[Tuco Benedicto]

.Volsung. said:

The best way to approach this is: DO NOT CENTER THE GAME AROUND COMBAT!
›››

While I share the sentiment to some extent, your post has hardly anything to do with the topic discussed here.

Anyway, enemy scaling is an abomination and I'm glad they are taking the Gothic route for this, instead.

[secondchildren]

Tuco Benedicto said:

While I share the sentiment to some extent, your post has hardly anything to do with the topic discussed here.
›››

And why don't you leave the job to us real moderators? People have the right to express their opinion, and it's common that the conversation digresses from a topic to another.

[Random drowner]

.Volsung. said:

The best way to approach this is: DO NOT CENTER THE GAME AROUND COMBAT!

Experience points, talents, skills, etc. should be a transparent result of natural character progression. As you experience events and learn things, you become a different person and develop certain aspects of your intellect and body. This doesn't mean that Geralt, or any RPG character, has to become an unstoppable killing machine by the end of the game.

The world of the Witcher is gritty and cold. Monsters are tough, people are bastards and swords are sharp. Geralt actually has many skills, and he usually relies on his wit, knowledge and sarcasm more than on his sword. Combat could remain difficult for the entire game without even having to "level up" monsters (which they won't) if everything is properly designed. In any case, Geralt is a veteran witcher. Why would he suddenly become a god-like warrior in a matter of weeks or whatever amount of time passes in TW3? ›››

Well said.

Now, to answer the OP.

I think the short answer is that you design the games with what I usually call "static" people/creatures and "reactive" ones.

"Static" ones are those who do not change much, they are what they are (ranging from easy to extremely hard) and have their defined habitats/areas on witch Geralt can enter (Geralt can search for the lonely drowner that has been harassing the woman washing clothes by the river or/and he can travel to the island where the Violent and very dangerous Ice-Giant lives).

"Reactive" ones are those who are introduced as a reaction to the protagonists (in this case Geralts)actions and their effects on the world. Lets say Geralt steals something from a crypt, and by doing so, an "Ancient Evil" awakes and enters this world for revenge (yeah, just an example). Another example is Geralt pissing some organisation or powerful person of, so a highly trained assassin from "a far away land" is hired in an attempt to take the meddling Witcher out. These types of foes are generally very challenging, but must be triggered.

[SonOfDovahkiin]

dragonbird said:

You're aware that CDPR have already said there'll be no enemy levelling/scaling? ›››

Good point, yet the real question is... how many times have the devs made quite drastic changes to the game due to fan feedback?

[Thothistox]

Reading this thread, I get the feeling that it might be better to have two kinds of XP. One kind would be a result of combat and the other kind would be the result of non-combat quests. The non-combat XP could be used to improve the effectiveness of AXII and maybe some other non-combat skills. Just an idea.

SonOfDovahkiin said:

Good point, yet the real question is... how many times have the devs made quite drastic changes to the game due to fan feedback? ›››

Yeah, but the feedback looks like it's supporting CDPR's stance in this particular case.

BTW, fan feedback isn't always such a good thing. People sometimes ask for more armor and weapons, a bigger world, more sex, etc., when they really don't know what the want until they see it. In this case I think people have it right though. I'm glad I made the poll.

[slimgrin]

wojto16 said:

dragonbird@

Actually, in one of the latest polish interviews, they clarified this bit. You get experience for beating your enemies, but more you slay enemies of one kind, then less and less XP you get. ›››

I thought this made a lot of sense in TW2.

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Why can't we have stronger enemies than the player in the beginning stages? If anything, they can be used as deterrents to keep the player from accessing certain areas.

[Thothistox]

cmdr_flashheart said:

Why can't we have stronger enemies than the player in the beginning stages? If anything, they can be used as deterrents to keep the player from accessing certain areas. ›››

That's part of the point of this thread. It might be fun to have strong enemies that deter you from going places until later, but it also takes away from the openness of the world. The question is how the balance is achieved.

Here's another idea: I'd like to see some of the strong enemies only be a deterrent to inexperienced players, but beatable to those who know a few tricks. Early exploration of diffiult areas should be rewarded by affecting the story somehow. For example, you could rescue a character who would otherwise eventually be overwhelmed and killed by monsters of some kind.

[dragonbird]

cmdr_flashheart said:

Why can't we have stronger enemies than the player in the beginning stages? If anything, they can be used as deterrents to keep the player from accessing certain areas. ›››

I think that's both what the fans seem to want and what the developers have implied they're providing. I don't think we're seeing much argument in this thread

[BoMarley]

People, who vote for first option, needs to be killin xD

[Kudos]

dragonbird said:

I think that's both what the fans seem to want and what the developers have implied they're providing. I don't think we're seeing much argument in this thread /> ›››

I love that moment, in an Open World game in particular, when you meet a new monster that completely wipes you out, even when you are "playing in the zone".

Because its deadly, its dangerous, its threatening to my existence, its a *challenge*.... it's something I can then *aspire* to killing... vendetta !

[dragonbird]

It used to be great - you'd spend 30 minutes dying, and then think "OK. Maybe I'll come back to this later". And no, I'm not being sarcastic, it really was great, because when you finally came back and killed that sucker, you felt as though you'd achieved something.

Scaling/levelling just feels like an arms race, you grind your character to go up levels, then the monsters go up so you need to grind some more. Either that or they're always that little bit weaker than you and the game just gets boring.

[Kudos]

I couldn't agree more Dragonbird although, depending on the game / character, i'd like the option to run away when the encounter clearly takes a turn for the worse.

[Kodaemon]

Thothistox said:

Here's another idea: I'd like to see some of the strong enemies only be a deterrent to inexperienced players, but beatable to those who know a few tricks. Early exploration of diffiult areas should be rewarded by affecting the story somehow. For example, you could rescue a character who would otherwise eventually be overwhelmed and killed by monsters of some kind. ›››

Dark Souls does this. After the tutorial, you're dropped into a hub with several possible directions to go in - only one of those is feasible for an inexperienced player, the others will seem impossibly hard. But once you've learned how the game works, you can choose any of the directions and succeed.

[Kudos]

Is that primarily useful for future playthroughs do you think?

I do like the general idea that new "paths" open up for a player (not a character) who has already completed the game and learnt most of its secrets. I don't mean extra abilities given to or carried over due to already completing the game.

[Kodaemon]

Yes, that's the gist. First-time players are sort of naturally funneled through the first half of the game, while experienced players have more freedom. All of this without any starting perks, just knowledge and built up player skill. No level scaling either. It does wonders for replayability too.

[Random drowner]

cmdr_flashheart said:

Why can't we have stronger enemies than the player in the beginning stages? If anything, they can be used as deterrents to keep the player from accessing certain areas. ›››

A good way to handle hard encounters is already found within the logic of the Witcher story. Some monsters are best handled through preparations. These type of preparations might take some time or require some exploration/scouting of their own to complete. We must remember that this is not some type of generic RPG where some nameless hero develops from a nobody to a saviour killing dragons blind-folded.

[vonGraudenz]

It's possible to have easy, medium, and hard monsters all in the same general vicinity, it just takes a bit of creativity to keep low level Witchers away from them. Any number of devices could be used; Rock slides and flora to block the path that disappear once the Witcher reaches the appropriate level, doors that require keys that are not immediately available, mission descriptions that appeal to the players common sense - i.e. There are gargoyles guarding the entrance to the... and the player only has a rusty longsword, a swallow potion and a jerkin with leather trousers for armour. This should stimulate the brain cells to say maybe I should wait to do that mission. Of course this leaves the player free to try it and get killed in 1/100th of a second, but so be it. So and so forth, of course there are some devices you could only use once before it got repetitive.

[Random drowner]

vonGraudenz said:

It's possible to have easy, medium, and hard monsters all in the same general vicinity, it just takes a bit of creativity to keep low level Witchers away from them. Any number of devices could be used; Rock slides and flora to block the path that disappear once the Witcher reaches the appropriate level, doors that require keys that are not immediately available, mission descriptions that appeal to the players common sense - i.e. There are gargoyles guarding the entrance to the... and the player only has a rusty longsword, a swallow potion and a jerkin with leather trousers for armour. This should stimulate the brain cells to say maybe I should wait to do that mission. Of course this leaves the player free to try it and get killed in 1/100th of a second, but so be it. So and so forth, of course there are some devices you could only use once before it got repetitive. ›››

I question the relevance of a concept such as "low level witcher" in W3. Its just refers to an game-mechanic that I find both outdated and less fitting W3. Geralt is a very experienced witcher. The trick is in encouraging the player to play him as such.

[Agent Blue]

Random drowner said:

I question the relevance of a concept such as "low level witcher" in W3. Its just refers to an game-mechanic that I find both outdated and less fitting W3. Geralt is a very experienced witcher. The trick is in encouraging the player to play him as such. ›››

The topic illustrates how, in this context, canonical RPG mechanics get themselves into a whole mess.

Enemy scaling is reportedly a counter-measure to character progression, just so to keep the game challenging. But In a story that spans across a few months, how can one possibly justify character progression of any real magnitude? Additionally, at his age, just what skills would Geralt see improved two, five or ten-fold?


Let's ditch this mess.