Level up rate?

[Sensuki]

I might have scored an interview with Josh for a website I am associated with (he said yes in PM but I've got to set it up with their PR girl), if that goes ahead I'll ask about the intended level/power progression in respect to past games.

[ogrezilla]

I might have scored an interview with Josh for a website I am associated with (he said yes in PM but I've got to set it up with their PR girl), if that goes ahead I'll ask about the intended level/power progression in respect to past games.

can you ask about potentially having access to active abilities at a fairly low level? Either spells or non-magic combat skills. Just something so early level fighting is more than you stand here and auto attack and you stand here and auto attack.

Edited October 9, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Sensuki]

Yeah that was already one of the planned topics to cover.

 

Here's a list of stuff I've got so far (wish list, don't yet know interview format or length).

 

Where the Inspiration behind the souls aspect came from

Class Homogeneity

Which art style the area art, paperdolls and portrait art will be like

Avatar customization & reflection of that on the paperdoll

RTS influences (IE warcraft 3)

Frame Rate

Attack Animation / Speed Factor question

Party AI button / Object Highlighter

Level / Power / XP progression (including [not asking for a spoiler] the aim of low-level feel (3E or 4E for example))

Edited October 9, 2012 by Sensuki

[ogrezilla]

oh I like the RTS influence question. I am really hoping for a warcraft 3 style minimap we can use for camera control and grouping hotkeys to select different combinations of the party.

Edited October 9, 2012 by ogrezilla

[PsychoBlonde]

My personal, ideal leveling-up schema is one in which:

 

1.) you start out pretty awesome

2.) you get "level up" points very frequently

3.) those points are great for making you broader, but when concentrated increase overall power in only a very tiny way. I like games where you can, theoretically, bring in a brand-new character at a later date and still show well vs. characters that have accrued xp for a while, which you cannot remotely do in systems like, say, D&D. It works with Deadlands, though.

 

No, I'm not interested in a Baldur's Gate style system where you hit level 5 quickly and then stall out for several hours. Because it is 100% incorrect to say that old AD&D 2nd edition was a "slow progression" system. The first few levels were actually pretty quick, about comparable with 3.0 or 3.5. Then it started to drag, even though (unless you were a spellcaster, of course) you were getting less and less to show for the increasing amounts of xp you had to hoick down in order to level.

 

I particularly don't want a system where it takes different classes different AMOUNTS of xp to progress. Bleh.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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

That would work for me, yes. That would make either the gaps between the levels quite large, or make the whole game primarily low-level gameplay.

 

Though I think I'd need a game to be 80 hours before I would call it "pretty lengthy". 50 hours would be something more like "adequate".

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

I completely disagree. I vaslty prefer low-level gameplay in the IE games.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Because it is 100% incorrect to say that old AD&D 2nd edition was a "slow progression" system. The first few levels were actually pretty quick, about comparable with 3.0 or 3.5. Then it started to drag, even though (unless you were a spellcaster, of course) you were getting less and less to show for the increasing amounts of xp you had to hoick down in order to level.

The low-level advancement rate was slowed considerably by the regular character death.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Sylvius the Mad

[jivex5k]

+1 on slower level gain. I want my leveling to feel more worthwhile.

I remember how long it took to gain skill in Ultima Online when it was new. I want that speed baby!

[ogrezilla]

We just disagree then. I don't want most of my tactics to boil down to simply "where should I stand while I auto attack?" I want to actually be doing something.

Edited October 9, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Vargr]

I'm hoping that levelling up doesn't mean you automatically do more damage and get a load more HP. I wouldn't want a lvl 1 with 10 HP to be like a maggot to a lvl 10 Demi-God with 500 HP.

 

 

I'd rather levels give you mainly more options in combat. Faster swings, more precision, a few special attacks, more versatility, less slowed down by heavy armor etc. And of course *some* amount of more HP.

But maybe have a lvl 1 have around 50 HP, and a lvl 10 around, I dunno... somewhere in the 75-100 HP range.

 

 

If they go the route of lvl 1 = maggot and lvl 10 = Demi-God.... I will be disappointed...

Edited October 10, 2012 by Vargr

[Sensuki]

The 2nd edition system was actually pretty good

 

At level 10 you just got a static number of hit points + bonus HP per level.

[rjshae]

It'll depend a lot on the damage system they adopt. If they have hit points with a separate injury system similar to Drakensang, then the level won't matter quite as much. You suffer degradation in capability with each injury and then you go down after four injuries. It felt a lot more realistic that way.

[Hassat Hunter]

It'd prefer slower progression, with each level up feeling like an achievement and a definite increase in power and functionality.

 

For the lesser increases in power inbetween is gear. You do feel better with a good armor, good sword, lots of different potions and spells. But the level-up should still be the cake. Not just a "yeah, you have +1 to attack... well, I know inbetween these level-ups you got +3 from your weapon drops"...

[Shevek]

I'm hoping that levelling up doesn't mean you automatically do more damage and get a load more HP. I wouldn't want a lvl 1 with 10 HP to be like a maggot to a lvl 10 Demi-God with 500 HP.

 

 

I'd rather levels give you mainly more options in combat. Faster swings, more precision, a few special attacks, more versatility, less slowed down by heavy armor etc. And of course *some* amount of more HP.

But maybe have a lvl 1 have around 50 HP, and a lvl 10 around, I dunno... somewhere in the 75-100 HP range.

 

 

If they go the route of lvl 1 = maggot and lvl 10 = Demi-God.... I will be disappointed...

 

2E dnd attempted to fix that by using things like THAC0 (which attempted to allow weaker enemies a fair shot at hurting higher level PCs) and having major HP gain limited to early levels (only moderate bonuses after that). In some basic ways, 2E has alot going for it. I hope the devs will take the benefits of something like the 2E system and use the versatility of the 3E feat system (which was inspired by Fallout perks, interestngly enough).

Edited October 11, 2012 by Shevek

[Branimir]

I kind of like fast level progression with low power growth, its more realistic and you can improve your character more often. Although my favorite method for character growth is getting rid of the level system altogether, like in Final Fantasy 2. I mean in reality, its not like if you do 100 pushups a day for a month you don't get any stronger, then all of a sudden over night you're buff. Or you take a class on a subject and don't learn anything or get better at what the class is for until its over and then suddenly your skill at it jumps. And it really doesn't make sense for someone to suddenly jump in skill at something when they haven't even been practicing, as in games where you just kill stuff to gain experience and you can apply skill points to anything when you level up. Earning strengths and skills comes from working at it specifically, and its a slow process but you do improve slightly every day, so I like games that use that progression style.

 

Assuming they are using a level based system, which is a good assumption, I'd request that they give exp for everything. Most exp could come from quest completion, but a small amount from killing something, successful lock pick and other skills, et cetera, would make me feel like I'm actually accomplishing something longterm by my actions.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Branimir

[Osvir]

like in Final Fantasy 2

 

Please no. Final Fantasy 2 is great in my opinion (story-wise) but that gameplay had lot to ask for, maybe I wasn't playing it as designed though (I think that FF2 is the heaviest grind FF's of them all... so much grinding ). I'd say TES is trying their best to continue on this but they are, in my opinion, taking it too far.

 

An updated form of that system would be great, because there is constant progressive-ness in it. Taking down a mob of bandits makes you slightly stronger, not much, just a tiny bit. Instead of getting 500 experience then Level Up it would be more like getting 5 experience for that bandit mob (and 1% powerup). Progressive growth.

[High Octane 881]

?

[Branimir]

Please no. Final Fantasy 2

Not exactly like FF2 of course, it was designed ages ago games have progressed a lot since then. I just meant for example, instead of earning overall player experience which allows you to jump in any skills and abilities you want when you level up, have experience earned in every thing individually. Like every time you pick a lock, you gain experience towards leveling in lockpick skill. Sure this could potentially create more work for player growth, but not if the game is made right. And the normal play style is to me as gaining a level every minute would be to you, it just seems silly and too simple and easy, which is fun too but something that requires consideration is nicer.

 

Another idea would be creating skill success rate on a slider scale. Like 1-10000 with 10000 being 100% chance of success, and every time you pick a lock, you go up a couple points depending on the difficulty of the lock.

 

I'm slowly reading this thread from the beginning, I may post replies to peoples old messages when I've finished.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Branimir

[DeathQuaker]

Please no. Final Fantasy 2

Not exactly like FF2 of course, it was designed ages ago games have progressed a lot since then. I just meant for example, instead of earning overall player experience which allows you to jump in any skills and abilities you want when you level up, have experience earned in every thing individually. Like every time you pick a lock, you gain experience towards leveling in lockpick skill. Sure this could potentially create more work for player growth, but not if the game is made right. And the normal play style is to me as gaining a level every minute would be to you, it just seems silly and too simple and easy, which is fun too but something that requires consideration is nicer.

 

My only issue with leveling skills separately is I don't want to have Skyrim/Elder Scrolls syndrome where because out of necessity/random use I level my weapon skill super fast, but other skills take EONS to develop, like standing there and crafting a billion weapons or armor just to nudge up Smithing experience. I love the idea of developing your character per skill but it is a very hard thing to balance well, and hard to make sure that leveling non-combat skills does not feel like a chore.

 

As to fast or slow leveling... if it is to be slow leveling, I want leveling to feel significant. I don't want to play the game for 20 hours to get to level 2, and then get "you may raise one attribute point" and that's it. I want to feel like I accomplished something. A fast leveling system can work if the rewards are not huge (so you don't become an uber god overnight) but stack up over time. And actually... I guess what I really prefer is medium. I don't need to level every fight, because then it doesn't feel special or useful, but I want it to be often enough I don't feel like I've been waiting for 85 years just to get an ability boost or whatever.

[Alexjh]

I personally favor about 20-30 levels in overall level possibility, but with completing the game ending you up somewhere around 15. A lot of people here seem to favour fairly glacial levelling, but personally I like to feel like there is enough levelling room to make my character unique, less than 10 and it can feel a bit stunted as you don't get the options come up. With finishing at level 15 and supposing a 60 hour campaign, that's an average of every 4 hours, which seems reasonable to me, if obviously that'll be denser at the beginning and sparser at the end.

[Jarmo]

In the IE games I find pre level 7 to be really tedious, and you often don't get the fun stuff 'till 12+,

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.

 

Almost totally on the other side here. I tend to enjoy the game the best when most opponents can be dropped by a single arrow and you need to be real careful with a few bandits.

At 10+ levels the battles start degenerating into light and magic shows with whole lot of suff going on, but almost impossible to enjoy for all the sfx.

 

But then I've never really enjoyed playing wizards or other spellcasters, fighters, rogues, monks and such for me.

Though I often do enjoy playing a summoner, but I'd guess that's because I don't need to control the summons myself and can just hang back.

[Shadenuat]

Slow. AD&D. Around 10 levels max.

[Branimir]

I obviouly don't want to feel threatened by a rat for any longer than necessary.

 

I don't want to feel threatened by a rat for any amount of time. o.o I hope they have real enemies, even a dog would be a better enemy. But rats and cats aren't really threatening.

 

I'd prefer it to be slow going, taking exponentially longer the closer you get to the level cap. I'd also keep the level cap around 15-20 maximum, that should leave room for any expansion packs.

 

I'd like to first say I am not knocking your gaming preference, if that's what you like good for you. But I absolutely hate games like that and won't even play them a lot of the time. I hate the idea of low level caps, and I hate the idea of the level cap growing with an expansion, it feels like I'm being conned, because my character can't get any better after a point unless I pay more money to buy the expansion.

 

I do like Fallout 3, but it was well made, and I have the game of the year edition which has all the DLC preinstalled. The way the game was made Lvl30 seemed significant. However most of the time, games have the same feel as a game with a level cap of 99, but they just stop at 20, and it really bothers me that I can't become any stronger.

 

This is another reason why I don't like the level system. In a game where you progress at things individually, you don't have to worry about level caps. You could still have a cap on how good you can get at certain skills, and how strong you can get, et cetera, that is determined by your character Strength and Intelligence etc scores.

 

I like the idea of Strength not being the defining amount of how strong you are but rather a score defining your potential, and having how strong you are and how much damage you can do with a broadsword a separate determining factor. Like, (don't have a cow) the Effort Values and Individual Values in the Pokemon games.

 

In that case they do have levels but the EVs and IVs still play a roll in how the critter grows. As in whether he will be stronger or faster when he levels up. In a non level system the EVs and IVs would directly effect the increase of your characters strength, speed, and skill.

 

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

 

Arguably one could say that about every single roleplaying game. Because D&D is considered the origin of modern RPG. But assuming thats unarguable fact, what do you think constitutes a reason for making a game with strong inspiration and consideration to D&D? This is a completely unique game, I don't think they should base it to even a minor degree on D&D. They should go with what works best for this game, and have any similarities be coincidence (id est not on purpose). Games should be designed to work with their concept of the game, not designed to be like anything else.

 

In the IE...the better IMO.

this is a very good...that way.

Screw that.

 

If you enjoy games without character progression you should try games like Assassins Creed and Tomb Raider, because this isn't that kind of game. The whole point of games like this is that there is statistical progression, whether it be level-based progression or skill-based progression.

 

//Not A Reply To Quote//

I've noticed a few people who are for slow level progression saying that its because enemies become too easy. I'd like to point out that there are games where enemies are always your highest level characters level, or higher. In that case, even if there are 100 levels, and every level is a huge power boost (or a small one), that also means your enemies get an equivalent boost. Meaning more customization for your character, which is what a lot of people pro quick weak lots of level ups are asking for, while keeping the game at the same difficulty throughout. Though that is not my personal preference. I like being able to work at getting stronger and be able to wipe things out with ease at a certain point after putting in the appropriate effort.

 

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.

 

I strongly agree with this. Though not necessarily the other things you said.

 

I particularly don't want a system where it takes different classes different AMOUNTS of xp to progress. Bleh.

 

Okay, I've seen this a few times now. Can someone explain to me what the problem with this is? I'm not saying I prefer it either way, because I don't care that much, however it makes more sense. For example, it doesn't take a sanitation specialist (id est someone who becomes a janitor) and a medical specialist (id est a medic or doctor) the same amount of schooling to become exceptional at their jobs. It makes sense that if they did the research and discovered how much training a person needed to become skilled at different things, they'd realize that it requires different amounts, and then adjust experience requirements appropriately.

 

If they go the route of lvl 1 = maggot and lvl 10 = Demi-God.... I will be disappointed...

 

I agree. While I mostly don't care about whether its 30 or 100 levels as long as the game is designed well to make it work. Having a number as low as 10 with that dramatic of difference feels weird/bad to me…

 

…where because out of necessity/random use I level my weapon skill super fast…

It wont be that way. They already announced in like update #7 that they are going to make the game have nice useful noncombat skills that you can use to progress through the game, gaining levels and progress without even having to fight basically.

 

As for things like smithing, which I don't see how/why they would make it required to progress to the next stage in quests throughout the game, it should be something that you have to go out of your way to increase. Its more realistic like that, in reality you can't go to college studying medicine to be a doctor (taking only necessary classes) and expect to be a master painter after you graduate. Or like the olden days when a person would learn through apprenticeship, apprenticing/practicing as a doctor, or soldier, the fruits of which help you to become a skilled painter. It just doesn't work like that.

 

However if they design equipment well, have a large range in ability and have good effectiveness, and diminishing effectiveness with durability loss and such and you are wanting to play the game in a "bash through everyone to get to the finish" kind of way then perhaps you will want to have smithing so you can repair your equipment and make better stuff a lot, and every time you do, it increases your skill ability. Or you can pay a smithy to do repairs and you can buy or find better items.

 

//Not A Reply To Quote//

I hear a lot of mention about low level cap preference, and "not able to become a god" preference and stuff. Why does there need to be a low level cap to do what you want? If they make it an 80 hour game, and they have it balanced so its fun, not too easy, not making you turn into a god before getting through the game, then why does it matter what the level cap is. If you finish the game and you're only able to get to level 20, regardless of there being a level 20 or 500 level cap, then whats the difference?

 

Does anyone here remember Diablo 2? The level cap was 99, but it was almost impossible to get to it because the higher your level, the less experience enemies gave, and they had level caps for certain areas, so you couldn't just rush through it, to move on to more powerful higher experience giving enemies you had to go through the game properly, or if you rushed through it you'd be forced to do exp runs. And when you go to the higher experience giving enemies, they were significantly difficult still.

 

And Obsidian can always do the reverse too. Like in Diablo 3, while you can single play through easy enemies, you can't join any games that are on easier quests if you're above a certain level. And, if they really wanted to, Obsidian could put temporary level caps throughout the game. It has been done before.

 

Basically the way that would work in this case would be, for example, say the prologue you are meant to be level 2 by completion, but if you hang out there after reaching level 2, you gain ⅓ the exp, so it would take 3 times longer to get to level 3, then at level 3 still hanging around there you get 0exp for everything, so its not possible to progress in level any further until you move up.

 

And say the final chapter you're meant to be level 20 or 30 on completion, so at level 20 if you haven't beaten the game you are leveling exponentially slower each level until level 30 then you don't gain any experience anymore. Then once you beat the game, you can gain normal experience again. With that style, the maximum level could be 1000, it makes no difference for you.

 

Except that for people like me, who like to be able to continually make my guy stronger and stronger forever until I'm totally sick of the game or my guy is a god, then I never hit the dead end for character progression. With Diablo 3, I was extremely excited about it, pre ordered and everything. But when I could play it, as soon as my character hit max level I lost 90% of my interest in the game. A short while later I stopped playing the game entirely without ever making a second character or completing the final (Inferno) difficulty.

 

My favorite thing about games like this is making my guy as strong as possible. And no, multiple characters like using the adventure hall in project eternity or new game does not count, I have little interest in that. I do have interest in it, its fun to an extent, its just not as fun. I very rarely replay games after completing them the first time, I also don't watch movies more than once, I don't like repeat. I get invested in my character and the story of his life, and thats what holds my interest, not the gameplay itself.

 

This is why I love Fallout 3, massively long game, so I never have to make new characters and I still haven't reached the level 30 cap either so I still feel like what I'm doing helps my guy in the long run. Yes, I'm still playing it, this is why I haven't started New Vegas yet. I'm at the point where (SPOILER WARNING) I'm supposed to go to Little Lamplight but I'm finishing the dlc missions first. I finished the survival guide, getting the winterized t51b armor, the pitt, and I'm at point lookout now, finished all the missions and almost finished discovering everything there.

 

30 levels is perfect for Fallout 3 because of the way its designed. But one could design a game so that any number is perfect, it just has to have the right balance.

[Osvir]

What some talked about separate skills, I have some ideas on a purely gear based (Acquiring a Grimoire for your Fighter could make him a Fighter/Wizard in essence) system but for now I'll start with this:

 

Weapon Level

This grows periodically as you use the weapon. This is not TES where you gain a level directly and you have millions of different abilities. A weapon skill in P:E could very well cap at some level (5). The more you use a weapon the better you become with it. If you choose to go the route of the Sword, you'll become a Master Swordsman at the end of your game, and not in the ways of "Skill Level 55!!" more like Baldur's Gate, 5 levels (which should take time). Weapon Level could be indicated by "Weapon Level 1" with a "0/500 Experience" (500/500 = Weapon Level 2). To get to Weapon Level 3 you'd need to get 1500/1500 experience. Progressive growth, what the Baldur's Gate experience table really was.

 

Armor Level

Purely resource based, no experience. You gather resources (gold and pieces of other armor) and you upgrade a piecemeal armor in your Inventory Interface (Almost like a Skill Tree, but it is your Equipment screen) Upgrading at a Craftsman (unless your craftsman at your Stronghold) costs gold. You slay the bandit and you use his gear to upgrade your own gear, which caps at a certain level. The Torso Armor could have 3 slots, 3 slots that can be upgraded in 2 different ways (X-COM style). It's not like your going to be able to use that armor of that guy you just cleaved in half, perhaps you could pry some parts from it and take it to a Craftsman in a city. Some upgrades to your armor could only be made by a Craftsman. Armor on Armor on Armor.

 

Quest Experience & Leveling Up

Philosophically, you understand the journey when you are at the end of it, and I see no wrong with your character only getting character experience by finishing quests. But finishing quests has nothing to do with combat performance or how my armor is doing, I shouldn't suddenly be a God with a Sword just because I talked to some guys and got from point A to B "just because". In this example this feels more like it would be "The Level of the Soul" if anything. A Level 2 character would get/be able to use more spells, more health, 1 stat every other level, be able to use better armor (Instead of the starting gear you'll be able to use something more, Helmet perhaps?) and so on. If weapons are Tier based you could even have to level up your character (by questing) to be able to use better swords/maces etc. etc.

 

Progression

You have to take down enemies to upgrade your armor and by taking down enemies upgrades your weapon skill, to be able to use better armor you need to do quests. Full circle. The Non-Lethal approach is difficult and complicated because it advocates for a different play style (granted) that's kind of its own game in a combat oriented game.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Osvir