Valorian

Oh - my - god! The player doesn't end up with enough gold by the end of the game to buy whatever he/she pleases!? Call the police, ambulance, the aumaua..! It's preposterous!

I can't say I'm disappointed. "Crit path special encounters" sounds limited enough, as opposed to "crit path areas" for instance. Scaling the crit path special encounter by increasing/decreasing the number of combatants instead of altering their levels could also be an option to consider. That said, I believe it would be nice to include a game mode (Expert all the way! ) to have them at a fixed level.

You don't inform yourself about elements which are important to you in games or products that you're potentially going to buy? You just blindly purchase things? You're the ideal consumer! Lephys, I see you're back at writing fiction and walls of text. Like I said, I'm not interested in your novellas. Compress all unnecessary words in 1 succinct paragraph and I'm probably going to read it and reply.

So had you not informed yourself then you wouldn't have known beforehand and thus the experience would not have been ruined. Based on that then your decision to inform yourself rests in what exactly? Masochism? It's like spoiling a twist ending and then complaining the twist was easy to spot. Oh yeah, if you pretend something doesn't exist, it goes away. Like... boogeyman! Come on, are you that desperate for analogies that you pull one out of your behind that doesn't make sense in the least? Spoiling yourself about story twists is not the same thing as "spoiling" yourself about, you know... gameplay mechanics. And right, who cares about replay value. You play it once, don't "spoil" yourself about the inclusion of horrible gameplay mechanics like level scaling and then when on the second playthrough you discover without doubt it is indeed present; you shelve the game forever. The main difference being; I can still very much enjoy the game if I discover beforehand the game doesn't have any level scaling (do'h), but my enjoyment of the game will be diminished if I discover in advance important twists and how the story plays out.

Let me ask you a question. If a story boss is only encountered once in a playthrough, and the player gets to talk to him, and ask him a variety of interesting questions. They lead to the same response though, but the player doesn't know that because the dialogue system doesn't let you repeat previous dialogue nodes. Would your game experience be fine for the whole first playthrough if you didn't know that it was all fake and immediately be ruined on your second playthrough when you found out that your dialogue with him and others was a fake-fest with questions massively leading to the same response? Yes, I would be bothered by both examples. Although, I wouldn't need to play the game twice to know there's level scaling and/or lots of fake choices. I inform myself about the game beforehand.

Systems where the to-hit roll is separate from an enemy's defense rating roll, or inexistent, are just plain bad and nonsensical. It doesn't make sense because your ability to hit is directly affected by your enemy's ability to avoid the hit and vice versa. They're not detached processes.

I'd absolutely love to know how using level numbers to present certain degrees of challenge inherently creates "fake choices," but I have a feeling you aren't going to tell me. Is colossally missing the point your hobby? Let's reiterate, again, the basics for you: 1) "Using level numbers", i.e. having levels to present certain degrees of challenge is not level scaling. It's a system with levels. 2) Level scaling is when enemies in the world have their levels changed on the fly based on the player character's level. Level scaling is similar to fake choices in the way that no matter what place you choose to explore the consequence (potential enemies) will be faked/changed to cater to your character's level.

The part you probably didn't consider is DT. Even the toned down critical I proposed would make a huge difference. If a given armor absorbs 10 damage against your specific weapon: Normal 6 - 12 damage would result in 1 (min. 20%) - 2 damage. Which is miserable. Critical 13 - 18 damage would result in 3 - 8 damage. Which is not bad. I don't think it would be a good thing to deal either 1 point of damage or 8 times as much damage... You see how the 150% of maximum damage is disproportionately more powerful. Of course, passive abilities could improve the crit range and crit damage.

Alright, how about 13-18 so that people get the feeling it's a special (critical) hit? So the crit damage range would actually be maximum + 1 to maximum + 50%. I don't want to always crit for the same damage value against an enemy.

While I like the rest of the reiterated to-hit mechanics, I'd like to point out a few things about this part. Having crits on a sliding scale tied with to-hit vs defense further increases the gap between characters of different levels. If a character can crit almost every other hit for 150% of his maximum damage.. then yeah, it gets nasty. I know that +8 is an example, but still, even if it was +10 (which would be better, IMO), there should still be tweaks to the proposed crit system to not make it too powerful. Instead of 150% of maximum damage, I'd suggest to still keep the damage roll. If the damage range is 6-12, instead of always critting for a monotonous 18 damage, you'd crit from 9-18 damage. Keeping half the minimum damage for grazes is fine though.

We don't hate the absence of choices and consequences, we just hate the implementation of the absence. If we don't notice the absence; it's fine! Therefore, it's totally not about the concept of fake "choices" being awful, it's about implementing it in a way that doesn't make it too obvious. A level scaling fake choices range (i.e. not going too wild with it) will indubitably fix the issue.

You're right. Now if we just had a bunch of people complaining about how different dialogue choices leading to different outcomes was inherently "feces," that would be an extremely useful point. 8D Look, there's a cat! Hey cat, are you jelly of your pink cousin's deducing skills? : No, not really.

The funny thing is, you might not even know if all "choices" lead to the same consequence or if all dialogue options lead to the same response, unless it was done so shoddily that you don't even have to replay the game to notice it.

I was sarcastic, of course you don't develop games. You're most likely a kindergarten nanny and that's where your entitlement comes from: you think you know best what the kids need and have them eat candies even though the naughty ones would prefer vegetables... Then you're projecting your kindergarten experience to game development, equating these kids who would like to eat vegetables (what the hell are they thinking!?), that clearly have no clue what is best for them, to adult customers and their gaming preferences. And yet again you make a comparison that goes on the list of horrible comparisons by PJ . "Software is software", "Baldur's Gate is Photoshop"... I believe that the PE audience does know what they want from this game and they're not wrong just because a nobody from the internetz says they're wrong [because, oooh!, he's supposedly been in software development for 25 years!!] Even if you were in game development for 125 years, it wouldn't mean much. Quality =/= quantity. A developer's preference for level scaling doesn't make a preference against it wrong, it just means that he's likely to implement it in his game. Oblivion's developers are also experienced game developers, and they implemented level scaling... they can't be wrong, right? They're game developers, for god's sake! Because I am a professional software designer with 25 years experience at it. Duh. And let me guess, you implement level scaling in your softwares which makes your points regarding level scaling (and how everyone's wrong about it) somehow more relevant? There are several things to note here. Designing a game is not the same thing as designing, for instance, Windows. Some people lie [about their profession]. Some people are simply bad developers. In conclusion, you're still a nobody. So Bill Gates and Steve Wozniak are nobodies because they aren't game designers, and all game designers are celebrities? That's good to know. I'll be sure to pick up a copy of People magazine to find out what Chris Avellone had for lunch last Tuesday. On a more serious note, an ad hominem attack is little more than evidence of how feeble your argument is. Oh yeah, baby, you're spot on! I was clearly implying that he's a nobody because he's not a game developAr ... and not because we're all just anonymous forum posters who can claim anything about their lives and/or profession. And it doesn't really matter who he is. It matters what he says. People should stop being butthurt about "ad hominems" especially when they keep slaughtering common sense and massacring logic. So until next time peasants, take care! *waits for his peasant fun club to gather again*

Because I am a professional software designer with 25 years experience at it. Duh. And let me guess, you implement level scaling in your softwares which makes your points regarding level scaling (and how everyone's wrong about it) somehow more relevant? There are several things to note here. Designing a game is not the same thing as designing, for instance, Windows. Some people lie [about their profession]. Some people are simply bad developers. In conclusion, you're still a nobody.

I didn't say I would leave the topic, I said I will ignore pointless novels. My time > pointless novels. So you don't win 10 internetz, you win some more spanking, as usual. I see you like it. What makes you think that your opinion about specific game design features isn't wrong? What entity are you to proclaim that "the majority is wrong and I'm right.. just because"? Let me help you: you're nothing and nobody to even think of putting forward such a presumptuous statement.

And it does. Thing is, end users -- including game players -- very often have extremely strong opinions about what {features} they want, or don't want, in a product {game}. They're usually completely wrong. Most of that 94% is wrong about level scaling. They think they want it, but they would whine like Burgundy if P:E didn't have it. Not about level scaling, naturally -- they'd never admit they were wrong about it -- but about the negative secondary consequences of not having it. The trick to software design is to observe what users do, not listen to what they say. Speaking from rather a lot of professional experience here. Ah, the mind reader! The little X-files pumpkin is projecting his views of level scaling and how he thinks it would affect his experience to the general population who doesn't want it in their game. I have always found it amusing how the most stupid people are often the loudest when it comes to shouting "people are stupid!". Your thought process, examples and comparisons ("many people bought Oblivion [a game heavy on level scaling], which means the majority is wrong... therefore the preference of Project Eternity's fans against level scaling is also wrong") are almost as imbecilic as comparing a gameplay mechanics preference with paying taxes. And precisely, designers should not listen to what you say, because if they thought level scaling is generally a good gameplay design choice they wouldn't use words such as "very little", "minimal" or "if any at all" in conjunction with "level scaling".

Alrighty, Lephys, the stage is yours, you can now enjoy your primadonna status as I'm not going to read that wall of text because, frankly, my care-o-meter is now on the lowest levels for a discussion with a person that engages in deficient logical acrobatics that cause him to fall flat on his head all the time. An important aspect of intelligence is knowing how to explain your own point concisely and succinctly, instead of vomiting countless words that noone is going to read. Happy New Year and I hope that all of you will be able to enjoy the very little level scaling, if any at all, that PE will maybe include in its main quest. ... Oh, right, my apologies Lephys, you don't actually care about level scaling or other gameplay mechanics, it's writing forum novels about it that matters... so keep up the good work.

You're funny, I was responding to your forum buddy who claimed that your pro level stance "accommodates to as many different players as possible", which is a blatant lie. You need to follow the flow of the tangent if you want to add anything relevant to it. The majority is not always right, no. Neither are minorities always right. Speaking of minorities there is also, for example, a minority of delusional, but very persistent people who need a reality check.

The logic class wasn't your forte in high school (and later on, obviously), right? How does PJ's pro level scaling stance accomodate the interests of as many players as possible when there was a poll on the PE forum in which out of more than 600 people, 94% voted against level scaling? Not to mention that he is "strongly against" giving players the option to change the difficulty setting during the game, which doesn't affect him at all, unless he has an obsessive-compulsive disorder and can't resist the urge to change the difficulty all the time himself. On the other hand I really wouldn't mind if there was an option to turn level scaling on, for those 2% out of 600+ that appreciate it. It's better than Valdorkian: "Let's train for the next year and we will beat them because they will stay exactly the same level, because only our team is capable of improving and level up our skills." Valdorkian train(wreck) of thoughts: "Of look the price for X is 600$, it was 600$ yesterday they scaled down the price, what a bargain I should buy it immediately" Amusing... Cpt Sharp Banality, the opposing team probably did train and improve, even if you weren't there to witness it, but their improvement wasn't directly tied in any way to your team's improvement. That's the little detail you seem to miss over and over and over... again. Also, cutie pie, your second shot at a "counter-example" (or whatever that was) made even less sense in this context, but whatever floats your sinking logic-boat. Please, just don't spend the New Year celebrations overloading your brain with attempts at witty retorts and other pearls of wisdom. Although, there is one thing you're good at, which you've shown immediately upon registering; ironic nicknames.

You wrote this: In which you imply that openness and optional content would be frustrating (for everybody, even) without level scaling, unless done in a specific order. So unless when you mentioned openness, optional content, the mid-game and doing stuff in a specific order you actually meant doing the "critical path" (and it's called path for a reason) in the order the designer intended it .. then what you're stating now is not quite true. You didn't mention the critical path until I did. I'm not sure whether you're simply confused or outright lying. Level scaling affects my enjoyment of the game. I already explained to you that I don't care how somebody else plays the game and the irony is that you apparently do: I wonder if the critical path level scaling will be to your liking, because from what I've read it seems there will be little level scaling even in those critical path areas. I mean, if there's enough of it to not make the game too railroaded, frustrating, boring and linear for you...

Dear PJ, I hope this doesn't frustrate you even further, but there won't be any level scaling in general exploration, side quests and optional content. Which is unfortunate for you, because I fear that the completely UNscaled openness of the game, coupled with your play style, could cause you to experience unheard-of levels of utter frustration. "Project Eternity will have very little level scaling and almost entirely in critical path areas since there’s a lot of variability in when players approach them. Especially when it comes to optional content and general exploration, there will be no level-scaling." "I don't know where this topic came from, but I don't expect to use level scaling much, if at all, in PE." I sincerely hope you can enjoy the game and tone down the hysteria when you notice, with shock and horror, that the vast majority of content doesn't scale down to your level, at all. Oh, and also, I'm kind of for you that you're among the 2% who are frustrated by the lack of (substantial) level scaling. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60248-level-scaling/

Actually, it does, because it's literally the same thing but with the entire playthrough, rather than individual encounters/areas/foes. Whether you change the actual level number, or you change the values of the attributes encompassed within level increments, you're scaling for the sake of challenge, and you're using levels and the changes in attribute/skill/pool values that levels organize in order to do so. So, it's quite pertinent. ... The fact that you're equating difficulty levels with the imbecilic concept called level scaling shows that you have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about. You honestly don't see a substantial difference between monsters' levels/power being decided on the fly in relation to the player's level and the monster's power being decided by a game options slider that affects all monsters regardless of the player's level? In fact, if there's a difficulty slider, why wouldn't there be a level scaling slider? Because as it is now, a player can decide to turn the difficulty up or down, but I can't use an option to turn off level scaling which is ruining my experience. So you and Junta can knock yourself out with all the level scaling you want, including scaling squirrels up or down to your level, and I can play the damn game without any traces of it. No, it's not beside the point because mutually exclusive content is also optional content. I will remind you, in case you forgot, that the point you and Junta were making was that if you have to complete most of the side quests for the crit path to not be too hard/impossible; then it's not optional content any more. Including mutually exclusive content means that the player gets to choose what side quests to explore (optional content), complete them all, and still have a challenging non-scaled crit path balanced around the player who completed a lot of side content. Not that I think it's necessary, but since you clearly have a problem with the notion that the crit path should be balanced for a player who completed most side quests and that side content would suddenly become "non-optional".. there you go. Again, you didn't understand anything. It's nonsense that you're referring to it as "scaling up", when in fact you're just proposing a level scaling range, which has been done in other games. Level scaling is feces and it has been explained why many times, but you're still dead set that it can be done right if you give it some cute little boundaries. A feces doesn't become any better if it's "neatly" packaged. It's not my problem that you don't comprehend the reasoning and don't understand why tying the monster's level to the player's level in any shape or form is counter-intuitive and idiotic. Which doesn't mean I am talking only about level scaling in which content is scaled always exactly to your level. Bolded to stress the part you also keep getting confused about. I am talking about "your" little level scaling "improvement", as well. Or how about... C) A fixed amount of exp in the game, and the challenge of the CRITICAL PATH is BALANCED around the attainment of MOST of it. Let's say, 75% of it. The player who did only 50% would have a hard time but still maybe manage to get through the crit path, a player who did 95% of the side content would have an easier time. If he's that good, what the hell, let him enjoy having an easier time through the main quest since he probably faced enough hard challenges to complete almost all side quests. And the player still has the freaking DIFFICULTY slider, I haven't heard about a 'kill level scaling with fire' game OPTION from PE devs yet. The fundamental thing you don't get is that level scaling in any form is ruining the experience for many players, REGARDLESS of the difficulty, which you can adjust with the difficulty slider anyway. You spew that level scaling and difficulty settings are "literally the same thing" and then you wonder why I'm skipping your nonsensical walls of text; I skip it becasue I know that if the premise is filled with logical fallacy holes like a sponge, the rest won't be any better.

Which has nothing to do with level scaling. I mentioned the easy difficulty as a solution for the "knoobs" who would find the non-scaled crit path too hard. This is simply not true. Mutually exclusive content is also optional content. Players can choose one path or the otrher, but not both, for instance. Again, incorrect. You keep mentioning some kind of "scaling up", which is nonsensical; this is simply a level scaling sytsem where you have a minimal level for each area/monster, like in DA:O. Which is basically the same feces. Still incorrect. The thing I'm proposing would make the crit path challenging for a person who actually invested some time into playing the game and doing side quests, and admittedly very challenging or almost impossible for a person who wished to run straight through the plot. It wouldn't be challenging only if there was an unlimited amount of xp available in the game, but that would be a horrible design decision.

And how would a system where you only level scale up without level scaling down look like? Imagine a character that is level 5 and then a character that is level 12 who face a monster that is only supposed to "up-scale". Tell me.