PrimeJunta

At least I got it from the names on the map (and elsewhere too). Ruins of Eír Glanfath sounds pretty Celtic to me...

Hur, our real-world physics aren't entirely internally consistent either. The Theory of Everything is yet waiting to be found, Higgs boson notwithstanding. Your statement is pretty intriguing, though. I think I can think of pretty consistent systems of fantasy physics that would permit both mundane campfires (chemical combustion) and fireballs (magical fire). I'd just have to posit some source of magical energy and then make up rules that describe how that source behaves and what magicians can do with it. What fundamental problems do you see with doing this?

Are you saying I edited that article all for nothing? Curses, foiled again.

Meh, whatevz. It's a matter of taste I guess. Personally I find outlandish weapons and armor more jarring than magic, esp. if there's an internally consistent fantasy "physics" underlying the magic. I like things to make sense. Internal consistency and all that. Of course in something as contrived as a cRPG, it's better not to think too hard since you'll certainly run into something absurd soon enough.

Uh. NetHack isn't a roguelike. Right. rec.games.roguelike.nethack on Usenet Chronology of roguelikes on Wikipedia Description of NetHack from Wikihack: "NetHack is a roguelike computer game, and the most famous and popular of its kind." Description of NetHack from Wikipedia: "NetHack is a single-player roguelike video game originally released in 1987." Seriously, NetHack is one of the first roguelikes -- it, Larn, and Moria are pretty much the games that made the term necessary. Sheesh! Edit: I most definitely am playing to win. In rogue, you win by finding the Amulet of Yendor somewhere around level 26, and then returning back to the surface with it. In NetHack, you're still looking for the Amulet of Yendor, only it's way deeper and you have scads of other stuff to do before getting it, and you have a different endgame. There may be roguelikes with no victory conditions, but they're certainly less typical of the genre. Edit edit: Okay, strictly speaking, Hack is the original roguelike; NetHack is a direct descendant of Hack that came out five years later. Yeah I've ascended (=won) both. Edit edit edit: Whee, Wikipedia is fun:

The Chinese have some pretty badass swords too, like the "horse killing sword" zhanmadao. Not sure how well that would work in melee against people, but at least it's a real thing.

Whoa, that was an entertaining meltdown. Moar plz?

I asked about this earlier, and the weapons nerd consensus was that there ain't no such thing. Double-headed spears do exist. So do weapons where the shaft or pommel is designed to be usable as well, e.g. by weighting. But no double swords, axes, or the like IRL. Sorry.

Realism != verisimilitude. I find it perfectly easy to imagine a world where the laws of nature allow a powerful wizard to shoot fireballs. However, I find it difficult to imagine a world where an orc double axe would make an effective melee weapon for a humanoid creature. A dreamworld, maybe? I would make an exception for Sauron type characters, where the appearance is merely an outward form of an inner power. By all means give them all the spiky pauldrons and outsize, impractical weapons you want. But yeah, call me conservative, but I would like weapons and armor usable by mere flesh-and-blood humanoids to look like something mere flesh-and-blood humanoids could effectively use in combat. For me personally this isn't what I'd call a showstopper, more a niggle really. But I do have a preference for worlds that are internally consistent, even if the laws of nature are radically different from ours.

I would like to see druids done as an integral part of the game world. They should have a particular standing in the culture from which they spring. They usually feel a bit out of place to me. Perhaps P:E with its Celtic inspiration will be different. Also,

That is quite true, and I didn't mean to imply the contrary. Being a good gamer is a prerequisite to being a good game designer (because you do need to understand what the artifact you're designing is supposed to be), but a good gamer with no design experience isn't likely to be any better at game design than any random dude from the street. Design is a skill. You can't really study it; you can only develop it through practice. It's also strongly related to talent -- most people simply aren't capable of becoming good designers, whereas a few pick it up almost naturally. This talent doesn't relate much to general intelligence either; it's somewhat similar to musical, artistic, or mathematical ability IMO. There are a surprising number of top-tier software designers with few or no formal qualifications. Also, Karkarov's last paragraph is very much the kind of thing I had in mind.

I think the problem with discussing level scaling is that thanks to Oblivion, it's become a proxy for The Decline. I.e., casual-friendly handholding that removes consequence and challenge from a cRPG. That's rather silly, like declaring credit cards evil because some people have gotten over their heads in debt by misusing them. But hey, let's. Time-based scaling. This would create a positive feedback loop, which is probably not a good idea. If you're ahead of the curve, you'll find the going gets easier, which pushes you even further ahead of the curve, and you'll waltz through the game too easily. If you fall behind, you'll find it harder and harder to catch up, until you hit a brick wall of difficulty. I find it hard to imagine how you could design an interesting game around this mechanic, since an early head start would be so decisive. (Good strategy games have features in place specifically to avoid such decisive early-game winning strategies, since they're particularly prone to this dynamic. Civ V, for example, allows entirely viable single-city strategies.) In any case, it would be a very bad idea for a game like P:E, with, oh, a 15-level optional dungeon to explore. Difficulty-based. This sounds like a synonym for difficulty levels. No comment. Chapter-based. Now this idea has promise. Sure, you could set up the encounters in Chapter 2 at two different levels, and have party strength at the end of Chapter 1 determine which one it gets. For Chapter 3, design them at three levels. Could work, and would have the advantage of hand-crafted encounters every time. OTOH you might get into a situation where a party that just clears the hurdle will find the going gets much tougher, which could be construed as a punishment. I believe you could mitigate this by scaling the rewards to match, though: tougher challenges would be rewarded with greater rewards. Oblivion-style. Kill it with fire. But there are other algorithmic ways to do level scaling that doesn't fall into the Oblivion trap, where avoiding levelups resulted in easier gameplay. What is it, then? From where I'm at, it's a tool that can be used to pull encounters from "boring" and "impossible" into the Goldilocks zone of enjoyable gaming. If you're using it in such a way that avoiding leveling up will make the game easier (which is exactly what happened in Oblivion), you're doing it wrong: you're punishing players for success.

I'm not in games, actually; I've only done a couple very small ones in my free time ages ago. Software is software, though, users are users, and design is design. And believe me, Val, I've come across many, many users like you over my career -- and if they have the final say over features, the project is guaranteed to crash and burn. Seen that happen too. That doesn't mean users like you are useless for feedback, though. Quite the contrary. (Although I do prefer to work with users who cop less of an attitude.) No, Val, the trick is to understand what the user needs, and then find a way to provide that. The users generally speaking don't know what they need, so they can't tell you, and what they tell you is usually wrong. So you, the designer, have to figure it out. If I was a designer on P:E, for example, I would consider much of what you've said on this thread very valuable information -- you have described quite eloquently how you like to play a game, what you value in it, what you enjoy, and what you don't enjoy. If you were paying me four meellion dollars to craft a game just for you, I could certainly figure out a way to leave out level scaling. Trouble is, I'd also have to be considering what Sharp_one, Lephys, and that jackass Juanita have been saying about how they play games, and figure out which of them I'm able to accommodate, and how. That's where features like level scaling come in. And if somebody asked me if level scaling is in, I'd probably say "Well, you'll see when it comes out, won't you?" 'Cuz it really isn't any of your -- or my -- business. That kind of decision should be left to the designers.

Because I am a professional software designer with 25 years experience at it. Duh.

Ha! That didn't take long. I win 10 internets! Thing is, gamers are not necessarily any good as game designers. These are two largely unrelated skill sets. That means their opinions about specific game design features are usually wrong. A good designer observes how they play games, listens (critically) to them explaining how they like to play games, and ignore most of what they say about how they'd like games designed. Specifically, gamers who are categorically opposed to level scaling under any circumstances are wrong. They -- even you -- would not enjoy P:E as much if it had no level scaling at all. No mind reading required, just lots of experience working with users in software design.

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. Indeed, I can even think of an example right here on this very thread! Edit: 10 internets sez Valorian can't stick the flounce. Any takers?

Er, Karkarov. NetHack has dedicated towns, merchants, and [safe] rest areas. Minetown has a guaranteed set of shops, a co-aligned temple with a priest is a guaranteed safe rest area, as is your quest's starting level. So by your excluding criterion, NetHack is not a roguelike.

Of course we know the majority is always right. Now, how many copies did Oblivion sell, again?

What defines a true "rogue-like." Hur. Blood has been spilled over matters less weighty than this. Speaking as an aficionado of roguelikes rather than someone with an authoritative dictionary, roguelike-ness includes features like - dungeon crawler - procedurally generated dungeon that's different on every playthrough (some fixed areas and fixed loot allowed) - single character - single player - fully turn-based - permadeath - swords & sorcery - keyboard controlled - ASCII graphics based (optional tilesets replacing characters are allowed) - open-source Purists will require all of the above. Others may feel that a game qualifies as roguelike even if it compromises on a couple of them. IMO Diablo has enough roguelike features that it can be meaningfully classified as one, although I can certainly understand why somebody might object. I think it depends partly on where you're coming from. If you're approaching it from the roguelike direction, as it were, its roguelike features are pretty obvious; OTOH if you're approaching it from the "isometric graphical cRPG" direction, maybe less so. Have you tried the Falcon's Eye mod for NetHack? You might be surprised at how "Diablo-like" it feels, although all it does is switch to tiled isometric POV and add a mouse-driven interface, with all other gameplay features intact.

Walp, we'll see when we'll see, won't we? I did find the crit path encounters in BG2 to be too easy towards the end of the game (and occasionally frustratingly hard in the early part of the game, before I figured out which ones were best to do first, i.e., NOT Firkraag), which detracted significantly from my experience. OTOH much of the optional content made up for it. Loved those liches. I do hope P:E will manage to do better, and provide interesting gameplay challenges even for later "optimized" playthroughs. I think MotB is a pretty good example of how to do it right in terms of level of combat challenge. That makes me feel pretty good about the prospects for P:E. (Of course epic-level D&D is ridiculous in many ways as it is, but that's a different matter.)

You do realize, Valorian, that I just explicitly stated that I would not like to see level scaling in optional areas? Crit-path level scaling is all I'm asking for, really. And I'm asking for it because I expect to be on a higher level than the design default once well into the game, due to my powergaming/completionist proclivities. Like it or not, they are not going to design the crit path with the assumption that you will have completed every bit of optional content all the time. You seem to be laboring under the misconception that I'm a casual gamer who can't handle the challenge and complexities of a tough cRPG. Well, you would be wrong about that. I've ascended most of the classes in NetHack {with no save-scumming or pudding farming} for crying out loud. The difference between you and me is that you appear to hold gamers who play games in other ways than you do in great disdain, whereas I believe there are many perfectly enjoyable and legit ways of enjoying the game and would like to see designers make an effort to accomodate as many of them as they can without compromising their overall vision. Why, other than general humanitarianism? Because I, just like you, am a minority of one, and I, just like you, will benefit if designers make an effort to accomodate such minorities.

Woah, what was that about stamina again, Val? Anyway, let me try to recap this discussion one more time, as compactly as I'm able: You appear to be saying that a game should be designed so that there's only one enjoyable way to play it, viz. complete all sidequests and make as effective a party as the system allows. Level scaling is bad because it accommodates players who, for whatever reason, do not play in this way. I disagree this position. It strikes me as contrary to the goals of a game explicitly designed to provide a variety of different experiences and significant replayability potential through open areas, large swathes of optional content, a large base of party members to draw from, and a complex and open character development system. What I'm sayin' is that a well-designed game -- especially a game designed to provide a variety of experiences etc. -- should accommodate multiple styles of players, and for such a game, especially if it is combat-heavy, well applied level scaling can help achieve this. I'm also saying that any style of player will benefit from this design approach: people who enjoy a combat challenge but ignore the lore will still find the deeper lore written for people who don't care for combat but love story makes a difference. I sincerely apologize if I've said something to upset you. That's not my intention. And since I only seem to be making you more upset as I go, I think it's best I drop this for now; in any case, I've said everything I have to say on the topic. Finally, what you're looking for would certainly be easy to mod in. All you'd have to do is set a switch that would scale all encounters to their maximum level, regardless of party strength.

Yes, dear. That's exactly what I'm saying. I commend you for your reading-comprehension skills.

Quite. Indubitably. I would add: neither is it a God-given right to expect that a game is designed, by default, for completionist, powergamer knerds, while making it nigh-on unplayable by knights and knoobs. What makes you more entitled to this type of design than the knoob to his easy-peasy waltz-through? Uh-huh. That's your pet strawman rearing up its golden head again. Looks like you caught yourself with your next message though. I commend you for that. Perhaps next time you'll take a deep breath before posting, hmm? Not really in a computer game without permadeath, though. You can abandon a character for whatever reason and start another or dump the whole game, naturally, but you can't really lose since dying and reloading from a save is more or less an expected part of gameplay. (From your other post:) You're still taking examples of level scaling done wrong. I.e., scaling an encounter to the precise level of your character/party. I agree, that would be boring, as it would eliminate all variability in challenge, and would make everything the same. It's precisely the kind of ham-handed brute-force thing Oblivion is infamous for, and I'm quite sure the P:E devs aren't dumb enough to do it that way. I repeat: I am totally opposed to brute-force level scaling where all encounters are scaled precisely to your level. However, there are many other ways to do it, many of which have been explored in this thread. Since you appear to have missed them and don't appear to be very interested in hearing what I have to say about them, though, I won't waste your time by exploring them more here. Anyhoo, since you didn't address any of the points I raised, I'll take that as a concession. Whatever your feelings about level scaling -- and, yes, it will be in the game -- I hope both of us will enjoy it anyway.

TLDR: Valorian: "Games should be balanced for knerds. Anyone not playing to maximize his power must suffer. Therefore, the crit path must be scaled assuming that the player has completed all optional content and carefully leveled up and optimized his party. Level scaling detracts from this and is therefore of Satan." PrimeJunta: "Games should be balanced for knights, under the assumption that they haven't been able to fully optimize their character and party and have completed a reasonable number of sidequests, but are not completionists. Judiciously used, level scaling is a tool that can be used to balance the experience even allowing for different party strength in different parts of the game. Knerds should be accommodated through higher difficulty levels." Strawman much? How is it a strawman when you said this yourself: "That without level scaling, the main quest would be so easy it's boring for the most enthusiastic players. Why wouldn't you want it scaled up to your level?" I think what you're saying I'm saying is that the crit path should be designed to be ridiculously easy no matter what. Whereas I'm actually saying that it should be designed for knights, in which case it would be ridiculously easy for knerds. If that is indeed what you're saying I'm saying, you are misrepresenting my position in order to make it easier to argue against it. Strawman. And I think that that is indeed more or less what you're saying I'm saying, based on what you're saying next. Where's the problem? Respec is confirmed. Easy difficulty is confirmed. Adventurer's Hall is confirmed. Awww, poor player - he chose a (much) less than optimal build and missed side quests because he didn't bother to explore or tried a bit harder. Let's scale the crit path to his level so he can finish this BOOK without any inconveniences. Oh, but it's not a book, it's a GAME. A game where choices matter, where you need to level-up your party to be good combatants or diplomats or sneakers or good at something. If you fail to do so you have: Respec is confirmed. Easy difficulty is confirmed. Adventurer's Hall is confirmed. And you can always backtrack and try to finish more side quests. Yup, that's the strawman again, right there. Please re-read my post defining knights and knerds, and then come back to this if you're so inclined. It would also help if you calmed down a little; things get unnecessarily complicated if you get too emotional. There you go, the same strawman again. Once again: I'm not arguing for scaling things down. I'm arguing for scaling them up. Once again: design for knights, accommodate knerds through judicious use of level scaling in selected areas of the game plus harder difficulty levels for repeat play-throughs, accomodate knoobs through easy difficulty levels. Not what you're saying I'm saying. Not talking about the main quest anymore, eh? If so, that ain't quite so either. The trouble with areas scaled to a level is that you level up when going through them. So there isn't much point in having "zones" with many more similarly leveled areas than it takes to level you up through them. Otherwise you'll have a couple of levels with approriate challenge and reward, and then many more that are boringly easy and bring no rewards. Or if you make the level spread bigger, that inverted difficulty curve again, depending on which area you stumble upon first. In other words, you want to frustrate players who aren't knerds, right? The fools must suffer! If they're not as knerdy as ME! Ooookay. And you're strongly opposed to level scaling of any form, but totally cool with the option of changing difficulty level on the fly? Oookay again, I guess. I disagree strongly. Yes, that would mean that the level scaling was done poorly. Just like it would be a slap in the face if the final boss died in one hit because you were overpowered. Either way I'd feel cheated. Doing sidequests should absolutely have an effect on the crit path, but the effect should not push it out of the band of enjoyable gaming, into frustratingly difficult or boringly easy territory. Yup, that, again, would be an example of level scaling done wrong. That does not mean it should not be done at all. The level scaling rules of thumb are pretty simple really: (1) If doing lots of sidequests makes the crit path harder to complete relative to the actual power of your party, then you've overdone it. (2) If doing lots of sidequests makes the crit path so easy the game loses its challenge, then you haven't done it enough.