Stun

Feeling you've been wronged... a bit. And when you publically express feelings (as opposed to reaching conclusions), you are, naturally, hoping to have those feelings addressed.

Hmm... Alight. I will treat it as a simple question then. They don't. Not necessarily. It isn't. Not at all.

Feeling a bit cheated does not = Jumping to conclusions, lephys. He is voicing concerns about specific information that we have been given since the kickstarter pitch. Concerns that the final product will not feel very IEish. Concerns that can be easily adressed if one of the devs were to come on here and clarify to him that There will be hit points, there will be potions, and death and ways to class build that will rival even the IE games.

Oh? then by all means, please show us who on this thread you were ranting against. I'd like to know who's jumping to conclusions. I'll even help you shoot them down if they were.

I didn't cite anything you said. Nor did I make reference to you, or any specific game that wasn't Neverwinter Nights, at all. I'm quite confused by your confusion. "Blargle forest at 5th level?" What exactly was that rant about?

Well of course he left that part out. It doesn't fit in his pre-packaged narrative. He also utterly (and deliberately) took all of Monte Carlo's arguments, and mine, warped them into something they're not, and then proceeded to argue against them. Consequently we're sitting here are watching what's happening, and we're like: "WTF!? we never said that!" Well for starters, not everything is unknown. We know for a fact that there will be no multi-classing. We know for a fact that great focus has been spent on balancing the classes so that they're "equal but different". We know for a fact that the devs have decided to assign Roles to the classes. Roles that very much resemble 4e D&D/MMO class roles. Second, Despite the above, we're still not jumping to conclusions. We're voicing concerns. Valid ones. Third, and as usual, you have placed all the blame on the fans, and none on the developers themselves. There's nothing stopping Josh, or Adam, or Tim, or Brandon from coming on here and directly addressing and dispelling these very common concerns (or 'conclusions', as you call them) that are being voiced on this thread, especially since they're very broad, and basic, and non-spoilerish in nature. In short, you're being your usual straw-man-burning, obnoxious, tiresome self. Bravo.

Er.... Lephys, I'm talking about Neverwinter Nights. The Bioware game. Not... whatever blather you're citing.

You are mistaken. Neverwinter Nights scales its encounters to the game's chapters. (ie. Chapter/Narrative progression-based encounter scaling. What I mentioned above) Neverwinter Nights' does not scale its encounters to your level, and you can easily verify this by creating a level 1 character and begining the game in chapter 2 or 3, or 4 and you'll immediately see yourself getting destroyed by the game's creatures in every single encounter (ironically, there's no way around this as the game DOES scale both its Loot and NPC companions to your level lol) Instead, Neverwinter Nights' encounters are chapter-scaled. There is a distinct and completely oblivious to your level, difficulty difference between what you face in chapter 1 vs. what you face in chapter 2, or 3, or 4. See the difference?

Really? By all means then, explain how Neverwinter Nights handled its encounter difficulty progression. And do so without using any of the above terms.

You seems confused. Level scaling is a DYNAMIC change of challenge... ...based on the player character's LEVEL. By contrast, if this dynamic change of challenge is based on TIME, then it would be called Time scaling. And if this dynamic change of challenge is based on Area, then it's called Area scaling. And if this dynamic change of challenge is based on the story/narrative/chapter, then that's called narrative progression-based-scaling Listen, I'm not here to barter/negotiate the term "Level Scaling" with someone who wants to grossly broaden its definition so that it can appeal to anyone who loves "challenge!". Level scaling deserves no such SPIN. It is a Lazy crutch mechanic used by developers who lack the creativity or time to properly design encounters in RPGs.

No, that's not what it means. If it was, there'd be no one here opposed to it (who the hell would ever want to play an RPG where all encounters are exactly the same?)

So let me see if I've got this right (I've never played Jagged Alliance, so I'm only going off what you're saying here) 1) Encounters get tougher based on geographic locations 2) Encounters get tougher based on time 3) Encounters get tougher based on story And.... 4) This progression is not actually tied to your leveling. Ok....This. Is. Not. Level. Scaling. At all. Level scaling is when enemies scale according to your level. And that's it. Area scaling, time scaling, and narrative-progression scaling are different mechanics. But they don't grow in numbers. They *change* in both size and species, -AND- this change is NOT based on time. It's based on character level. (if you stick around Athkatla when you're 9th level and sleep at an inn for 78 days, and then go do the D'arnise keep, you will get the exact same-leveled encounters as a 9th level character who didn't waste 78 days sleeping before doing that quest.) If you do the D'arnise keep when you're between ~9th-12th level, you will get the standard Trolls. If you go when you're ~13th-17th level, many of those standard trolls are replaced by Giant Trolls, Spectral Trolls and Spirit trolls (By the Way, the existence of those last two cannot be explained by game time or story, as they are UNDEAD, and spirit trolls, specifically, are very *ancient* undead, and the game spawns them into the D'arnise keep despite the fact that there's no Troll Shaman there performing transformation rituals on any of the existing trolls)

I don't agree with this. In a game where combat is the main focus of gameplay, the only responsibility of the devs is to make sure that all classes can beat the game by fighting. Not that all classes are "equally powerful at fighting". We can discuss the why's of this if you wish. Although this has already been discussed ad nauseam on other threads

Yes. A Game's combat (especially an open world game's combat) should never adjust itself to accommodate the player's character. The OPPOSITE should happen. The player should be forced to adjust and deal with what the world throws at him regardless of his level, otherwise everything is cheapened. Level scaling can't be done un-badly. So this comment from you is meaningless. Have you seen lore that says that enemies will only level if the character does? Hmm? Because THAT is what level scaling is all about. It's player-level dependent. There is no way around this. If enemies level up based on anything else, then it's not level scaling. But this isn't what I meant when I said it conflicts with the lore. I was talking about the more silly things, like a game tossing random LICHES at the player because that small pack of Ghouls they put there earlier is no longer a balanced encounter for his high level party. (BG2 did this.) It Spits on the lore. It mocks it. Liches are NOT to be randomized. They are the elite of the elite of undead. They are an epic story in themselves. But BG2 decided that the Lore is unimportant in the face of Balance, so when you're in the sewers under the city, and your party is 16th level or higher, you'll face an un-named random friggin LICH, instead of a pack of ghouls. Badly. It's a cheap alternative to getting creative and challenging the player in better, more complex ways. Straw man. And you're starting to bore me. Level scaling isn't a new thing. It's been in video games since the Pong days. So no, it's not a matter of just giving developers a few generations of time to turn a turd into gold. A gold plated turd will forever be a turd. To maintain game balance. It serves absolutely no other purpose at all. And of all the ways to maintain game balance, it happens to be the easiest, cheapest, most mindless, and most uncreative way. As gamers, we should demand better from game developers.

And that's because? 1) Because it diminishes that essential feeling of accomplishment that is supposed to come with leveling. 2) Because it diminishes that essential feeling of risk that is at the center of exploration 3) Because it conflicts with a believeable game world's lore. 4) Because at its core, it is nothing more than a cheap alternative to a) increasing a game world's beastiary; b) increasing an enemy's tactical intelligence c) challenging the player in more creative ways 5) Because the evidence speaks for itself. Because Every game that has employed level scaling has been criticized because of it.... Because even developers have become self conscious of its existance and have gone to great lengths to vastly limit, disguise and HIDE their use of it. 6) Because even its staunch supporters can't point to a game that's done it right. The best they can do is show us a game that used it so sparingly and subtly that the question of whether it was done right can't even be answered.

Providing more and more powerful opponents as the game goes is against leveling? Straw man. He said level scaling goes against the point of leveling. Providing more, and powerful opponents as the game progresses is NOT, in and of itself level scaling, Since that can be done without adjusting encounters based on the player character's level. It can be done based on the story's progression. Or it can be done based on area progression (see: Obsidian's description of the 15 level mega dungeon) Now we quit with the silly attempts to justify Level scaling by broadening its definition so that it encompasses everything that can be done to make encounters perpetually "challenging".

Yes. I pointed this out to Josh a while back (although I wasn't nearly as eloquent!), and his response was: "Balanced does not mean equal", or whatever. His argument was that using different classes in subsequent playthrus will still feel totally different since the classes are designed with different strengths and weaknesses. (hypothetical example of this: Warriors can plow through a golem encounter, while mages will suffer a world of hurt against Golems, but at the same time, mages will have an easy time dispensing a giant army of Orcs in a few seconds, while warriors are in for a long drawn out battle against those Orcs). But I don't buy this, and I don't find that kind of design philosophy particularly intelligent. whittle down the pretty words and it's not much different from the 'Rock-paper-scissors' game-design that he swears he dislikes.

Well, Josh sorta answered that question in the OP's you tube link. Anyway I'll give my opinion: First, I will say, I *liked* IWD2's story(s). Isair and Madae were potentially intriguing villians. And just like the first game, all the major dungeons had decent back stories. The story behind the ice temple was really good, even if the temple itself was a rather dull/repetitive dungeon experience. The story behind Dragon's eye was really good too (the eruption, the Yuanti, the time loop, etc.) IWD2 could have had a much better storyline though. I wouldn't have changed anything, per se. Instead, I just would have...expanded it more. You can tell that Isair and Madae were meant to be far more "personable", but the devs simply didn't flesh them out.. Unfortunately the game manages to drop the ball each and every time they do show themselves to the Player. Every one of those cameos they do is like: "Oh hi!, we were just leaving. here, fight our minions!". Compare that with how BG2 handles Bodhi and Irenicus' multiple appearances. Also, IWD2 had so many areas. But many were wasted with meaningless filler (river caves, fields of slaughter, the monastery, the underdark, etc), when the devs could have easily used them to better flesh out the main plot. ^Considering AD&D lore, this *alone* was a risky (and potentially unbelievable) opening scenario on the part of Bioware. What happens if you decide to play an elf? Well, In D&D, Elves don't reach adulthood until they're about 250 years old. Problem: Gorion is human. So Chances are if you're an adult elf, you're probably older than he is. Except that you can't be, because the time of troubles wasn't that long ago and he supposedly saved you from being a baby sacrifice to bhaal after the time of troubles. So by the start of the game, you're a 20-25 year old elf. Which is still a baby. You're like, 2 in human years. Of course, this whole time-based inconsistency stuff in the BG games is made even more illogical in Throne of Bhaal when you meet a huge ancient Dragon who is also a child of bhaal, and who has a Son who's also a huge ancient dragon (if you're keeping count at home, that's a 2000+ year timeline discrepancy, since the time of troubles at the point had only happened, what, less than 25 years ago?)

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that all spell animations be removed in favor of combat log exclusivity. In the best games, the gamer looks at both to get the full play by play. But the issue here is about those small handful of spells that will inevitably share an animation. In those situations, you will need the combat log if you want to know which spell it is. And it's not an "immersion" breaking thing. You simply look at the combat log and you see a single line of text that says: "x casts y", or whatever.

...which had sorcerers

Real life does give XP for "quests". A lawyer straight out of law school will become a better lawyer only by taking on cases and seeing them through (ie. gaining experience.) The only difference between this and how a video game does things is that a video game typically uses a point system to make the process a little less abstract. I do agree with your last point. I, too, don't see a problem with getting powerful in a short amount of time as long as the game makes it difficult to do so. And this is WHY level scaling sucks. In a game without level scaling, someone who wants to get powerful early, can choose to venture out to an area known to have high level beasts not designed for him to defeat early on. And those fights will be super tough, verging on impossible. But if he DOES manage to defeat them, the EXP rewards tend to be suitably massive, thus he gains levels quickly. But this scenario will not happen in a level scaled game, since with level scaling, those beasts will be adjusted according to his level in order to maintain "balance", and of course, so will the XP rewards.

Thankfully, catering to the "vast majority especially kids" is neither the point of PoE, nor its developer's goal. That was clear from day one too.

In Soviet Russia, the podcast walks into you.

I wasn't directing that comment at you. I was talking about Malignacious. And specifically, this argument of his:

^Or graphics. I thought we (the PoE backers and Chris Avellone fans) would be in total agreement that when it comes to Role Playing Games, using fancy, shiny visual effects as a vehicle for gameplay information presentation and even story-telling, is just slightly more important than the shrink-wrap on the game box. I thought that when Josh Sawyer proudly announced that PoE will not be a game for people who dislike reading, that the message was loud and clear. Why is it then, that we still have people here who insist that today's cinematics-first RPGs are somehow more "evolved" and "better" than what we had in the 90s when combat logs were meant to be read and studied closely and that the player, in fact HAD to pay close attention to the combat log window or risk not knowing what's really going on in both combat and the game world as a whole?