Stun

I didn't stated the reason for BG to be so easy is lack of LEVEL scaling, but lack of scaling. And Level scaling is only one of the posibilities. What's the difference?

Boy, someone has missed the point -And- doesn't understand AD&D Irenicus (BG2's final boss) is a 29th level mage. Mages in the AD&D rule set do not get any more spells or hit points when they get above 29, which they can't anyway, since 29 is the maximum level allowed for mages in AD&D So I'll ask again, Sharp_one, what effect would level scaling BG2's final boss have had, besides NONE AT ALL? So you ADMIT that level scaling would have had no effect. (other than making fights even easier for lower level parties) PS: Tactics and Ascension simply change Enemy AI, they do not scale the enemies.

I killed the end boss in bg2 with 1 summon. BG2's end boss is a pure mage. There is a formula to beating mages in Bg2. Scaling would have changed nothing. But I do find it humorous that you tried to cite an example of being "Overpowered", yet you still needed a summon to help you against Irenicus. LOL I think we're trying to place blame here where it doesn't belong. None of the IE games are "Hard" at any level. They're....standard by default. And it's not because the bosses don't scale. Again, BG1's end boss (who's a 16th level fighter with 90% magic resistance and an AC of -12) can be beaten with a level 1 character. And BG2's Bodhi can be insta-killed with a single 7th level cleric spell. Scaling those two to the party's level wouldn't have changed anything....except maybe the lore. Those people should be asking the devs for non-combat solutions to boss fights then, instead of begging the devs to Nerf those bosses to their level simply because they "didn't have the time" or desire to play the whole game.

Not a single one of the IE games had scaled Final Boss fights. Lets think about that for a moment. Here on this thread we've got people voicing their concerns that having too much optional content will "ruin" the End Boss encounter and make it a "cakewalk". Well? Did it do any such thing for the IE games? Nope.

^and even without playing on Hard mode, If the level cap is 12 then the final boss should ALWAYS be designed to challenge a level capped party. Not sure why any developer needs to resort to something so vile as level scaling the final boss in a game that has a level cap. Lephys, stop pretending that your moronic arguments haven't been seen and thrashed countless times to the point that we ALL already know where they're going to lead even before you finish making them. The Bottom line is that your so-called "problems" and 'issues' aren't. When a game has a level cap, and it's also an RPG that promises diverse gameplay and choices, then encounter level-adjustments are not needed. If we're discussing how to make a final boss challenging, then the solution is to design that final boss to challenge a level capped party, since that will effectively guarantee that it will be a challenge to everyone.... without requiring the devs to Gimp that final boss and scale him to minimalists who didn't enjoy the game enough to bother playing more than half of it. On the other hand, if we're discussing non-critical path bosses then devs don't need to worry about what level the party is, since anything that's non-critical pathed is optional by definition, thus all of the whines from the little Lephys of the world are easily addressed with a simple: "if you don't like this encounter, then skip it". Of course there's also the issue of true story based RPGs, where it doesn't matter what level the bosses are, since the option to NOT HAVE TO ENGAGE THEM IN COMBAT ANYWAY will be there. Ever play Planescape Torment? In PS:T, does it matter, at all, how "tough" TTO is? Nope, because only a clueless idiot gamer would ever resort to engaging him in combat.

I've never in my life played an RPG where you had to complete optional content in order to beat the end boss. But then again, I understand that some players are simply crap gamers who think that since they can't beat the end boss with their underleveled party, then it must be impossible by design. Consequently, they blame their inability to beat the end boss on "bad game design" or something. You can't debate with such people. You tell them that Serevok can be beaten with a level 1 Fighter, and they call you a liar. Even though he can, and even though BG1 is one of those games that can be beaten without even doing some of the REQUIRED content.

Well, that's an interesting assumption. Do you know something about PoE's story that the rest of us don't? In any case, there's the Level cap --- which is the solution to your little personal problem here. If the story dictates that a particular enemy is supposed to be extraordinarily threatening, then the intelligent thing to do would be to create that foe to be...you know, 12th level... or whatever level they determine to be a challenge to a party who's hit the cap. Of course, this won't solve the ever present whines/gripes you might have of "wait! what if I want to skip everything and just race to the end?! My party is only 5th level, how am I supposed to beat a 12th level Boss?" ::::waaah:::::

Then by all means, find a way to gimp your high level party. Or up the Difficulty setting or something. Maybe Dump your Vorpal Holy Avenger +5 and use the Iron Dagger you found in the tutorial against that boss. Some of us expect tangible results from doing a completionist run. Otherwise, what's the point?

I would think that placing a hard level cap in the game would be enough already to control/limit the power disparities we're discussing as well as the need to scale anything. And they can limit it further by Chapter gating (ie. leaving some areas, side quests, other content closed off until you reach a certain point in the critical path). Although again, this is a limitation that isn't all that necessary, but it's much more preferable than nerfing the XP rewards/leveling from exploration for the sake of keeping completionists and minimalists "similar in power"

OK. Just saying, in low level AD&D, the long-term end result of being a completionist was often being just a single level above a non-completionist. Of course, these games also had relatively few levels compared to modern RPGs, so a single level represented a significant advantage. Generally, I am in favor of mild power curves where you can't become "a LOT more powerful", as I don't like the numbers inflation seen in modern RPGs. I find it hard to take seriously a world where people do 1-8 damage at level 1 and hundreds of points of damage at level 20. I'm not interested in power fantasies. If a "low level" enemy still has ways of f*cking my characters up even after I've done all the sidequests in the world, I find that awesome. Ok, forget "modern" RPGs. Lets speak strictly in terms of the IE games...and their "curves". Baldur's Gate 1 -- Has a very low level cap. A party who skips the optional stuff will still reach the cap before the end of the game just like a completionist, so there's no curve at all. Although, like all the IE games, Gear makes the man, and that party will be at a disadvantage to one that doesn't skip the optional stuff. However, there's much to be said for how early one chooses to reach that level cap. For a player who busts his ass and does all the optional stuff so that by the time he hits the Cloakwood he can cast 4th and 5th level spells, have 2 attacks per round, backstab for 5x damage etc, he should have that choice and reap those rewards. Icewind Dale 1 -- is not applicable, as it contains virtually no optional content at all. ALL parties of 6 will end the game at precisely the same level. Always. Planescape Torment - No level cap. And Level disparities can be truly massive (the Abishais in the hive respawn endlessly and any gluttonous player can choose to advance to whatever level he wants by wiping them out over and over and over before ever meeting Pharod). Kinda useless in this discussion though, since combat (critical path and otherwise) is not designed to challenge players in the first place. But, hey, lets apply your philosophy of "mild power curves are best!", and then lets see how fast such a design would RUIN planescape torment. Lets make it so that there's only a mild power curve between a player who rushes through PS:T, doing only the critical plot, vs. someone who takes his time, talks to everyone, does all the subquests, finds all the companions etc. In order for your preference to be implemented, PS:T would have to either make leveling inconsequential, or else lower all stat checks so that all memory recalls, persuasions, intimidations, etc., can be successfully achieved with stats no higher than 14 or 15. Who the hell wants that? It would Destroy everything that ever made PS:T unique. It would Kill PS:T's replay value. In fact, it would render the point of the game itself moot, since the Nameless one is supposed to scour the planes to find the answers he seeks (ie. he's supposed to be a very eager, even desperate seeker of knowledge). Baldur's Gate 2- HUGE power curve. As it should be. And the game is designed for it, as the Main plot line simply is not as interesting as the world you're given to explore.... and.... lower level combat is not nearly as interesting as higher level combat. And just like with PS:T, anyone who skips all that wonderful optional stuff should be forced to endure the consequences of trying to half-ass his way through one of the greatest games ever made. The alternative is to Turn BG2 into something like Dragon Age, where there's no real rewards for doing side-quests, because perfect balance from beginning to end is the only design decision that matters. Icewind Dale 2 - see Icewind Dale 1. There's virtually no side quests. Tl;DR.... I believe it should be up to the player to decide how powerful he wants to be in relation to the encounters in this game. Level scaling usually goes against this ideal by forcing unnecessary limitations for the sake of Balance. Contrary to common belief, some of us do not need to be policed in this way. We can decide for ourselves whether we wish to break the game with power or not.

No, I'm demanding that a game, who's developer-stated focus is on exploration, bestow significant advantages to those who take the time and effort to explore. As for the Non-completionists, they should get out of it what they put into it. If I decide to meticulously complete every nook and cranny of the 15 level mega-dungeon, and the stronghold, and the faction quest lines, and all the jobs/missions in both cities, I expect to be a LOT more powerful than someone who decided to skip all of it and just raced to the end to finish the game.

In other words, minimize the rewards for people who take the time to do everything. No thanks. There's already a level cap. They should just design end-game battles to be challenging for those who've reached the cap, and very difficult for those who haven't. And that's it. No need to scale anything. What? The "Geometrically increasing" nature of AD&D's EXP system (whatever that means) really has nothing to do with anything. And IF or not, the video games that spawned from AD&D most certainly did NOT choose to lessen the xp payoffs of side-questing, or any other payoffs. Try playing BG2 and doing only the main questline. Your Party will be less than half as high in levels as a party who did everything. And powerwise, it won't even be that close.

You can't. And that's why this entire discussion is banal. The thread starter is basically asking for a game of a different Genre to be made carrying the POE name. Hey, Why stop there? Why don't we go to the Blizzard forums and ask for a party based isometric, single player, real time with pause, story-heavy RPG called WOW. Then later we can float our proposal to Activision to make a fantasy RPG version of call of duty with swords and magic. A) "You can't". Never say never. Just wild ideas below I know but w/e~ - PvP Zones: You take turns with the pause. If I have initiative, I have first pause within a time window (10 seconds). I can pause on second number 1, or 2, you get the idea. When I pause I have another 20 seconds window to issue a new command. So basically.... 1. I get a 10 seconds window to pause (if I choose to). 2. Pause, where I have 20 seconds to make a move. 3. You get a window of 10 seconds to pause (if you choose to). 4. Pause, you get 20 seconds to make a move. - PvE Zones: Same thing pretty much, except you take turns with people instead of against them. Real Time-with-Turn-Based Pause, a.k.a. RTwTBP xD I don't know how or if it would work. I am pretty much with you in spirit, I don't think it would translate well to an MMO. But hey~ you don't know what you don't know *shrug* B) A WarCraft isometric single-player party cRPG, that's a dream *nod* <3 (Not World of Warcraft please, I hope Blizzard retcons the **** out of that and makes a proper WarCraft 4 RTS... heck any WarCraft RTS game would be awesome) That sounds.... Horrible.

You can't. And that's why this entire discussion is banal. The thread starter is basically asking for a game of a different Genre to be made carrying the POE name. Hey, Why stop there? Why don't we go to the Blizzard forums and ask for a party based isometric, single player, real time with pause, story-heavy RPG called WOW. Then later we can float our proposal to Activision to make a fantasy RPG version of call of duty with swords and magic.

No, I don't think you do. POE isn't just a single player CRPG. It's a retro-style, made to order single player RPG that has already been ordered. This thread is pointless. <sigh> Don't you guys have your own little section of the internet where you can hang out and discuss your proposed MMO-ization of the gaming world? Why don't you go there and leave us alone.

I don't know. I don't see a whole lot of difference in the actual character models themselves in BG1 and BG2. There is, however, a HUGE difference in the looks of the armor and weapons. All armor, especially robes, chainmail, plate male and full plate, looked a lot better in BG1, yes. BG2 ruined Full plate. It didn't even look like metal. It had a... soft, rounded look. I didn't like it at all.

Are you talking about the Portraits?

It better. A 15 Level dungeon with only one entrance and exit? That'd be the worst level design ever.

Hey, did you just kill Drizzt and now every shop in the sword coast is charging you 40% more for their wares? No problem. Just go to the temple of Lathander and donate 100gp + 100gp + 100gp + 200gp + 200gp + 200gp and your armed robbery murder will be forgiven, merchants will love you again, and you might even have better dreams!

Hey! One of the only plot tidbits we've gotten so far was that we witness a profound supernatural event. Maybe it's a meteor that crashes into the ground lol.

Same! Lets see if we can walk on it. Hey, wild stab-in-the-dark question: Is this one of the entrances to the mega-dungeon?

Hahaha... "What I'm saying is COMPLETELY different from what you're saying. Obviously, you're the one who's missing the point... you know, the one stemming from something you said, to which I'm responding?" You're too much, Stun. I personally would rather enjoy reading someone's perfect example of an adaptive scouting system, as I believe such a system would make everything it touches, whether it be quests or combat, so much better. But, of course, leave it to YOU to find the ONE example where it wouldn't work at all: Sending assassins against a high profile Land owner HERO. LOL Wow... Way to slice off the introduction to the actual example and use it out-of-context. There is a reason I typed the stuff following that sentence, you know. What am I saying? It's evident that you don't know. A) The process of sending the assassins after you was in literally no way the point of the example. Someone can't intelligently decide who would be best for an assassin job, then just never actually send the assassins after you. Why would it matter how hand-picked they were if they didn't confront you? That's what assassins do. They get sent after people, and then they go after those people. It's called context. Look it up. B) Just because someone's a prominent land-owner doesn't mean they have a GPS tracking beacon on them. NOR does it mean that they're located at their own personal stronghold at all times, forever. NOR does it mean that it's probably the best idea, if you're an assassin, to go after them in the most fortified/staffed, high-security location you possibly can. Thus, your argument remains not only irrelevant (as my example has nothing to do with the process of location, which was simply understood to be something assassins do in order to actually kill their targets), but also utterly nonsensical. You had your shot. It's not hard to be reasonable, yet you defend a simple misunderstanding to your last breath as if I've urinated upon your family's grave by pointing out that you've misunderstood me. Have fun being you. *waves* Here you go Lephys. http://locator.apa.org/

The system you're proposing is actually decent. After all, the core ideal of any RPG is reactivity. When an RPG reacts to your choices...like how you choose to fight, then it's doing things right, by definition. But I'm just concerned about the method the devs would use to bring about that reactivity. Because it could fall into a trap. For both the player and the Developer. For the player, it'd force them to build their party as a "jack of all trades" so as to not have to worry about the headache of encounters increasingly exploiting their weaknesses. And for the devs, they'd have to worry about suitable XP rewards and loot drops (if there's gonna be any) that result from even the minor changes in encounter composition, as well as, again, making the game feel too...machine-like I'd just prefer that things not rely solely on combat behavior tracking. It's much cooler if the devs add a "human" element to it. Like, for example, if your party develops a reputation as a devastating mage killer, then instead of just suddenly adding more non-mages to every encounter, they should form a scripted plot around it. Maybe have the leader of the city's mage guild put out a call for Paladin and Fighter mercenaries to go after the party in every town.

Not a mechanism so much as just a bunch of different encounter ideas to insure that the party can't always rely on the same tactics. And the sky's the limit on that. I don't consider myself particularly creative (I was never the DM in my old D&D pen and paper days) But even I can take 11 classes and a decent bestiary and create hundreds of uniquely tactical encounters. You can use unique terrains to pose combat challenges. You can have one encounter be a party of enemy chanters, then the next be a party of enemy barbarians. You can have one encounter where the enemy's tactics is summons and another where the enemy spams debilitating AOEs, and another where they do both. You can have an enemy that specializes in melee engagement, and another composed of skilled archers. You can introduce a trapped battlefield into the mix. You can have dead magic zones. You can have a situation where the party is taken prisoner and stripped of their gear, and then have them fight their way to freedom using just their innate abilities. You can have an encounter take place in total darkness. You can have the party fight while intoxicated. You can test the party's quickness, then later test their attrition. You can forcibly divide the party and have them fight individually. You can have fire based encounters. Then ice based encounters. You can have a party of enemy monks. You can create an encounter where the enemy is completely immune to Magic. And another where the enemy takes nominal damage from physical attacks. etc. etc. If a tower is occupied by a cabal of rogues, and your party both intends to wipe those rogues out (a goal that is presumably at odds with the rogues' own goal of, say, "continuing to survive") and has a reputation for struggling with mage fights, yet the rogues don't use the undoubtedly fairly significant resources at their disposal to hire a few mage mercenaries to bolster their ranks, my respect for those rogues would plummet. (Y'know, in those five minutes intermittently between roflstomping them.) I'd be fine with mages coming to the rogue tower's aid in this situation, since you're not replacing those rogues, you're just giving them some backup. But, the notion that suddenly there's mages there because the player has trouble with mages is....silly. It's cheap and gamey. Game world/narrative events should dictate whether or not those rogues get the opportunity to hire/befriend a small army of mages. Like, for example, if the party fails to do a certain quest before entering that tower (like cut off their smuggling/communication supply lines), then that would justify the sudden existence of "mage help"

Call me old fashioned, but I prefer encounters be hand crafted, not computer generated. I would hope that with 11 classes to work with + a large bestiary, that the devs would have both the creativity and the tools to "mix it up" a little bit with the enemy AI and composition to make the important encounters all be unique challenges that require occasional tactic changes by the player party naturally, without having to resort to Player behavior tracking to force those tactic changes, or whatever the system being proposed here is. And, as a rule of thumb (for me at at least), encounter composition should Always be Lore consistent. In other words, if a Tower is supposed to be occupied by a cabal of rogues, but the game decides to replace these rogues with an army of mages instead for no reason but to "challenge" the party, my respect for the game world itself will plummet.