Gatt9 wrote: The alternative is extremely boring. Combat becomes repetative and pointless, killing things becomes a monotonous exercise with no reason to do it because you've removed the reward from the event.
LOL. Why should you go around killing things if you don't need to? Meaning, if you're characters
don't need to.
You skipped putting a counter-arguement in there. Or more to the point, you strawmanned. When you handle my arguement, I'll respond to this.
Gatt9 wrote:Worse, you've just implemented a fully level-scaled game. You've put a finite cap on the experience with a obvious path through the game where you know the character's levels at every point. If the player could only do 6 quests before entering an area, you know exactly what level they'll be, and you put very level specific encounters there.
How is this bad
?? Why shouldn't the devs know exactly
where the players can and cannot go, instead of just throwing things haphazardly into the game? If you hate "obvious" stuff, the answer is more complex game mechanics
, not a bunch of random shit that may or may not be too easy, too difficult or impossible.
How is it bad? Play Oblivion or Mass Effect. Your level is irrelevant, because you'll always be walking from one safety-scissored encounter to another with no risk at all.
It's also quite trivial to design a game without knowing what level the player will be when he first encounters it. You determine the difficulty of the area/dungeon, and populate it appropriately.
Gatt9 wrote:You can't put those one-off ultra-challenging encounters in the game anymore either, because there's now no variation in levels, you can't work to try to be strong enough to defeat that one encounter, because it's just a finite progression.
Please explain to me why
you can't have these "ultra-challenging encounters" with level-scaling. LOL. This is just a poorly disguised way of saying you want to level grind until your character is a god. Come clean, Liar!
No. It's not.
Why can't you have them? Because you're fully level scaled. You can never put in a level 50 encounter if the maximum amount of experience in the game is level 10.
I'd also appriciate it if you'd not try calling me a liar, especially while failing to deal with my arguements and strawmanning.
Gatt9 wrote:Only gaining experience for quests is just a euphimism for level-scaling, it removes variability and makes combat largely unrewarding.
What do you mean by "variability"? LOL.
I think they should get rid of allocating stat points altogether, or at least have a low level cap.* Why should your
goal be gaining XP, if your characters' goals are entirely different? Ideally, they would implement a system that is tied to the story in more interesting ways than just gaining XP at the main plot points, which, on the flip side, would tie the character to the main plot points solely through XP gain, if you had no other systems in place. And this is why something like a timer/deadline on the "main quest" is so important in a "non-linear" game that features a lot of side quests. You can have your rewards for doing side quests, but there must be some sacrifice or risk to go along with it.
And so-called "risk" can't all
be in the player's imagination
*That is if you can replace complexity in the character stat sheet with other mechanics. As it is, character stats is the only
thing in these 20+ hour long CRPGS that require any long term
planning at all.
If anyone wants more explanation, see my post in this thread
What you just described is essentially an adventure game. You eliminated all of the character progression in favor of tieing it all into a narrative which gifts you the tools you need to progress to the next narrative point when the narrative needs you to have those skills.
You mean pointless other than loot, skill improvements, and plot advancement, right? Yeah, combat becomes pointless other than that. Basically, all you lose is the number that pops up at the end.
Loot in a level scaled system is level scaled, and unexciting, as Oblivion demonstrated quite readily. You don't get skill improvements if there's no xp for killing. Not every combat is plot based, if it is, the game is highly linear.
Also incorrect, based on wildly inaccurate and unfair assumptions. What level were you when you entered Quartz? I'll bet you weren't the same level as I was, because I skipped the missions a the Agricultural Center, Highpool, and the Rail Nomads' Camp. Guys, you need to stop basing your arguments on inaccurate assumptions about what Wasteland 2 is going to be, especially when your argument is based on inaccurate recollections of what Wasteland 1 was.
No. I'm not incorrect. Doesn't matter if you skipped the missions, those would be areas designed for either to be approached at a given level. You could go here, or you could go there. Just because something isn't a straight path, and has level equivalent branches, doesn't make level-scaling untrue.
You need to stop basing your arguements on false assumptions, and do the math. If there's finite experience, and it's handed out only at specific points, it's level scaled.
You're also wrong about what my arguements are based on. My arguements are based on simple math.
All I'll say here is that you probably need to play more games.
All I can say is I've played an order of magnitude more games than you have, and you need to sit down with a pen and paper, and write out the equations for what happens when you have a system with finite xp and variable xp.
Alternatively, you could just go play Might and Magic 1, and then play Obilivion. The difference is obvious.