Sword Requirement Levels, Equipment Level Scaling

[BlackWolf500.298]

Sword Requirement Levels, Equipment Level Scaling

I really need to have a specific level to be allowed to equip a certain sword?
Does that count for all swords or only for specific ones?

If it counts for all: Why? Is this an MMO? Is there no other way to do this?
I mean swords like this are not supposed to lie around anyway, and if I find this monster on an especially vivious or difficult enemy and I actually manage to kill the enemy I want to use it.

Or are these "levels" actually "sword skill levels" being separate from our actual normal skill tree levels (of which max is 50).
Because level restrictions.... for a RUSTY sword?

PS: If there is another thread discussing such a topic feel free to move my post there.

 

[Zabanzo]

If it counts for all: Why? Is this an MMO? Is there no other way to do this?

I really cant think of other way, how would you stop player from traveling to high level area, buying sword with high damage stat and then killing everything despite his low level? In linear games like TW1, TW2 you dont need level requirements for weapons and armor because you have control over player and his movement in the world, in open-world games its not so easy.

 

[moonknightgog]

I really cant think of other way, how would you stop player from traveling to high level area, buying sword with high damage stat and then killing everything despite his low level? In linear games like TW1, TW2 you dont need level requirements for weapons and armor because you have control over player and his movement in the world, in open-world games its not so easy.

Indeed, it's a matter of balancement.
But there is a problem. If defeat a much strong mob give you a sword that you can't handle, then any feels of rewards disappear.

 

[McGregg]

Or think this way.... you're master of 'some' swords... suddenly you found 'samurai' sword...
Yes you can swing it but do you have all the 'finesse' to use it to its full potential? Doesn't matter if it's rusty... think that sword was forged for a 'specific' technique of usage... If Geralt doesn't know how to use all those 'tricks' he's 'better' with his old swords....

Maybe there is a quest to find old Witcher master.... that is 800 years old and lives in swamp area? Find him and he''ll teach you....

 

[wazaa]

It is a RPG. And as many RPG, ith as rules that are though to give equilibrium to the gameplay.

I don't see any problem, here. The idea has been proved that works, in the past.

It also had been proved that from time to time someone does a bad implementation of it. But we don't know about this possibility, yet.

 

[moonknightgog]

It is a RPG. And as many RPG, ith as rules that are though to give equilibrium to the gameplay.

I don't see any problem, here. The idea has been proved that works, in the past.

It also had been proved that from time to time someone does a bad implementation of it. But we don't know about this possibility, yet.

Example. Geralt level 7. I go into a forest, and I encounter a really strong mob, like level 40...I should die, but I'm good and I defeat it. It drops a really fancy sword, very powerful...but then I can't use it, because my level is not enough.
So...why I fought that mob, if there isn't a real reward?

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Well, you know my general stance on such things maybe. Geralt was never suited for an RPG character. He already is one of the world's best fighters. Which progression should he make? The Geralt I know would be capable of using every single sword on the planet, more or less effectively. These are the weird compromises you have to make if you apply a RPG scheme on a character like Geralt.

#lorefanatic

 

[Eldarth]

I dont like this at all, and what you guys saying about buying the sword in high areas at low level, well then, make high swords expensive as hell. I want to play the game in the highest difficult, and if i kill a harcore monster way more stronger than me, i want to use my reward. This is bullshit. You could put something like in the skill three if you are not at X ability, then when u use a higher swords than the skills you have, you will do it with some penalty, but you can use it,

this is nonsense.

Geralt is a witcher, specialist in swords, he has been using swords and hunting for decades, and now what? He just forgot everything he knows? I can deal with a wipe from the witcher 2 to the witcher 3 but i dont like this at all. If you put a Free World map, and areas with stronger monsters and no scaling, then what the hell is the purpose in doing a free world? I mean, the point here is that you can travel anywhere if you manage to it, and of course if you make it to get a good sword, be able to use it, if you punish the hardcore and explorers players with this, whats the point on going hardcore places or exploring? If you are going to do that, just forget about free world, and keep the witcher 2 style.

 

[Riven-Twain]

Well, you know my general stance on such things maybe. Geralt was never suited for an RPG character. He already is one of the world's best fighters. Which progression should he make? The Geralt I know would be capable of using every single sword on the planet, more or less effectively. These are the weird compromises you have to make if you apply a RPG scheme on a character like Geralt.

#lorefanatic

Ay, sword levels do seem a very artificial contrivance. It looks like a purely mechanical balance issue, intended to keep players from becoming too powerful too quickly. I don't think any lore, or practical rule of swordsmanship -- and I know a bit about the practical side -- can cover up this game-determined restriction.

Scholdarr is right: when you pluck a character from a story, wherein he is essentially already at the height of his prowess and ability, the concept of leveling-up in a game presents a major problem. How do you generate advancement for a warrior who is the pinnacle? Amnesia was their solution for the first two installments: this excused Geralt's diminished powers, under the pretext of forgotten abilities, lying dormant. However, for The Hunt, unless I'm mistaken, that amnesia should be mostly worn off by now. Simply put, sword levels look like a developer's mechanics fix.

 

[Exentryk]

Doesn't bother me. Killing high level mobs has other bonuses like mutagens, experience points, bragging rights, etc.

 

[BlackWolf500.298]

Well to be fair, a good way could be to make it so swords you just happen to "find" are low level, high-level swords can not be bought and if want to craft one you need a diagram and you only get that diagram if you beat monster X or complete quest Y which is a very hard quest. Or you make the swords VERY expensive or you make it require a LOT of materials (rare ones among them) to craft.

In this case an object like a really GOOD and POWERFUL sword could only be achieved either on a higher level or if you are REALLY good.
And that way you can reward skilled players while keeping the balance.

To be honest, "good" "high-level" swords should NOT be lying around and found somewhere or be crafted by low level characters.
I don't see a problem in that tbh. TW2 didn't give you new and powerful swords all the time either.

I mean, I guess if they have a skill tree that does not change Geralts stats at all the swords could be an artificial means to balance out the power of Geralt, but seriously making it be based on weapons and armor mostly doesn't seem a good solution either.

 

[Riven-Twain]

Too late now. It must pass to modders.

 

[Cerberus_Zero]

I think the level requirements on weapons is a very good choice! I say this since I recall older games like Fallout 2 where if you knew what you were doing you could get a Power Armor at the beginning of the game. If you did that then the game becomes way too easy. This balances out the game very well because you can't just get the powerful piece of equipment early on and equip it to breeze through earlier parts of the game. You'll have the item for when you're strong enough to use it.

 

[jjavier]

Example. Geralt level 7. I go into a forest, and I encounter a really strong mob, like level 40...I should die, but I'm good and I defeat it. It drops a really fancy sword, very powerful...but then I can't use it, because my level is not enough.
So...why I fought that mob, if there isn't a real reward?

I not really skilled. I don't see myself in such a dilemma unless I lure some monsters to the mob and later loot the corpses.

But if you are skilled to the point to get early a "fancy sword, very powerful"...
...once you are buffed up by the sword how much challenge do you have ahead?

I get your point. The idea of winning the sword just to keep it in the storage is nasty. But may be using it at that point of the game wont be that great either.

 

[Riven-Twain]

It is not necessarily a bad mechanics technique: it reminds me of the early Diablo games a bit. However, from a lore perspective it is jarring, and reminds us pointedly that it is, after all, a game.

 

[TouPoutsou]

Level requirments are good. No they are GREAT actually. This is supposed to be an RPG, not an action game. Leveling up should be really, and i mean REALLY meaningfull. Not 2% higher HP or something similar. If you want to play it like an action game and you want to be really good, just go on and beat the game without leveling up at all. Plus the arguments work both ways. For example you are level 5, you beat a hard opponent and he drops an uber sword of a theoritical level 30. Then what? Without level reuirements you just equip it and you have no reason to use another sword for tens of hours - LAME. Working for being able to use it is a much better option. Makes leveling even more exciting.

Lore wise of course it does not make sense.

Spoiler

In the books Geralt was the greatest swordman in the world. Ciri, who only trained for a year in Kaer Morhen and was inferior to the other witchers, let alone Geralt, beat Bonhart, who was considered the best human swordman. Geralt himself killed Vilgefortz, who was by a huge shot the strongest sorcerer in the world. Vilgefortz beat Yennifer, who was supposed to be the most powerfull sorceress, maybe besides Phillipa, in a matter of seconds, and Geralt killed him.

However i am really glad they designed these games as RPGs, and not as action game with Geralt being a badass from the first second. I really love the character progression.

 

[JGPlisken]

I really need to have a specific level to be allowed to equip a certain sword?
Does that count for all swords or only for specific ones?

If it counts for all: Why? Is this an MMO? Is there no other way to do this?
I mean swords like this are not supposed to lie around anyway, and if I find this monster on an especially vivious or difficult enemy and I actually manage to kill the enemy I want to use it.

Or are these "levels" actually "sword skill levels" being separate from our actual normal skill tree levels (of which max is 50).
Because level restrictions.... for a RUSTY sword?

PS: If there is another thread discussing such a topic feel free to move my post there.

230-282 damage is pretty high for just a rusty sword...

 

[thislsmadness]

It is not necessarily a bad mechanics technique: it reminds me of the early Diablo games a bit. However, from a lore perspective it is jarring, and reminds us pointedly that it is, after all, a game.

In terms of realism/lore, even without levels, the whole concept of equipment is artifical and "gamey". That type of thing just comes with the RPG territory so Im not going to start drawing arbitruary lines. Its just as ridiculous that Geralt can getting sign damage from his pants or that one sword has a damage range of "200-300" while another Might deal "600-700". If you submit to the lore then Geralt shouldnt reallt have any skill, ability, gear or weapon upgrades. He should be able to kill a Griffin at 1hr in just as easily as he could 80 hours into the game.

As a general gaming concept, I think Level requirements work well as a balancing agent. Whether that is the case in Witcher 3 is difficult to say without knowing more about loot acquitision.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Yennifer, who was supposed to be the most powerfull sorceress, maybe besides Phillipa, in a matter of seconds

That's off-topic, but I just have to correct that: This is not true. YennEfer was never supposed to be the most powerful sorceress. She's "just" one sorceress among many other sorceresses and sorcerers. Tissaia de Vries was very likely more powerful than Yennefer, and Margarita Laux-Antille is probably as well. And maybe Francesca Findabair. And of course Philippa.

 

[Eldarth]

Level requirments are good. No they are GREAT actually. This is supposed to be an RPG, not an action game. Leveling up should be really, and i mean REALLY meaningfull. Not 2% higher HP or something similar. If you want to play it like an action game and you want to be really good, just go on and beat the game without leveling up at all. Plus the arguments work both ways. For example you are level 5, you beat a hard opponent and he drops an uber sword of a theoritical level 30. Then what? Without level reuirements you just equip it and you have no reason to use another sword for tens of hours - LAME. Working for being able to use it is a much better option. Makes leveling even more exciting.

Lore wise of course it does not make sense. In the books Geralt was the greatest swordman in the world. Ciri, who only trained for a year in Kaer Morhen and was inferior to the other witchers, let alone Geralt, beat Bonhart, who was considered the best human swordman. Geralt himself killed Vilgefortz, who was by a huge shot the strongest sorcerer in the world. Vilgefortz beat Yennifer, who was supposed to be the most powerfull sorceress, maybe besides Phillipa, in a matter of seconds, and Geralt killed him.

However i am really glad they designed these games as RPGs, and not as action game with Geralt being a badass from the first second. I really love the character progression.

Seriously man, i have read 2 words of spoilers, i havent read the last book yet, use motherfcking spoilers.

---------- Updated at 03:26 AM ----------

That's off-topic, but I just have to correct that: This is not true. YennEfer was never supposed to be the most powerful sorceress. She's "just" one sorceress among many other sorceresses and sorcerers. Tissaia de Vries was very likely more powerful than Yennefer, and Margarita Laux-Antille is probably as well. And maybe Francesca Findabair. And of course Philippa.

And you the same, stop spoiling ppl please, go to another thread to discuss the books or get some Spoiler alert in your comment. I havent read the last book yet