575 réponses à ce sujet

[ladydesire]

Akka le Vil wrote...

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.

Not everyone has the desire to fight extremely difficult battles, so for those people it would no longer be possible to do so.

[viewcolour]

I just start this game in recent, my pc is level 14 now, after knowing there is a level scale , make me no motivation to take side quests, some side quests are very annoying to complete, the most reason I don't want to fail any side quests as in other rpg, like might and migic, bg, wizardary, is I know that they will give me more exp,more money  make me build a stronger pc, Now I totally loss any achievement for gain a level, after level 12, amost all essential spells and talents  can be learned, sleep,  cone of cold, stunning blows , overing power,

I find every level use the same tactic to save more Health poultices,  for minors, lure some of them out first, which are very annoying, if there is a condition impossible to lure them out, bring two warriors and two mages, my pc is a warrior, let Marrigon learn heal, the rogue can't give many help  in such case, for boss, no matter how many level your pc have gained, bring as many poultices as possible because it is always a long fight.


Lenliana still suck in melee no matter how many level she has earned, before I aware of level scale, I will always want bring her out, let her disarm more traps, which wil earned me more exp,  I will give it up from now because I know exp is meaningless after you reach level 12, in some forum , I have read someone said that " you can beat this game at level 1" which  a bit exaggerative but I think still possible, if you can have 3 other camponians in your party.

Now that, the world is open to every level pc, those player prefer a non-liner will enjoy, for my type, have a high expectation to level up, more concern to how to develop, like make a plan to decide go to which area , how to get more exp, how to spent the money, (you can buy some better equipments you like, for me , not neccessary , better equipments give very little help to against the monsters the same level as your pc,  just looting is enough and save money to buy poultices)  I find nothing for this game except the story and the graph.

[EternalWolfe]

Akka le Vil wrote...

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.

I was speaking of the current power curve of DA:O.  If the enemies had not leveled with you, you would have left them far in the dust fairly quickly and would have required stronger enemies to fight for a challenge - much stronger.

The system you want is more then possible, and I don't dispute that(I rather like the games that do it, since giving a good feeling of progression by the feel of the game and battle, instead of big numbers, takes a delicate hand and good balance).  But in the current build, you'd have to tear down the system and rebuild/rebalance it from the beginning.  That's just not going to happen with this game, obviously.

[Red Frostraven]

Simple fix: Keep monsters at their current level, replace one of them with a more dangerous monster that could be traveling with that pack.



You will feel progression by slaying the petty thugs like a lava axe through tempered butter, but the assassin that's hanging with the thugs, replacing generic thug #4, will provide some element of danger.



It's the fact that enemies are THE SAME that's the main problem with level scaling: You grow in level, but so do they -- and they use the same classes and abilities as your characters can use, too.

[Gastrian]

There is no right or wrong way to got about scaling as they all have positives and negatives which offset each other.



If you go with static scaling then you are effectively banding your world similar to WoW where even though its an open world you are being herded from one section to another based on the difference in difficulty levels which does make the game more linear as you are going from A (lvl 1 - 5 dungeon) to B (lvl 6 - 10) dungeon to etc.



Level scaling is illogical and leads to the issue described earlier where a commoner might be more powerful than an elite guard based on when you fight them and that wolves will always be a threat.



Perhaps the best way of going about it is to make scalable bands during the main quest, for an example a genlock will scale up to lvl6 after that it becomes a veteran genlock with better equipment and more advanced skills but never grows into an Alpha (There should never be more than one Alpha in any group as there can only be one first). Now the logic we can apply to this is your blood's connection to the darkspawn/ general notoriety and reputation. As you grow in power the Archdaemon can feel it and sends out his better troops to go after you, magically sensitive creatures like wolves and spiders can feel it and fear it leaving only the most powerful behind and as your reputation grows lesser bandits are going to stay away while better equipped mercenaries go looking for that sizeable bounty on your head.



The optional quests on the other hand have minimal to no scaling, all dragons should be lvl 20, all Revenants should be lvl 18 apart from the one at Redcliffe(?) which wasn't optional. This means that the main quest line is playable by all while the side quests can provide some difficulty.



Also its easy to differentiate the foes by focusing their abilities. While not being as indepth as one of the previous posts the Darkspawn should be all about the aggression and damage dealing so Alphas would use mighty blows and cleave with one or two champion skills for example where as humans would be more "tactical" and focus on status affect attacks such as pommel strikes. Also add specialisations to tiers, a genlock would have no specialisation class whereas the genlock alpha would get the champion specialisation, this would mean that even if the genlock was a higher level than the genlock alpha the genlock alpha would still potentially be a bigger threat.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EternalWolfe wrote...

That's just not going to happen with this game, obviously.

This game, no.

Future games, why not?

[EternalWolfe]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EternalWolfe wrote...

That's just not going to happen with this game, obviously.

This game, no.

Future games, why not?

Indeed, why not?  I didn't say anything about that.  I disagreed that level scaling ruins games in the first place, and I explained my position, but I also agreed it CAN ruin games and that I enjoy games that are built with a subtle progression system.

And why does everyone keep snipping out a single sentence and putting words in my mouth?

[Gastrian]

I think he was actually agreeing with you or at least accepting your point of view EternalWolfe.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EternalWolfe wrote...

Indeed, why not?  I didn't say anything about that.  I disagreed that level scaling ruins games in the first place, and I explained my position, but I also agreed it CAN ruin games and that I enjoy games that are built with a subtle progression system.

There are ways to design games so as to avoid this problem.  A shallower power curve seems the most obvious.

[Cancermeat]

i dont mind level scaling too much, but i dont like it when loot suffers because of it.

[EternalWolfe]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EternalWolfe wrote...

Indeed, why not?  I didn't say anything about that.  I disagreed that level scaling ruins games in the first place, and I explained my position, but I also agreed it CAN ruin games and that I enjoy games that are built with a subtle progression system.

There are ways to design games so as to avoid this problem.  A shallower power curve seems the most obvious.

er . . . which problem?  I didn't mention a problem.

If you mean the static levels taking from non-linearity, then, yes, one way to fix it would be a shallower power curve.  I think I already agreed to that point.  That is also what I meant by a 'subtle progression system' - one where you have progression that isn't based fully(or mostly) on having bigger numbers, and is less obvious without direct playing.

[5Warlocks]

Essentially everyone who disapproves strongly of level scaling (disclosure: I don't really have a strong opinion either way) admits that it would require an almost complete overhaul of Dragon Age's mechanics in order to balance the game without it. Various solutions have been proposed, the most recent of them a shallower power curve. But I ultimately think that the claims that it's the level scaling that ruins the game which are missing the point. Look at how much has to be invested to make the game work without it. What you're doing is putting the cart before the horse: level scaling *as such* is not the problem, it is simply one aspect of the problem, which is that you do not like the way DA:O's system is set up (PCs get much more powerful, certain enemies do not seem as powerful as they should given their archetype, etc).

It's quite acceptable both to not enjoy the way an RPG is designed, and to explain why on the game's forums so that developers can take your feedback into account for future products. But you're using level scaling as sort of a red herring. It seems apparent that Dragon Age just wasn't designed to be the kind of game you like. IMO, it's a bit of a waste of energy to argue for at the design team to perform a complete 180 on how a very successful product is built.

I think that energy would be better invested looking for RPGs that meet your very stringent criteria. BioWare isn't making your sort of game. That's a shame, and I know the feeling personally because for numerous reasons DA:O is the first RPG since BG2 that I felt was "made for the audience that is I."

Modifié par 5Warlocks, 09 mars 2010 - 03:03 .

[Realmzmaster]

I agree with 5Warlocks, It is a problem of balance. You have gamers who do not like level scaling. You have those who do like it. You have those who do not care either way. The developer has to balance all of these desires.

Some gamers say not enough variety in monsters others say it is fine. Othe gamers do not care because they are in it for the story and see combat as a necessary evil or play in god mode via the console. (on the PC). Some gamers do not like the approval system others do.

One point to remember is the people developing the game are making a game they would (hopefully) enjoy and that the majority of the gaming public agrees with them.

The developers will take the input from the forum. But one action they will not take is to fix something that is not broken in their estimation. Also given the amount of resources put into the system it will not be getting a major overhaul anytime soon. not economically sound.



For every agrument you get on this forum there is a counter argument.



But the final decision is dictated by the bottomline of sales. DA:O has done very well. So we may see improvements going foward, but the basic system and formula will probably remain the same.

[Captain Chordata]

Level scaling in this game didn't bug me as much as other games (*cough*Bethesda*cough*). I thought a bigger problem with the game is the AI. It seems like your party's favorite past time is to spot a trap and run into into before you can get them to stop. I'm finding the KotOR companions to need less baby sitting, which is a tad concerning.

[Acero Azul]

 So you want to fight the Blue dwarves at the end of level 7 instead of the regular Red dwarves?

[Sylvius the Mad]

5Warlocks wrote...

BioWare isn't making your sort of game.

But they're really close, and they've done it before.  BG was BioWare's style of RPG with a shallower power curve, thus eliminating the need for most of the level scaling.

I make a point of not asking BioWare to do things they haven't done before, because that way I know it's possible to do them that way.

DAO has terrific characters and a wonderful setting.  The freedom to establish your character's background matches their best prior effort on that front.  There's enormous roleplaying freedom, without the need to metagame through a morality meter.

So, add to that a shallower power curve (like BG), a manually sortable inventory (like NWN), more hotbars (like NWN), and a more consistent UI (like BG - including a clickable pause button).  I haven't mentioned KotOR here because KotOR's best feature is already in DAO (the lack of pre-set PC background).

[Akka le Vil]

5Warlocks wrote...

But I ultimately think that the claims that it's the level scaling that ruins the game which are missing the point. Look at how much has to be invested to make the game work without it. What you're doing is putting the cart before the horse: level scaling *as such* is not the problem, it is simply one aspect of the problem, which is that you do not like the way DA:O's system is set up (PCs get much more powerful, certain enemies do not seem as powerful as they should given their archetype, etc).

Good point.
I'd say that the main problem with DAO (and even beyond strictly the point of level scaling) is the extreme dissociation between the "game" side and the "world/story" side, which leads to many breaking of the suspension of disbelief.
In the "story" part, we're someone who is very skilled right from the start, a match from anyone in the land, and who uses her skills to best her opponents. Our character (story-wise, again) doesn't really improve, and is just naturally gifted. All our companions are, in fact, either experienced or gifted (or both) and don't have to improve either to be heroes.
But on the "gameplay" part, we start being a total greenhorn (level 1) to ends up being a killing machine (level 20+).

So there is a wide gap between what the story tells and what the gameplay shows. It's like if the game was trying to obey two archetypes at the same time : the Story of the Big Hero and the Starting From Scratch Game.
It ends up having both parasiting each others. And it shows the worst flaw of DAO : lack of immersion because gameplay just shows his head far too much, and constantly reminds you "this is a game, this is a game", rather than grabbing you inside the world of the game and letting you "believe" you "are" the character.

Some would say it's an attempt to concile two major staples of RPG, I say it's bad design.
If you're going to include progression, then put a story where you start small and end up big.
If you're going to be The Hero, then use a system that isn't based on going from level 1 to level 25.
But doing both is just contradictory.

It's quite acceptable both to not enjoy the way an RPG is designed, and to explain why on the game's forums so that developers can take your feedback into account for future products. But you're using level scaling as sort of a red herring. It seems apparent that Dragon Age just wasn't designed to be the kind of game you like. IMO, it's a bit of a waste of energy to argue for at the design team to perform a complete 180 on how a very successful product is built.

I think that energy would be better invested looking for RPGs that meet your very stringent criteria. BioWare isn't making your sort of game. That's a shame, and I know the feeling personally because for numerous reasons DA:O is the first RPG since BG2 that I felt was "made for the audience that is I."

I disagree with this part. I do like the kind of games Bioware do, because of the story and characters part.
What I do not like is the gameplay design and how it ends up shattering many actual good sides of the game by invading too much.

[Nomen Mendax]

Akka le Vil wrote...

I'd say that the main problem with DAO (and even beyond strictly the point of level scaling) is the extreme dissociation between the "game" side and the "world/story" side, which leads to many breaking of the suspension of disbelief.
In the "story" part, we're someone who is very skilled right from the start, a match from anyone in the land, and who uses her skills to best her opponents. Our character (story-wise, again) doesn't really improve, and is just naturally gifted. All our companions are, in fact, either experienced or gifted (or both) and don't have to improve either to be heroes.
But on the "gameplay" part, we start being a total greenhorn (level 1) to ends up being a killing machine (level 20+).

I think that's a great point.  Maybe we should all just pretend we start at level 100 and progress to level 125 ...

[Upper_Krust]

Looking at video games in general, the more skill required to play a game, the less emphasis is placed upon Levelling Up. You could say that Levelling Up is the crutch of the casual gamer to some extent.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upper_Krust wrote...

Looking at video games in general, the more skill required to play a game, the less emphasis is placed upon Levelling Up. You could say that Levelling Up is the crutch of the casual gamer to some extent.

The less physical skill required.

I insist that a pure RPG is playable - slowly - by a quadriplegic.  DAO is (though it would be more playable with a more robust inventory/hotbar system and a clickable pause button in the UI).

[CybAnt1]

Upper_Krust wrote...

Looking at video games in general, the more skill required to play a game, the less emphasis is placed upon Levelling Up. You could say that Levelling Up is the crutch of the casual gamer to some extent.

... I would correct you, but someone else just did.

Basketball and baseball require physical skill, just like FPS/shoot-em-ups. (Not the same physical skills, but certainly both require hand-eye coordination.) 

CRPGs, like playing chess or backgammon, don't require physical skill, per se (although there has been a lot of hybridization lately with the advent of the "action-RPG" aka "clickity-clickity-clickity-clickity-clickity-until-it-dies-diablo-game") ... rather the other kind of skill found in board games and card games. 

In fact, if you play with constant pause (simulating turn-based as much as you can), even your ability to find controls quickly (also an aspect of hand-eye coordination), becomes fairly negligible.

CRPGs are games that reward thought & planning ... one aspect of planning is planning your character's development and progression ... this is why so many CRPGs have some type of levelling system. Even if there are no "levels" per se (there are systems like that), you are constantly, in some way, continually augmenting skills, or statistics. But please note these are the skills of your characters ... not your own physical skills. 

[Upper_Krust]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upper_Krust wrote...

Looking at video games in general, the more skill required to play a game, the less emphasis is placed upon Levelling Up. You could say that Levelling Up is the crutch of the casual gamer to some extent.

The less physical skill required.

I insist that a pure RPG is playable - slowly - by a quadriplegic.  DAO is (though it would be more playable with a more robust inventory/hotbar system and a clickable pause button in the UI).

Not necessarily just physical skill.

In DAO I would be of the opinion that the game gets easier (mechanically) as you progress, even taking level Scaling into account.

I don't believe Level Scaling takes all the factors into account: buffs from spells/abilities, buffs from unique magic items, arguably even buffs from equipment (though that last is speculation).

The result of this is that the player can become lazier (mentally) with their tactics as the game goes on.

I can see why Bioware went this route, because they want even casual gamers to be able to complete the game on easy. Though this contributes to less satisfaction on replays.

[Upper_Krust]

Akka le Vil wrote...

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.

I don't ever remember fighting a human commoner in the game, nor do I remember fighting any elite guard (at least none that were specifically mentioned as such).

I remember fighting human bandits and I remember fighting human guards. Who is to say which should be tougher?

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.

Of course it does. But these things don't exist in a vacuum. Every decision the designer makes impacts other decisions because they don't have unlimited resources.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upper_Krust wrote...

In DAO I would be of the opinion that the game gets easier (mechanically) as you progress, even taking level Scaling into account.

Have you played it more than once?

I find that it got easier, but then it stayed easy, as the difficultly curve wasn't the game itself but just me learning the game.

The result of this is that the player can become lazier (mentally) with their tactics as the game goes on.

DAO does lack tactical variety.  Once you find a tactic that works for you you can use it again and again without the need to develop new ones to defeat more creative enemies.