Scaling blows .... dissapointed to see this .. It may keep me away ..
Yeah, cause all those worthless zones you never go back to and content not worth touching is great when you're max level.
Scaling is probably the best thing to happen to modern MMOs.
Its shit and makes everything trivial so whats the difference in a game like ESO 93% of the game is solobale .. Overland content is a complete joke , Dolmens are a joke/World bosses are a joke ... There is no challenge in ESO unless you are doing Vet Trials ...
You really need to play on the other server (EU if you play NA regularly or viceversa) since you seem to be so out of touch with your noob self.
Yeah ESO with 810CP, geared to the teeth in gold or purple sets and with 4 years of experience with the game is really, really easy... just try that no CP, no gear noob character... go solo a dolmen and get back to me
Im not out of touch with anything , and you are adding all those parameters i said nothing of CP or gear ...
Fact Players can and do Solo nearly all content in ESO regularly .. .. I mentioned nothing Of CP or Gear you did ..
If anyone does not believe it all they need to do is google Solo ESO world Bosses for ex.. Plenty of videos there to see ..
I mention it because it is the CP and gear that makes the overland and normal dungeon combat trivial. Just try what I suggested and you'll see how a player new to the game lives.
I see them drop like flies in overland content quite often and when I'm healing a random normal PUG I can always spot them because they're the ones with almost no damage mitigation.
Fact is that the power gap between players new to the game and us geared and heavily CP'd vets is enormous. It ain't all that easy for the noobs.
Cmon man that my entire point in this thread and others , The scaling has made the content trivial .. Thx for reinforcing that ..And that when i lost interest . I loved ESO ( still moderatley enjoyit) But when the added scaling it killed the game for me .. Everything is easy every fight feels exactly the same ..
And l;ets not disregard that you can lvl to 50 in less than a day if you watch a couple videos and follow them .. And be geared well
The thing is that you want to blame it on scaling when it has nothing to do with that. The game becomes very easy only AFTER you're no longer being scaled up. If anything it's not quite as easy as it was when you were at max level and CP and the mobs had levels.
A max level player going against a CP160 mob (which is the level of all mobs in the game with scaling) will find that very easy. What do you think it'd be like if he were fighting a level 5 mob?
I get that you don't like scaling but not everything bad is caused by that.
Ya know Iselin , seems like many take it as im railing on the game , And im not i recommend to folks , it is a great experience , but at some point it just becomes to easy in general , The ride and experience ar well worth the investment .. I know how much time youve invested in it , i know you understand when i say Much of the game feels to easy at some point .. I really wish they would make the general overland experience more difficult for all players ..
ANd it didn not feel this easy before the scaling imo , immdiatley after all Overland content was kicking kittens just different pixels ..
Honestly, the only time I ever felt that ESO overland difficulty was hard was in the first year of the game and then only after level 50 when you got into the VR ranks doing Caldwell silver and gold.
Part of it was unfamiliarity with builds but I remember having to totally rethink my build when I was around VR5 or so because even simple delves were a challenge. Once I focused on heavy AoE magicka damage, even the VR mobs became fairly easy.
But they started nerfing the difficulty almost immediately and by the time they went to level scaling I honestly did not notice any decrease in difficulty except maybe in Craglorn but that was a special case of making a lot of former group overland content soloable. It was already very easy before the scaling.
The overland just isn't aimed at me, I know that and accept it. It's aimed a new casuals and like I said, I have seen many of them struggle with it. When I've tried to duplicate the no CP new player experience for myself I can sort of see why they do (lack of mitigation and resources means just a lot more time defending and doing basic attacks so you can't kill the mobs as fast... which in turn gives them more time to hurt you) although I just can't turn off the knowledge of the game.
I do miss the challenge of that first year but if I want an extra PvE challenge I can always just do vMA or the newer DLC vet dungeons or trials. It is what it is.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Scaling blows .... dissapointed to see this .. It may keep me away ..
Yeah, cause all those worthless zones you never go back to and content not worth touching is great when you're max level.
Scaling is probably the best thing to happen to modern MMOs.
Its shit and makes everything trivial so whats the difference in a game like ESO 93% of the game is solobale .. Overland content is a complete joke , Dolmens are a joke/World bosses are a joke ... There is no challenge in ESO unless you are doing Vet Trials ...
You really need to play on the other server (EU if you play NA regularly or viceversa) since you seem to be so out of touch with your noob self.
Yeah ESO with 810CP, geared to the teeth in gold or purple sets and with 4 years of experience with the game is really, really easy... just try that no CP, no gear noob character... go solo a dolmen and get back to me
Im not out of touch with anything , and you are adding all those parameters i said nothing of CP or gear ...
Fact Players can and do Solo nearly all content in ESO regularly .. .. I mentioned nothing Of CP or Gear you did ..
If anyone does not believe it all they need to do is google Solo ESO world Bosses for ex.. Plenty of videos there to see ..
I mention it because it is the CP and gear that makes the overland and normal dungeon combat trivial. Just try what I suggested and you'll see how a player new to the game lives.
I see them drop like flies in overland content quite often and when I'm healing a random normal PUG I can always spot them because they're the ones with almost no damage mitigation.
Fact is that the power gap between players new to the game and us geared and heavily CP'd vets is enormous. It ain't all that easy for the noobs.
Cmon man that my entire point in this thread and others , The scaling has made the content trivial .. Thx for reinforcing that ..And that when i lost interest . I loved ESO ( still moderatley enjoyit) But when the added scaling it killed the game for me .. Everything is easy every fight feels exactly the same ..
And l;ets not disregard that you can lvl to 50 in less than a day if you watch a couple videos and follow them .. And be geared well
The thing is that you want to blame it on scaling when it has nothing to do with that. The game becomes very easy only AFTER you're no longer being scaled up. If anything it's not quite as easy as it was when you were at max level and CP and the mobs had levels.
A max level player going against a CP160 mob (which is the level of all mobs in the game with scaling) will find that very easy. What do you think it'd be like if he were fighting a level 5 mob?
I get that you don't like scaling but not everything bad is caused by that.
Ya know Iselin , seems like many take it as im railing on the game , And im not i recommend to folks , it is a great experience , but at some point it just becomes to easy in general , The ride and experience ar well worth the investment .. I know how much time youve invested in it , i know you understand when i say Much of the game feels to easy at some point .. I really wish they would make the general overland experience more difficult for all players ..
ANd it didn not feel this easy before the scaling imo , immdiatley after all Overland content was kicking kittens just different pixels ..
Honestly, the only time I ever felt that ESO overland difficulty was hard was in the first year of the game and then only after level 50 when you got into the VR ranks doing Caldwell silver and gold.
Part of it was unfamiliarity with builds but I remember having to totally rethink my build when I was around VR5 or so because even simple delves were a challenge. Once I focused on heavy AoE magicka damage, even the VR mobs became fairly easy.
But they started nerfing the difficulty almost immediately and by the time they went to level scaling I honestly did not notice any decrease in difficulty except maybe in Craglorn but that was a special case of making a lot of former group overland content soloable. It was already very easy before the scaling.
The overland just isn't aimed at me, I know that and accept it. It's aimed a new casuals and like I said, I have seen many of them struggle with it. When I've tried to duplicate the no CP new player experience for myself I can sort of see why they do (lack of mitigation and resources means just a lot more time defending and doing basic attacks so you can't kill the mobs as fast... which in turn gives them more time to hurt you) although I just can't turn off the knowledge of the game.
I do miss the challenge of that first year but if I want an extra PvE challenge I can always just do vMA or the newer DLC vet dungeons or trials. It is what it is.
Theres alot we agree on there , and i hope Zeni addresses it at some point , It such a great exploration game , but needs to have a better more challenging risk/reward system while exploring
I wish I could help some of you understand how silly you're all being but I feel it would be like explaining logic to a wall.
[ignore this] Scaling isn't to make things "easier" it's so once a player encounters content it doesn't become trivial (because of stat disparity) after they return to it. It's the opposite of lazy, as it's harder to to provide challenges that require muscle memory or evolving logic.
The majority is familiar with power creep [leveling just means more health/damage on enemy NPCs for example]. Horizontal progression has more of a philosophy that believes if a challenge is to be trivial it's because you have mastered it. [/ignore this]
By all means, go back to level 1 and face roll it because changing the color of an enemy NPC and adding +1,000,000 to all attributes isn't lazy programming in 2018. Total replay value there.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
This is really bad. ARPG's are about tangible, relatively fast vertical progression. This is true for ARPG's even more so than MMO's.
The predominant Western ARPG, Diablo, is much more horizontal than vertical. Locking the gear behind levels doesn't make it vertical. Levels in Diablo are just somewhat arbitrary ability unlock milestones and some buffs that are minor compared to the huge buffs you get from gear. Even point-based progression systems like POE's or Grim Dawn's are designed to work hand in hand with horizontal gearing that gives more immediate tangible benefits.
Also, In most MMOs that have a vertical progression that is just a temporary thing until you get to "end game" where it's 99% horizontal and this is an MMOARPG they're making where they're hoping you'll play long after you've finished any leveling scheme they might have included.
I really don't get this obsession with vertical progression some of you guys are defending like it were an endangered species.
Scaling is not a perfect thing either but its benefits far outweigh the faults. Go anywhere and group with anyone is a far better system than go only where I allow you to go and group only with your level peers.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Why do you have levels if the content stats the same from start to finish ? In most games with scaling this days i dont feel much progession at all , not a fan.
I'm a huge fan of scaling the way ESO does it. I think it's wise they went this direction rather than level gated. Levels and level gates are such an outdated trope and not often done well. At best they stay out of the way (ESO) at worst they're just clunky weight that gamifies, arcadifies, retrofies, and throws pies in your eyes. Seriously I'd rather not see levels in my RPGs anymore.
Havent seen any in years,.....but then I've only played EVE for online games.
I dont mind levels in single player RPGs, probably because my goal in those is to finish them and move on.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Scaling is the worst thing to happen to mmorpgs (since ftp). This is from a progression/Immersion viewpoint, which is how I apprach playing mmorpgs (well you know, if there were any actual new mmorpgs to fit that).
For an arpg type of game such as this one however, I don't play for immersion. I expect gamey and immersion breaking mechanics including scaling, so with this kind of game it doesn't bother me.
If you want to understand this way of thinking, you have accept that
1. Some players play certain games to get Immersed
2. If you are such a player, a mmorpg is the type of game made for that..and as such, your approach to mmorpgs is very different than to other type of games, though you can enjoy both just for different reasons.
Willing to try it out, but probably will drop it super fast as I have any MMO with scaling and horizontal progression - which I abhore.
Give me vertical progression please as it actually makes a difference - horizontal progression to me = why even bother playing?
You don't want to play because you can't go back to level 1 and one shot mobs and face tank bosses while simultaneously robbing a new player of the experience you got to have (of clearing it without out leveling it)? I bet you keep all that white/green loot too.
You actually do that for fun? Here I was thinking in vertical progression scenario, months after a game is out lower level areas are empty and worthless because everyone is in the newest +100000 HP/damage area trying to out level it.
To each his own, but I don't see what's so abhorrent about an area having replay value or some long term usefulness.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
Yes, They are targeting THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR.
That might be great for corps bottom line, but it makes crappy games that fully please no one. imho
ca$h $hop + marketing + revolving door gaming.
'Lowest common denomimator' is a non-criticism. It's the lazy mark of someone who has no actual knowledge on the subject matter they're talking about and is trying to reduce the argument to "people who like what I don't like are dumb."
If you had any credibility (you didn't) you lost it at this point in the discussion.
Willing to try it out, but probably will drop it super fast as I have any MMO with scaling and horizontal progression - which I abhore.
Give me vertical progression please as it actually makes a difference - horizontal progression to me = why even bother playing?
You don't want to play because you can't go back to level 1 and one shot mobs and face tank bosses while simultaneously robbing a new player of the experience you got to have (of clearing it without out leveling it)? I bet you keep all that white/green loot too.
You actually do that for fun? Here I was thinking in vertical progression scenario, months after a game is out lower level areas are empty and worthless because everyone is in the newest +100000 HP/damage area trying to out level it.
To each his own, but I don't see what's so abhorrent about an area having replay value or some long term usefulness.
I play games for progression - I am a progression driven player, so I need to see levels go up, gear score go up damage, ac etc...
I know this is very shallow but it is what I enjoy.
I play games to beat the content not to remain and enjoy the old zones - I conquer and move on, and dont look back.
Once I am done I move on to the next thing.
I dont advocate others do the same, this is just how I play and what I enjoy - aka vertical progression games.
This is why I cant stand horizontal progression - it doesnt give me any feeling of progression - as fundamentally your power ratio remains constant due to scaling - for me this is not fun.
Again just my personal viewpoint - this is why I stay away from horizontal progression games - they dont give me what I am looking for in my games.
Everyone who likes RPGs likes progression - it's the biggest hook and why most of us play them.
The funny thing though is that scaling has very little to do with impacting the real progression. Yes it does make the numerical level 1, level 2, level 3... progression almost irrelevant but in many games those numbers have been 2nd class citizens for a very long time.
The real progression in ESO for example is about using earned skill points and gearing up to buff your meaningful stats - weapon/spell damage, max magicka/stamina, magicka/stamina regen.
Leveling in ESO BEFORE SCALING was all about those things and "leveling up" that base level # has only ever given you 1/4 of the all important skill points and tiny buffs to the meaningful stats. And guess what? After scaling it is exactly the same as it was.
Most of the skill points you earn come from exploration (skyshards) and quests. The more zones and quests they add the smaller that % of skill points that comes from leveling becomes.
Then there is the individual skill line leveling. That is also still the same and it has always been much more important than the base numerical level because it unlocks progressively more powerful abilities and passives. That progression is also identical before and after scaling.
So we have skill line progression, skill point acquisition progression and gear progression exactly the same before and after scaling.
And I didn't even bother to mention Champion point progression that actually makes a humongous difference in effective power, mitigation and resource recovery because that is just such a unique ESO end--game, never-ending progression thing.
So don't confuse the two: progression and scaling are actually two very different things.
Post edited by Iselin on
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I've mentioned it in other threads: there's a significant portion of folks who like to see the numbers go up and retain vertical progression.
We see it bleeding into the genres that have taken things from MMORPGs, such as Destiny. Many have even made this as straightforward as possible for players (iLvl/Light level).
I've mentioned it in other threads: there's a significant portion of folks who like to see the numbers go up and retain vertical progression.
We see it bleeding into the genres that have taken things from MMORPGs, such as Destiny. Many have even made this as straightforward as possible for players (iLvl/Light level).
There's room for both I think.
It just depends on content design.
If zones are designed with dynamic content and replayability in mind, scaling is a necessity.
If zones are designed with linear quest design in mind, then scaling is unnecessary because zones lack inherent replay value.
If the game is purely instanced, ala GW1, Dragon Nest, etc., then scaling is unnecessary because difficulty settings achieve the same thing with more flexibility.
I've mentioned it in other threads: there's a significant portion of folks who like to see the numbers go up and retain vertical progression.
We see it bleeding into the genres that have taken things from MMORPGs, such as Destiny. Many have even made this as straightforward as possible for players (iLvl/Light level).
There's room for both I think.
It just depends on content design.
If zones are designed with dynamic content and replayability in mind, scaling is a necessity.
If zones are designed with linear quest design in mind, then scaling is unnecessary because zones lack inherent replay value.
If the game is purely instanced, ala GW1, Dragon Nest, etc., then scaling is unnecessary because difficulty settings achieve the same thing with more flexibility.
Right, but I'm not speaking to design philosophy fit, I'm speaking to popularity.
It appears to me there's crowds that enjoy both forms enough to make both styles profitable.
There's been an unstated implication that scaling with horizontal is objectively superior, but the market doesn't seem to be bearing that out.
I've mentioned it in other threads: there's a significant portion of folks who like to see the numbers go up and retain vertical progression.
We see it bleeding into the genres that have taken things from MMORPGs, such as Destiny. Many have even made this as straightforward as possible for players (iLvl/Light level).
There's room for both I think.
We all want to see numbers go up but I am much more interested in which numbers and what they do for me.
Even something like iLvl in games that use it, do not necessarily mean vertical progression and worse, if the developer screws up the meaning of those numbers they become kind of meaningless.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I've mentioned it in other threads: there's a significant portion of folks who like to see the numbers go up and retain vertical progression.
We see it bleeding into the genres that have taken things from MMORPGs, such as Destiny. Many have even made this as straightforward as possible for players (iLvl/Light level).
There's room for both I think.
We all want to see numbers go up but I am much more interested in which numbers and what they do for me.
Even something like iLvl in games that use it, do not necessarily mean vertical progression and worse, if the developer screws up the meaning of those numbers they become kind of meaningless.
There's not really much more straight forward a vertical progression system than overall equipment level. We can't predicate an argument on the assumption devs are gonna screw it up.
That doesn't necessarily preclude scaling, as we see with WoW or Destiny. But both still retain vertical progression throughout in spite of scaling. Scaling and vertical progression aren't mutually exclusive, and it seems like some folks are conflating scaling and horizontal progression into one thing. They're two separate things, and vertical progression remains popular among the gamer population.
Vertical progression is still vertical with scaling.
I've mentioned it in other threads: there's a significant portion of folks who like to see the numbers go up and retain vertical progression.
We see it bleeding into the genres that have taken things from MMORPGs, such as Destiny. Many have even made this as straightforward as possible for players (iLvl/Light level).
There's room for both I think.
It just depends on content design.
If zones are designed with dynamic content and replayability in mind, scaling is a necessity.
If zones are designed with linear quest design in mind, then scaling is unnecessary because zones lack inherent replay value.
If the game is purely instanced, ala GW1, Dragon Nest, etc., then scaling is unnecessary because difficulty settings achieve the same thing with more flexibility.
Right, but I'm not speaking to design philosophy fit, I'm speaking to popularity.
It appears to me there's crowds that enjoy both forms enough to make both styles profitable.
There's been an unstated implication that scaling with horizontal is objectively superior, but the market doesn't seem to be bearing that out.
Well, design philosophy is a pretty clean way of dividing up the MMO pie into the two crowds that want two different things.
As far as the market goes, the market doesn't seem to be bearing MMOs out as a whole, given that most of the same successful MMOs we have right now are the same ones we had 5 years ago.
I've mentioned it in other threads: there's a significant portion of folks who like to see the numbers go up and retain vertical progression.
We see it bleeding into the genres that have taken things from MMORPGs, such as Destiny. Many have even made this as straightforward as possible for players (iLvl/Light level).
There's room for both I think.
We all want to see numbers go up but I am much more interested in which numbers and what they do for me.
Even something like iLvl in games that use it, do not necessarily mean vertical progression and worse, if the developer screws up the meaning of those numbers they become kind of meaningless.
There's not really much more straight forward a vertical progression system than overall equipment level. We can't predicate an argument on the assumption devs are gonna screw it up.
That doesn't necessarily preclude scaling, as we see with WoW or Destiny. But both still retain vertical progression throughout in spite of scaling. Scaling and vertical progression aren't mutually exclusive, and it seems like some folks are conflating scaling and horizontal progression into one thing. They're two separate things, and vertical progression remains popular among the gamer population.
Vertical progression is still vertical with scaling.
iLvl is only vertical until you reach max level. At that point it's all about horizontal gearing.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I've mentioned it in other threads: there's a significant portion of folks who like to see the numbers go up and retain vertical progression.
We see it bleeding into the genres that have taken things from MMORPGs, such as Destiny. Many have even made this as straightforward as possible for players (iLvl/Light level).
There's room for both I think.
We all want to see numbers go up but I am much more interested in which numbers and what they do for me.
Even something like iLvl in games that use it, do not necessarily mean vertical progression and worse, if the developer screws up the meaning of those numbers they become kind of meaningless.
There's not really much more straight forward a vertical progression system than overall equipment level. We can't predicate an argument on the assumption devs are gonna screw it up.
That doesn't necessarily preclude scaling, as we see with WoW or Destiny. But both still retain vertical progression throughout in spite of scaling. Scaling and vertical progression aren't mutually exclusive, and it seems like some folks are conflating scaling and horizontal progression into one thing. They're two separate things, and vertical progression remains popular among the gamer population.
Vertical progression is still vertical with scaling.
iLvl is only vertical until you reach max level. At that point it's all about horizontal gearing.
That's not true..... At least, now with WoW. Higher iLvl items provide higher primary stats, as well as (generally) higher secondary stats.
I've mentioned it in other threads: there's a significant portion of folks who like to see the numbers go up and retain vertical progression.
We see it bleeding into the genres that have taken things from MMORPGs, such as Destiny. Many have even made this as straightforward as possible for players (iLvl/Light level).
There's room for both I think.
It just depends on content design.
If zones are designed with dynamic content and replayability in mind, scaling is a necessity.
If zones are designed with linear quest design in mind, then scaling is unnecessary because zones lack inherent replay value.
If the game is purely instanced, ala GW1, Dragon Nest, etc., then scaling is unnecessary because difficulty settings achieve the same thing with more flexibility.
Right, but I'm not speaking to design philosophy fit, I'm speaking to popularity.
It appears to me there's crowds that enjoy both forms enough to make both styles profitable.
There's been an unstated implication that scaling with horizontal is objectively superior, but the market doesn't seem to be bearing that out.
Well, design philosophy is a pretty clean way of dividing up the MMO pie into the two crowds that want two different things.
As far as the market goes, the market doesn't seem to be bearing MMOs out as a whole, given that most of the same successful MMOs we have right now are the same ones we had 5 years ago.
True, but as I cited, the pseudo-MMOs have been borrowing the vertical gear progression directly, and have been popular doing so.
I've mentioned it in other threads: there's a significant portion of folks who like to see the numbers go up and retain vertical progression.
We see it bleeding into the genres that have taken things from MMORPGs, such as Destiny. Many have even made this as straightforward as possible for players (iLvl/Light level).
There's room for both I think.
We all want to see numbers go up but I am much more interested in which numbers and what they do for me.
Even something like iLvl in games that use it, do not necessarily mean vertical progression and worse, if the developer screws up the meaning of those numbers they become kind of meaningless.
There's not really much more straight forward a vertical progression system than overall equipment level. We can't predicate an argument on the assumption devs are gonna screw it up.
That doesn't necessarily preclude scaling, as we see with WoW or Destiny. But both still retain vertical progression throughout in spite of scaling. Scaling and vertical progression aren't mutually exclusive, and it seems like some folks are conflating scaling and horizontal progression into one thing. They're two separate things, and vertical progression remains popular among the gamer population.
Vertical progression is still vertical with scaling.
iLvl is only vertical until you reach max level. At that point it's all about horizontal gearing.
That's not true..... At least, now with WoW. Higher iLvl items provide higher primary stats, as well as (generally) higher secondary stats.
It's vertical as can be.
I think you and I have a fundamental disagreement on the meaning of horizontal lol.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I've mentioned it in other threads: there's a significant portion of folks who like to see the numbers go up and retain vertical progression.
We see it bleeding into the genres that have taken things from MMORPGs, such as Destiny. Many have even made this as straightforward as possible for players (iLvl/Light level).
There's room for both I think.
We all want to see numbers go up but I am much more interested in which numbers and what they do for me.
Even something like iLvl in games that use it, do not necessarily mean vertical progression and worse, if the developer screws up the meaning of those numbers they become kind of meaningless.
There's not really much more straight forward a vertical progression system than overall equipment level. We can't predicate an argument on the assumption devs are gonna screw it up.
That doesn't necessarily preclude scaling, as we see with WoW or Destiny. But both still retain vertical progression throughout in spite of scaling. Scaling and vertical progression aren't mutually exclusive, and it seems like some folks are conflating scaling and horizontal progression into one thing. They're two separate things, and vertical progression remains popular among the gamer population.
Vertical progression is still vertical with scaling.
iLvl is only vertical until you reach max level. At that point it's all about horizontal gearing.
That's not true..... At least, now with WoW. Higher iLvl items provide higher primary stats, as well as (generally) higher secondary stats.
It's vertical as can be.
I think you and I have a fundamental disagreement on the meaning of horizontal lol.
Maybe so.
Destiny also includes some horizontal by stacking specific traits on gear (those trait bars that increase things like damage mitigation or shield recharge, and I thin the third is movement speed), but a higher light weapon is objectively better than a lower one. Is that not the definition of vertical progression?
iLvls function the same: within the same iLvl, you can find gear with a focus on a variety of secondary stats. But the iLvl governs not only the amount of primary stats (which Blizzard has actually made more important in BfA), as well as the overall amount of any given secondary stat on the item. Again, higher iLvl = objectively more powerful. That, again, seems about as straightforward vertical progression as possible. EDIT- It also doesn't end at max level, and actually becomes the sole measure of progression at max level.
EDIT- Admittedly, Blizzard has screwed up the tuning with Azerite traits and iLvl isn't the guide Blizzard wants it to be atm. But we don't classify a game's systems by the quality of the implementation, but the underlying design mechanic.
I've mentioned it in other threads: there's a significant portion of folks who like to see the numbers go up and retain vertical progression.
We see it bleeding into the genres that have taken things from MMORPGs, such as Destiny. Many have even made this as straightforward as possible for players (iLvl/Light level).
There's room for both I think.
We all want to see numbers go up but I am much more interested in which numbers and what they do for me.
Even something like iLvl in games that use it, do not necessarily mean vertical progression and worse, if the developer screws up the meaning of those numbers they become kind of meaningless.
There's not really much more straight forward a vertical progression system than overall equipment level. We can't predicate an argument on the assumption devs are gonna screw it up.
That doesn't necessarily preclude scaling, as we see with WoW or Destiny. But both still retain vertical progression throughout in spite of scaling. Scaling and vertical progression aren't mutually exclusive, and it seems like some folks are conflating scaling and horizontal progression into one thing. They're two separate things, and vertical progression remains popular among the gamer population.
Vertical progression is still vertical with scaling.
iLvl is only vertical until you reach max level. At that point it's all about horizontal gearing.
That's not true..... At least, now with WoW. Higher iLvl items provide higher primary stats, as well as (generally) higher secondary stats.
It's vertical as can be.
I think you and I have a fundamental disagreement on the meaning of horizontal lol.
Maybe so.
Destiny also includes some horizontal by stacking specific traits on gear (those trait bars that increase things like damage mitigation or shield recharge, and I thin the third is movement speed), but a higher light weapon is objectively better than a lower one. Is that not the definition of vertical progression?
iLvls function the same: within the same iLvl, you can find gear with a focus on a variety of secondary stats. But the iLvl governs not only the amount of primary stats (which Blizzard has actually made more important in BfA), as well as the overall amount of any given secondary stat on the item. Again, higher iLvl = objectively more powerful. That, again, seems about as straightforward vertical progression as possible.
EDIT- Admittedly, Blizzard has screwed up the tuning with Azerite traits and iLvl isn't the guide Blizzard wants it to be atm. But we don't classify a game's systems by the quality of the implementation, but the underlying design mechanic.
To me it's simple with respect to vertical and horizontal gearing: if an item is better because it's a higher level and you can't use it until you are that level, that's vertical gearing. If it has nothing to do with your level and is just better because it's a better rarity color or just special and has nothing to do with character level I call that horizontal gearing.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Comments
Part of it was unfamiliarity with builds but I remember having to totally rethink my build when I was around VR5 or so because even simple delves were a challenge. Once I focused on heavy AoE magicka damage, even the VR mobs became fairly easy.
But they started nerfing the difficulty almost immediately and by the time they went to level scaling I honestly did not notice any decrease in difficulty except maybe in Craglorn but that was a special case of making a lot of former group overland content soloable. It was already very easy before the scaling.
The overland just isn't aimed at me, I know that and accept it. It's aimed a new casuals and like I said, I have seen many of them struggle with it. When I've tried to duplicate the no CP new player experience for myself I can sort of see why they do (lack of mitigation and resources means just a lot more time defending and doing basic attacks so you can't kill the mobs as fast... which in turn gives them more time to hurt you) although I just can't turn off the knowledge of the game.
I do miss the challenge of that first year but if I want an extra PvE challenge I can always just do vMA or the newer DLC vet dungeons or trials. It is what it is.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
[ignore this]
Scaling isn't to make things "easier" it's so once a player encounters content it doesn't become trivial (because of stat disparity) after they return to it. It's the opposite of lazy, as it's harder to to provide challenges that require muscle memory or evolving logic.
The majority is familiar with power creep [leveling just means more health/damage on enemy NPCs for example]. Horizontal progression has more of a philosophy that believes if a challenge is to be trivial it's because you have mastered it.
[/ignore this]
By all means, go back to level 1 and face roll it because changing the color of an enemy NPC and adding +1,000,000 to all attributes isn't lazy programming in 2018. Total replay value there.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Also, In most MMOs that have a vertical progression that is just a temporary thing until you get to "end game" where it's 99% horizontal and this is an MMOARPG they're making where they're hoping you'll play long after you've finished any leveling scheme they might have included.
I really don't get this obsession with vertical progression some of you guys are defending like it were an endangered species.
Scaling is not a perfect thing either but its benefits far outweigh the faults. Go anywhere and group with anyone is a far better system than go only where I allow you to go and group only with your level peers.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I dont mind levels in single player RPGs, probably because my goal in those is to finish them and move on.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
For an arpg type of game such as this one however, I don't play for immersion. I expect gamey and immersion breaking mechanics including scaling, so with this kind of game it doesn't bother me.
If you want to understand this way of thinking, you have accept that
1. Some players play certain games to get Immersed
2. If you are such a player, a mmorpg is the type of game made for that..and as such, your approach to mmorpgs is very different than to other type of games, though you can enjoy both just for different reasons.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
You actually do that for fun? Here I was thinking in vertical progression scenario, months after a game is out lower level areas are empty and worthless because everyone is in the newest +100000 HP/damage area trying to out level it.
To each his own, but I don't see what's so abhorrent about an area having replay value or some long term usefulness.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If you had any credibility (you didn't) you lost it at this point in the discussion.
The funny thing though is that scaling has very little to do with impacting the real progression. Yes it does make the numerical level 1, level 2, level 3... progression almost irrelevant but in many games those numbers have been 2nd class citizens for a very long time.
The real progression in ESO for example is about using earned skill points and gearing up to buff your meaningful stats - weapon/spell damage, max magicka/stamina, magicka/stamina regen.
Leveling in ESO BEFORE SCALING was all about those things and "leveling up" that base level # has only ever given you 1/4 of the all important skill points and tiny buffs to the meaningful stats. And guess what? After scaling it is exactly the same as it was.
Most of the skill points you earn come from exploration (skyshards) and quests. The more zones and quests they add the smaller that % of skill points that comes from leveling becomes.
Then there is the individual skill line leveling. That is also still the same and it has always been much more important than the base numerical level because it unlocks progressively more powerful abilities and passives. That progression is also identical before and after scaling.
So we have skill line progression, skill point acquisition progression and gear progression exactly the same before and after scaling.
And I didn't even bother to mention Champion point progression that actually makes a humongous difference in effective power, mitigation and resource recovery because that is just such a unique ESO end--game, never-ending progression thing.
So don't confuse the two: progression and scaling are actually two very different things.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
We see it bleeding into the genres that have taken things from MMORPGs, such as Destiny. Many have even made this as straightforward as possible for players (iLvl/Light level).
There's room for both I think.
If zones are designed with dynamic content and replayability in mind, scaling is a necessity.
If zones are designed with linear quest design in mind, then scaling is unnecessary because zones lack inherent replay value.
If the game is purely instanced, ala GW1, Dragon Nest, etc., then scaling is unnecessary because difficulty settings achieve the same thing with more flexibility.
It appears to me there's crowds that enjoy both forms enough to make both styles profitable.
There's been an unstated implication that scaling with horizontal is objectively superior, but the market doesn't seem to be bearing that out.
Even something like iLvl in games that use it, do not necessarily mean vertical progression and worse, if the developer screws up the meaning of those numbers they become kind of meaningless.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
That doesn't necessarily preclude scaling, as we see with WoW or Destiny. But both still retain vertical progression throughout in spite of scaling. Scaling and vertical progression aren't mutually exclusive, and it seems like some folks are conflating scaling and horizontal progression into one thing. They're two separate things, and vertical progression remains popular among the gamer population.
Vertical progression is still vertical with scaling.
As far as the market goes, the market doesn't seem to be bearing MMOs out as a whole, given that most of the same successful MMOs we have right now are the same ones we had 5 years ago.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
It's vertical as can be.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Destiny also includes some horizontal by stacking specific traits on gear (those trait bars that increase things like damage mitigation or shield recharge, and I thin the third is movement speed), but a higher light weapon is objectively better than a lower one. Is that not the definition of vertical progression?
iLvls function the same: within the same iLvl, you can find gear with a focus on a variety of secondary stats. But the iLvl governs not only the amount of primary stats (which Blizzard has actually made more important in BfA), as well as the overall amount of any given secondary stat on the item. Again, higher iLvl = objectively more powerful. That, again, seems about as straightforward vertical progression as possible. EDIT- It also doesn't end at max level, and actually becomes the sole measure of progression at max level.
EDIT- Admittedly, Blizzard has screwed up the tuning with Azerite traits and iLvl isn't the guide Blizzard wants it to be atm. But we don't classify a game's systems by the quality of the implementation, but the underlying design mechanic.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED