Level cap

[aktus]

I 've just come back from the LA forum, and it seems to be told that there won't be any level cap. But i remember reading here that it was on 30. Which statement is true?

[The Coordinator]

I 've just come back from the LA forum, and it seems to be told that there won't be any level cap. But i remember reading here that it was on 30. Which statement is true?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Does it really matter if you reach level 30 or 50?

[The Dark Master]

I 've just come back from the LA forum, and it seems to be told that there won't be any level cap. But i remember reading here that it was on 30. Which statement is true?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Does it really matter if you reach level 30 or 50?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes it does! for me at least. I want to reach lv50, for that means more powerful characters, and either shorter time between lvups or longer game, both okay for me!

[Darth Ni]

I 've just come back from the LA forum, and it seems to be told that there won't be any level cap. But i remember reading here that it was on 30. Which statement is true?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Does it really matter if you reach level 30 or 50?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes it does! for me at least. I want to reach lv50, for that means more powerful characters, and either shorter time between lvups or longer game, both okay for me!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I read on the X-BOX forum that it was 50.

 

I 've just come back from the LA forum, and it seems to be told that there won't be any level cap. But i remember reading here that it was on 30. Which statement is true?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Does it really matter if you reach level 30 or 50?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not if you have a savegame editor

[aktus]

so you mean that it's either 20, 30, 50 or infinite. Thanks

[draakh_kimera]

It's fifty. Super lame...

[Darth Sun_Tzu]

I heard that there was no cap but lvl 50 was the highest acheiveable by fair means.

[Darth333]

There is a cap and it's level 50. Here is a screenshot of the exptable.2da file:

[Darth Sketch]

so wait... can that be edited to make it like 999???

[Darth333]

No, level cap is hardcoded.

[Darth Sketch]

o well ....50 is better than 20

[Judge Hades]

No, it is not.

[Darth Sketch]

Hades ive learned to tune you out by now... simply because you are THE most negative person on the Internet.. so again 50 is better than 20

[Astatine]

No, it is not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Disagree. Level caps suck if they become an issue, because then once you've capped the game starts violating one of the things that simulate the world (and thereby help with the suspension of disbelief) -- that with experience your character becomes more skilled. The overly low cap was one of Baldur's Gate's flaws...

 

I would suggest that the cap should be set above what is typically achieved in-game so that characters don't hit it, but not too far above, so that the devs don't have to waste time balancing unused levels.

 

What you mean to say is (if I may make so bold), being able to achieve level 50 (as opposed to level 20) sucks, and as for that I'll reserve judgment until I've played the game...

[Judge Hades]

Considiering that Star Wars d20 Has no rules for epic levels (levels above 20) it does suck.

[213374U]

so  again 50 is better than 20

No, it isn't.

 

 

I would suggest that the cap should be set above what is typically achieved in-game so that characters don't hit it, but not too far above, so that the devs don't have to waste time balancing unused levels.

You have a point. The main issue with the XP curve in this game is how fast levels are gained. To have such a high level gain rate, they need to have a lot of levels for a game of this length. If the level gain rate was say, halved, there would be no need to raise the level cap past 20 in the first place. But then again, the 'casual gamer' would be pissed.

[Judge Hades]

Because the casual gamer is a lamer. BWAAHAAAHAAAAA!

 

I am going to go through the 2da files of kotOR 2 when I get it and planing on giving them a visceral touch up.

[Astatine]

Because the casual gamer is a lamer.  BWAAHAAAHAAAAA!

 

I am going to go through the 2da files of kotOR 2 when I get it and planing on giving them a visceral touch up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you do, could you post them? I'd be interested to see if a, er, "more hardcore ruleset" works. Besides, with a bit of playtesting from some other people here it's more likely to come out well balanced

 

(of course it'd run the risk of being deleted, since LucasArts appear to frown upon anything remotely related to "modding", but that's no reason to not try )

 

And where did your cute Cthulhu go? I liked that.

[The Coordinator]

"Level caps suck if they become an issue, because then once you've capped the game starts violating one of the things that simulate the world (and thereby help with the suspension of disbelief) -- that with experience your character becomes more skilled.  The overly low cap was one of Baldur's Gate's flaws..."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Indeed it was! Glad someone noticed that as well. :D

First time I was playing through the game I was shocked that I had reached the level cap in chapter 5 after entering Baldur

[Stargate: 2000]

Considiering that Star Wars d20 Has no rules for epic levels (levels above 20) it does suck.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That just means they have yet to be created, because I am sure when Starwars d20 came out there was people who hated the way things were layed out in it compaired to the dnd rule set. SO I think that maybe Obsidian should make either an addition to the starwars rule set to include epic level (as you put it) so that it makes more sense in the world of starwars D20 (mind you I would doubt that they would put that much work into doing something like that).

[Zach Morris]

I'm with Hades. I would like the game more if the level cap stayed at 20. It just would seem dumb to have a character with 500 hit points. He could just stand there and get shot by a blaster over and over. But then again I'm a sucker for more realistic games. I even like FPS more if you die after 1 or 2 shots.

[DSLuke]

I'm with Hades.  I would like the game more if the level cap stayed at 20.  It just would seem dumb to have a character with 500 hit points.  He could just stand there and get shot by a blaster over and over.  But then again I'm a sucker for more realistic games.  I even like FPS more if you die after 1 or 2 shots.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's a game for crying out loud. It doesn't need to be frustating or imitate real life situations....

[Zach Morris]

Right, but a game is supposed to be fun. I have more fun when it is realistic and difficult. I seem to be in the minority though. Don't get me wrong I like easy games too. It's just that all my favorite ones are the ones with a good challenge to it.

[Astatine]

I'd rather KOTOR2 not be too hard. Why? Because I don't believe the overall game design is very good at supporting it. You only get to control one character, and have a couple more in the party who are controlled by an AI. That character, himself, quite possibly doesn't have all that much scope for changing tactics during combat (especially if a Guardian). So hard combat runs a high risk of turning into a frustrating experience in which you reload lots of times until you get good rolls, because there really aren't very many different tactics to try!

 

The Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale series could do hard combat, because they had an order of magnitude more scope for tactical play: you controlled six characters each of which had lots of different options during battle. That made the hard battles in those games interesting, fun and rewarding, because thinking about and planning how to overcome the challenge got you through. I'm expecting as good for Dragon Age and as hard.

 

(That's also why Throne of Bhaal irritated me -- for the final sections at least they appeared to give up on making monsters "properly" tough and instead made them immune to magic and lots of other things, thereby largely breaking the tactical play that had worked so well up until then. Although I think the entire ruleset was starting to crack at the seams by level 30 anyway.)

 

KOTOR1 was too easy in most places, though. (With an exception or two. The "wrong sort of Consular" could have a frustrating time against Malak... grr, scrounging Bioware pan-immunity again...)

 

Actual numbers like how many levels do you get, I'm really not very bothered about (what is a "level" worth anyway...?)

If it makes sense story-wise to feel really powerful, give us lots of levels. It made sense in KOTOR1. Though I still don't understand why The Exile should be more powerful than Revan (wonder if it crops up/is explained?)

[213374U]

That just means they have yet to be created, because I am sure when Starwars d20 came out there was people who hated the way things were layed out in it compaired to the dnd rule set. SO I think that maybe Obsidian should make either an addition to the starwars rule set to include epic level (as you put it) so that it makes more sense in the world of starwars D20 (mind you I would doubt that they would put that much work into doing something like that).

No. The FR/D&D settings are fundamentally different from SW. The barrier between deity and mortality is faint at best in D&D, and there are a lot of creatures there that are between both worlds. There is nothing like that in SW, everyone is mortal and can be killed with a well aimed, lucky blaster shot. The SW D20 ruleset is designed to reflect that, hence there is no reason for 'epic' levels. The emperor and Yoda are both at the pinnacle of the power scale of the SW setting, and both are near physical collapse. Beginning to see a pattern there?

 

 

I'd rather KOTOR2 not be too hard.  Why?  Because I don't believe the overall game design is very good at supporting it.  You only get to control one character, and have a couple more in the party who are controlled by an AI.  That character, himself, quite possibly doesn't have all that much scope for changing tactics during combat (especially if a Guardian).  So hard combat runs a high risk of turning into a frustrating experience in which you reload lots of times until you get good rolls, because there really aren't very many different tactics to try!

That only points to a flaw in the design of K1/K2, that is, overly simplified combat. Applying a lame patch (ridiculously easy combat) to a game feature that was probably put there on purpose in the first place, is a double fault, or the result of a serious lack of vision on the devs' part.

 

 

(That's also why Throne of Bhaal irritated me -- for the final sections at least they appeared to give up on making monsters "properly" tough and instead made them immune to magic and lots of other things, thereby largely breaking the tactical play that had worked so well up until then.

Another perfect example of bad balancing and leveling curve. If the player hadn't been level 999 by that time, there wouldn't have been a need to make monsters immune to Timestop (FFS!).

 

 

Actual numbers like how many levels do you get, I'm really not very bothered about (what is a "level" worth anyway...?)

If it makes sense story-wise to feel really powerful, give us lots of levels.  It made sense in KOTOR1.  Though I still don't understand why The Exile should be more powerful than Revan (wonder if it crops up/is explained?)

No, I'm not really bothered about how many levels you get, either. What bothers me is that those 50 levels you can get are worth exactly the same as K1's levels. As somebody pointed out earlier, it's absurd to have characters with 500 HP. Anyone said munchkin?

And no, it doesn't make sense that the Exile should be more powerful than Revan, but then again, from the ruleset standpoint, it doesn't make sense to go beyond level 20.