Hello Larian,hello forummates!
First of all- Larian I want to say your last Kickstarer Update and annoucement on it was the Bestest what I`ve seen ever,I cannot believe my dreams come true!! I never was so happy even when I was born.
So Swen you asked us"is this a bad move or good move?"
Personally I would say "If you have enough resources and stuff do it!It`s very good move "

I have to say that actually I`ve been writting my suggestions about missing things, before the release of this masterpiece.
But I think now is good chance to do it again.
So discuss it,judge it,add to this post something new ,I would be very glad to see your criticism,and opinions.


Here we go

1)Lack of unique sounds for replacing items

My biggest complain for this game was lack of unique sounds during inventory management and when we are picking-up\dropping items
Actually only "pile of gold" has such sounds.Thus if we try to pick up everything but gold ,we hear standart ticking sound.
Do you remember Divine Divinity,when we replacing you say Teleport Pyramids it gave so magical sound,it was music for my ears,and for me it was one of the reasons of my love for looting.

2)Partial inconsistensy of music tracks to surrounding

I like this music,this is truly Divine in good sense and I know Kirill was ill(I hope now he is much better)!
But sometimes tracks don`t much perfectly for surroundings
Especially it notably in dungeons.

For example,when you released Divinity Anthology there was track called "The Lady The Mage and The Knight" so when we are hear this one in the dusty dungeon full of skeletons and corpses,and then we hear it again during our travel beyond Cyseal not far from growling zombies.
In Divine Divinity there wasn`t mix of "dungeon" themes and "not dungeon" ones

I remember and understand your decision to include all unused and very rare tracks into D:OS,but actually I found few ones that really was`nt used in any Divinity game

a)from Divine Divinity "FightVV" actually it`s called "Demona Fight" If I am correct,it used to be played during demontration of the game or just for promo.
I don`t know if it match perfectly to the mood of the game.I found it on official Divine Divinity site.

b)from Beyond Divinity there was couple tracks which (I found it in folder where game is located) and can be included to D:OS soundtrack.
"Challenging Gesture" and "Playing God","Tail of Knight","Time Gate","Vine and Blood".

c)from Divinity Universe Soundtrack
"Ballad of Empty Illusions","Fire Upon Deep","Guardian of the Divine"

3)]Trophies section and Funny comments about Heroes` stats in the Diary please please...

4)Bellegar Encounters and Super-Mega dungeon beneath Pahanthom Forest-)

Yeah Larian I know you are really busy know I don`t want to annoy you with such requests,but I think it`s good opportunity include this things in Enhanced Edition.

You've a good point about the music :

I experienced this :
in the time my KS box came I can't start playing D:OS because I hadn't have my new laptop yet,
so I listen many times to the soundtrack CD of Kirill and that were very beautiful moments !
The whole bunch of tracks sucks me into the world of Original Sin !!

Then after a while (I bought a new laptop) I play D:OS and listen to the music tracks whilst playing I was suddenly suprized :
* I was a little bit disappointed because of hearing tracks from earlier Divnity games ....
* because the D:OS sound tracks I hear on the CD of Kirill fitting much more the atmosphere of D:OS !
* "nostalgy with music/sounds" can be a strong element in a new game, but can also break the right atmosphere (for me this is a bigger issue than I thought at first!) !

Sorry to the Larian Team to say this. I really love the D:OS sound tracks so so very very much that I don't want to hear (too) many times in the game sound tracks from earlier games ....

It's because of this that I lowered the sound almost to ZERO ! That's really a shame, I know, but then the visuals I see are at laest all full of Original Sin atmosphere sucking my soul into the game !!

Also thanks to the Turn Based Combat my inner push to replay older Divnity games is totally gone : see this as a big compliment for Divnity Original Sin (or: Eyes of a Child - nice cover and title!)!
It means that I love D:OS so much that my Soul came finally free from earlier Divnity games ! Or maybe here's something lurking at the corners of my thoughts ...
that can be ... no ... it IS ...
Source Magic !!

Hello again,just want to add my previous post.
5)Inventory management

Yes this was one of reasons why I abandoned this game.I think there is

no need to add any comment,because it was requested hundreds times

before me...

But I can suggest you next thing,it relates on crafting.

Suggestion to crafting:
If you ever played quest "Return to Mysterious Island"
You could see such thing,when we try to combine any items(which can be

combined actually)then game create new special section for this

combining items,thus we can make several combinations simultaneously.
So why don`t use it at D:OS?

6)Progress of gaining experience.

When I started to play Alpha version on Hard,I noticed,that in order to gain next level and survive obviosly you literally(well almost literally) should hunt down every creature,look for every secret mounds,take every minor potion etc....
I noticed this tendency only when you quite low-leveled
You killed Orc and gained 50 exp from 2000,you discocered any secret and again you gained 50 or 100 exp,but then later then more and more (relatively) you gaining experience for quite ordinary things
Let`s imagine you`re 13 lvl and discover secret or something like this and you gained 6000 explore xp!.
If it possible disable percentage-based(depend) system of gaining experience...
So in short I want severe challenge well at leats in Hardcore Mode-)

To make the game more friendly to the general public.

1. Quest Markers/area helpers, Toggle.
2. Full voice, I believe I've read that is in.
3. Inventory improvements, even though I did the container way, you watch youtube movies, it seems next to no one there did. Good proof of how things work out for the general pop.
4. Combat speed adjuster. (Perhaps a roaming speed slider as well)
5. That mock screen way back on how to pick a skill while in combat. The skill bar has the Skill Group on it if you invested in it (Pyro/Geo/Man At etc), you click that and from there veritably all the skills you have under that appear from that area up, click the skill and use.

Other:
1. I haven't played latest patch but if Intelligence still reduces cool-down, I'd address that. That hasn't changed has it?
2. Allow a free camera and for us to lock it where we like.
3. 4 player stock supported option.

1. More camera zoom please. I would like to see more zooming out.

2. drop in-drop out multiplayer support. coop is fun, but sometimes id like to play my character alone, without my friends inactive character attached to my hip :P

I don't really have any complaints about the gameplay per se. What I really DO want to see, however, is another city/town/settlement like Cyseal. The first half of the game felt perfectly balanced to me in terms of combat/exploration versus talking and questing in town. The latter half was just too much going around wilderness killing areas killing things.

So I really want to see another town like Cyseal, with more NPCs and local quests and noncombat encounters.

....

I also really want to see more racial diversity. DOS' budget precluded the creation of more than the minimum number of NPC model/animation sets--which meant no (unique) elves, no dwarves, no gnomes and no lizardfolk.

And that really stunk. So, yeah: I want to see dwarves and gnomes and lizards all in the EE. Especially the lizards. They were awesome in DD and even cooler in DC.

Linux

Removed or at least drastically reduced RNG for the item-creation/dropping process.

Personally I'm looking for more varition on loot stats, but more consistent overall quality of loot, and much less of it. Bosses should always drop rares/legendaries, and magical items should in general be rarer so they're worth more. I'd also like +skill stats like +sneak or +lore to be much rarer so that they're exciting to find instead of basically a given.

I don't see them nixing loot RNG entirely because random loot can sometimes support alternative builds that manual placement of items can't always predict. What if someone wants to build a sort of swashbuckler and needs +strength and +dex, but that combination of stats is nonexistant or really rare in manually placed loot because the developers didn't anticipate that build?

I do want more unique items as well, though, including items with actually unique stats. Most of the unique items in game felt really generic.

I don't think they actually need to reduce the RNG, just tweak it so you don't get 1H weapons with +2H (or vice versa), or shields with +2H for example. Just block off the RNG's that don't make any logical sense, and let the game do the rest.

Well, less useless combinations and better allocation would at least help the gameplay aspect, yes.

Nonetheless, in conjunction with the rest of the game I'd also prefer to see a matching characteristic item system, instead of a mostly generic one.
A game I really liked regarding that was NWN. Actually all magic items were unique, just slightly RNG influenced in their distribution.

Hooks and header files

Progress and gaining experience
********************************

There are casual players who just follow the main quest, accidentally make a side quest.
There are average players who try to find side quests.
There are hard core players who want dig out everything the game offers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue is: The hardcore player gets lot more xp than casual. Therefore later in the game its easyer for hardcore then casual, due to difference in levels and equipment.

That is not very correct.
Especially for consoles we could expect large amount of green AND casual players. Some of these belives that Diablo is RPG. So run forward and hack&slash means to be played.

Recommendation:
There is used to be a lot of xp for finishing quest and exploration. You can set the proper level for these. If the level is higher then xp reward is limited (in extreme 1xp for an very over leveled quest is possible) That way we can have a lot of side quests, high variability, possible re-playability. But casual gamers who just fallow main line are able to finish the game.

NWN have some very interesting ideas, even today. :-]
However, magic items fixed mans that you was forced to build a character depends on certain items. So hard core gamer of NWN knew the location of items then create a build focused for these items.
Thats very odd. In case you want a mace&board cleric but you know there is no proper shield for cleric up to 13lvl and no proper mace at all.

For items I would prefer a flexible system based on sockets and craft. So you could put a stone to the item. Or you could disassemble - so you choose item or the stone. The second thing is broken.

A good workaround to this issue, would be to have limited level scaling. What I mean, is that the enemies should start at a certain level by default, but will also scale up to a certain level (within a 2-4 level range), so as to still provide a challenge to those who do every single side quest and gain levels faster. In that way, casuals will be able to finish at a lower level, but those at higher levels will still be challenged.

I've always been a fan of limited level scaling myself as well, but am surprised at how rare it is. Developers seem to always go for all or nothing. The ideal would be to make it an option for those who want it. I could see scaling being annoying and make you feel not powerful when wolves from the first map could still kill your level twenty character, but scaling of a 2-4 levels would definitely help smooth out progress for both casuals and hardcore players. I hate being overleveled and trivializing content, like when I finally went to the Black Cove a couple levels higher than the enemies there and the combat was boring because the level differential gave me such a huge advantage.

Pillars of Eternity would benefit from this too; that game had even worse issues with over-leveling than D:OS. Basically ruined the game for a lot of people because the second half of the game became so easy if you did even a handful of sidequests. (They've fixed it somewhat, but not retroactively).

Well, limited scaling is good, somehow. It could help make map be more flexible. Now its very strict vhere you could go.
On the other side, once you add more enemyes for hard core gamer, you are giving even more xp. So in fact, you are not solving the issue but make it worst.

Variable quest xp reward gives developers another tool for make sure the player will be at certain step of main quest on certain level. no more, no less. That is very helpful for encounter planing a and difficulty. For example some spells are available on certain levels, if you dont have access to those then encounter might be far more diffcult.

Do you see the diference?

How does level scaling add more enemies? What it might do is give more experience for the higher level enemies, but you could just make them give the same experience no matter what level they are. Variable XP for quests could help as well, but I see that also as a disincentive for completing quests you're overleveled for. Limited level scaling eliminates the whole factor of being "overleveled" for quests entirely unless it's a really extreme difference.

Yes, balancing fights for multiple levels is an issue, but I don't think it would be much of an issue if the level scaling is only two or three levels up from the monster's original level. We're only suggesting that monsters level UP to meet you, not down, so I don't see you not having a certain spell you need to defeat a monster that you wouldn't have when encountering the monster at its original level. Proper scaling would mean the monsters don't get much stronger from level 4 to 6, for example, but enough so that they are still challenging if you face them at level 6 and not 4.

Level scaling is not without its flaws, but I think properly implemented it would give players more freedom and balance the content for casual and hardcore players alike.

You probably talk about Bethesda's scaling.
I talk about Bioware's NWN scaling rather.
In NWN-like system encounter scale by number of enemies. Its more suited for classical RPG where levels matters.

You know in classic pen a paper desk game level means something. Level 1 commoner. Level 2 a smith or cheap city guard. level 3 city guard. Level 10 a famous veteran soldier - the captain. Level 20 god-like persons, only few in the whole world.

Lets have a rat encounter. So you scale up the the rat to 3rd level which is awesome cose such a rat could rip apart gate quards and storm the city.
On the other side. Rat encounter of 10 rats instead of 5 makes sense. They are still the same animals but dangerous in groups. Checks some B horror movie.

Which system you would prefer?

Given that D:OS is turn-based and combat can be slow enough as is, I'd prefer level scaling over monster-number scaling. In a faster paced RPG like Pillars of Eternity or NWN, monster number/type scaling probably works better. City guards could scale levels a bit too, but it's already an issue without level-scaling; for example, the fire-undead to the east of Cyseal could probably invade Cyseal and kill everyone easily.

Plus it's much easier for Larian to implement level scaling than to increase the number of monsters based on your level. I agree that you sacrifice some immersion to have rats or goblins or what have you scale up their level simply because you encounter them later, but I think D:OS already doesn't regard levels in the same ways as pen and paper games. You fight orcs early in the game and also very late in the game, and they don't look or seem that different overall. Scaling is just how video games have to work to artificially act as dungeon masters and make the game challenging (and also save money on model design.)

The best case would be to let the player choose whether they want level-scaling or not, but that might be hard to implement.

I don't think level scaling would be in because that seems like a major change for what is still at heart essentially a big patch. But of course they are doing a bunch of other stuff, so...

None of Larian's previous games have had level scaling. Instead Larian uses experience scaling based on the difference between your level and the enemy's. I don't even know if they used that in D:OS, though, it might just have been completely fixed.

I see it as way more than a big patch. They are essentially reworking every aspect of the game, from story to balance to UI. I don't expect them to implement level scaling, but it really wouldn't be terribly difficult to implement. It'd require some testing for sure, but It's not any more major than a new difficulty mode or game ending. There's this big aversion to level scaling which I can understand when it's extreme, but It can be an extremely helpful mechanic when used sparingly to make games less linear.

I'm not completely against level scaling like some people, I just don't think that will be part of this part. From what I've heard, Larian went the reworking the enemy composition, skills and AI route, which is a big enough job to balance on its own, never mind adding in level scaling.

Level scaling in any shape or form, i.e. enemies' levels (or stats or power) change based on your level, is a disgrace.

Why? It's a little immersion-breaking if you actually see enemies scale their levels up, but most of the time if a player doesn't see a group of monsters and come back 3-4 levels later, the level scaling is relatively in the background. If I had never gone to the Black Cove, and went a couple levels higher than I should have to fight monsters at my level, I wouldn't even know that the monsters had scaled up. Of a course, it might be more obvious on a second play through, but then you can play in a slightly different order which in my opinion is a bigger benefit than knowing the enemies were level 4 instead of level 6 in your first playthrough.

One can even justify it in an immersive way. If players level up, why can't monsters? They can be living and becoming stronger, training or being magically strengthened in some way (the Cyseal undeads' magical bond could be strengthening as Braccus regains his own power, for example.)

I don't really see level scaling showing up in the EE either, but it would actually be relatively simple to implement. A few lines of scripting. Not sure if making it optional would be as easy, but I can't imagine that would be too difficult either.

Level scaling enormously opens up game design by letting the player choose the order he plays the content in, instead of trying to predict or force the player's path as is done now. As is now, Cyseal has quite a specific order it should be completed in. Otherwise, based on player and enemy level alone, certain fights will be very hard, and others will be absurdly easy as you get extra experience from those harder fights that overlevel you for the easier ones. With a limited upscaling of monster levels, it's harder to get overleveled and you have to worry less about trivializing content based on the order you play the game in.

Larian could then design content in their next game to be a bit more open and non-linear with less worry of how players are going to get frustrated by hard fights and stroll through easy ones. Even two levels of scaling can make a big difference in how content can be organized.

^Love the hardline!

Like anything both systems have strengths and weaknesses.

This is not about seeing or not seeing LS, which is irrelevant. Just like cheating on a test is wrong whether someone sees it or not.

The design philosophy behind level scaling is shallow, banal and cheap. It diminishes c&c and player agency.

I don't see how level scaling affects choice and consequences. The vast majority of choices (should I steal this thing? What should I do for this quest?) have little to do with levels at all. Are you going to decide not to fight something just because it leveled up a level or two? Do you feel jipped when you run into a hard fight, and decide to do some other quests and level up so that fight is easy? Maybe you feel your agency is being interfered with since the computer is "cheating," but I personally feel my agency is much more limited by the linear game design that comes with static levels.

Tell me, how would you design something like a city where the developer can't predict the order the player will go remotely at all? With static levels, you more or less have to make the quests near the starting point a bit easier, and just sort of randomly have harder ones deeper in the city in other districts. Or you can just distribute the levels of enemies fairly randomly through the city. So the player has to wander around finding the easier quests, and then build up to the harder ones. To alleviate frustration, developers will often be generous with XP and then you'll find after a few easy quests, the rest of those easy ones will become trivial. So level scaling not only helps deal with your choice of order, but also the number of them you complete.

Level scaling can be horribly implemented, yes. But I also find it hard to imagine an open world game without it at all. It wouldn't really be an open world if all the enemies outside of the starting area would wreck you. But having a few enemies which are quite hard in an easier area is okay as well. D:OS isn't an open world game, but it might benefit from limited level scaling to allow a bit more choice in how the player goes about completing the game.

Here's an example:
You choose to go to an area, which lore says is populated by creatures that are meant to tear apart inexperienced adventurers.
You end up surviving because level scaling saved your inexperienced ass.

Your choice to go to an area where you're meant to not survive (consequence) is laughed at by level scaling.


Repeat this 1000 times and perhaps things will become more easy to understand for you: There's nothing wrong with areas that are way too hard to adventure in until you reach a certain level.

I think the concern was areas that were way too easy because you out levelled them, either doing things in an unexpected order or being a completionist and doing all the side quests, etc.
Level scaling doesn't have to be implemented so that it drops opponents below the level they were intended to be.

That's a bit of a stretching of C&C, but I see your point. But that's the kind of poorly implemented level scaling I'm not talking about. I'm asking for monsters to level up to meet you maybe two or three levels. You'll still get decimated if you go east right away to fight the fire undead, but it won't be a breeze if you do all the other content first and find yourself at level 9 when they're level 7 initially (if I recall). They'll be level 9 to meet you, and you can justify that as a choice to focus on other things while knowing an evil is growing more powerful over the days.

That's basically the extent of level scaling I want in D:OS or Larian's future games. Enough to account for completionism or doing things in a slightly different order, but not so much that you could kill the final boss at level 3 because he scales down for you. I don't want any scaling down at all, really, just minor scaling up.

But that's the point... areas should be easier when you outlevel them. That's the boon, that's your choice; making late game easier by taking the hard way early on.
Smart encounter design would make late game challenging even for a completionist (without any level scaling). People who find it too hard? That's what difficulty levels are for; you have the option to reduce difficulty.

Areas will be easier when you outlevel them a great deal, but boasting even a one level advantage on your enemies basically guarantees you win since the way hit chance scales. Smart encounter design is important and ideal, of course, but when you gain such a statistical advantage from having even one level over your opponent, it doesn't really matter how smart or cleverly designed your enemies are. If they miss you a whole bunch and you can hit them almost every time, the best tactics won't make up for their lack of damage and defense.

Another option might be to reduce the bonus you get from fighting enemies one or two levels below you. It should probably go the other way, too, so that being one or two levels below a monster doesn't give them such a huge advantage, but I wouldn't mind so much if level advantage benefited enemies more than the player.

Anyone know when to expect Larian E3 info?

Edit: Ahh looks like late Wednesday.

Oh, about the "limited level scaling" thing that's been mentioned before.
Limited LS is perhaps slightly less awful, but it is still absolutely awful.

Imagine playing chess.

Unlimited scaling:
Nice, I just captured an enemy rook! *my rook disappears inexplicably*

Limited scaling:
Nice, I just captured an enemy rook! *my bishop disappears inexplicably*

Or for those who are not familiar with chess:

Imagine eating a cake. You taste something utterly awful and disgusting.
Shocked, you ask the baker what's been put into the cake.

Baker: "Feces."
You: "Feces!!??"
Baker: "But just a little!"

It ruined the cake, limited or not.


***


If an RPG development team starts pondering about including level scaling they should immediately scrap that idea and instead focus on a shallower power curve.

Anyhow, I applaud Larian's decision to avoid level scaling altogether (unless Raze knows something we don't).

I do know some stuff you don't... but not about level scaling.

It is a game meant to entertain and I honestly pissed that some arguments here actually ignore some of the essence of classic D&D experiences.

Interesting that chess is mentioned because when it comes to level scaling chess softwares actually revolve around it. Sometimes people boast about beating a 2100+ computer opponent but if you're observant some chessbase programs actually adjust their playing level real-time (you make a mistake, it then adjusts and intentionally makes a mistake, maybe a positional mistake or something subtle).

Blanketing level scaling with a freaking narrow mind like a rook or a bishop disappearing on the board is idiotic. Trying to exaggerate things to push your agenda when in reality the implementation is much more complex.

The point here is entertainment. People forget the classic role of a Dungeon Master, adjusting things here and there to keep the game entertaining.

Truth be told, right now I honestly don't care about Larian. They've made a lot of decisions that I really don't like. I drop by casually to see if anything has changed.

Skyrim is known for level scaling. Oh the horror of what a failure it became because of that. It is so game-shattering.

---
side note:
Larian has made some decisions that even months before the game's release and even before kickstarter I got the feeling that the modding aspect will fail. Oh the smirk on my face when I returned and actually encountered a thread confirming my instinct to be spot on.

I don't see areas becoming easier as I outlevel them as a boon. When I do all the side quests I'm not doing it to make the late game easier, I'm doing it because I enjoy exploring all the game has to offer. What always ends up happening is the game becomes too easy because I outlevel everything and I end up getting bored.

I do not at all mind a little bit of level scaling. I am cursed with the completionist affliction and end up ruining my fun because I over level.

That's DIFFICULTY LEVEL, not level scaling.

Also.




Just go away and resume your IQ 50 meltdown elsewhere.

The program is automatically adjusting to your play. And it's interesting how you conveniently snip out my posts to make it out of context.

Obviously you talked about a topic you knew nothing about and you're getting offended and going all out personal.

Chess programs operate in many interactive ways in addition to what I mentioned above where the program interactively scales it's play to match the player in real time we have:
Difficulty level (different handicaps)
permanent brain
hash tables
...

All operate at the same time to give the player a good experience with gameplay. It's the same with rpgs.

And you boil all these down to difficulty level (which is just a small portion of it)? The same way you boil down level scaling to such idiotic simplicity.

If you cannot discuss with meaningful valid points then I'm done with you.

Truth is Larian will never, ever implement any form of level scaling. So I know that all these are falling on deaf ears. Some don't care about Larian any more, let them do what they want but if you're going the route of stifling user's rights to express themselves then you're a lot sadder than I first thought.

shape shifting and "forms" (i.e. e.g. shadow form, ice form, undead/lich form which grant some bonus and/or malus stats/abilities)

Levelscaling should never be used. Ever. Period.

If "limited" (say between 6-8) then you get 'What is the point' as indeed it does not alter your precieved (non-)issue of being too powerful at all, and there's really no reason not to have it fixed.
If going all out, well, we know how awesomely horrible that is, not?

And yes, getting pawned severly because you go in an overleved area is AWESOME, but taken away by cheap RPG's who just get things your level to pamper the player.

Having said that, improvement points:
* That quest with the severed head which pretty much required another quest to fail, which was a one-shot. There are no good alternatives.
* That one area where the badness of Combat XP was so well displayed. You know, the lava one where you could fight (easiest, +15K XP or so), sneak (hardest, nothing extra) or use fire-resistant items to walk on lava (relatively easy to do, but again, no XP). Geez, what path would I take???
* Akin to above point; less combat XP, more XP for doing objectives, progression and exploration instead.

Scaling is a strange beast.

Levels and gear are meant to symbolize your character strength and progression (and give positive feedback to the player), but character strength runs counter to player skill. When a gamer obsessively checks everything to not miss anything, in the process he's lowering the difficulty of future encounters by stacking experience points and gear. If you love the game and explore all of it in one run, you are slightly ruining your experience aswell.

In past games, when you were stuck somewhere, you'd grind and come back more "powerful" (retry with easier settings). Nowadays, I believe developpers try to eliminate the "grind" (thankfully for me, as I don't like grinding).

I believe levelscaling is to adress an "equality of outcome" problem, to obtain some kind of uniformity of perceived difficulty experience. As opposed to an "equality of opportunity" approach, where a game is kinda difficult to begin with, and gamers just have to L2P or grind (which is usually not casual friendly).

So, levelscaling would maybe be one way to adress this "problem", and in the same brush would diminish (or twist) player's control over the game difficulty.

Levelscaling should be somehow tied to the perceived skill of the player for it to make sense (to me), but it almost never is.
I didn't play Skyrim. But I played FF8 (and even though I didn't like it, I completed it several times, go figure). This game had some very botched form of levelscaling.
From a naive point of view, there is no point in a levelling up system if it's to be a red queen race (I say naive because a levelling up system isn't just about game balance). Furthermore, such system is prone to abuse if not mastered. FF8 had deep flaws: it was very advantageous to stay low level in the late game, with the latest spells. In a sense, the levelscaling didn't change anything at all: underlevelling was the new overlevelling, and the balance was just more convoluted.

In my opinion, RPG developper should get rid of character levels and think the progression differently (in term of character abilities, or esthetics, or...), and reintroduce a level system only when it brings something. Because most of the time, it is just an artifact that is being brought out of habit and that brings its lot of problems while not being particulary significant in the first place (and worse: give headache to players who don't like having to theorycraft all this shit).

I'm slightly ambivalent about level scaling: vanilla Oblivion was a good example of it done wrong, and even though I enjoyed my first play-through, it soon became a case of "seriously, what's the point?" as essentially the same old enemies and equipment were simply replaced visually, pretty much.

But then again, the assorted overhauls really showed the potential of Oblivion's engine by using much more fine-grained scaling: FCOM (a compilation of Oscuro's Overhaul, Martigen's Monster Mod, Fran's and other major overhauls) showed just how good it could be if done right. My personal opinion is that carefully considered level scaling is better than totally fixed levels. But I suspect it can be hard to get it right; then again, it's also hard to get fixed levels right, as the amount of discontent about Cyseal's environs shows.

I don't know what The Answer is, if there is one. Probably just to accept each game on its merits unless we feel like changing it. Which I'm not saying in any sort of finger-wagging way considering I'm as likely to complain about stuff as anyone else. And frequently do so.

There's always going to be a huge issue with balancing side content vs. main content. People who complete side content should gain some sort of advantage, but it shouldn't trivialize the main story as it so often does. Level scaling smooths that out, but I'll admit it can take away from the sense that the side content actually made you more powerful.

A level-less RPG is an interesting concept, but hard to pull off without turning it into an action RPG that emphasizes reflexes and fine motor skills as opposed to tactics and strategy. A turn-based one where you merely obtain more skills (but don't increase your health or levels or anything like that) that allow you to do more complex maneuvers sounds hard to design, but not impossible. At a certain point, it'd be more of a puzzle game than an RPG, but I think the lines can blur as it is. If you're improving your stats as you progress, you basically have a leveling system without calling them levels. Levels exist largely as a convenience to generalize your and creatures' power.

I guess I find a complete loathing of level scaling in all forms to be kind of funny. I mean, RPGs are already prescaled (fixed levels) so that there's a perfect progression of enemies as it is. I just don't see post level scaling as that big of a step beyond creating a world already basically designed for you to win.

I don't really hate level scaling, or level systems. I just find them more often than not badly designed, and slightly annoying.
There's many reasons to build a level system, and even a botched one fulfill reasonably some of these reasons while not being too much annoying. Overall, it's a financial plus, and I don't want developers to cater to my wishes only.

This being said, I agree that people who do side content should gain some advantage, but getting "buffed" (more level, more stats) is the laziest way, slightly harmful with that.

I have played World of Warcraft for instance, and I have often heared that Ulduar was a fine raid. It was content were difficulty was adjustable through special interaction with the game (no menu): you had to place yourself in a difficult situation on purpose. I like the idea that side content is simply difficult (and optional) content.

I don't play anymore but I've heard about aesthetic rewards. Instead of having more character statistics, the reward would be vanity items, or more control over the look of your character (which doesn't throw off the balance).

Control is, I believe, something not that hard to implement and a very valid "reward" for mastering and exploring a game.
"If you do more in the game, you can control more the look of certain places, and the look of your characters".
And it isn't limited to aesthetics.

Disgressing a little bit to get back at control: I quite disagree with your point on level-less RPGs that would easily emphasize too much in-combat mastery as opposed to pre-combat preparation, but I think I understand what you mean. It's just that it is actually unrelated to levels itself.
RPGs do have a and strategic "planning" component, and managing the stats (and growth) of your characters play into that. But that wouldn't disappear even if you got rid of levels: levels are just numbers that condense and symbolize the number of stats and abilities you have at some point in the story .

Those stats and abilities would still exist in a level-less RPG.
Considering this topic, I believe that what matters isn't the stat growth (since ennemies in RPGs tends to grow at the same relative rate as you?), but where and how they are attributed, how you balance your character.
And a reward could be more control over them (not more stats nor more abilities, but more control over how you can disperse them, or more ease to switch them).

Players like to control how they look, players like to have more control on their character stats (be less "all-rounded" and more "specialist" if the possibility of being an extreme specialist is being held off at the beginning), players like to respecialize characters (I think the demon in Divinity Original Sin allows for respec at some point?).

Having to grind a new character that you recruit is boring (which is why companions autolevel?), being blocked by a basic wolf that is currently just level 3+ compared to you (so you have ridiculous penalties to hit) isn't really exciting when you know you just butchered thousands of them with a different color sprite and 6 levels less. Wading through low level monsters in a low level zone is boring if the stat growth is surreal. Etc, etc...


Ultimately, I think a level system and even level scaling are good things (when done right). It's just that it is so often badly thought out (and often associated with bad behavior like using it as a reward for doing unfun things, badly designed game parts). It's just not something that is exciting most of the time, and it's not part of the good memories of the games I've played.

The idea of non-xp reward sounds good.
Maby a barber shop who takes a special coins. Or an imp who rebuild for a coin a room in the Home stead for you. Also the respect reward sounds good for competitionist. Those players (myself included) wants to min max too. So a reward from side quests who allows do it has the value. The demon for free respect (no money and all skill books returned) who accept the special side quest coins again ?

Add improving Enhanced ediiton:
Companions and adventureers for hire has their skill points not used. At least half of them. I understant that designers wants some focus for the character, but keep in mind that a skill/talent which doesnt fit my party sux. An example - I love Wolgraf but hate his escapist talent. Its so waste.

////
Or give me a side quest reward for his respect. Finishing his own quest perhaps?

"Chance to hit" needs to be looked at.

Baidotr with 12 perception, level 13 against Immaculate Assassin level 15: 4% chance to hit at 13m distance. 8% at 1m distance.

What is your Dexterity? The max chance to hit is determined by Dexterity. Perception is used to reduce the range penalty of a ranged shot, but it cannot do more than reduce it completely, in which case the Dexterity is the deciding factor. Also, there is a large penalty of fighting someone above your level. Still your numbers don't look so good...

It's also 12. I've put one point into Constitution +2 from gear, 2 into perception +4 and 3 in dexterity +2.

BTW: I've tried to do the fight that happens after you pick up the blood vial. Over after one(!) round. All my characters were either stunned or frozen. No fun won't buy again.

That encounter is a very tough fight. I will suggest you try adventuring somewhere else first and then come back when you are level 15. Have you been to Hiberheim yet? You can easily gain a few level if you clear that map and come back to do the immaculate test. I think most of the enemies in Hiberheim are around level 12 so it should work well.

one thing is mandatory: better mod tools. the ones available now are, well, disappointing.

I have absolutely no idea how you could reach level 13 without doing Hiberheim. I could try to kill the level 14 spiders in the area where I am permanently slowed down but that is equally not fun. Or maybe I should just look up how to enter the wizards house in Hunter's edge again but I definitely can not defeat the Rat King. He is level 16 I think.

There are several options for me but not one of them is fun. As far as I know there is NO area in the game where enemies have MY level. Wait, the goblins in front of the tenebrium mine are still alive.

Good luck with your goblin-hunt

As for XP, there is quite a bit of XP to be gained by winning any CIR-test available and by doing the quest in such a way that you get the most XPs out of them. The problem with CIRs is that it forces you to save and load a lot. When I created the walkthrough I did everything optimal to harvest as much XP as possible. I was level 12 when I did the trial, but I had not gone to Hiberheim yet. Only the SW part of the Luculla Forest map (sw of the river) was cleared, plus the cave until the lake where you can enter Hiberheim.

I guess this is a game where it matters to do the side quests and get as much XP out of them as possible.

As a side not I ended the game at level 23 (actually midway to level 24, but the only thing I hadn't killed where the people in Silverglen and Cyseal. I didn't bother killing them since it would not have been enough to reach level 24). So I think level 23 is the maximum level you can reach in this game.

Being much older than the finger twitching first person kiddie set I knew at first play this game is designed to play not just to beat,
A large amount of games offered in the steam community
are nothing more than first person shooters expanded to play like like RPG's but in fact about 20 minutes (or Less)
a gamer can tell what they are.
I get many of the older games on steam because they were real games no just spending time killing monsters and gaining meaningless levels . Many have great graphics and other required stuff to attract the Kiddie set. That is where many of the companies are doing and I was afraid that the life span of good well designed games like what you produce was coming to an end.
However that was before playing Divinity II DC. It has many little surprises that make me think that at last there is a company that is not going to the sound of a different drum by designing games that demand playing not just
"beating" as the kiddies say.
I grant you that the graphics are not great but the game play incredible. You have a convert here. Keep up the good work

I've said this before but I'm gonna say it again because it's important: DOSEE really NEEDS another big town in the late-game areas similar to Cyseal, otherwise the game feels too lopsided; it also NEEDS lizard-NPCs and Imp-NPCs and Elf-NPCs because these races are part of the franchise' core, and their absence in DOS sticks out like the clich馘 sore thumb.

You just red my thoughts,probably you`re DragonKnight!

Man, this is perfect definition of Original Sin. It is so better then any previous Larian project. I think it is reached due to nearly perfect balance action and story text. Pillar of eternity is basically the same. In fact Pillar is bigger and better (on paper). But ... his gameplay is boring and without soul and passion compare to Original sin.

************
Back to topic: things made Enhanced Edition better.

- craft interface is something needs a lot of work.
Clear insight, overview easy to make things. Remove needs of checking external web page for crafting
Simply speaking:
--- > copy Witcher's 3 craft interface :-]

Just found another UI nitpick for improve :
- make the quick bar 12 slots long instead of 10.
-- reasons : scroll the bars up and down is pain -- > longer bars less scrolling
---- its always better when you see what your toon could do, immediately without scrolling up and down just check what he could do
-- for the PC there are key in the upper line free to bind "-" "="

An option to *disable* or limit full voice overs. I read way faster than most voice overs are spoken, so I generally find full voice overs majorly annoying (the *one* exception *ever* being the intro in the TToN alpha). I can appreciate the use of voice overs to set the tone (eg. how Baldur's Gate 2 did it) and that some people like it (otherwise you guys wouldn't be touting it as a feature for the EE, alas, for me personally it's a big misfeature)

So I'd prefer an option to only have the first bit of a dialogue spoken or, barring that, an option to fully disable voice overs separate from options for ambient dialogue etc. (which I generally do enjoy hearing)

I'm the same way, though if they're at least skippable (pressing a key to advance to the next line), I'd be satisfied.

Good to see I'm not the only one who sees Full VO as useless, hoarding resources and money for better places of improvement.