I wish people would pay attention to certain concepts rather than flooding the threads with howls of how bad one game or another is for them. I doubt anyone wants to read that.
Diablo had a significant problem of end-game maximized grinding. Everyone gets stuck at killing Diablo (or Baal) over and over again to get best gear or reach the maximum level. This shouldn't happen. Scaling systems could remedy these issues by permitting players to, for instance, farm evenly throughout the whole game and get relatively equal rewards in experience and gear.
What they could do is post-scaling. Rather than have monsters scale with you the moment you do, they could scale later. This could be done on a location basis. To put it roughly, once you reach waypoint 3, monsters around waypoint 1 get one level higher. Similarly, once you kill baal, the overall level of all creatures in the game could increase, etc.
Something needs to be done about the end-game one-area grind.
Level scaling is bad imo. It can work decently if implemented in the right way (like Act 1 mobs scale from 1-10, act 2 mobs scale from 10-20 etc.), but why really bother when non scaling works fine.
However, mobs should "scale" at max lvl tbh, and Italofocas idea would be perfect for that. At 'max lvl' (or close to it) the whole game should be around your lvl (like lvl 100-110) to allow the widest amount of areas and monsters to fight/farm, whereas that is not needed while you lvl up, as you are likely doing that while progressing through the game.
Let's not debate whether Morrowind was a good game or not. People have their opinions.
But back to the original topic. Have any of you guys played a game called Loki? The game really tried to bring what D2 brought, but failed in many ways. Since the gameplay of the game was really similar to D2, I think it holds for a better comparison.
Though Loki had many flaws, one major one however, is this "same level monster". One thing to mention is that, the game already had only a certain type of monster. Combined with the leveling system for monsters, every monster was practically the same.
Imagine D2, some melee enemies would be more similar if they had the same level. A MELEE fetish would be very similar to a fallen one. The cat people in the desert would be MORE similar to the rogues. The reason that this similarity may not have been noticed as much is because of the dynamics between the character and these monsters (i.e. a character could actually feel underpowered or overpowered). By no means do I mean this is THE FACTOR, I'm saying it might be a contributing factor.
Ooooo, the Oblivion leveling system is one that still manages to send chills down my spine when I think about the time I wasted on the game before I understood its full implications. I think when Camus and Sartre were lamenting over the absurdity of life, they'd just played too much Oblivion.
Really, I think it would be best to drop that system entirely especially for a game like Diablo 2 which is (as has been mentioned before), a highly linear game which is designed to encourage the player to become a major monster powning machine. A monster-leveling-with-player system wouldn't really work.
It would also really kill immersion. I mean, how does it work out that it takes just as long for you to kill a zombie as it does to kill an abyss demon (or whatever other badass demon you can think of)? It just seems ridiculous.
Plus, if you want to visit earlier areas, why are low-level monsters stopping you? I mean, you're there to be immersed in the area's music and atmosphere, not to kill monsters. If you truly wanted to go back to the area, low-level monsters shouldn't stop you.
Oblivion is a really good game but what makes ii bad is the monsters leveling with the hero.
Why?
Let me tell you why i dislike your idea OP.
Because it woulden't feel right. I mean the stronger i get the stronger the mondsters get so what's the point of leveling?
Might as well stay lvl 1 all game.
When im like lvl 78 with imba gear i wanna go back to the 1st town and kill like 200 monsters in 1 hit.This gives me a feeling of acctually becoming stronger.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Diablo had a significant problem of end-game maximized grinding. Everyone gets stuck at killing Diablo (or Baal) over and over again to get best gear or reach the maximum level. This shouldn't happen. Scaling systems could remedy these issues by permitting players to, for instance, farm evenly throughout the whole game and get relatively equal rewards in experience and gear.
What they could do is post-scaling. Rather than have monsters scale with you the moment you do, they could scale later. This could be done on a location basis. To put it roughly, once you reach waypoint 3, monsters around waypoint 1 get one level higher. Similarly, once you kill baal, the overall level of all creatures in the game could increase, etc.
Something needs to be done about the end-game one-area grind.
I remember playing this game where at the end every low-life brigand would have gold-plated armor and crystal sword. WTF. That was horrible
To everyone that liked it: FUCK YOU
However, mobs should "scale" at max lvl tbh, and Italofocas idea would be perfect for that. At 'max lvl' (or close to it) the whole game should be around your lvl (like lvl 100-110) to allow the widest amount of areas and monsters to fight/farm, whereas that is not needed while you lvl up, as you are likely doing that while progressing through the game.
But back to the original topic. Have any of you guys played a game called Loki? The game really tried to bring what D2 brought, but failed in many ways. Since the gameplay of the game was really similar to D2, I think it holds for a better comparison.
Though Loki had many flaws, one major one however, is this "same level monster". One thing to mention is that, the game already had only a certain type of monster. Combined with the leveling system for monsters, every monster was practically the same.
Imagine D2, some melee enemies would be more similar if they had the same level. A MELEE fetish would be very similar to a fallen one. The cat people in the desert would be MORE similar to the rogues. The reason that this similarity may not have been noticed as much is because of the dynamics between the character and these monsters (i.e. a character could actually feel underpowered or overpowered). By no means do I mean this is THE FACTOR, I'm saying it might be a contributing factor.
Really, I think it would be best to drop that system entirely especially for a game like Diablo 2 which is (as has been mentioned before), a highly linear game which is designed to encourage the player to become a major monster powning machine. A monster-leveling-with-player system wouldn't really work.
It would also really kill immersion. I mean, how does it work out that it takes just as long for you to kill a zombie as it does to kill an abyss demon (or whatever other badass demon you can think of)? It just seems ridiculous.
Plus, if you want to visit earlier areas, why are low-level monsters stopping you? I mean, you're there to be immersed in the area's music and atmosphere, not to kill monsters. If you truly wanted to go back to the area, low-level monsters shouldn't stop you.
Anyways, that's just my two cents.
Why?
Let me tell you why i dislike your idea OP.
Because it woulden't feel right. I mean the stronger i get the stronger the mondsters get so what's the point of leveling?
Might as well stay lvl 1 all game.
When im like lvl 78 with imba gear i wanna go back to the 1st town and kill like 200 monsters in 1 hit.This gives me a feeling of acctually becoming stronger.