Except you are stronger, you have skills no one else in the game has. You are taking on Max tac on your own, Arasaka on your own and now Dog Town. You quite literally are the strongest merc in Night City.
I'm sure there may be some valid criticism in there somewhere if you guys took the time to explain instead of just being contrarian with the most extreme takes. "Level Scaling RUINS the game"? Really...does it really ruin the entire game? Come on mates, lets do better.
Maybe you should do better and try reading the complaints people have before picking your favorite sentence to easily dismiss, unironically becoming the same superficial contrarian you accuse people of being.
But if you need it spelled out, it ruins the experience for people, a lot of people, it no longer feels like an RPG, which its supposed to be, and only people who play Doom and Call of Duty seem to like the change. The level scaling is frustrating, a grind, ruins player progression, and is something only a kind of gaming masochist would be into.
Most people are just going to move on, I think, unless something changes, so that's why they're here saying scaling ruins the game.
Interesting... I only played Doom, the very first one, never played Call Of Duty at all and... I don't mind about the change (for enemies, skill checks are another story, but I can live with it anyway).
At least, it's not "worse" than before. I mean before, after reaching level 30-35, every enemies you could possibly enounter in the game were overwhelming weak.
Interesting... I only played Doom, the very first one, never played Call Of Duty at all and... I don't mind about the change (for enemies, skill checks are another story, but I can live with it anyway).
At least, it's not "worse" than before. I mean before, after reaching level 30-35, every enemies you could possibly enounter in the game were overwhelming weak.
Sounds like you'd just love Call of Duty, more than this game for certain, or more than what it was.
Anyway, I can't live with it, and it seems I'm not the only one as there's certainly more people complaining about it than defending it, as passionate as you've been, so it is "worse" in the sense no one likes it because its less fun to play, or not enough to say most people like it, or many, just you and three other people defending it.
So maybe its better to say 'worse...for the vast majority of players.'
Ok, forum isn't the "majotiy of players"... And you could check back in time in the forum and find how "the majority" (at time) complained how easy and weak enemies were. Those who are fine with something (or don't mind) generally aren't the most vocals
But yeah, how great it was before! I mean to simply roll over every single enemies you encountered after level 35... So fun, so challenging even in very hard. The current (enemies) system is far to be perfect, but not worse.
Ok, forum isn't the "majotiy of players"... And you could check back in time in the forum and find how "the majority" (at time) complained how easy and weak enemies were. Those who are fine with something (or don't mind) generally aren't the most vocals
But yeah, how great it was before! I mean to simply roll over every single enemies you encountered after level 35... So fun, so challenging even in very hard. The current (enemies) system is far to be perfect, but not worse.
Yeah, the hardcore gamers who play Call of Duty seem happy (you should check it out, there's none of that planning or role playing elements in it, just shooting down a corridor at enemies who eat bullets). emoji.
But you can search around online, people are unhappy with the changes to this game, (except for real gamers like yourself, of course). But, as for the forum, people post here because its closer to CDPR actually taking it seriously than posting elsewhere, it worked before. So maybe the forum is more a distillation of a general mood, if obviously not the majority. emoji.
Anyway, I'm sure the two weeks people like yourself will enjoy the new scaling system before getting bored will be awesome. I'm sure the player numbers aren't shrinking already. Now, I'd add an emoji here, but I worry it'd make me look glib.
Anyway, I'm sure the two weeks people like yourself will enjoy the new scaling system before getting bored will be awesome. I'm sure the player numbers aren't shrinking already. Now, I'd add an emoji here, but I worry it'd make me look glib.
I think you misunderstood what I'm saying... I don't "enjoy" it, I don't "hate" either... It's not perfect, but it's not "worse" than before.
Yes, before it was a bit challenging at the begnning of the game, but after the level 30, even in very hard the game become (very, very) easy. I mean how great it was facing Maelstomers level 5 (or whatever evemies after level 30) and destroying them like nothing... so good.
(beside, main quest enemies were already leveled before, they were always at your level... If you completed a main quest at level 10, enemies were level 10, if you do the same quest at level 50, they were level 50).
Now it's just more "average" during the whole the game.
Pre 2.0: up to level 30: some range in enemy difficulty across the map from faceroll to virtually unbeatable
Pre 2.0: after level 30: little sense of range in enemy difficulty across the map, very few enemies prove to be difficult, even in groups
2.0+ on: up to level 30: very few enemies prove to be difficult, even in groups
2.0+ on: after level 30: very few enemies prove to be difficult, even in groups
(level 30 is just random - everyone has a different opinion of when in pre-2.0 things went from mixed to faceroll)
That breakdown I think shows it has become quantifiably "worse". With one caveat: where a player values and measures progress from obtaining or amassing 'things', where things includes wealth & skills, rather than measuring progress against enemy difficulty, the new system might well be very appealing.
I really am trying to see the side of people who are in favour of level scaling. I just have a lot of trouble seeing it as a real tangible benefit.
A flattening of the difficulty curve across the game from start to finish (whenever that is) so everything is roughly the same difficulty regardless of your "obtaining things" progress, doesn't feel like progress to me. I was always going to get "the things", now I just get the things but don't feel like I'm any different.
Maybe that's the secret. CDPR trying to teach an ethics lesson on materialism and the inherent lack of value in amassing 'things'?
ed: gonna keep writing the thesis on this.
Furthermore, there's some of arguments put forward about changes in 2.0 reinforcing the ability to replay the game. I would argue: what's the point in replaying? Pre 2.0 if you start over, you become a weakling again, basic gangoons can wipe you out in a second, you need to be cautious which dark alley you roam in to. Post 2.0 if you start over there's never any sense of fear. Every dark alley is just as dangerous at lvl 1 on the n+1th playthrough as it was on the 1st playthrough, which is to say: not dangerous. So once a player has amassed all the 'things' why would they start over? not for a challenge. More things? not if you got them all already.
Personal opinion: level scaling done right doesn't bring all the lowliest up to near your level, just some, but at the same time it raises others to be a real threat to you, it elevates them above you, so you can still encounter an enemy and get that rush of being humbled by something you just can't beat and need to walk away from to improve yourself.
Pre 2.0: up to level 30: some range in enemy difficulty across the map from faceroll to virtually unbeatable
Pre 2.0: after level 30: little sense of range in enemy difficulty across the map, very few enemies prove to be difficult, even in groups
2.0+ on: up to level 30: very few enemies prove to be difficult, even in groups
2.0+ on: after level 30: very few enemies prove to be difficult, even in groups
Not sure we played the same game
Because I would say something more :
- Pre 2.0: up to level 30: some range in enemy difficulty across the map from faceroll to virtually unbeatable
- Pre 2.0: after level 30: no sense of range in enemy difficulty across the map (you over leveled every single enemy on the map), none of the enemies prove to be difficult, even bosses. If you died, you clearly searched it or did something wrong.
- 2.0+ on: up to level 30: very few enemies prove to be difficult, even in groups
- 2.0+ on: after level 30: very few enemies prove to be difficult, even in groups
So early game, it feel way "easier" for sure. But after level 30/35 (it's not really "random", it was the max level of enemies on the map, limited to City Center), it avoid to be a god-like V in Night City (and I don't need to talk about pre 1.5, with stackable critics and insane armor value... you were literally unkillable).
I think you and I are might be saying the same thing in the bit you highlighted green, we're just saying it differently
We may be arguing semantics between "no sense" and "little sense" (I was trying to be diplomatic).
It can be boiled down to "was: no challenge mid/late game, now: no challenge early/mid/late game", IMO.
I don't think I ever played 1.5, started with 1.6?
I suppose it irks me because I do replay. Games I love the style/vibe of I replay, from scratch, a lot. I've already started a new V 4 (5?) times. I wont be doing it another after PL content is done, because I'm not getting any sense of progress of going from a wanna be merc to a legend (which is theoretically the intended arc).
And when everyone's super. No one will be.
- Syndrome
During PL, time to time I had to proceed to a "tactical retreat" because no health item available and close to die... Something which almost never happened in several playthrough in 1.5/1.6, except (very) early game. So I agree, the new system "remove" the early game feeling of "really dangerous areas" (I guess we all visited City Center at the beginning of Act2, likely to meet Delamain, and get our ass kicked by level 30 Valentinos next to Delamain HQ).
Does it "ruin" the game, for me, no. Does it make the game better? a little bit. Could they have done better? Likely.
Beside, the "old" enemy system with the new perk and cyberware system would be even less challenging. At hight level (>35) you still can destroy enemies who are scaled to your level, so I can't imagine how it would be with the "low" level enemies as it was before.
How it will be to visit Watson at level 60 facing level 5 maelstromers ? I assume you would be able to stand in front of them under a rain of bullets, taking almost no damages and stay like that as long as you want. Doesn't seem very appealling (to me)
for all the crap BGS's Creation Engine monstrosity has copped in the last month since Starfield launched, it is ridiculous that something so "flawed" is still doing a scaling/encounter balance better than RED. That's my opinion, anyway.
I have to disagree, for me it doesn't, level scaling in Starfield is the big downside of a surprisngly great NG+.
7th NG+, level 75 and nothing is challenging anymore (outside of the final MQ fight)
It doesn't for me.
Late game enemies aren't so "spongy" if you use weak point system in Phantom Liberty.
Maybe it does for people who loved where you just level up somehow, sit back and kill everyone with quickhacks in late game.
I mean, not everyone is a fan of flashy, speedy combat, and rather play tabeltop games.
I remember when people posted some flashy combat footage on Reddit there were always comments saying
"oh I just kill them all with qucikhack lol"
I think they are all gone now... ;_;
i just started a new run. First when I heard there is now level scaling I was also not fan but now while I am playing it I have to say it was a good decision.
About as wrong as can be. RPGs are, together with puzzle games, my favourite genre. I couldn't care less about about shooters like Call of Duty, have never played one, and have no intention of ever playing one.
RPGs come in several forms, some of them with level scaling. For example, the Elder Scrolls games are most definitely RPGs, yet they feature level scaling.
All in all, while there are valid reasons for both liking and disliking Cyberpunk's new system, arguments like "level scaling does/doesn't belong in RPGs" are opinions, not objective facts -- and there is no such thing as a wrong opinion. It really is as simple as that.
Now, whether people are willing to accept that is a different matter, but life really is easier when one accepts that not all people agree with one's own opinions.
Also, it really isn't smart, at all, to make baseless assumptions like "if you like this system, you must really enjoy Call of Duty". It doesn't make any sense whatsoever,; all it does is say something.
About as wrong as can be. RPGs are, together with puzzle games, my favourite genre. I couldn't care less about about shooters like Call of Duty, have never played one, and have no intention of ever playing one.
RPGs come in several forms, some of them with level scaling. For example, the Elder Scrolls games are most definitely RPGs, yet they feature level scaling.
All in all, while there are valid reasons for both liking and disliking Cyberpunk's new system, arguments like "level scaling does/doesn't belong in RPGs" are opinions, not objective facts -- and there is no such thing as a wrong opinion. It really is as simple as that.
Now, whether people are willing to accept that is a different matter, but life really is easier when one accepts that not all people agree with one's own opinions.
Also, it really isn't smart, at all, to make baseless assumptions like "if you like this system, you must really enjoy Call of Duty". It doesn't make any sense whatsoever,; all it does is say something.
No, I disagree, at least for this game where it ruins the experience, and people who seem to like a more shallow game experience prefer it, but everyone else doesn't. So, as complex as the idea might be, it seems people who like action games like other action games. is that really confusing for you? How is it baseless?
What I find amazing is even those who defend it are doing it half-heartedly, so why should people who hate it accept it?
And I think it is smart to recommend games, I mean the people who like the new system seem not to like RPG's, or playing stealthily, or the hacking, or dialogue, or story, they just like the pew-pew parts, so I recommended a game more their speed. I guess it wouldn't make sense to someone who thinks Cyberpunk's new system is great, or even if they were being paid to say that, but basically, people who like RPG's -not just bethesda games because they don't make rpgs anymore so much as they make shooters like fallout 4 with shallow rpg mechanics that only people who like shooters think are rpgs, which is what everyone was worried would happen to this game, and it did, and that's why we're complaining.
I think you misunderstood what I'm saying... I don't "enjoy" it, I don't "hate" either... It's not perfect, but it's not "worse" than before.
Yes, before it was a bit challenging at the begnning of the game, but after the level 30, even in very hard the game become (very, very) easy. I mean how great it was facing Maelstomers level 5 (or whatever evemies after level 30) and destroying them like nothing... so good.
(beside, main quest enemies were already leveled before, they were always at your level... If you completed a main quest at level 10, enemies were level 10, if you do the same quest at level 50, they were level 50).
Now it's just more "average" during the whole the game.
I'm on level 35, the game is unplayable for me. Its not about the difficulty, you understand, its the attribute checks. The scaling snowballs and you can't play how you want to play. I can't enjoy the game anymore, and for me and many, many others, combined with the wait, this makes it a worse experience.
I mean, even you admit you don't like it completely, and i'm glad you like the game, but honestly, I don't care about someone else's playthrough, I'm here because mine sucks.
I don't really understand this hate for the LVL Scaling system. It's not that you find annoying mobs at high levels that can obliterate you.
You always have the upper hand if you have a decent build and some cyberware. In fact, we have been nerfed because the skills based on the character style do not work correctly, and there are some perks broken, like the Netrunner LVL 60. I find the new system more challenging but never frustrating. Before the update, I could not play a netrunner for more than 10 hours because I was bored to kill everybody with one stare. However, with the 2.01 update, I finished the game almost 100%.
It's no longer the case that buying double jump and arm cyberware grants me the power to destroy everyone. To be more relevant in the game when you progress in the story and in your merc career, it's necessary to constantly check your Chrome, which I think is very accurate to the lore of Cyberpunk.
I don't really understand this hate for the LVL Scaling system. It's not that you find annoying mobs at high levels that can obliterate you.
You always have the upper hand if you have a decent build and some cyberware. In fact, we have been nerfed because the skills based on the character style do not work correctly, and there are some perks broken, like the Netrunner LVL 60. I find the new system more challenging but never frustrating. Before the update, I could not play a netrunner for more than 10 hours because I was bored to kill everybody with one stare. However, with the 2.01 update, I finished the game almost 100%.
It's no longer the case that buying double jump and arm cyberware grants me the power to destroy everyone. To be more relevant in the game when you progress in the story and in your merc career, it's necessary to constantly check your Chrome, which I think is very accurate to the lore of Cyberpunk.
Maybe the hundreds of other games that do level scaling are great, I can recommend a few if you like, but in this game it just sucks. If you look, most people aren't even complaining about the difficulty, its the attribute checks, which aren't related to difficulty. That's my big problem, anyway, and the way people keep ignoring that is a little annoying considering no ones talking about how easy enemies were except for the people who love the new system because you have no other argument and you're trying to make it about that, but that's not what its about.
You having what you want in the game, and me having what I want doesn't need to be either/or, CDPR made it that way without giving a choice in the matter, so I and others want the choice. You don't care because you have what you want, which was to have it be a different game. I liked the game fine, I just wanted it to crash less.
What did I said in my previous posts?
I only talk and argue about enemy level scaling (I guess you missed it^^).
Attribute checks are another story and well... I don't like that either but I can leave with it and it won't prevent me for playing the game, for sure (I won't be able to complete Brendan quest, well... whatever!!! It's not if it was a big part of the game^^)
What did I said in my previous posts?
I only talk about enemy level scaling. Attribute checks are another story and well... I don't like that either but don't bother me more than that.
I can leave with it and it won't prevent me for playing the game, for sure.
(I won't be able to complete Brendan quest, well... whatever... It's not if it was a big part of the game^^)
Good for you enjoying a broken game, I was a big fan of VTMB myself. But even one mission being unplayable because of the new system should tell you it wasn't thought out...like your argument - I'm kidding - look, I'm not trying to get into it with you, I just don't understand why I'm not being catered to, but people who seemed to hate the game inside and out are.
It's kind of sad [...], even if, as you point out, some missions can't be finished in its current state. How is this an improvement? Because the game's enemies are bullet sponges now?
Did you even play the game a bit now in 2.0? Even on very hard, enemies are not bullet sponges, even far from being bullet sponges...
But well... no need to argue more I guess. I return playing my loved "broken" game
How is it not? It's like saying "Oh, you like olives on your pizza? You must not like pizza, then, but I bet you like a Greek salad."
Olives represent level scaling.
Pizza represents RPGs.
A Greek salad represents shooters like CoD.
The example comment is implying olives don't belong on pizza (opinion), just like you are implying level scaling doesn't belong in RPGs (opinion).
Both pizza and a Greek salad are foods, but very different types of foods. Just like both RPGs and shooters are games, but very different types of foods.
Dismissing other people's opinions as "Oh, you like this? You must not like RPGs then, but I bet you like Call of Duty." is in no way recommending a game.