Level up rate?

[ogrezilla]

i don't think we need the levels to fall perfectly in line with what D&D would do. This is not D&D.

[Osvir]

i don't think we need the levels to fall perfectly in line with what D&D would do. This is not D&D.

 

But it is a strong inspiration and influence *to take into consideration.

 

EDIT: See *

Edited October 5, 2012 by Osvir

[ogrezilla]

i don't think we need the levels to fall perfectly in line with what D&D would do. This is not D&D.

 

But it is a strong inspiration and influence *to take into consideration.

 

EDIT: See *

Right, but not to let themselves be limited by.

[Sylvius the Mad]

To some degree it depends on how much advancement each level represents, and whether all of the characters level up together.

 

I've made it clear that, on the second point, I don't think characters should all level up together. I think they should earn XP independently, and perhaps even have different XP/level tables for each class (like AD&D did). Having characters level up separately makes levelling up a more common occurence, suggesting that each character should level up less often.

 

On the first point, I like to learn how to incorporate any new abilities that came with my new level before moving on to the next one. So I level up, gain some abilities, laern how to use those abilities effectively, spend some time enjoying that effectiveness, and then level up again.

 

If the new abilties that come each level are only marginally different, or if there aren't many of them, then we can level up more often.

 

I've previously stated that I think 10 hours of gameplay per level (for a single character) is appropriate. So if you have 6 similarly levelled characters, in 10 hours of gameplay they'll each level up once.

[ogrezilla]

Sylvius, I agree with everything but the last bit. I would want to level significantly more often than that. Probably about double. It doesn't take 10 hours to learn how to use new abilities and enjoy them.

Edited October 5, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Semper]

I had asked Feargus how much advancement there would be in PE on KS. I was worried that since this was gonna be part of a series, there there might not enough advancement in the first installment. According to Feargus, leveling in PE will be comparable to like 12ish levels in the old IE games.

 

i would wait till josh or adam say something about this - should be a more reliable source, after all it's their game. 12 level seem a bit more like a faster leveling process, considering that eternity and bg1 should be similar in amount of content.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Semper

[ogrezilla]

I had asked Feargus how much advancement there would be in PE on KS. I was worried that since this was gonna be part of a series, there there might not enough advancement in the first installment. According to Feargus, leveling in PE will be comparable to like 12ish levels in the old IE games.

 

i would wait till josh or adam say something about this - should be a more reliable source, after all it's their game. 12 level seem a bit more like a faster leveling process, considering that eternity and bg1 should be similar in amount of content.

I hope so.

[AlexAB]

i don't think we need the levels to fall perfectly in line with what D&D would do. This is not D&D.

 

Of course. But my point is that leveling what the 12 first levels of D&D represent seems a bit too much, regardless if those 12 levels are represented as 4 or as 70 by PE. Which is what I understood from from Mr. Urqhart.

[ogrezilla]

i don't think we need the levels to fall perfectly in line with what D&D would do. This is not D&D.

 

Of course. But my point is that leveling what the 12 first levels of D&D represent seems a bit too much, regardless if those 12 levels are represented as 4 or as 70 by PE. Which is what I understood from from Mr. Urqhart.

fair enough. I can see that. I personally have no problem ending the game as a "mover and shaker" in the world. Though I guess with a sequel being planned, that might leave little room for growth. I suppose that's really your point huh? Well I've convinced myself that I agree with you haha

 

I personally enjoy the act of leveling up because it tends to be where you can really shape your characters. I'd rather do it more often even if each isn't as dramatic of an increase. Not so often that each becomes meaningless, but often enough that I have had plenty of opportunity to shape my characters. I also just think it makes sense that you see a more gradual increase in strength instead of major jumps. It really depends on the skill system too I guess. If my fighter just occasionally gets a new weapon proficiency point, then I'm not that worried about leveling often. But if there are skills and feats that he gains each level, I prefer more, smaller levels.

Edited October 5, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Shevek]

Honestly, advancement in BG1 was abysmall. I am currently replaying it as a mod with BG1/2 combined. Even though it is much better with BG2:ToB kits/classes added, the early combat feels extremely homogenized (and way too skewed towards archery, but thats another issue). Now that I finished the Cloakwood Mines, the game is getting more interesting. My Fighter/Wizard picked up a few 3rd level spell slots; my Ranger/Cleric has some more interesting spells under his belt; my rogue can lay some traps and poison his weapon, etc. In part due to the lack of combat actions, combat was a tad lackluster until I gained levels.

 

Surely, PE will have more combat actions for all classes than the old IE games (at least from what has been said about the martial classes). ToEE, for example, had much better low level combat (Btw, that game, which was fairly hardcore, let you get to level 10). Still, the number of uses and/or variety of said actions will most likely be at least partially dependent on level. While it may be fun to slog through levels 1-5 in Pen and Paper, I do not feel the same is always true of a video game.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Shevek

[Umberlin]

I prefer very slow, very little, level progression.

[ReyVagabond]

looks like most of you like the slow, and painfull level up expirience.

Personaly i dont care, the only thing i care is about the relationship with level=Power in the Seting.

 

and i want to be trated like that, actualy a no leveling sistem with perks and abilities level up that brings new stuff is what i want.

For example lets say we are back to the old D&D where you had your starts form moment one, compared with the powerleveling of 3.0 where you always ended up with everithing betwin 6-12 and that one atribute in the 20s.

 

I care about what it means to level up, for all i care there could be 99 levels till max and i could reach them in 100 hours of gameplay but there is only content for 30 hours.

So does it realy matter how fast or slow something hapends when you dont know the ramifications of that level up?

 

In conclution i know that no matter what i want an impact to the level up. The D&D level up where nothing changes but you get 3 skills points and thats and some HP its lame! and i dont want that, i want that a level up means somehting. it has a Gameplay change. So as long as there is no dead level ups im ok with anything!

Edited October 5, 2012 by ReyVagabond

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sylvius, I agree with everything but the last bit. I would want to level significantly more often than that. Probably about double. It doesn't take 10 hours to learn how to use new abilities and enjoy them.

Depends on the abilities.

 

Remember, in 10 hours you'd see all six party members gain a level. How all those abilities work together creates many possible permutations.

[ogrezilla]

Sylvius, I agree with everything but the last bit. I would want to level significantly more often than that. Probably about double. It doesn't take 10 hours to learn how to use new abilities and enjoy them.

Depends on the abilities.

 

Remember, in 10 hours you'd see all six party members gain a level. How all those abilities work together creates many possible permutations.

so if a game is a pretty lengthy 50 hours, you'd want to finish the game at level 5?

[Valorian]

A middle ground. Leveling up 12 times, for instance, seems fine.

Each level shouldn't be a huge jump in power though.

[khango]

In the IE games I find pre level 7 to be really tedious, and you often don't get the fun stuff 'till 12+, so I guess my hope would be start about level five IE equiv and be able to get to ~ 25 IE equiv, which encompasses the range of competent enough not to be killed by a rat to pretty much power incarnate. The less level one and two dinking around getting killed by a cricket, the better IMO.

[Larkaloke]

I like a fairly slow level process, and I very definitely prefer the characters not to all level up at the same time -- be this from them acquiring XP at a different rate, or ideally, from having different amounts of XP needed to level up. I would hope to have each character level up no more often than once every two or three sessions spent playing. It should feel like an achievement, not something that you expect to happen every time you play. Also, as much as I love having extremely powerful characters at the end of a long game or series, I also love having very weak characters at the beginning who can get killed very easily, and swift levelling up tends to more or less eliminate that step.

 

Getting to around level ten or so over the course of a fairly long game sounds about right, particularly with the possibility of expansions and sequels and all -- and even without those, I think it would still be fine. Although, I think it would be best if the level or XP cap were about twice that, since if you replay through on the Heart of Fury style mode it would be nice to still level up a few times.

[ogrezilla]

In the IE games I find pre level 7 to be really tedious, and you often don't get the fun stuff 'till 12+, so I guess my hope would be start about level five IE equiv and be able to get to ~ 25 IE equiv, which encompasses the range of competent enough not to be killed by a rat to pretty much power incarnate. The less level one and two dinking around getting killed by a cricket, the better IMO.

this is a very good point. The first few levels really are pretty dull combat-wise because of a lack of abilities and spells. I really hope we don't go through most of the game that way.

[Sensuki]

In the IE games I find pre level 7 to be really tedious, and you often don't get the fun stuff 'till 12+, so I guess my hope would be start about level five IE equiv and be able to get to ~ 25 IE equiv, which encompasses the range of competent enough not to be killed by a rat to pretty much power incarnate. The less level one and two dinking around getting killed by a cricket, the better IMO.

this is a very good point. The first few levels really are pretty dull combat-wise because of a lack of abilities and spells. I really hope we don't go through most of the game that way.

 

Screw that.

 

I'd rather it be more like the BG series personally

 

Project Eternity (BG1 TotSC-ish level progression, maybe a bit more - 12 D&D levels sounds great)

PE:2 (BG2:SoA-ish level progression)

 

I don't want to feel like a demigod after one game, let alone even two ~_~

 

AND

 

I believe the problem you are describing will not be present in this game, I think they're going to be taking a leaf out of D&D 4E's book and have more things to do available at level 1 and getting something each level, rather than just health and attack bonus.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Sensuki

[Umberlin]

I prefer a slower save system with scant levels, that said, I do think you can do that 'and' make lower level tiers more interesting and complex in a well made system. I believe Obsidian will do what they think is best in the end, and that may not go to my preference, but, I am sure it can be done. While my preference is that there be a lower progression of levels . . . I would also note, aside from that lower levels can be made mechanically more interesting if well made, that in a slower progression system levels would need to mean more (a level up would give you a lot to think about, in other words). I notice a lot of modern MMORPGs have sped up the leveling system, but, they also seem to have made levels mean less in many cases . . . I think that can be just as harmful to the experience as a slow system that leaves you with a dull experience due to a lack of abilities and spells.

 

There likely needs to be a carefully calculated balance regardless of whether you go slow, fast or somewhere in between.

 

-

 

All that said . . . leveling systems can be done many ways, and certainly done well in more than one of those ways.

[ogrezilla]

In the IE games I find pre level 7 to be really tedious, and you often don't get the fun stuff 'till 12+, so I guess my hope would be start about level five IE equiv and be able to get to ~ 25 IE equiv, which encompasses the range of competent enough not to be killed by a rat to pretty much power incarnate. The less level one and two dinking around getting killed by a cricket, the better IMO.

this is a very good point. The first few levels really are pretty dull combat-wise because of a lack of abilities and spells. I really hope we don't go through most of the game that way.

 

Screw that.

 

I'd rather it be more like the BG series personally

 

Project Eternity (BG1 TotSC-ish level progression, maybe a bit more - 12 D&D levels sounds great)

PE:2 (BG2:SoA-ish level progression)

 

I don't want to feel like a demigod after one game, let alone even two ~_~

 

AND

 

I believe the problem you are describing will not be present in this game, I think they're going to be taking a leaf out of D&D 4E's book and have more things to do available at level 1 and getting something each level, rather than just health and attack bonus.

That's fine. I don't need to be too powerful. I just don't want to be bored. So I guess I was really just agreeing with the bit about getting to the fun stuff. I said before I prefer more levels, but I am perfectly fine with them being pretty small steps in power. I just feel like more small levels gives us more precise control when shaping our character throughout the game. And I don't want to spend half the game with barely a handful of spells available.

Edited October 9, 2012 by ogrezilla

[GhostofAnakin]

I'd like the level-up rate be a bit more than what we saw in BG, but not so much that it no longer feels like an achievement to gain a level for your character.

[IndiraLightfoot]

I like a fairly slow level process, and I very definitely prefer the characters not to all level up at the same time -- be this from them acquiring XP at a different rate, or ideally, from having different amounts of XP needed to level up. I would hope to have each character level up no more often than once every two or three sessions spent playing. It should feel like an achievement, not something that you expect to happen every time you play. Also, as much as I love having extremely powerful characters at the end of a long game or series, I also love having very weak characters at the beginning who can get killed very easily, and swift levelling up tends to more or less eliminate that step.

 

Getting to around level ten or so over the course of a fairly long game sounds about right, particularly with the possibility of expansions and sequels and all -- and even without those, I think it would still be fine. Although, I think it would be best if the level or XP cap were about twice that, since if you replay through on the Heart of Fury style mode it would be nice to still level up a few times.

Remmirath says more or less what I feel about the subject. Add to that Umberlin's very important suggestion that lower level characters should be intricate, varied and complex as well. I prefer them weak in many aspects, but that holds true for higher levels as well. I hate it when the party seems to mow thru most encounters. Irvin Borsk's party in MotB, that's the kind of encounters I expect!

[Leferd]

BG-like. Each level up should feel special and significant. NPCs also level independently from each other and are assigned shares from the XP awards.

[Greensleeve]

BG-like. Each level up should feel special and significant. NPCs also level independently from each other and are assigned shares from the XP awards.

 

Yeah, but the levels in Baldur's Gate didn't really feel significant, because all you got was some more hit points and better attack numbers. Or spells if you picked a magic-using class, which I usually didn't. Fallout had pretty good, significant levels. When you got a perk, that mattered. Morrowind had really nice, significant levels before reaching levels 20-30, depending on how you played.

 

Personally, I would not want us to speculate on leveling rate with a sequel in mind. We want a complete game, a game that is in itself, essentially, a finished story. Which means that we should not want a system tailored towards letting us level up even more in a sequel. I would want a power progression roughly equal to that of Dragon Age: Origins, with more stuff to do. More abilities is good. I would rather see Obsidian err on the side of too many abilities than too few.

But the power progression of DAO was good. You started out as a promising youngling, you ended as someone who is an important, very powerful individual, but still within the limits of human (or elven or whatever) power.

 

So in short, level progression doesn't matter. Power progression does.

 

Finally, separate XP tables for different classes is such an awful idea it's beyond me. NPCs do not have to level up all at once, but they should all follow the same table. I think most people are suggesting it out of nostalgia, but that's not a discussion for this thread.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Greensleeve