Stun

True. So you're ok with situations where there's no level scaling at all...? It was in the original discussion about level scaling. I will find it and link it. Here, let me help you with that. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60889-level-scaling-dont-scale-individual-enemies-scale-encounters/page-3?do=findComment&comment=1219467 http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60248-level-scaling/ Find it for me, now. Lets see. Oh yea, there's no difference. And there won't be a difference unless that party is 12th level, and stumbles upon that same ogre, in the same area, and suddenly that ogre has broken the lore, broken the setting, and is, magically, an epic level ogre.... for no reason than the fact that the party happened to enter that area at a much higher level. I did. In fact, I did YOUR research for you. Admit your error, now.

If the developers want that party to encounter a level 1 rat, then by definition, that encounter is not level scaled. Prove it. Link me to where Josh says any such thing. We have heard josh say that if there is ANY level scaling at all in PoE, it will be only in the main quest. And even then, he gave no such specifics. Well, if the game boasts of level scaling, then he'd probably know before even buying the game, that encounters will be balanced based on level scaling. I knew Skyrim would have level scaling about 1 year before ever playing it. Didn't you? No it's not. It's just leveling. And specifically, it's a unique instance of leveling. If there was a system of level scaling involved, then all Ogres everywhere would level either relative to the party, or else based on the game's chapter.

Specifically, their visions of balanced encounters. Remember, there's two directions, here. When a game's encounters are strictly level scaled, it will also mean that a high level party will never enter map and face level 1 monsters, even if the storyline suggests that this map is the home of a small pack of feral chickens, led by a lone Xvart. Sure, after wandering too far off and getting his ass handed to him the first time. But we weren't really discussing meta-gaming, since obviously there will be no fear (level scaling or not), once the exact nature of the encounter has already been revealed. So level scaling is ok if it's tied to elapsed game time instead of party level? I didn't give an example of level scaling. And I most certainly didn't give an example of a level scaled encounter. I gave an example of a completely UNSCALED scenario (a quest, in fact) were a game's monster simply leveled, because of his Own actions... OR DIDN'T. (the party may decide to kill him before he levels at all.)

Nonsense. Level scaling cannot ever instill a fear into the player that his party might stumble into a situation not meant for him to tackle, since the whole POINT of level scaling is to scale encounters so that they're not too far off in either direction from the party's level. They shouldn't. An Ogre should be totally free to gain levels by wandering around and adventuring, killing things, etc. just like the party. A creative developer can even go so far as to give an observing party updates on this Ogre's progress. But who ever said that this Ogre's advancement had to scale with the party's level? It doesn't. And it shouldn't, as it would totally ruin an otherwise potentially awesome mini-storyline (should the party seek him out and kill him off while he's still a weak, level 1 n00b Ogre, or should they ignore him until he amasses insane power and ambushes them later, when he's hit the level cap but they haven't, and gained an army of followers/admirers as a result of his vast adventuring)

Yes. And I'll go ahead and openly admit here that "perfectly balanced classes" is not at the very top of the list of things that I judge a game's greatness on. But I'll try to be fair even with that. I don't think Warriors should get the same number of non-combat skills as rogues. Not exactly. The "rogue skills", like trap disarming, pickpocketing, stealth etc. were cross-class skills for everyone not of the rogue class, meaning those other classes are only able to put 1 point in them for every 2 levels they gain, not every level like a rogue can. Short answer: Yes, I'd be OK with that. Long answer: This is indeed a huge situation-dependent wrinkle. One that requires us to factor in Attribute scores, the nature of the weapon enchantments that a game has, how effective archery is in relation to melee in the game's system, and in 3d games, how common ground-to-air combat is.

I have a question for people who actually support Level scaling. OK, You have an open (or semi open) world. You're done with the obligatory prologue and you're ready to go out exploring. Which of the following makes you more excited/happy: 1) That secure, comfortable feeling that everything's going to be ok, because the devs would never toss an encounter your way that you're not powerful enough to handle? Or: 2) That ominous feeling of the Unknown.... that lingering thought in your head that maybe exploring comes with definite, sometimes even unfair, risks, not just rewards, and you could very well stumble upon something not meant to be tackled early on?

This is not level scaling. This is simply making the game linear. As for final Boss battles being the toughest of all encounters. That's not level scaling either, unless that final boss encounter's toughness changes based on the level of the party when they encounter it. Which should never, ever, EVER happen. It would cheapen the experience. It would kill all semblance of accomplishment. Not quite sure what you're saying here, but I can say that scaled encounters that occur in game tutorials and prologues are generally not part of any (rational) Level Scaling vs. No Level Scaling discussion. Also, the best designed game worlds should Always be *set*. That's why they're called Settings. Level scaling typically rears its ugly head, then proceeds to ruin settings when devs decide that the setting should mutate based on the party's level. <gag> Thankfully, Obsidian knows better than to do something so obnoxiously banal. Thus things like the Mega Dungeon will become progressively tougher the deeper you go down it regardless of what your party's level is. (Sawyer has actually said that the difficulty progression of the Mega dungeon will be much faster than party level progression, meaning it's going to be set up gloriously old school-like: You can tackle it whenever you want, but if you're a level 3 party of squishies, you'll eventually discover, the hard and painful way, that the world does not cater you just because you think that it should due to "balance" or whatever. (and you have no idea how rosy I'm feeling on the inside, as I ponder Sawyer's comment here, then think about you.... then ponder his comment some more....then think about you...) You mean what if a game sacrificed its own world's integrity by generating its encounters on the fly based on your level, like some arcade game? Of course it would be bad. Is this slight change in numbers based on party levels? Yes, that would be ungood. (it would also cease being random since it's based on level now) BG1 did that. It did not need to. A game world with exploration should not CARE who is exploring it. It should simply be there to be explored. Thus, if the player stumbles too far off the beaten path and into an area where he finds himself way over his head.... then by golly, lephys, those are the risks involved with exploration. Solution: high-tail it out of there and come back later, when you've gained more skills. Stop asking for your hand to be held.

That's a fairly accurate assessment of my stance, yes. There's more to it of course, but that's good enough. You mean, like, if they weren't more skilled at picking locks, disarming traps, silently sneaking into places they're not supposed to be, spying, scouting, and laying traps? That's a loaded question. Of course my entire stance would change. If they weren't the *best* at this stuff, they wouldn't even be rogues, would they. But that's a good point actually. Classless systems can potentially be the best systems. Because the player can pick and choose the specific skills he's going to build his clean-slate character with, without having to adhere to any actual skill sets or arch-types. So of course, if we're dealing with that kind of system we wouldn't be having a rogue vs. warrior discussion in the first place. Well, again, I'll wait and see how everything works in PoE. We simply don't have the whole picture yet to make a judgement call on this matter. But there are a couple of specific things that Josh has said. He HAS said that while every class can sneak and pick locks (for example), none will be better at it than a rogue who chooses to focus on those skills. And this is no different than how 3e D&D does it. That's the way it should be. What I'm worried about though is combat. Josh has already defined Rogues as "Heavy Hitters". But since we haven't had the Warrior class update yet, we don't know what that really means. In that case, no. I wouldn't be in favor of such a system. Warriors should always do more damage in melee (be it against single or multiple targets) than Rogues. At best, if we're dead set on giving rogues something "equal or better" then fine, lets gives rogues better defensive skills in combat. Let them be more agile. Let them survive a fireball or sword swing by dodging it, instead of absorbing it with a smile like a warrior.

Also the D'arnise keep and the druid grove level scaled. If you do them early, you will face standard trolls. Do them later, and you'll see some spirit trolls. The Planar sphere scales. The golem inhabitants of the engine room are strictly level scaled. Early on, you will face nothing tougher than stone and clay golems. Do it later, and you'll face the entire golem bestiary (Iron, Adamantine etc). Spellhold scales on dungeon level 2. Before you encounter Dace, there's an undead pack encounter. At lower levels it's just ghouls, mummies and skeleton warriors. At higher levels they toss a lich into the mix. The Unseeing Eye quest scales beyond just replacing Gauths with Beholders. That undead area with the Zombie mayor scales as well. Early on, you face Ghouls, Ghasts and Mummies. Later on there's greater mummies and a lich. The Umar Hills scales. Early on it's just shadows and shadow wolves. Later on it's almost exclusively Shadow Fiends. Baldurs Gate 1 had level scaling. If you enter a wilderness area, and your party is 1st or 2nd level, you'll face a couple of kobolds, or a couple of wolves, or a couple of hobgoblins. But enter that same wilderness area with a 7th level party and you'll face a half dozen wolves, a small army of kobolds, or an obscene number of Hobgoblins all bunched together. I wish I could say that BG1 and BG2 did Level scaling right, as opposed to Elder Scrolls and Dragon Age doing it wrong. But they did not. Because you can't do level scaling right. It is wrong conceptually. Always. Level scaling is Degenerate developer behavior. It is the lazy and cheap solution to the problem of: "how do I maintain encounter balance when dealing with a variable level party in a non-linear game?"

Many games do this mix-n-match, blurring of the lines that you are describing. In the Dragon Age games you can build a rogue who does much more damage than a warrior but is not nearly as resilient as one. Other games are very strict, in the name of their God Balance, so naturally they give Rogues exactly the same number of combat skills as warriors, exactly the same damage output as warriors, and then they give them super defensive/dodge skills to match a warrior's brute resilience. And this is, of course, completely separate from all the NON-combat skills they give rogues that warriors Don't get. The end result is.... endless powergamer debate about which class is better at combat but virtually no discussion about which one is better outside the battle field. Ironically, that's the opposite of balance. ^IMO (you did ask for my opinion here, right?) This shouldn't be. Fighters are already the simplest of the core four classes by nature. They can only do one thing: Fight. So they should be the best at it. Period. Are they using different weapons? Or are we dealing with a limited use "whirlwind attack" ability that we've given to Fighters but not Rogues? If it's the first one, then I'd be all right with it, since in that situation you're giving the fighter access to a type of weapon that can damage more than one foe at once. If it's the second one then we'd need more information. How often may the fighter employ this ability? And is he restricted to just attacking 2 foes at once? If there's just 1 foe on the battle field then does that mean that the Rogue is better in this situation since he's doing more damage to that one foe?

I'll take a shot at this, since I happen to also hold the viewpoint that rogues shouldn't be equals to fighters on the battlefield. A couple of caveats, however, before I give my explanation. First, I will not be speaking in PoE terms, since I don't know the specifics behind its mechanics (and neither does anyone else here) and Second, I WILL occasionally be using D&D terms but only because it's easier (for me at least) to conceptualize and explain things in those terms. But such explanations can easily be applied to any other system you wish to apply them to. So here goes. By saying that fighters should be better at fighting than Rogues I mean: 1) They should hit harder on average. (higher damage output. But note: I have no problems with rogues occasionally being able to "spike damage" more than fighters...ie. backstabs) 2) They should be more resilient (more hitpoints, be more resistant to debilitating combat effects, like knockdown and stagger and stun) 3) They should have more combat skills (They should hit more and miss less; They should get More weapon proficiencies; and more weapon style choices (Yeah, that also means that they should be better at dual-wielding than rogues, contrary to even the D&D trope), they should get more attacks per round and have more melee talents, etc.) Oh and this should go without saying: I'm using superlatives here, NOT absolutes. Meaning, I still believe that you should be able to, if you wish, build a combat-centric rogue who's still great at fighting... even a master on the battle field....just not as good at fighting as a fighter.

...have Ridiculous level scaling, a teeny-tiny bestiary, A Threat generation and cooldown mechanic ripped straight out of WoW, The warden shuffle, Molasses-speed 2-handed melee, the Breath-taking choice of three (3!) classes.... Yeah, I get what you're saying now. <gag> Well, DA:O has a decent character face generator. It also has 6 origin prologues, which was an amazing feature. But we were discussing combat, remember? And if you'll notice, My avatar does not contain DA:O combat footage. Indeed. Cain even points that out in one of the earlier updates. Cooking is a hobby of his and he used cooking for an analogy about this. He said something along the lines of: if you give him a picture of a cake, and tell him to "make one like the picture", he could do it, but that it's a lot harder than if you simply told him to make you the best tasting cake he can make.

Viable? What does that even mean? In any event, No way. No Way, with a capital N. I most definitely will *not* accept PoE having combat equal to DA:O. Not when Obsidian has all the inherent advantages on its side to make PoE's combat at least 5 times as good. ( It's a PC exclusive, which means it doesn't have to adhere to console limitations; It's an Isometric Top down view game, which means better natural tactical battlefield play; It has 11 diverse classes, which means more combat party variety; And it has Tim Cain, one of the elite industry masters at designing great combat mechanics) If after all of this they still give us something equal to DA:O, then they will deserve whatever shame and scorn that gets hurled their way.

But they're not an abstraction of fatigue, since each individual spell is on its own timer. For example, you're a wizard and you've got a bunch of spells. Ok. You cast Fireball. Fireball now is on cool down. But that doesn't stop you from immediately casting inferno which is a far more powerful version of fireball. If cooldowns were an abstraction of fatigue then logic would dictate that you wouldn't be able to do that. No, Lets not sugar coat stupid mechanics. We all know the point of cooldowns: To keep mages relevant in an action-RPG... to keep them competitive, minute by minute with Melee characters (because heaven forbid mages actually be *different* than their melee counterparts) I don't disagree. Which is why I don't oppose a well done Mana-based spell casting system, which IS a true fatigue abstraction. I just oppose the cooldown system... because it's NOT. Theoretically, the more powerful magic is, the more limits on it you're going to need in order to maintain <ahem> Balance </ahem>. Sadly, most modern RPGs dilute magic and thus these limits become pointless practices... arbitrary even. But in, say, the IE games, Magic was super-powerful, so these limits were indeed needed, and DID make total logical sense.

If we replace "classes" with "roles" the discussion we're having on this thread doesn't really change. We'd just be using different terminology. You'd have someone saying: NO, my... "Roguish-opportunist" should NOT be equal in fighting skills as my..."Full-Time-Battlefield-Dweller". Then someone else would come along and ask: Why not? And the answer to that would be: Because what would be the point in dividing the classes into different roles when the system will just allow for all classes to do all roles equally? LOL

Well, to be fair, this IS one of the things from Pen and Paper that's never explained or implemented accurately in cRPGs. In Pen and Paper the process is a little more arduous than simply "Oops, I only memorized this spell once, therefore, I can only cast it once before it's wiped clean from my memory". The Vancian spell preparation process that goes on the night before typically involves the wizard actually preparing each instance of that spell (pretty much casting each one in its entirety, spell components and all, except for the final few incantations, which he saves for battle when he's ready to actually unleash the arcane energies that he has built up from the previous night's prep-session). And I don't find this process any more "silly" than, say, a cooldown system where it's: "OK, I just cast fireball. Now I have to count backwards from to 30 to 0 in my head before I can cast it again!) But back on topic. I think the Grimoire system that PoE is going to be using sounds great. And I'm fairly certain that even the Die-hard Vancian-ists are going to like it. Because it's not a whole lot different under the hood than the vancian model. You're still preparing the spells you're going to use ahead of time (if you didn't put Fireball in your grimoire, then no Fireball for you!). There's still a the Per-day/per encounter limitation. You still have to search the game world to find new spells. etc.

Considering the fact that (A)D&D did not invent a single arch-type...ever, I'd say, No. It's NOT because of (A)D&D. Tajerio, when simply asking "Is it because that's how AD&D did it?", is clearly asking "Is it because AD&D totally invented the universe?". I don't know how you interpret our cryptic, cryptic words so perfectly. What? I think I answered his question as specifically, as civilly and as unassumingly as possible. Oh, I wouldn't say that. Well, I guess in a game like Icewind Dale, where combat makes up 99% of all conflict, then yes, a rogue skill-set can be seen as underpowered. But I'm pretty sure we weren't talking about your average, one-dimensional dungeon crawler. Instead, we were discussing the rogue arch-type, and specifically, rogue in cRPGs as a whole. Which can be an entirely different experience. A Party-based RPG where scouting can give you an edge; where disarming traps on the battlefield can actually be the difference between winning and dying horribly; where laying traps can mean the same; where information gathering is rewarded; where stealing is beneficial, etc. Will suddenly see the Rogue be just as useful as the Fighter even though he's not as good at fighting. And THAT is balance.

You're right. Let's give the Thief ONLY the ability to: A) Enter Stealth mode. B) Pick Pockets. C) Pick Locks. There, that's fine. He never even levels up or anything (because why would he need to? His stealth makes him completely invisible and undetectable, and he automatically can pick any lock or pocket), and as long as he has absolutely no opposition or resistance, he can definitely stab you in the heart from behind. Otherwise, he's dead. That would be perfectly acceptable, since there's absolutely no reason to even consider balance at all. <sigh> Is that what he's suggesting, Lephys? Is that what your head is interpreting from his post? Come down now. Thanks. Rogues should most definitely become (as they gain levels) absolute masters in their own unique set of defined skills, and that includes the sneaky, stealthy, thievery peripheral-to-fighting stuff. It does NOT mean that they should be also be equal to fighters in fighting. And this is BECAUSE of Balance. Otherwise no one would ever want to use a fighter (why be a fighter, when you can be a Rogue and be just as good in combat as a fighter PLUS be the best at the stealthy, thief-y, sneaky skillset?) This is a no-brainer to everyone who hasn't been fully seduced by Skyrim, where The Archmage can become the leader of the Companions as he rules the Thieves guild.

Sorry for resurrecting this post from all the way back on page one.... I've never quite understood this. Why is it that so many people insist that rogues shouldn't be as good in combat as fighters? Is it because of the name (in which case I'd wonder why magic users get to be better than fighters)? Is it because that's how AD&D did it? Or is it something else? I'm genuinely curious. Considering the fact that (A)D&D did not invent a single arch-type...ever, I'd say, No. It's NOT because of (A)D&D. I think it might stem from something much, much, much, older than AD&D. Fighters Fight. That's what they do. That's what they've always done since the very first battle. Fighting is what defines them. Rogues on the other hand, have always been a different profession. Rogues steal. They scout. They skulk in shadows. They smuggle. They play with Poison. They enter a building through the 2nd floor, instead of kicking down the front gate, and brandishing their weapons in anticipation of a siege. etc. Even when they're hired to assassinate someone, they try to do it in a way where they won't have to actually engage in any fighting at all. When a Rogue fights, it's because something went wrong. So you ask why Rogues shouldn't be as good at being fighters as fighters? I would think the answer is Obvious: because it's not their area of expertise. If you're being sued, You're not going to run to your Dentist and ask him to be your Lawyer, are you?

LOL Hilarious that you'd cite SoZ, as one of its Sorcerer mechanics flat out eliminates your main gripe here. Sorcerers in SoZ, when leveling up, can replace those "wrong" spells they chose with different ones. Of course that still doesn't keep SoZ from being a complete piece of crud; a poor man's Elder Scrolls (which you probably love, since mages in the ES games don't have to deal with "tedious book keeping")

Personally, I rather enjoy it when a game throws an occasional scenario at you where you're stripped of your material possessions and forced to fight without your precious gear. (like a "Captured!" situation) Keep in mind that such scenarios don't just hinder spell-book-using Mages. They also hurt melee specialists, who must now fight without weapons. And Clerics, who can't cast their spells either since they've been stripped of their holy symbols. Inevitably though, these situations never last long in video games. Usually, in the very prison cell you're in, or immediately thereafter, you begin finding loot.... like spare weapons, spell scrolls, or a conveniently placed corpse of a dead priest who's clutching a holy symbol etc.

Oh, I wouldn't call Halaster Blackcloak or Khelbin Arunson "nerdlings".

Icewind dale 2 lets you come close: It's got: 1) Chill Touch 2) Snilloc's Snowball Swarm 3) Icelance 4) Ice Storm 5) Otiluke's Freezing sphere 6) Fireshield (blue) 7) Cone of Cold And, you can multi-class anything, so one's "ice Sorceress" could take a couple of druid levels in order to add Frost Fingers, Ice blade, and Ice Dagger to her arsenal. And of course, rounding out the build with adequate weapons is a given. So equip returning frost darts, Glacial Darts, frost Axe and ice axes, and that Frost Dragon Helm, and there you go, a virtually viable Ice Sorceress build....for the suicidal glutton-for-punishment player.

I suppose that due to the culture-changing popularity of the Harry potter series, this is how people view Mages nowadays. But it didn't use to be like that. Not too long ago, mages were not seen as weaklings hiding behind their toys, so much as ultra-powerful, miracle workers with long beards, who could... you know... part the Red Sea, utter devastating ancient curses against whole civilizations, and raise armies of the dead to do their bidding, even as they live out their solitary existence in giant foreboding towers that no sane person would dare try to tresspass.

Thankfully, this game will also have Rods and Scepters, so such brawls might at least see 2 twig wielders battling out with different-looking twigs!