Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity [BETA RELEASED, GO TO THE NEW THREAD]

[Grunker]

What my answer implies is that levels are all but meaningless to have in the game if the game scales with you. At no point will the Forest of Wicked Ass be an easier or more dangerous obstacle, it will always fit your level.

This limits freedom, obviously. Earlier the Forest of Wicked Ass might be nigh impossible - but the loot, man the loot I can get if I overcome it! Later it might be a walkover so I take it easy, but the loot is uninteresting. With level-scaling it is the exact same experience - an encounter tailored to the difficulty setting.

Level systems serve two purposes; customization and power-level relative to the game's denizens. The last purpose is destroyed completely by any sort of level scaling.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It was not obvious. It could have gone many different ways.

Like?

 

[wormix]

Scaled encounters doesn't make the level up system pointless. If anything it highlights the fact that you have become more powerful, and must face more powerful enemies to retain a challenge.

I don't think having an upper limit on level scaling is something anyone here disagreed on, so this still lets you steamroll some places, like coming back later when you're higher level.

Having some amount of scaling prevents you from accidentally out leveling an area you wanted to be a challenge, and having to meta-game your exploration so you don't accidentally trivialise the game encounters.

 

[Jasede]

Why do you have a level-up system in an RPG?

Exactly, it's neither bad nor does it restrict player freedom. If anything, you're free to go there later and still have a challenge.

If by your "answer" you mean to imply that this encounter should exist only in its toughest version (effectively restricting player freedom, because you have to level up sufficiently first before going there), then I'm OK with that too, because in my games that's the default behavior anyways because I have the "almost toughest random encounters" mod installed.

I'd put it like this:
It's not bad implicitly but it occurs more often in bad games. Therefore it must be difficult to implement without making the game less enjoyable. Therefore it's a feature I'd rather not have.

 

[Grunker]

:conspiracy:-Shrek

What about the more simple truth: Obsidian genuinely believes they are being oldschool because of story, setting and isometric viewpoint (that stuff)? Of course they would be wrong, as well as ignorant, but whatever.

I doubt they read the 'dex enough to know that cooldowns and level-scaling would piss us off as much as it did (or rather, should have done, I see plenty of apologists).

 

[Infinitron]

It was not obvious. It could have gone many different ways.

Like?

I don't know, the combat-centric Icewind Dale/Storm of Zehir route? I know you think those games are bullshit because "LOL RTwP" but they do represent a different design approach from the usual Obsidian "worlds/dialogue/roleplaying" stuff.

And admit it, if Brian Fargo announced the equivalent of these design decisions for Wasteland 2, you'd be insulting him now and laughing at Wasteland 2 supporters.

 

[Grunker]

Scaled encounters doesn't make the level up system pointless.

No level scaling:

All areas different level, provide vastly different difficulty experiences depending when you go there.

Level scaling:

All areas provide the same difficulty experience no matter when you go there. The order in which you tackle obstacles is pointless.

This is a pretty simple fucking point.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Obsidian excels at 3 things (when the leash isn't too tight): interesting worlds with some depth, great dialogues, great role-playing.

And you base this on what? MotB only? Because I can't figure out what other game of theirs fits this.

 

[Grunker]

Why do you have a level-up system in an RPG?

Exactly, it's neither bad nor does it restrict player freedom. If anything, you're free to go there later and still have a challenge.

If by your "answer" you mean to imply that this encounter should exist only in its toughest version (effectively restricting player freedom, because you have to level up sufficiently first before going there), then I'm OK with that too, because in my games that's the default behavior anyways because I have the "almost toughest random encounters" mod installed.

I'd put it like this:
It's not bad implicitly but it occurs more often in bad games. Therefore it must be difficult to implement without making the game less enjoyable. Therefore it's a feature I'd rather not have.

Again, hypothetical argument. It's been bad in every single game it's been in.

Your only pracitcal argument is to highlight games where it was only in a select very encounters, so it never became a problem. I.e. the way to do it right is not to do it at all.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Pure mana based casting is the least restrictive system in modern RPGs, which is why it would have sucked ass in PE because you'd spam your top spells, much like you did in Diablo 2. At least with a cooldown system, they have a chance to make something that would be even remotely tactical.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

What my answer implies is that levels are all but meaningless to have in the game if the game scales with you. At no point will the Forest of Wicked Ass be an easier or more dangerous obstacle, it will always fit your level.

But that's not how it worked in BG2. Encounters never got easier. Few set encounters got beefed up when your level significantly exceeded the level the encounter was meant for to still provide a challenge. That's different from the level scaling you descibe and rightfully despise.

 

[Infinitron]

You're being annoyingly unnuanced here, Grunker.

 

[Grunker]

What my answer implies is that levels are all but meaningless to have in the game if the game scales with you. At no point will the Forest of Wicked Ass be an easier or more dangerous obstacle, it will always fit your level.

But that's not how it worked in BG2. Encounters never got easier. Few set encounters got beefed up when your level significantly exceeded the level the encounter was meant for to still provide a challenge.

wat

Are you sure you read me correctly? The "At no point..." and so on is what happens in a non-level-scaled game. It is a desirable thing. The opposite happens in level-scaled games. Difficulty never varies.

 

[Grunker]

You're being annoyingly unnuanced here, Grunker.

You're being annoyingly unspecific here, Infinitron.

I still haven't recieved any replies to most of my points.

 

[Hobo Elf]

Scaled encounters doesn't make the level up system pointless.

No level scaling:

All areas different level, provide vastly different difficulty experiences depending when you go there.

Level scaling:

All areas provide the same difficulty experience no matter when you go there. The order in which you tackle obstacles is pointless.

This is a pretty simple fucking point.

Games with good exploration: Dark Souls, Demon's Souls, Gothic 1 & 2

Games with bad exploration: Oblivion and Skyrim

Oh, would you look at that. All the games with good exploration had no level scaling, and the ones that did have were boring to explore. What a coincidence!

 

[Infinitron]

You know what I think the problem is here? The word "scaling". It sets try-hards like Grunker off, makes them go nuts. They keep thinking that it means difficulty is scaled exactly to their level, resulting in boring, samey battles.

We need a new word instead of "encounter scaling". How about "encounter boosting"? That sounds more hardcore.

So for example, you can say that "for elite parties of level 10-20, this encounter is boosted with more and tougher enemies. "

 

[Grunker]

Way to prove you either didn't read my posts or don't understand the point, Infinitron

For example, for elite parties of level 10-20, the encounter is boosted with more and tougher monsters.

Putting a monocle after this certainly suggests you didn't even read the posts.

 

[wormix]

There are other ways to balance them. Make the really high powered spells take a long time to cast, leaving you defenseless. Make them apply some kind of mental fatigue lowering your maximum mana until you next rest. Prevent any kind of resource regeneration until rest. Make certain enemies focus on whoever is casting these powerful spells, so you have to spend time on casting defensive spells or debilitating the enemy.

I'd rather be forced to do something other than recast my top spell because of a tactical reason, rather than the button is greyed out for another 30 seconds.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I don't know, the combat-centric Icewind Dale/Storm of Zehir route? I know you think those games are bullshit because "LOL RTwP" but they do represent a different design approach from the usual Obsidian "worlds/dialogue/roleplaying" stuff.

I thought they were clear that it's not going to be a combat game a-la IWD but combat+ exploration+good dialogues, which I interpreted as PST or Torn meets Black Hound. I'm pretty sure that MCA & Co know what their strengths are and what their fans want.

And admit it, if Brian Fargo announced the equivalent of these design decisions for Wasteland 2, you'd be insulting him now and laughing at Wasteland 2 supporters.

First, I don't believe I've ever insulted him. Second, like I said, I wrote combat off when they said RTwP, so cooldowns come hardly as a surprise (nor do they change anything for me). As for WL2, the main difference (and that's where I disagree with DU) is that we know what to expect from Obsidian and I have absolutely no idea what to expect from InXile (well, I certainly hope that their games are not an indication of what to expect). Will combat be the main strength? Quest and dialogues? A solid package overall? I have no idea.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Hardly. You can restrict it by tying the max to your skill/level and allowing no regen and absolutely limiting potions (make potions super rare and magical items that are lorewise impossible).

And what would be the odds of that in a modern RPG?

I'm not saying you can't restrict spellcasting in a mana-based system. I even gave you an example of a game that did it well - Realms of Arkania, so it's not an issue. Modern design is and Obsidian wouldn't have fucked with it, because it would piss off a lot of people.

Obsidian always plays it safe, in case you didn't notice.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Obsidian always plays it safe, in case you didn't notice.

Well. I was kind of hoping that in a kick-starter where your dues are prepaid, they would not. I was wrong.

 

[Infinitron]

Grunker: The point here isn't to "scale difficulty to your level". The point is to give high level parties more challenge by swapping selected encounters with other encounters. You're not applying some crude modifier to an existing encounter, you're replacing it entirely.

Why should the developer not have the freedom to switch around encounters as he pleases? What, as soon as he populates an area with some encounters, they have to be set in stone for the rest of the game?

 

[FeelTheRads]

Grunker: The point here isn't to "scale difficulty to your level". The point is to give high level parties more challenge by swapping selected encounters with other encounters. You're not applying some crude modifier to an existing encounter, you're replacing it entirely.

Why should the developer not have the freedom to switch around encounters as he pleases? What, as soon as he populates an area with some encounters, they have to be set in stone for the rest of the game?

Is there really a difference between the two except that you might consider the "replacing" alternative to be more elegant? From the point of view of basically making leveling irrelevant, I don't see any difference. The thing is if it's used everywhere or just to some select encounters. If it's everywhere, it's shit. Period.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Um, let's see - "RTwP, fantasy word with familiar races, it's gonna be just like BG and other awesome IE games, hey did we mention that we worked with Bio on BG? Good times!" If that's not playing it safe, I don't know what is.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Um, let's see - "RTwP, fantasy word with familiar races, it's gonna be just like BG and other awesome IE games, hey did we mention that we worked with Bio on BG? Good times!" If that's not playing it safe, I don't know what is.

No need to rub salt on the wound dude. I admitted already that I was wrong. What are you some kind of sadist?