Valorian

I find it unrealistic to happen every single time you move, whether you've taken a step or 7,000 steps.. I never said a human having to catch their breath is unrealistic. A human being incapable of moving to another target on the battlefield and transitioning with any grace directly into attack/defense (engagement) is unrealistic, is all. It's beside the point, since the reasoning for the decision isn't "because we're trying to simulate reality perfectly." But, I just thought I'd clarify, as you didn't seem to follow the specifics of my observation. But Lephys, it won't happen every single time. Humans & co. will be capable of moving to another target on the battlefield and transition with grace directly into attack/defense, if their recovery time has elapsed.

A few seconds to catch his breath/assess the situation etc. We're not talking about machines, so I don't find it unrealistic. As you acknowledged, it was implemented for gameplay reasons.

I believe they're not going for randomly generated/upgraded items, which is a good thing. Instead, like Josh explained, two similar weapons could be randomly interchanged in specific places.

I don't think there's any particular value in randomly changing the weapon that a specific enemy is notorious for. Lines such as "I'll crush you to GOO (with my sword)" would have to be rewritten too. I prefer when creatures have a set personality, which yes, includes the choice of weaponry and armor.

That's not telling me why/how. It's just claiming it's true. Could you explain how level scaling is inherently bad, no matter the particular use? And what about the encounters, relative to the player party, would make it possible to finish the game on different difficulty levels, and therefore reasonable? The mere existence of level scaling in any capacity reduces the impact of c&c connected to exploration wherever it's present, correct. Depends on how hard they want the game to be. Placing low level encounters in the very first area would be reasonable. Difficult, high level, monsters would also be fine there among the newbie enemies, if it's possible to avoid them.

Fair enough. Please help me to understand here, then. So that I can become cleanses from my Lephysness: What about it was nonsensical? Is it false that the particular "implementation" of seasoning in any given instance of food is what dictates the goodness or badness of the result? Or does that have nothing to do with level-scaling because it cannot be used to any particular degree, and can only be used one way? Or something completely different? I'd like to know how I can make sense in the future. And what, specifically, would constitute a "reasonable placement of combat encounters"? What would make the encounters more reasonable? That was a bad analogy because food seasoning, like you cleverly pointed out, is not inherently bad for food, while level scaling is inherently bad for a game. It would be reasonable to place encounters so that it is possible to finish the game on different difficulty levels.

I would agree that level scaling everything just because you bump into it at whatever level does this. Saying the merest existence of level scaling in any capacity or with any precision does this is like saying "seasoning ruins food." 7 cups of seasoning ruins food, or the wrong seasoning on the wrong food ruins food. But, obviously, seasoning, in general, is neither inherently bad nor inherently good for food. And why is that, exactly? I know, I just wanna hear you say it. When I say things, it's apparently nonsense, or my point can in no way be derived from my words. So, please tell me what it is that causes a problem with the Level 1 starting adventurer facing off against an area populated by level 35 monsters. The mere existence of level scaling in any capacity reduces the impact of c&c connected to exploration wherever it's present, correct. Your analogy with food and seasoning is a Lephysm and, of course, nonsensical. Populating the starting area with level 35 monsters would most likely prevent the player from progressing further. The obvious solution is not (the merest existence of) level scaling, but a reasonable placement of combat encounters.

A few places (chests, quest rewards) where 2 items could be randomly interchanged is fine, but I dislike when item randomization is applied to enemies. No, you can't break down existing enchantments. All enchanting is done using three ingredients: a critter part, a plant/herb, and a gem. The counts of each ingredient may vary, but there are always three ingredients. Additionally, there may be a copper cost that's subtracted directly from your total wealth. As long as these ingredients are a limited resource (i.e. they don't constantly respawn and regrow), I'm looking forward to it.

The Amazons were cool. One of my favorite encounters in BG1 is the Doomsayer. And I love the Ogre sprite. "Me will crush you! Crush you to GOO!" Oh, and morale is a neat thing in BG. Enemies and party members have individual values for morale. Three of them: morale, breaking point and recovery time. For companions, morale is lowered for each death of a party member.

Is this made up game with the Blargle Forest linear perchance? If it is, it kind of makes sense that its developers would know, with surgical precision, that it just so happens that the player would also be around level 5. The beauty of non linear & non level scaled games is that you can stumble on a variety of challenges, some easy, some insurmountable (at that level). There's this important factor called choices and consequences; where to go, what to fight? Level scaling greatly reduces the impact of c&c connected to exploration. It is also pretty reasonable to not populate the starting area with level 35 monsters. Does that make sense in Lephysland?

It's good that running around in combat and changing targets has a cost associated to it (not all melee combatants are going to be engaged in melee) and as Josh pointed out, it discourages kiting. It's possible to "play" with the AI and kite it even with two melee attackers, interchanging running away and attacking. Recovery time being halted while running will make this type of abuse much harder to execute. Lephys invoked realism, but it makes sense that while a character is running around the battlefield he spends his energy on running and then when he engages a foe it takes a second or two for him to catch his breath.

Wikipedia articles should be approved by the Serbian national assembly to get credibility... naturally. Not everything is a conspiracy against Serbs, Drowsy. Please, do not become the next North Korea.

This is the kind of parallel universe propaganda that I was talking about: You're misinformed. There was no ethnic cleansing, the "civil war",(a rebellion by extremists within a minority) would have been over in a month without external meddling and the bombing went from targeting military units to deliberatelly targeting power plants, tv stations and other targets which have no military value and serve only to terrorize the population. Even the chinese embassy was hit. It was sign of impotence and the goal was to bully the population into submission. Dubrovnik is anything but flattened. Yet another one of those situations crated to sway public opinion. Its still one of the most popular tourist destinations on the Croatian coast and emerged from the war more than intact. The pictures of Dubrovnik burning are in fact mass burnings of automobile tyres because tyres give out thick black smoke that looks dramatic on photos. The JNA was more than capable of flattening the town but had no inclination or reason to do so. For people who would like to learn some facts, specifically about the bombardment of Dubrovnik (a UNESCO World Heritage Site): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Dubrovnik

You need to realize that both Drowsy and Sarex don't trust or like the West Oh, I'm aware of that. Serbs generally hate the West and simultaneously worship mommy Russia, but when it's time to emigrate (which is the ultimate dream of a large percentage of Serbs) they never go to Russia, they move to the EU or North America. To be fair, that does come across as Serbia deserving the NATO attacks Yes the general concensus from people outside Serbia is that the Serbs did bring it on themselves. I am not going to deny that Indeed. They can be upset about the truth all they want and imagine it's everyone else's fault, but it won't do them any good.

It was discussed here: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64964-update-70-new-year-project-update/page-16 I'm sure you posted something too.

Merging spell and weapon damage or accuracy into one attribute is not needed to accomplish that. Anyway, regarding character builds, I'm curious if we'll be able to choose Abilities (not talking about Talents) from time to time. I'm not expecting to be able to do so at every level up, but being given a choice between 2 abilities every few levels would be nice. if you have a separate attribute for everything, you would need strength for physical damage power for magical damage dexterity for physical accuracy clarity for magic accuracy tactics for fighter aoe engagement intelligence for spell aoe perception for landing criticals with physical attacks wisdom to do the same with magic attacks defense for resisting physical damage resistance for magical damage resolve to not get interrupted by physical attacks will to not be interrupted by magical attacks might to be intimidating as a warrior presence to be intimidating as a wizard charisma to be persuasive charm to flirt and many more that's not a game anymore but a spreadsheet. the point of having abstract attributes with a class system, is that each attribute represents a different character quality within the role of the class. a fighter is for going toe to toe with the enemy, a wizard's job is to cast spells. so a mighty fighter has the strength to cleave enemies in 2 with a swing, while a mighty wizard has the power to burn anything to a crisp and a mighty ranger can pull the string to the limit, shooting extremelly fast arrows. It is not required to create additional attributes to separate spell damage from weapon damage and spell accuracy from weapon accuracy. Amazing, isn't it?

Speaking about interchanging fiction and reality... I did not say that Serbia got what it deserved or that the NATO bombing was a just punishment. In fact, it was too little too late. It should've been done in the early '90s. Although, it did promptly stop the Serbian slaughter and ethnic cleansing of Albanians in Kosovo.

From the EU. I hope this satiates your curiosity, because I have no desire to be interrogated by a nobody on a video game company's forum. You are free to believe whatever you please, of course, if it helps you maintain sanity in that world of yours where fiction and reality are interchangeable.

The raging paranoia is strong in you two. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_People%27s_Army Oh my, English wikipedia is using "JNA" too (because, you know, that's the correct initialism). English wikipedia has been take over by Croatian or Muslim (or Albanian or Bulgarian or..) propaganda!

Merging spell and weapon damage or accuracy into one attribute is not needed to accomplish that. Anyway, regarding character builds, I'm curious if we'll be able to choose Abilities (not talking about Talents) from time to time. I'm not expecting to be able to do so at every level up, but being given a choice between 2 abilities every few levels would be nice.

Serbian media existed prior and exist after the NATO bombing, yes? Actually, according to me, Serbian media spreading lies about NATO had little to no impact on the "enemy", but like all the propaganda that Serbian people have absorbed throughout the last decades, it did have a negative impact on them. It caused paranoia, the whole world is against us syndrome, delusions of grandeur propelled by Serbian historical myths in stark collision with reality and ridiculous conspiracy theories. Of course, casualties are always unfortunate. It was also unfortunate when Serbians decided to massacre more than 8000 imprisoned men and boys in two days in Srebrenica, BiH. It was a tragedy and a genocide. It was also a tragedy when Serbian forces, controlling the JNA, devastated ex-Yu countries, including Kosovo, with ethnic cleansing, destruction and barbaric war crimes. Compared to that, what NATO did is nothing. You should be thankful.

It needs to be said that Serbian media are hardly a reliable source of informations. The brainwashing propaganda is not in full force like in the 90's, but it's still going strong and its effects are irreparable, sadly. NATO made a huge favor to the Serbian people when they demolished one of the centers responsible for spreading propaganda and inducing mass hysteria.

This is an important point. This is video games we are talking about, not ending war in Ukraine. I really don't give a rats ass how something is done mechanically in video game. If it works and is ok then I don't care. So you are claiming still, despite numerous examples how to do it made by me and others, that having different strength of opponents in different areas is impossible to do with LS? Fine, that's your problem. Being stubborn is not a crime. Ad.1 It would be best if you start reading what YOU are writing and then follow up with reading what people WROTE to you. You claim that providing constant challenge is bad, and then asking where my response to your statement came from? I believe this is actually the key to understanding you. Ad.2 You are right, LS is not required to make some areas harder and some easier. Just like you don't need automatic bread cutter to slice a bread. But if it's available why not to use it? A good RPG can be done without LS, sure. But that's not the point of this topic and discussion. I don't think using LS will go against leveling, I thing exactly opposite. It can make it even more meaningful. Ad.3 Or it could be, you know varying? Which is better than static. Ad.4 And you don't know what you like about color blue. You really have some reading deficiencies you know? Ad.5 ...that Valorian doesn't read what people post. That's the whole purpose... and problem. And yes LS is the pinnacle (and pineapple) of game evolution, smart design and the best way to skin a wookie. I recommend it also for sleeping disorders. I'm not sure if you lie on purpose, suffer from hyperopia or something more severe like cognitive disorders... but your posts are a big messy pile of confusion, shameless lies and awful analogies ("why u liek color blue!?"). You reply to my post, quoting a sentence I wrote: There's nothing inherently wrong about providing a constant level of challenge, but not at the expense of levels losing their purpose. And what's your answer? S_o: "You claim that providing constant challenge is bad" It surely doesn't seem like you "don't give a rats ass how something is done mechanically in video game", because if that were the case you wouldn't write lengthy posts on the greatness of level scaling. Yes, your arguments were silly, incoherent and meaningless, but it's obvious you're doing your best. My discussion with you ends here and what I've learned is that you definitely have no clue about the effects of level scaling or the effects of its absence. For a bit of humor, I'll end my post quoting you: "I don't think using LS will go against leveling, I thing exactly opposite. It can make it even more meaningful." LOL

I believe this is actually the key to understanding you. You don't care how something is accomplished, as long as you're happy with the outcome? Shallow, but understandable. Of course, the outcome is not the same if a game is level scaled, compared to enemies' power being set from the start. In the latter you have enemies of different strength in different areas (wow, it actually isn't "throw exactly the same opponent through the entire game for player to feel superior"). And your levels aren't being suppressed by level scaling, ever. I didn't say anything like that, so I will not answer something that is not my opinion. You said: Which means that providing a constant (or continuous) level of challenge is bad. And you added that leveling need to provide power and growth. So you want power and growth but not to maintain the constant level of challenge, hence you want "the same opponent" (as in the same level of challenge) through the entire game and not stronger, because only PC can grow stronger. That's what you wrote, if you didn't meant that write it anew. I'm sorry I meant plural you, as the "against level scaling" crowd. You guys contradict yourselves claiming exact opposite statements. Stun made several posts claiming that level scaling doesn't provide challenge at all which is bad so level scaling is bad, you claim that it does...which is bad so level scaling is bad. Made up your minds guys. And what do you like about color blue? It's a feature that can be implemented in a game. Like leveling, crafting etc. it can be either good or bad and it can increase or diminish a game. Already answered that. First post at page 6... this page actually. Bro, do you even lift read? It's funny how people require of other something they do not provide themselves. In this example intelligent answers and arguments. And it is understandable. There is a saying: "People like the songs they already know". Asking someone if he wants something new or old most people will go with old because they know it. Many people didn't believed in flying machines, there were thousands of badly done ones that didn't work. Yet today it's as common way of travel as horse carriages years ago. Just because something doesn't work right away it doesn't mean it should be tossed away. We need to learn on failures and build on the experience. First 3D games had ****ty graphics but today 3D is a standard. Imagine if people like Stun or Valorian were responsible for making decision on further developing 3D games. "It didn't work and it doesn't look better than 2D. We don't need that" 1) So, then, what was the context of "I thought the purpose of a good game is to provide challenge, the bigger as the player grows stronger. But apparently I was mistaked. A good game shoudl apparently throw exactly the same opponent through the entire game for player to feel superior"? You were responding to me bashing level scaling. Do you think challenge can only be accomplished with level scaling? So if someone claims that level scaling is.. for people like you, he automatically doesn't want challenge, therefore doesn't want a good game? 2) There's nothing inherently wrong about providing a constant level of challenge, but not at the expense of levels losing their purpose. Whenever an enemy scales according to your level, the game works against the purpose of levels. I prefer spikes in challenge; some areas and enemies are harder, some are easier (and you don't need L.S. for that, S_o). 3) We're not a hivemind. When you're replying to my posts, you're responding to me. I said that the goal of level scaling is to cheaply provide a continuous level of challenge. This level of challenge could be easy, could be hard or anything in between. 4) So you don't know what you like about level scaling? Interesting. 5) The purpose of level scaling is... ? Come on, you can do it S_o. Curious digression about flying machines and 3D games. Level scaling is the pinnacle of game evolution and smart design, I take it?

The biggest pile of crap I have ever read. Providing more and more powerful opponents as the game goes is against leveling? What now?! I thought the purpose of a good game is to provide challenge, the bigger as the player grows stronger. But apparently I was mistaked. A good game shoudl apparently throw exactly the same opponent through the entire game for player to feel superior. But wait not a few pages ago you claimed that level scaling DOESN'T provide challenge and now it DOES but it's against RPG principals? The f****? Maybe the anti level scaling group shoul put their claims together and provide a coherent statementthat you know... makes sense? Right. Before descending further into the depths of your mind, could you please answer a few simple questions? Without channeling Lephys, if possible. How does a lack of level scaling "apparently throw exactly the same opponent through the entire game for player to feel superior"? Could you point out where did I claim that level scaling doesn't provide challenge? What do you like about level scaling? What do you think is the purpose of level scaling? Stun already addressed your first inquiry. If you're able to intelligently answer these questions, we'll travel forward into the fascinating depths of your mind.