Larian Studios Forums Divinity - Original Sin Divinity Original Sin - Beta my feedback on hard difficulty

While I know it's not a popular suggestion with some members of this community because of how badly the implementation was botched with another well known game, there's always the option of scaling enemy encounter levels to the party's current level.

Speaking of difficulty in other games, I have a lot of fun with the tactical combat in Blackguards because it is (in my opinion) pretty well balanced and challenging (but not impossible). Its design is able to get away with using set encounter levels because it maintains a pretty tight leash on the player's rate of advancement and where they are in the game world.

Divinity does exactly the opposite. You're free to go where you want, mostly whenever you want, and based on how aggressive/psychotic you want to be with your party each player will experience wildly different rates of advancement. Without some sort of dynamic scaling, I feel they developers are facing an impossible task of finding a challenging balance for every possible style of play.

No, there simply isn't.

I hate scaling enemies in games, it ruins 'certain other' games.

I love the Divinity, Dark Souls and Gothic sense of "if I wander into a cave as a weakling with a fork I deserve to have my head ripped off.... if I walk in with a torrent of pain at my fingertips cave monster is going down!!

Agreed. Scaling enemies is pure lazy design. No thanks.

The counter to that is that I prefer the freedom of being able to go anywhere and not run into content I can faceroll because it's several levels below me and I didn't visit the certain areas at the right time. I guess I just prefer challenges in my gaming and not being led around by the nose by a series of artificial level ranges.

Just because level scaling was implemented in a way you didn't like in another game doesn't mean all games have badly implemented level scaling. If I dislike the character customization in game-x, does that mean all games should avoid having character customization? Of course not.

Thats a false dichotomy.
Using logical fallacies to get what you want is not the best idea, in general.

True RPGs are not about freedom to do anything and everything. Thats what devolved, deformed mass market abominations are.




- word. Gonna use this for the "respeccing" ... "suggestion" too.
If it ever swims up again. Seems to be sinking to bottom now, as it should.

Placing words in the mouths of others isn't the best idea either.

I never mentioned "true RPGs", I only spoke about the level of freedom I prefer to have. A level freedom Divinity : OS embraces at least on some levels, considering that it's built around the concept of having numerous choices and options. It falls very short, however, when it comes to how we navigate the game world (if you're interested in keeping the encounters challenging and interesting, that is).

What good is the freedom to roam anywhere if visiting locations in the wrong order leads to encounters becoming trivial? That's a poor setup, in my opinion. I don't enjoy facerolling encounters.. when combat is too easy it bores me. When I get bored with a game I lose interest in playing it. Thus my opinions will be molded around the idea of keeping combat challenging.




I'm not sure what you have against "respeccing", considering it's an advertised feature of the game during the Kickstarter campaign.

"Can I re-spec my character?

You will be able to re-spec your character by training, but it will cost you. A lot. It also depends on the difficulty level at some levels, you cant."

I want to be obliberated by enemies that are simply stronger than i am. The big bad archlich shouldn't be the same difficulty at lvl 1 and at lvl 30. It should be hard at lvl 30, and impossible below lvl 25. Also, at high levels, i want to destroy the bandits i feared at low levels. Really dislike games where character advancement doesn't seem to matter at all (no matter how well implemented).

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - level scaling makes games less challenging, not more, not to mention booooring. I want the freedom to attempt more difficult battles and areas that aren't forced to be at my exact same level all the bloody time, and by taking those risks potentially reap greater rewards - and yes, I (and I'm sure others) have managed that in the D:OS beta, so the whole "it's still linear even without level scaling" argument I've heard before is bunk. On the other hand, I want to feel a sense of accomplishment/character development by returning to areas with previously tough enemies that I can now handle more easily.

But this whole topic has been beaten to death many times; besides, there's zero evidence so far that Larian will ever do a level-scaling game (though it's up to them, of course). So I guess I'll stop feeding the endless pointless argument now.

Level scaling does not mean all opponents are the same level of power. Creating encounters that are level scaled to the player but offer a differing ranges of difficulty are completely doable. You can have minions, elites, champions, bosses, etc who all share the same "level" but offer huge differences in difficulty.

I find nothing fun about wandering into an encounter that is so far above my level that I have no chance of beating it. The only thought running through my head at that moment is "I'm obviously not supposed to be here yet.". It's not a sense of danger, it's a sense of mistakenly turning left when the game obviously expected me to turn right.

And revisiting the area later at the appropriate level is not satisfying.. it's just what's obviously required and expected. I don't sit there saying "Oh, I'm finally getting my revenge on that no-longer-scary monster who beat me easily when I was 15 levels lower than it.. the way it was clearly supposed to if stats and this game are working properly at all.. ". Instead, I'm realizing the monster is level X, and now I'm around level X, and it's time to revisit that encounter before it becomes trivial and boring.

Nor do I find it fun to come across a new area that's supposed to be exciting but is filled with monsters who are so far below my level that killing them seems like a boring chore of going through the motions. Where no tactical thought is necessary because it's practically impossible to lose a fight where my opponents are (in comparison to my party) so weak they can barely scratch me.

I prefer to come across each encounter and know I'm going to face a challenge. Sometimes the challenge feels impossible, sometimes it's easily doable provided you play smart. The important thing is that it's always present, and the possibility for victory is tied to how prepared you are and how well you execute, rather than some arbitrary level score that rarely provides players with a decent encounter unless they follow a very restrictive tour through the game's content.

But, I guess we'd all rather keep reading conflicting complaints about how Divinity is too easy/hard rather than trying to get it as close as possible to "just right" for everyone. Even the difficulty level settings don't seem to be solving the problem.

/sarcasm-on

I know, I know.. level scaling is the devil. Heck.. I remember how I used to play games in the arcade and the adventure just kept getting harder the further I advanced, instead of easier. Who wants that nonsense, am I right? Why couldn't I just roll through M. Bison by the time I reached him? Why'd the difficulty have to keep scaling up with my skill? There's no sense of progression with that.. - pretty much the ridiculous argument I keep reading here in this thread.

[/quote]
Then you should not do that fallacy either. But then again, without fallaci3s and blatant lies, you wouldnt have anything else to say.

I did not put any words in your mouth. The false dichotomy was what you used in previous argument yourself.

this:



If i were you i would not be in a hurry to state how you dont get whats a false dichotomy there, though i doubt you will listen to good advice.

To my amusement.


thats because I DID!

Nobody mentioned you in the context. You wouldnt know what those are.


Your personal preferences should be kept private instead of being presented as radical design changes that are somehow necessary...


- which all become false with level scaling and "respeccing" which are mass market mechanics that publisher driven design of games for lowest common denominators introduced and which devolved a whole genre into abomination action game hybrids.



False statement - or, simply put lies you invent yourself.

Another blatant fallacy that is simply asserted without any proof that it is actually so.



How does that make encounters trivial?


Your personal opinions are worthless as actual arguments. Especially since they are blatant lies you invent yourself.


Good riddance.


By making it obnoxiously easy through level scaling and making respeccing available.

Great plan.

Oh right, this special level scaling that a genious like you has in mind would never make the game easy... riiiiight.

How about the fact that it would completely ruin any sense of progression - since clearly all enemies would adjust to whatever level i currently have?

You forgot to mention that eh?
because such radical changes would NEVER affect anything else - while being completely fantastical hallucinations that actually dont exist and you yourself have no idea how you would actually create that - not to mention its a few months to release of the full game....



[/quote]

Costing what? Money? That wont be "a lot" since its very easy to get very rich in the game.
And - it wont be available after some level - therefore only maybe through the very beginning.
While it will be available only on easier difficulties - apparently.

Which is the most that it should be. (and i only contest to it at this level because i cannot force Larian to completely remove it, unfortunately)

Until the Devs themselves clarify these very important details you will not present that as some sort of confirmation of your own vacuous ideas.

Seriously, if you want to have a discussion with me you're going to have to group your thoughts together in something less than 1, 2, 3... 11 multiquotes is it? Am I supposed to make 11 responses so you can then cherry pick statements out of each and come back with 22 more? That would be fun..

For example, you broke this statement of mine up..

"Placing words in the mouths of others isn't the best idea either.

I never mentioned "true RPGs", I only spoke about the level of freedom I prefer to have. "

..and then went on a lengthy rant responding to both comments separately, apparently not understanding that the former statement was referring directly to the latter (and not something else as you assumed).

I stopped reading your responses at that point, because I can just imagine the rest of the replies follow the same buggy structure. Sum up your thoughts into a more presentable format and then get back to me. Or don't.. your choice. You seem to have something to say, but I'm not going to hunt through a dozen multiquotes to find it.

Yes, but they are just harder/easier enemies. Your experience and power still won't matter. Archlich example: very hard at lvl
1, very hard at lvl 30.


Well, this is a matter of preference obviously, so i cannot say you are wrong. However, i'll try to explain why i feel differently: For me, part of the appeal of a gameworld, especially in P&P/cRPG games, is its level of "fantastic realism". For example, events progress, so if the Vault Dweller thinks he can solve the "lovesick guy will blow up the power station"-situation in three days, he will be too late. If Frodo simply ventures into a dragon lair, despite all the warnings, and tries to attack Smaug with his little blade, he won't fight an "elite", he will just burn. The expectation that any challange can be solved in any way at any time by everyone simply destroys immersion for me.


Actually, i do find this very satisfying, both in real life and in games. To be able to grow and learn to master a previously unbeatable challange is one of the most satisfying things to me.
Both running a marathon and speaking a new language isn't a matter of trying very hard (elite challenge), you really have to train and get better and better until you can finally do it - then train more to do it well. If you just started martial arts, you can defeat almost nobody - and it is very satisfying to experience the gradual change towards mastery.


Well, i do find it satisfying if bandits and low level enemies don't dare to attack anymore, surrender or die fast. The Dragonslayer and his companions really shouldn't be bothered or challenged by the "rat invasion" in the tavern cellar anymore.
But i also agree, "leftover" dungeons can indeed be solved by level scaling.


Difficulty doesn't depend on level scaling or no level scaling. Both systems can be well balanced, as seen in other games. And "just right" challenges are probably a good thing for the frustration-intolerant mass market. But i do prefer the "old school" approach, and the success of Dark Souls shows that there is a definite market for this. So, i'm happy D:OS didn't choose the "just right" path.

But i can understand your position and i don't think you are wrong, i just have different priorities and thus different preferences.

I think too many things are level dependent. Therefore the difference between levels is huge. You don't only deal more damage you also absorb more.

This makes fighting lower level enemies quickly too easy and higher level enemies too hard.

I would like to see the damage linked to the strength not to the weapon. Armor should also be limited.

Then you could also bring down the values, no need to do 200 damage and no need to have 500 or more hitpoints.

Right now it feels like the base damage gets multiplied by your level/weapon level. Early on this is extreme. Same with your hitpoints.

Thats because each and every sentence you wrote there is a pathetic lie or false assertion you simply invent -not supported by anything at all.

So it all deserves to be addressed directly and specifically - with facts.

Of course you replay like this - having no facts whatsoever to defend with.
Thus this weak pathetic way to try and weasel pout of it.

Of course you dont read anything that isnt comforming with your specific views.

:lol:






Thats because taken as a whole it makes no sense and is a false assertion, or your misunderstanding - at best. So i showed you exactly why it is false. Instead of just claiming it is so.

I thought you dont read, eh?


:lol: yeah sure.


Oh...its a "buggy structure" is it? care to explain how or why?

No? Well, its much easier to make some declaratory statements, isnt it?


:lol: Mhmm.. anything you wish darling. Just for you.

We are all here to satisfy your whims.





You understand perfectly what im telling you. You can pretend that you dont to someone else - sunshine.

The thing is, you have nothing else to respond with but with some weak ad hominems.
Because youre brain cannot produce anything but fallacies.

And another thread has fallen victim to the fruitless level-scaling - no-level-scaling debate... Seriously, guys, can't we all agree that level-scaling is about PREFERENCES? If it were intended for D:OS then, it would be a core mechanism by design and should have been planned for from the very beginning. With something like 5 weeks until the final release I think it is pretty sure to assume that the whole fight system of D:OS won't be overhauled to include level-scaling.

I think basic encounters should be scaled, and bosses shouldn't. That way, the player could still have challenge, whiè¼™e still having a sense of scale.
Moreover, scaling doesn't prevent a sense of amelioration, either in skills, stuff, etc. Scaling can be tied to character level, but not tied to gear or skills.

I am for scaling.

Oh im quite finished with it. I wasnt arguing which is better - because there is nothing to argue about ads faras that is concerned.
I just dismantled some fallacious false arguments that were used as if god given truth that just fell from the sky.

And it isnt just about preferences either.
These are two distinct different styles of design.

While clearly, such a thing was not planned for OS and wont be suddenly included just like that.

The common complaint that level scaling = a lack of progression really makes little sense to me, though. The only sense of progression that's lost is the one where Monster-A used to be able to one-shot me, but can now be one-shot by me instead. As those are both ends of a spectrum I don't find appealing (particularly the latter), I don't mourn their loss.

However, for players to claim that's the sole means of progression is crazy. When advancing through a game, I feel like I'm making progress through a story or adventure. As new areas of the game world become available to me, I feel a sense of progression.

In terms of character progression, even with level scaling I can tell when my current equipment is falling behind the curve and better gear needs to be obtained. Thus, improving my equipment provides me with a sense of progression. I can't just sit there and hoard character points that are rewarded to me or else (once again) I'll start falling behind the curve in terms of character power. And, again, spending them allows me to improve my character, which provides me with a sense of progression. As new skills and abilities open up, I feel a sense of progression, especially when those abilities become key to moving through future challenges.

I don't need to be able to one-shot a trivial monster to shout "Yes! Now that's a sense of progression!". I'm just not that petty in my gaming. I can appreciate a sense of progression that goes deeper than that. I don't know why so many players on this forum seem to focus so much on whether they can bully an encounter (or be bullied by it). Are people turning to their gaming for payback to real-life problems, where they're not happy with a game unless they can soundly dominate the AI competition or something? I just don't get that. Who knows, maybe my desire for more challenges in games is a sign that I'm not being challenged enough in the real world. I'm sure someone can have fun analyzing all this.


Yes, part of the problem is that people hear "level scaling" and they seem to make the mistake that it can only be handled one way (and they tend to pull from the worst possible implementation of level scaling they've ever seen). And that's simply not accurate.

For example, a common complaint that comes up in these discussions is the desire to run into something that is too powerful, so you can then come back later and "experience a feeling of growth" when you finally beat it. Level scaling can be implemented in a way that allows this. Encounters can have a minimum level that only scales upwards (not downwards) to match the player's party. Thus, you maintain the "this area is too dangerous for you" feeling that seems to be popular, while not allowing content to become trivial.

Unfortunately, there are always players out there who will argue that they want to be able to lay their face on a keyboard and roll it around until everything on the screen is dead. They like trivial encounters. I just can't get behind that, because (to me) that's wasted content where I'm simply going through the motions. Especially in a turn-based game where trivial battles take nearly as long as challenging ones, minus the whole "I've been challenged" feeling.


What you've done is create a nest of insulting comments that are so ridiculous, I can't even bother to respond to them. But, keep on patting yourself on the back if that makes you feel like you accomplished something beyond trolling.

Nah, youre just repeating yourself. Lying, misunderstanding and trying to assert some sort of weak ad hominems without any proof or facts to support it.

Thats because you have nothing else to say and nothing else to think.


Nobody is insulting, unless you mean to say that facts are insulting to you. Which is actually true.
Because you are obviously someone who is willing to consider replies that comform with your personal views and desires - only.

The rest is "insults". And "trolling". that you "didnt read".

Because you say so.


You just go down a list of fallacies and empty vacuous assertions which ends in your proclamations of victim-hood - which will supposedly makes you right.

Which is the exactly same logic loop that those like you always go through without a fault.
Youre just one of the clones.



Of course this doesnt make any sense to you. However, as an argument in favor of your position thats completely worthless.

In fact its a clear confession of your level of logic and knowledge.


How is that "crazy"? because you say so?



Is that supposed to explain why you call the RPG progression - "crazy"?

it doesnt, does it? Which means that the above sentece is just another vacous empty declarative statement that you simply invented.


Go play adventures and bioware and bethesda games that are action hybrids where everything is made easy so you can "go through the story" and adventure - not actual true RPGs.

Youre playing a wrong kind of a game and you want it to be changed and devolved into that kind that you like personally.

Thats it.
Thats the actual whole of your argument.