Hello, I am unsure if anyone at Larian actually reads these forums.. but I figured it would not hurt to come and toss this on.

If at all possible could you make the game not end once the main quest is completed? and have some sort of re-spawn feature for those who want it?

The tool kit, oh wow.. I was so terrified of the one for D:OS. I could not make heads or tails of it. Pretty please make D:OS II's kit easier and friendlier for people. I would love to make adventures in the game.

ReSpawning, I know this is something people often have angst against, but if it was an option would add some danger and length to the game.

Level Scale- Make it so encounters can scale with the player levels rather then static levels. This way adventures made by others could be enjoyed by any level. And the base game could also benefit from Level Scaling in ways. If it also had respawns or random encounters.

Just my view on things and I don't expect everyone to agree, just please keep torches caped. No need for flames.

I'd suggest using the search feature to see if ideas that you have, have already been brought up before. For example, the editor/tool kit has already been brought up like 3 or 4 times, maybe more, in multiple forums.

Larian does read these forums, or at least I would assume so (since they post here and stuff like that ;)) since they advertise on their kickstarter campaign that you can show your ideas and stuff about the game on this forum.

You can also still post your ideas on here:
http://larian.uservoice.com/forums/314766-divinity-original-sin-2-game-ideas

and vote on ones that you want to see in the game too (I'd also suggest using the search feature there too).

I'm not sure what you mean by 'Respawning' though, could you elaborate on what you want to have implemented? From my understanding 'Respawning' would make the game easier, for example if you died, you could just go back to the area you were just at and try again.

Oh respawning monsters! I played the first one and got really bored walking through empty maps. Which is why i also brought up level scaling. So even if someone leveled off respawns the main story would stay around their level.

About the idea site. I have voted there! and posted one about Long hair and gentle face options. For people who want to play more of a kind character. So many games give females this face lately >=( or >=). I think we can only post one suggestion on the site.. so I didn't post anymore.

Well cannot speak about the editor because I only made crappy stuff with it.

concerning respawning, well honestly what I like in Larian's game is that they always have hell of a story to tell and wiping an area is part of the story, it is like in the tales, when you kill someone it does not come back (well at least if we take apart ghost and haunting). I'd rather like to believe that each and every monsters are unique somehow with their own story (that I will brutally bring to an end) than bashing common monsters just to get a level.

about level scaling, and this is my own opinion, I really think it sucks, I mean where's the point, where's the epic battle when you can kill a powerful necromancer with a crappy stuff and two skills?! I like to see my guyz starting from killing rats in a sewer as common people to become more and more powerful and then, and only then, being able to slay legendary creatures. Where is the fun when every peasant can kill the ultimate boss of a game?

About respawns, you truly beleive in the world if you kill a few rats that is the end of them? if that is how Larian views a fantasy world. then I am worried. I was not talking about bosses respawning.

About level scaling. I am not sure you understand how it truly works. A peasent would not be able to kill the ultimate boss easily. Since the boss would have more abilities and health. level scaling simply means the player would stay in range of the story so they wouldn't over level or under level at any point.

Just so you know, yes.
Raze is always there to answer questions too.
Every single post is checked I can assure you

Repeatedly killing groups of rats doesn't make for great gameplay. There are situations where respawning would make sense in the game world (migration or reinforcements from adjoining areas, etc), but in general Divinity games are not meant to have a strong grinding mechanic, especially with the switch to turn based combat.

There are ways level scaling could be implemented to keep opponents from becoming too weak if you go to a lower level area later in the game. There are lots of ways level scaling can be implemented poorly, though.

I'm not sure how you can use realism to argue for respawning (at least in the case of rats), but also advocate opponents become weaker or stronger depending on your own level.

I guess it's just a me thing ._. I just hate being forced through map to map to map with no time to explore around a bit or just kill a few things that re spawned to get a few coins I am short of buying something. Then just going to a credits screen at the end.

I fail to see how lack of respawning or level scaling discourages exploration.

IMO, if there is a limited amount of enemies in a map, you'll be wanting to explore the entire map to see everything and get all the xp. When enemies respawn, it makes me NOT want to explore the map because I know that it's just a waste of time.

to me walking around a dead map is a bit dull, again just my personal thoughts. When there is zero danger and then if I have to walk back and forth for a quest.. but I just remembered someone made a mod that did respawns on Divinity Original Sin 1.. so I have to hope that person gets the second one ^_^

Just difference in gaming ^_^ kicking myself for making this thread now.

QuietArts, I understand your concerns but respawning enemy's is not the answer, I got a better idea for places that have already been explored (little fun quests like monster hunter, bounty, treasure hunting and so on)

Read this: http://larian.uservoice.com/forums/...dynamic-and-engaging-gameplay-system-ple - Go find this part "Now lets talks about more ADDICTIVE activities to do in the game"

You also made me another idea, side events can be occurred during your paths if you need to visit the area again. Example a imp on the road that was not there before when you need to travel to the same area. I'm sure these little small events can make travelling allot more fun as well

Oh by the way there will be an arena in game, so I am sure you'll have allot of fun on that too

Hope you leave a comment and vote as this does satisfy most people who want to do more combat and other things to do in the game.

So QuietArts I do agree that there was nothing to interact with when your done exploring the area on D:OS or nothing really happening when travelling to the same destination as you already looted and interacted with everything, just respawning enemy's is not really the answer as it does get repetitive and annoying :P

I voted on the voice site. I love that Larian set that up!! I liked the monster hunting idea thing..

Also for the arena O.o are you sure there is one in game? and it's not just a pvp area?

Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qezVapjaYD8

Yes, you can go in by yourself and go against AI's, just hopefully you can go against your companions. Though they might do it differently for Single Player like your party against AI's of creatures and a different setting than hunger games :P

aww darn! had me all excited thinking it was me and my NPC companions vs some monsters or gladiators.

The thing I see with this idea though, is that you need a ton of different event so it didn't get tidious. You would not really want to see the same event twice.
Or you would be like "Oh, it's the imp again..."
Not saying it's a bad idea, just... it needs a lot of content to not feel "deja vu".

NorD

I know what you mean but I was not thinking to make the same event more than twice (magical imp selling stuff, travel merchant, bandit, ambush, rare drops and so on)... though it might take allot more effort to add different events and might not be worth adding in as it may complicate things. Though some events can be triggered more than once like merchants.

Though the link I've added about monster hunting, bounty, treasure hunting and so on is much a better idea as it does attract allot of players to do more stuff in the game, so the areas that have been already explored won't feel empty to them when they can get these "fun" quests

1. Level scaling? HELLLLL NO. I don't think it really needs much explaining why.

2. Respawning? No again. It just screams "grinding". And then people love it, and you know, they come to the forums and complain the game is just too easy cause they grinded and rofl-stomp everything now. Believe me; It will happen. It's opening a can of worms that adds a negative value whatever way you look at it. So why should they waste developer time adding it.

That doesn't mean I disagree with certain events opening up new content (and potentially a battle) in older areas. Like in Area 3 you run into a NPC who tells you evil wizard X took over the lair of the forest after you cleaned it and is using it for pure evil. And if you return, new opponents are there, not just a rehash of the ones you killed before - as akin to the new quest/encounter that lured you back there.
Several other ideas could be the treasure hunts of before (expanded, and sometimes luring enemies to itself), fighting a "lair" (kinda needs objective XP (hell yeah) though or no XP for the lair summons) or as stated bounty hunting.

There's so much one can think of, but just respawning the same enemies will only harm the game and is, at best, a completely lazy cop-out. A big no.

\

Not to sound mean, but you type lots and make little sense. Going HELL NO to level scaling then going to respawning and saying will stomp it.. well yeah, that is where level scaling comes into play. To keep it a challenge. But I can see Divinity Original Sin 2 will be just another rush through to the end credits game.

Congrats. You just turned "grind" (already not fun) to "worthless grind" (since gain will be nullified, even less fun is to be had).
Tell me one... ONE... game that *benefited* from having worthless grind to it.

You know, it's just your opinion on grinding as a mechanic.
Maybe OP likes to grind stuff and he would like to have that in the game. I myself really like grinding. I couldn't say why though, hahaha.

But still, I don't think any form of grinding has it's place in DOS. It doesn't fit the game.

Having stuff to "refill" parts of maps would be great though. If justified correctly. Like the events proposed here.

Level scaling is one of those things that's divisive because it can be done so badly, but other times it works incredibly well. For me, Oblivion was a good example of both: vanilla, out of the box, its level scaling was rather poor: it got to the point where I thought "why am I even bothering?" as the scaled baddies sometimes changed appearance but the challenge was always the same and the rewards eventually became inconsequential.

But the game engine itself offered incredibly flexible level scaling, as some of the overhauls such as OOO demonstrated, and they took a somewhat turgid game and made it incredible. There was actually a challenge, and for the first few levels I daren't venture off Imperial Isle, and then at higher levels I could just swat the more annoying enemies away without them becoming tedious. But there was always a challenge if I went looking for it.

For me, that proved that level scaling can work and can keep a game interesting. But if done badly (or overly cautiously, or whatever) it can also ruin an otherwise good game.

Level scaling and respawning are mechanics that every game can't benefit from. A hack'n'slash, a very open-world game like the ES series, just cry for respawning/level scaling. HnS is all about leveling and gearing, so you need monsters to gain XP and loot. An Elder Scroll game do not force the player into doing the game linearly, so you need level scaling to keep him entertained and [somehow] challenged.

Let's not fool ourselves : DOS1 was a very linear game, even if you COULD take shortcuts with the right character builds. Around me a lot of people complained that they weren't sure where to go when they reached the second map ( yeah, the forest, can't remember the name ), and ended up fighting ennemies 2, 3 if not 4 levels higher than themselves. I can attest to that : that's what happened to us too. We almost got the "cure" to the Deathknight problem before we were even sent to get it. Needless to say, the opposite is also true : content was trivial when we got on the right path again.

In the end I'd rather have a no-respawn, no-leveling scaling game, as I prefer to find areas that I can't do now. Gives a little motivation to prepare and come back later. It also help lower the risks of self-spoiling. Also, since DOS is a turn based game, it can be more tedious than an action-RPG : just imagine, you went to the far side of the map for nothing, as you got lost while questing, only to find out that you have to re-fight everyone on the way back because they respawned. That's a trait I always deeply disliked on the Final Fantasy games : big maps with combats every 5 cases that take forever to initialize, and then forever to win.
You could totally have respawn events though. Like the guy you had to kill summon his guards, and now you have a full alert castle to flee.

Why do people hate levelscaling? What will happen to D:OS if enemies have a minimum level and will still be notable when you completed other quests before you return?
Why do I hate levelscaling in Skyrim: I see a Wolves at level 3 and barely kill them. Later, at level 10 I see more Wolves, consider how much I must have improved and get killed because I unjustifiably "overextended myself". Same goes to Areas. You remember the common pattern that in a specific region, there are weak enemies. 20 levels later, when you return, the enemies are stronger and of different type than what you (justifiably) expect them to be. Every place feels just the same. Or worse: Oblivion where higher difficulty is set equal to higher enemy health.

Regarding D:OS: The points above more or less do not apply here. You will witness every encounter and area once. Orcs are level 2 in the beginning iirc, 6-8 at the western beach, and level 12-14 later in the game. Always being around your current level. Isn't that a bit like levelscaling already?
If people find a specific encounter too challenging and they are at the correct level already, why don't they reduce the difficiluty like I often did in BG2?
One point against levelscaling I agree to is when you replay the game and try to plan ahead. That will feel awkward. I am not sure if it is a thing, though.

It was a real letdown for me when I realised I had skipped the crab boss battle, although I have already been overleveling the other content east of Cyseal. It is no fun beating a boss down and all his awesome attacks and scripted events are a waste of time. It is like playing Zelda with 99 general keys. So for me, levelscaling or similars (like asymmetric combat bonuses) are ok specifically in D:OS as long as there still is a "level wall".

Respawning in its pure form will create redundant content. "Respawn" does not need to mean encounter. You can fill largely depopularized areas with kith: beggars, rabbits, deer,.. anything that creates the illusion of liveliness. As long as it does not hinder travel it is very fine.

[edit] ... was looking at a bad post order

I think I may found something that can be really balanced between level scaling and no-scaling!!!

How about IF enemy's have a special ability unlock or a extra layer by the player levels?

Example: If you are level 5 by doing the extra "respawn events or grinding in arena and such (limited and no enemy respawns)" and the enemy's you are battling with are is the usual level 3 normal skeleton with swords BUT now it has a powerful shield that absorbs all elemental damage (which you will not know about) that summons a elemental Level ? out of the shield (depends on players level). Maybe it has another ability when you killed them without triggering the shield ability, it will reconstruct it's self and turn into another form of hybrid skeleton with new abilities that will match the players level.

That is probably the best or proper way to balance it right? IF you are at a higher level when you decide to do those respawn events and other activities that includes more XP? but I also know that players want to see ALL the enemy's unlock abilities and layers when playing on hard mode so it will be tactical, challenging and pretty much balancing most of the players skill and abilities.

What do you guys think?

My point of view:

No level scaling. In Oblivion I had epic battles against rats and I was unable to beat 2 goblins at once after killing lots of demons. This took away any feeling of progress and I quit playing. I think you should not change things from D:OS.

No respawning. Beating the same enemies over and over again is not fun, it is boring. It is also very time consuming in a game with a rather slow turn based combat. That does not mean that areas have to be empty forever once you clear them. But there must be a reason why something is there.
Example: You defeat all undead in a ruin. Later you come back to a nearby village and people tell you that bandits have taken over the ruins. They were looking for a new base for a long time and after the undead were gone, they found the ruin to be the perfect hideout. They placed traps and barriers everywhere, so you need a different approach than the first time. Maybe you get the option to join the bandits and you attack the village together. A dungeon becomes a town and vice versa.

I remember this too. Oh my god that was awkward. Being completely rekt by a rat at level 25...

The thing with level scaling and monster respawning, when put together, IMO, remove the sentiment of progression because, like said above, you go back at like, the beginning of the game and you encounter a rat that is doing 1000 dmg to you like a giant or a dragon would do.
For me, you're supposed to completely destroy monsters at the beginning of the game if you come back 10 hours later.

Actually, it does. This has been hashed out before, but if done properly (level scaling within a specific range), it can be very beneficial to the game. What kind of level scaling are you envisioning, with your statement?

Pure level scaling - where the enemies all scale to your exact level? In which case, I semi-concur (it can still be done properly to provide a challenge, but is much more difficult to implement, and far easier to get wrong).

or

Hybrid level scaling - Where the enemies are a minimum level, but will also scale up to your level (within a specific range)? This is something I proposed before and would stand behind.

*EDIT*
Missed that there was a page 2 before I posted. Vometia pretty much summed up what I meant.

Level scaling in Sacred was pretty bad and made the game worse, specially with protection quests that were made for lower-level enemies.

If you're doing effort to make hybrid scaling, like, an enemy from lvl 12-14... I would say "why bother". Why put so much effort in something so small, so insignificant and something that wont at all resolve what people apparently think was wrong (it wasn't) in D:OS. Stick the lvl 12's in one dungeon and the 14's in another dungeon. Give players the choice, have more content.

Definitely my preference of developer time, more content rather than having them waste time like this. And then you could say "they can just add X HP/damage and stuff" but that's just as half-baked and not thought-out that 'full scaling' would do, and we already have ample proof of can be very very bad.

As a tiny green man once said.
"Do or do not."
No game ever benefits from adding half-baked sollutions for something, often making the 'cure' worse than the disease in the first place.

Why is this such a difficult topic for people? Level scaling destroys any sense of progression in a single-player RPG and makes the mobs trivial from a story telling perspective. In single player RPGs you don't have trash mobs. High level trash mobs are a concept designed for MMOs because it makes sense there from a gameplay perspective. The logic is the other way around for SP RPGs - mobs shouldn't be strong because they have levels, they should have levels because they are strong. I.e. an Elder Dragon is always 25th lvl because it's an Elder Dragon. A shoddily trained bandit with a club is always 2nd level because s/he is what s/he is.

No level scaling of either the mobs or the items. IT'S BAD. DON'T DO IT. It also has a bajillion other problems from a single-player RPG perspective.

The problem is that Larian already hinted twice that they want to make a nonlinear experience and they are currently trying with levelscaling which they do not like (They had some "cool ideas" about that).
D:OS 1 was designed in a way that fights at every stage of the game were challenging.
And D:OS 2 will lose lots of it's gameplay if you usually are to strong for the encounters.

The discussion should not revolve how bad level scaling is but what the alternatives are.
Autoattack so you can finally progress isn't.

You know how that particular problem is solved and has been solved since the dawn of RPGs? By not making passive level gains trump everything else in terms of power. In Baldur's Gate your character was still awful at high levels if you had a stupid build. In D:OS not so much. Passive level gains should offer small increment in power/survivability, not be the end-all be-all of character progression. A difference of 2-3 levels shouldn't be so noticeable as to make the fights trivial even with a good build.

On top of that they could also easily control XP gain, so to not make the characters massively overpowered compared to the mobs. Non-linear game doesn't mean level-up-a-palooza.

Yes, 2-3 levels *should* be noticable. I really don't want the modern RPG/MMO-esque system of like 100 levels where being level 50 or 60 is pretty much inseperatable. What's wrong with the good old system of old RPG's where leveling was interesting, progressive and a true reward than having to need to fist-feed "level up cookies" every 30m to keep the gamer interested, but in doing so make leveling a meaningless pointless and utterly useless mechanic devoid of it's intention?

It reminds me of:

Pre-PoE Release: "12 levels is too low. Make it atleast 30 or so. You can't expect people to just get 11 level ups in a 60 hour game. Leveling would be just too slow, too long playing without leveling"
... then ...
Post-PoE Release: "Yeeeeah, leveling goes way too fast. You should really cut XP progression by like 50%, that would make the game much better!"

Also I *totally* miss going to hell and being pummelled to death if not suitable suited rather than 'modern RPG's having the true Demon of Hell being level 2 just to suit you and "we can't have people not instantly move all around this gigantic map"...
I miss Morrowind in Bethesda's concept of making a game. Allowing you to go anywhere, anytime without issue or join every single guild is definitely not making their games better.

Lastly... did you seriously used BG as example for levels being meaningless? The game where a rat could one shoot your mage on lvl 1, but by level 3 they can already pretty much get apocalyptic, not to mention going totally overkill at level 5. And then there comes cloudkill.
Yeah, levels mean an immense deal in Baldur's Gate.

Nobody said you are going to get 100 levels. Only the first few levels had huge differences in BG. That's why I said at "high levels". You are basically a peasant who can hardly swing a sword at lvl 1. But the first few levels were linear as f**k and you couldn't go anywhere you wanted. Well, you could, but you couldn't kill the mobs. That was deliberate. To not overpower the characters compared to the mobs. Leveling up shouldn't be just numbers that go up to an uncontrollable degree like you seem to suggest and think is an "event".