Lephys

Haha. Alright... I vote we stick to non-overall scaling, then.

If you're character's wielding a bladed weapon, will not every combat encounter be a "cut scene"?

I dunno... I mean, I'm not offended in any way by the Druid. What? Ohhhhhhh...

Or, you know... it's both. The exact same entity "adjusts" itself to whatever you are. Mechanically, you're fighting the same enemy, but it's always different, based 100% upon your character's progression. If it's not adjusting the enemy, how is it not? If it wasn't some person-duplicating creature, and it was just some generic orc, and it never existed because you never ran into it before, but it was always your level, what would be the difference? That it wasn't duplicating you? Wow, that seems really functionally important. My whole point is that the sheer act of adjustment isn't problematic. The specific usage of it, and whether or not it makes sense, is all there is to question. A creature in the world that takes on the form of its foe? That makes sense. It's not just some randomly forced mechanic. All the guards standing around you in a town when you level up after defeating some thugs who ambushed you suddenly all also gaining a level and/or changing? Nonsensical (and pointless). There are plenty of other situations/reasons to "adjust" things, and ways to do it in a sensible fashion, and they aren't "there's a thing you could possibly fight, and it's not your level." They're very specific scenarios, and a 1:1 adjustment is not always what is called for. 99% of any and all problems people have with level-scaling (and have brought up in this discussion) have to do with problems with the specific implementation of level scaling. It's like saying "all these games keep giving enemies way too many hitpoints... obviously, the usage of hitpoints to measure damage/life is inherently terrible."

I think "color smudges" might be a bit of an exaggeration. This is the age of like... quadruple the resolution of the old IE games, and even in those you could see details on the peeps. Just because it's more macro details (general "oh, that's chain" textures, and general shapes of armor pieces, coloring of filigree, etc.) doesn't mean it's all just tiny little blurry smudges. This isn't Starcraft, afterall. Our characters aren't going to be that tiny.

^ True, but, in all fairness, by the very definition of "sell," selling it is putting money into Activision's hands, too.

Hey... lost things were made to be found... and subsequently equipped.

^ I feel ya, Faerunner. Obviously, we'll have to start a new game with every single race, all at the start, then play each one for approximately 15 minutes at a time. Do a quest with Class A, save, load Class B and do the same quest, on until Class Omega, then progress further with Class A, rinse, and repeat. Totally doing it...

*shrug*... I'm fond of mechanics explanations of pretty much any kind. Of course, I know that's one of the things that's the last to get tweaked to "finality" (with specific values and such).

^ I'm on it! *action relay!... followed by an action roll, for good measure*

Remember... A little polish goes a long way. And use two coats!

One thing I'm curious about, with all this new-ish knowledge of specifically how recovery time fits into ability usage, is if there will be any (probably very few, for various reasons) "instant-use" abilities that are usable even while recovery is going on. Any at all. That could be kind of interesting. Of course, those would have to be pretty limited-use (once per encounter/rest or so). What immediately comes to mind are the disengagement abilities that were mentioned. Because, thus far, the only thing that seems to happen "instantly" (without conforming to the rhythm of the rest of combat actions, and can even occur during your recovery time) are Attacks of Opportunity. So, maybe we get very limited-use things like Grimoire Slam, to be used at our discretion to make that engagement escape/"dodge" at the opportune moment? *shrug* Just a thought.

If it makes you feel better to label that an "exception" and hold to the rule that the act of adjusting something that's only ever going to exist in a single instance in a playthrough is somehow inherently flawed and problematic and could never be useful or feasible ever, then congratulations to you as well. ^_^

'Tis a good question. Although, even if they don't come wrapped, imagine if you get yours, then immediately shrink-wrap it. It would be that much rarer. The ONLY shrink-wrapped collector's edition in existence! Yeah, I know it doesn't work like that. But, it should, u_u...

^ Isn't it counter-productive to directly address someone you're ignoring? . I jest. Just for giggles. Honestly, it's just courtesy to let someone know you've put them on the ignore list, however they translate that communication (as hostile or what-have-you).

A) You know for a fact that you have no idea whether or not I've ever played BG, so I don't know how you can not be ashamed of yourself for deciding that you somehow know something you don't B) I have played BG, and BG 2, and the Icewind Dales. In fact, the only IE game I haven't played is Torment. However, I am far from an expert on any of those games, nor have I ever claimed to be. This discussion with you isn't worth it anymore, as usual, because you get so aggressively defensive about everything that the mere fact I'm not simply agreeing with you from the very get-go automatically means I'm somehow being hostile. I am considering all the things that you've said, and you're ignoring my numerous pointings-out of that. I do apologize if my words were not specific enough for my point and were misleading, as that is my fault and not yours if you mistake me, but my point is not that the pros of additional characters, in any given real-time situation ever, will consistently outweigh the cons. Arguing against that is not arguing against me, and telling me that's what I'm arguing does not make it so. It just makes you waste your e-breath. The thing that was brought up by people (and backed by you...) was that the IE games (or, I guess specifically, the BG games?) are actually easier with approximately 4 characters than with 6. My immediate response to that was that I don't see how it's possible that having those 2 extra characters consistently and absolutely makes the game harder no matter what. So, again, you're sitting here trying to point out to me the nature of variables in flux, and yet my argument from the get-go was to basically say "I don't see how the extra people aren't just as potentially beneficial as they are potentially detrimental." I don't hate you, Hiro. You're just really, really frustrating. And that's not intended to make you feel bad. It's simply information. I realize I'm frustrating, too, and I don't mean to be, just like I believe you don't mean to be. But, I'm trying my darnedest to be less frustrating to you and anyone else, and I feel like: A) You just don't care whether or not I even try. And... B) You're not really trying, because you think just nothing you say can possibly be frustrating to anyone else? I dunno. That's what it seems like, and I'm aware that what seems to be and what is are not always the same thing. Anywho, if the only thing you take from this post is to simply maintain that my "default" is to arbitrarily argue, then I literally have no idea what else to say to you, and I'm honestly considering just avoiding even interacting with you in the future, if only just to spare you, as well as myself (and possibly others that get caught up in the middle of it) the wasted time. Maybe our minds are just oil and water. *shrug*

^ See, I'd agree. I wouldn't want that thing to be anything less than a unique creature/encounter, but it'd be pretty interesting. And it's functionally just a level-scaled encounter. Not only that, but it's 100% scaled, to exactly you. And yet, even that's not fundamentally wrong, specifically because of how it's done. Thus is my point. Back to any notion of actually implementing such an encounter, I probably wouldn't want it to just be an exact mirror of your whole party. But, it might be cool if, say, it always copied your main character (but then was a bit more powerful than you, such that your whole party isn't just fighting exactly your main character). In the event of a solo playthrough, you'd just be fighting a more powerful form of yourself. And, the thing is, just because it had all the same abilities at its disposal does not mean it would form the same tactics out of them as you would. So that would be pretty interesting. *shrug* Annnnnnywho...

^ That's just how we're made, as Humans, Tauron. It's why some people dislike fantasy but love almost the exact same thing in sci-fi form, and vice versa. Stuff like that. We're all just... randomly-generated? Haha. Anywho, I honestly hope that it's not bad enough for anyone that they can't enjoy the game. If it is, it'll just be sad-sauce. I'd hate for something to just turn out to be so ferociously contrary to someone's preferences that they can't even enjoy a game they helped fund.

Not to you, it isn't. Also, what if there were a creature in the world that took on the form of whatever threatened it? Like a shadow-you/doppleganger. Would it be wrong for that thing to not remain some static level while you progress beyond it? Or would it be okay for lots of other stuff in the game to do that, while that creature offered a unique scenario?

Hahaha...

I don't disagree. I acknowledged the existence of exceptions (the wolf example). I apologize for not expressly stating that that was meant to acknowledge that not all foes will be subject to all the same factors. I should've done so. In general, though, anything that can and would feasibly rest (orcs, kobolds, etc.) shouldn't just stay up all night and/or not attempt to bandage their wounds or anything while your party sets up a triage facility for the night 100 meters away. Even wolves, when it comes to healing, should "rest," in the abstract sense of the word. The real-life process of lying in bed for 3 months while your sword slashes heal up has been abstracted, in the game, to an 8-hour rest period. Thus, it stands to reason that anything else that could biologically recover from wounds should have the same abstraction of rest-healing. Again, though... exceptions. Wolves don't apply bandages and salves to themselves, so maybe they'd heal less overnight than Humanoids. Etc.

^ True, but if all your "impoverished" people can afford food and shelter on a daily basis, as opposed to half of them being unable to do so, that's an improvement despite their relative financial status.

No worries. . It's still something I have no problem discussing. I just didn't know if I was having a blond moment or not.

Sorry about that, Virsalus. The Order's had this thread going since the beginning, apparently (I've only been the title-collector for a couple of months now), and then the backer portal popped into existence, and I'm still honestly not sure exactly where those survey answers go. 8P

No, but always being able to kite foes because of completely inaccurate game world physics has always been horribly lacking combat design. In games in which its intended (the action-y "simply don't ever get hit" shooters and stuff), it's no longer really kiting, because it's the only way you can fight -- you're just a ranged attacker that's shooting when you can and avoiding damage so you don't lose the game. However, in an RPG with tactical combat, your ranged combatants aren't supposed to magically be capable of never having to lose their range advantage, all by themselves.