing what
is meant by levelling up so that it means next to nothing.

Not necessarily. It depends on how much levels you gain, how they make your character more powerful, the mechanics of the fight and so on.

And anyway, it's actually the situation with the level scaling : the levels means nothing.

It makes sense when faced with the alternative, that Levelling Up must mean next to nothing.

Mmh, no. It never makes sense. It may be a (bad) band-aid for meta-gaming problems, but it doesn't mean it makes sense.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 08 mars 2010 - 09:27 .