Nope. Because all items have an x amount of power, depending from when you have loot them.
There shouldn't be any scaling. And the sword requirements should be locked to skills or stats, not on player level.
In all the examples you've given so far, I've found upscaling weapons better in every single one. I guess we'll just agree to disagree at this point.
EDIT - So you can see that it can be a problem? Great! There wouldn't be this problem with upscaling weapons. Most likely this game would end up fine with the non-upscaling option, but it is still an inferior design choice.
Last edited:
I still don't see how it's the inferior design choice. Round and around we go.In all the examples you've given so far, I've found upscaling weapons better in every single one. I guess we'll just agree to disagree at this point.
EDIT - So you can see that it can be a problem? Great! There wouldn't be this problem with upscaling weapons. Most likely this game would end up fine with the non-upscaling option, but it is still an inferior design choice.
Did you play TW2 FCR? It's a nice mod, makes combat more enjoyable. It does more than that, though, and revamps the abilities as well as gear in the entire game. I liked what it did with combat, disliked the rest, because in a complete playthrough I think I found around 3 weapons that were worth changing to (without significant upgrades at that). To me that is an inferior design choice in an RPG - going through only 3-4 weapons in 30-40 hours makes loot a very negligible aspect to me.
And it's entirely subjective. Maybe you enjoy that. Me? Not so much. I don't prefer the extreme of Borderlands where every 10 minutes I'll probably find something cool to switch to. But upscaling might mean that there is an extremely low rhythm of improving your gear, like in the FCR.
Also, a bit irrelevant now, but has anyone here played NwN 1 online (or even just sp)? I did, for many years. And there's really nothing quite like the feeling of finally reaching that level requirement for an item you've been carrying for a while. It makes it so much more satisfying than just using it as soon as it enters my inventory. But, again, subjective. To me level requirements is a great mechanic of balance as well as a sense of progression when you finally get to use that awesome thing, and upscaling has the potential of taking away much of the appeal of loot, to me.
Last edited:
I've said all along that whether its a problem is or not is based on how well its supported; that edit just summarizes what I said a page agoIn all the examples you've given so far, I've found upscaling weapons better in every single one. I guess we'll just agree to disagree at this point.
EDIT - So you can see that it can be a problem? Great! There wouldn't be this problem with upscaling weapons. Most likely this game would end up fine with the non-upscaling option, but it is still an inferior design choice.
It might seem bad at first sight but that's the way it should be done in a game where the world doesn't scale with your level.
There are gonna be some weapons in the game that will be in static locations, and they surely are gonna be powerful, I could already imagine a guide on youtube on how to go get that sword by simply running somewhere, and after you obtain in you could go back and 1 shot everything you find, which would be pretty bad.
The only problem I can find here (which is not a real problem to me anyway) is that there could be stats requirements instead of level requirements to make it better, similar to the Gothic series, since the game looks like Gothic a lot.
In any case, seeing information like this without having played the game and felt it, can often lead us to judge by filling all the information we are missing with our imagination, and it usually is very different to what the game is actually going to be.
There are gonna be some weapons in the game that will be in static locations, and they surely are gonna be powerful, I could already imagine a guide on youtube on how to go get that sword by simply running somewhere, and after you obtain in you could go back and 1 shot everything you find, which would be pretty bad.
The only problem I can find here (which is not a real problem to me anyway) is that there could be stats requirements instead of level requirements to make it better, similar to the Gothic series, since the game looks like Gothic a lot.
In any case, seeing information like this without having played the game and felt it, can often lead us to judge by filling all the information we are missing with our imagination, and it usually is very different to what the game is actually going to be.
Yes, IMHO.
Some things cannot be toggle. It's a matter of concept.
Well yeah I meant CD's idea, not the OP one... It's not scaling which is good.
Didn't they say you wouldn't "loot" witcher sword, they would be only crafted or quest rewards?
Really... for me the fun is in hitting things with a sharp piece of metal... not particularly collecting different sharp ornaments.
If I started with Mahakam Rune Sihil and was still using it in the end game that would feel just fine to me. (Then I'm coming from a more realistic POV, that it is the user and training that matter most, and for most real purposes the quality of a sword isn't nearly as important to *damage* as is common in games...). Now, if the "better" quality swords were lighter, and gave bonuses to speed, ability to parry or slip past an enemy block, or in durability and the ability to keep an edge, then I'd be more interested... but with the common tropes... really Meh!.
---------- Updated at 11:32 AM ----------
This is precisely one of the things I did really like about FCR. That the very best sharpened steel bar is only marginally better than an average one.... enough to make a significant difference, after blocks and armour, but not orders of magnitude of raw damage... I did change swords regularly, as there was enough marginal increase to make this just worthwhile (difference between 4 hits to kill and only 3 for "some monster", at least some of the time). But if you prefer the look (or history) of another there isn't too much difference to hurt the gameplay.
Most of the damage increases (which can be significant) come from skills, oils, and runes, with some relatively minor organic "specials" in their (relatively) weak forms - bleeding, poison, fire.
I remember the good old days. Yes it's cliche but sometimes it is warranted and I believe in this instance it is. It's like that there has gone some kind of inflation in modern RPGs where the game throws loot at you and in the end you feel like you are drowning in it. I don't know why that change happened. It's like people can't take the sole reward in defeating something difficult in a game. There simply MUST be that garrote of a reward in the end or it would have been a waste of time. And then OMG if you can't use that reward then to hell with that too so now we get level scaling, downscaling, upscaling and whatnot.
It's a ugly tendency to me and it removes any kind of joy and excitement in finding loot because it have been rob of any kind of rarity, uniqueness and history. That's why I recall the good old days. Do any one remember back when BG was fresh and new. The feeling of finding your first +1 +2 +3 sword. Or the named ones where you felt you had a piece of history in your hands. You feel attached to your equipment because it was ONE OF A KIND and not much in the game could replace it.
The RPGs of today have rob you of any sense of that feeling. Unique and rare items are spread around the world in abundance. And if NOT you can always craft a superior item by farming materiel that aren't really that hard to get. As such items have been reduce to DPS numbers and looking COOL - nothing more. And this scaling business is just another step in that direction. I don't like it. I miss the good old days!
It's a ugly tendency to me and it removes any kind of joy and excitement in finding loot because it have been rob of any kind of rarity, uniqueness and history. That's why I recall the good old days. Do any one remember back when BG was fresh and new. The feeling of finding your first +1 +2 +3 sword. Or the named ones where you felt you had a piece of history in your hands. You feel attached to your equipment because it was ONE OF A KIND and not much in the game could replace it.
The RPGs of today have rob you of any sense of that feeling. Unique and rare items are spread around the world in abundance. And if NOT you can always craft a superior item by farming materiel that aren't really that hard to get. As such items have been reduce to DPS numbers and looking COOL - nothing more. And this scaling business is just another step in that direction. I don't like it. I miss the good old days!
How about this:
In the game the most advanced smiths have to be unlocked through quests right? Therefore you find a smith capable of modifying the sword to your current level, for a hefty price, if you can't find a smith good enough you can't use the sword.
It would be kind of like in shows where a sword is too long or heavy at the time and is adapted. Then once you get to the swords true level you have to go back to a capable smith.
Depending on the swords rarity and stats, pay a fee that is in proportion to restore the sword.
large amounts of money would be hard to come by early- mid game; unless you can constantly beat the hardest monsters and quests.
Doing this a lot would make it harder to buy gear at a consistent rate, because you would always be massively out of pocket.
In the game the most advanced smiths have to be unlocked through quests right? Therefore you find a smith capable of modifying the sword to your current level, for a hefty price, if you can't find a smith good enough you can't use the sword.
It would be kind of like in shows where a sword is too long or heavy at the time and is adapted. Then once you get to the swords true level you have to go back to a capable smith.
Depending on the swords rarity and stats, pay a fee that is in proportion to restore the sword.
large amounts of money would be hard to come by early- mid game; unless you can constantly beat the hardest monsters and quests.
Doing this a lot would make it harder to buy gear at a consistent rate, because you would always be massively out of pocket.
Last edited:
You took me back. They didn't just feel as if they had some history - they actually had some history
Finding a named item, then examining to read about it... kid me really liked that. Item descriptions were great.I know it becomes a banal thing to say in discussions, but it just shows how much it's up to personal preference here
Both attitudes are understandable and there's no design choice that is better in some general, objective manner.
Last edited:
The Witcher Sword, maybe. We definitely saw a steel sword come out of a chest in one of the videos.
Wait, so how is it?
If I'm at level 10, and I find a sword which is level 20, If I choose to use him, he will be too at level 10 just like my character, but it will be a more powerful sword than a sword which is from the start at level 10 ? And after I level up to 11, the sword would remain at level 10 forever?
If I'm at level 10, and I find a sword which is level 20, If I choose to use him, he will be too at level 10 just like my character, but it will be a more powerful sword than a sword which is from the start at level 10 ? And after I level up to 11, the sword would remain at level 10 forever?
Look at it this way:
If a weapon is non-upscaling, then you're stuck with buying new equipment.
If a weapon is upscaling, you have two options - keep buying new equipment, or use your scalable weapon. (you can even do both)
If you still think that the non-upscaling weapon is a better option, or even that both are equal, then I won't continue the argument further with you.
Yes, that sword will be stuck at level 10 forever. You've ruined it for that whole save.
From what I understood from the explanation, only the base damage is modified, the additional bonuses, like fire damage or whatever stay the same.
This way you'll still get a batter sword than the comparable level 10 (as per the example) sword.
In term of the ongoing discussion, I don't want scaling damage swords. It would have been fine for me if they stuck to the level requirement, but this current implementation could also work.
I'm still reserving judgement for when we get the game, but if they chose to do this, I believe they had a very good reason to do so.
The my way or the highway attitude is not a good one for a discussion, other people also have various preferences that may differ from yours.
You keep trying to press this objective quality to one design decision over the other. Yes, to me the non-upscaling option is intuitively more appealing (based on what limited knowledge we have) because I prefer the sense of progression that comes when I find better items (at a certain pace, that's not as fast as Borderlands) throughout the game and switch to them. Theoretically. If done well. I'll have to wait and see. You prefer having the options and that is completely fine. I differ from you in that this is an area where I do not think more options at any given point is better. If I find an item so powerful it will have me "covered" for around 30% of the game's level progression because it upscales with me, my personal experience will be diminished. That I can switch to other weapons doesn't matter, because the sense of progression to me is lessened. Upscaling doesn't offer more. It offers something different. That something different is not something I prefer. Not intuitively. Again, depends on execution - game isn't out, we'll have to wait and see, etc.
If what Damien says here proves to be correct, then it is a system that is more to my liking (which isn't to say it's "better" than what you like, because better\worse are very tricky terms to apply to gameplay features). "Options" is not a magical word that always garners agreement, no matter what. I also differ from you in that I recognize a personal preference in gameplay features as just a personal preference, and do not label mine as a superior design route while another person's preference is the inferior. That strikes me as incredibly haughty. One design favors advancement, another options. None of these terms have an objective, absolute advantage or higher quality over the other, no matter the context. Your preference has its merits, I realize that. They're just not merits I value over advancement in this specific case. Why is that so unfathomable?
This is one of the more confusing things I've read here,
Why? Because I don't defer to... something you consider as infallible arguments that others don't comprehend?
Or something less bombastic - that you just realize there are different preferences, which is completely alright? In that case, yeah, there's probably little point continuing because people like different gameplay features. How about that. And the thing is, when the game is out I might end up hating the system once I see that the balance sucks, items are scarce and a dozen other reasons. But it's beyond me to know that at this point. "Wait and see" isn't some shallow cliche. There's way too much speculation going on without barely enough information, about a game that is way too complex for us armchair developers to see all its components together, and we haven't even played yet. Which doesn't stop other forum members here from dishing out "this is stupid", "this is dumb" comments without blinking. Everyone knows better. It's inevitable that people will have gut feelings and general impressions about what could be good or worse - but there's still a distance between that and determining so authoritatively that this system is better than that. Especially when the game isn't out yet for our review, with all its features. And if I seriously misinterpreted your post, then I apologize for that, as well as my tense response.