I doubt if it was that thread, not this late in the development cycle. More likely feedback from the testers.
I doubt if it was that thread, not this late in the development cycle. More likely feedback from the testers.
I always thought that the dark souls system was the same as adding a level requirement just cleverly hidden behind the fact that you still wield a weapon.
You can equip some huge weapons that you do not meet the strength or dexterity requirement but you do worse damage and you can hardly walk.
The way i see it, it's not an actual choice but the illusion of choice because i don't know anyone that would go around waving a huge dragon tooth without actual results. Still i think it's a matter of personal preference of which system works best.
Last edited:
I'm not sure how comparing within a vacuum gives you a better comparison, than actually considering other multiple important variables that build the whole context base for such a comparison to have actual meaning. We can just as well argue which is better - using swords or axes - within a vacuum; We'll get nowhere if we disregard the bigger context (because for example, we could be discussing a lumberjack simulator game, where using swords doesn't make any sense).
So what I'm saying is that to answer a question such as "which is better, upscaling or non-upscaling?", one must take context into consideration for the answer to have value. I'm in agreement with @EliHarel here.
Anyhow, I don't like the idea of upscaling weapons.
By vacuum, I don't mean remove context. It means remove the variables/unknowns like "you'll get more weapons", "scarce weapons" etc. as much as possible. Compare while thinking about levelling up, exploration etc. The reason for the vacuum is because we don't know the variables.
Also, can you please explain why you don't like the idea of upscaling weapons? Or asking differently, why do you want the weapon to downscale, but not upscale to its original potential? What are the benefits of the weapons just downscaling and staying there, over upscaling?
With the way Damien says that there are many opportunities for good loot, that suggests that we are likely dealing with something closer to Scenario A. Whether or not resources is an issue is another matter of balance. We know very little about how the weapon upgrades will work or if every weapon can even be upgraded. Besides that, upgrading a weapon likely means that the turn around isn't as high. You may be replacing unupgraded weapons every other level or so, while an upgraded weapon lasts you 3-4 because it has some special effect that provides more raw output than the small base increase on a slightly higher level item.
And thats why trying to look at this "in a vaccum" doesnt really work since these mechanics are all a part of a larger thing.
The thing is, in those two scenarios and even with what Damien says, upscaling still comes out on top, because you have an extra choice. Non-upscaling might not be an issue when the game releases coz of the points you've mentioned. But if upscaling is still better, then why not have it as such? What is non-upscaling bringing to the table?
Anyway. If people want to continue this point, please answer the following specifically:
Why is non-upscaling better than upscaling?
(Also off topic, but does anyone know what the difference between a mutagen and a random alchemy ingredient is? I'm playing Witcher 2)
I have the same feeling as well. If I'm level ten and i take the time and effort to beat a level 20 monster, I want something good for that. On the flip side though, if we get a level 20 sword and it's completely overpowered and just lets us steam roll through the game, then that's a legit concern as well.
The best idea I can think of right now, is a happy medium between the two. So instead of the sword being downgraded to level 10, it gets downgraded only to like level 15. This way, we still have obtained a weapon that is much more powerful than anything we have (so we feel that we've earned a good reward), but not uber overpowered, which takes all the challenge away from the game.
That might be what CDPR is doing anyway. I don't think they specifically said that the weapon would be downgraded to your exact level. Maybe it gets downgraded to like 3 or so levels above you.
What do you forum pals think of that idea?
How do you mean? Mutagens can be 'bonded' to select skills on the character development tree, if that is what you wan to know. If you mean 'do they have any special use in alchemy?' Not that I know of.
Not allow you to find anything too good? How do you know that? Assumptions don't make a strong case.
Edit :There might be more loot than we can handle and lots of it good as well. We will never know before release and extensive gametime on our hands.
Last edited:
I'm not saying that either of these is better than the other. I'm saying that either of them can work perfectly fine as long as the surrounding mechanics are there to support them. Deciding which is better is an impossible task given the little bits of info we have so far. The one thing I do disagree with is that this change will discourage me from exploring the world or seeking challenges; I'll do that regardless of what it ends up being.
I don't mind that the weapon downgrades to your exact level. I guess CDPR want to manage the balance in the game via that, and I can appreciate that. I just don't like how it just stays locked at that level, thus ruining a potentially strong weapon. Having something like that level 15 example might be an okay compromise.
Still though, I'll probably end up reading the strategy guide to pick out all the strong weapons that I don't want to ruin because to this
Ah! Didn't know those things. Thanks guys!
A dev should never listen a tester. Spector did it. "Put a guy in a purple suit. People like purple suits." This is how "Deus Ex Invisibile War" born.
I don't really know much of anything about this game so maybe I'm wrong, but that's what item scaling sounds like that the game scales items to lower level if they're too good. Maybe item scaling only applies to some items and not others. But I think to have it at all is bad.
Hypothetically, in which scenarios can you see non-upscaling being better than upscaling?
Tester feedback is incredibly valuable to the dev cycle. No single tester is dictating what is and isn't in the game, but developers are able to observe trends and commonality in the feedback to address potential issues. In the end we end up with a much more polished product. I assume what you are really talking about are focus groups, where they bring in a group of random people off the street and ask them what they think.. yeah, that is bad.
I've already given you examples when the difference is largely irrelevant.
edit: More specifically, downscaling is only a problem if there is a lack of comparable items. If you reach level 20 and there aren't any other great lvl 20 swords because you downscaled that one, then this is a bad decision. If you reach level 20 and there 4 other amazing swords you can equip instead, then it doesnt matter.
Last edited: