Jump to content

How would one prevent making IWD-in-EET too easy?


Unkinhead

Recommended Posts

It won't be possible to do a one size fits all so maybe the discussion ( if you really must have it right now) should focus on which options seem to be essential rather than trying to establish one that pleases everyone.

 

Could a tweak with an extensive configuration file that could easily be customised(like subtledoctor's YARAS tries to do I believe) work for many different people?

At the time of the previous discussion, we quickly discussed the idea of making scaling IWD content. (With a buff that would be updated when going to IWD's area from BGs areas)

 

What are the problems, what are the solutions for different people? We're all looking for different things, some might be ok with balancing the extra exp by making the rest of the content harder, some would rather nerf the experience so the power levels stay in the same range for a longer play time.

 

I gotta admit that i'm not very appealed by the idea of nerfing exp gains around lvl 7 to 10. In SoD the leveling rate already feels slow to me. I don't really get to see my characters improve over SoD due to the way the transition from exponential growth to linear growth works. SoD is about one to two dozens of hours and most characters will level up from once to 3 times, sometimes with very unsignificant changes (paladins have it badly iirc). I'm not sure I want to drag that part of the leveling much longer. Seeing my character get stronger over time is one of my interests and SoD is already light on that from my viewpoint.

As I said though, this is just a reflection of what I would like to see in an IWD campaign, I'd like to see it be reasonnably challenging while not diminishing too harshly the growth of my character by playtime. Also i'd like to not heavily penalized if I decide to not go through IWD.

Some would like things differently and we should rather see which range of options is the best. Maybe waiting for a beta is the best we can do to get a feel of how it works compared to what we expect from it and how it impacts our playstyle.

Link to comment

Fire Giant warlords, Vampire guilds, dragons, wolfweres, demon knights, drow cities, mind flayer cells, golden lich-lords, cults of dead gods, cults of false gods, gods of the falsely dead: they ALL want a piece of the Bhaalspawn. IWD-Narrator needs to get in line with the rest.

 

HOWEVER, Subtledoctor's perspective is still quite valid. I can definitely see a reason for the approach he takes, though I may approach it differently myself. I image there are many players on both sides of this issue. If it is viable, I agree that there should be a way to have IWD be a separate excursion, as well as a way to integrate it into the larger BG story.

I'm not saying it should be a completely separate campaign. Let it be integrated, but whenever you choose to go there, you should be temporarily detained in the north from the time of the avalanche in Kuldahar Pass until you free Easthaven.

 

And again, I'm only talking about an optional add-on mod. Core IWD-in-EET can ignore story concerns, so it could let you travel back and forth as you please.

Edited by subtledoctor
Link to comment

some might be ok with balancing the extra exp by making the rest of the content harder, some would rather nerf the experience so the power levels stay in the same range for a longer play time.

...

Seeing my character get stronger over time is one of my interests and SoD is already light on that from my viewpoint.

...

As I said though, this is just a reflection of what I would like to see in an IWD campaign, I'd like to see it be reasonnably challenging while not diminishing too harshly the growth of my character by playtime.

I look at it like this: this trilogy is already very long (>100 hours depending on play style) and it goes from level 1 to level 30. Adding in a while other game + 2 expansions is going to add a whole lot more hours.

 

One way the integrated game could handle that is to expand its scope - now it can go from level 1 to level 50, and you will level just as fast. This will be what happens with core IWD-in-EET.

 

But some people like myself and bob_veng might be traditionalists, and want the game capped at level 25-30. And we can tolerate slower leveling. So what I'm discussing is how to achieve that.

Edited by subtledoctor
Link to comment

@k4thos

 

here's my manual rebalancing of IWD quest xp

 

it turns out to be little, but IWD is about killing monsters anyway
prologue - 340 (yep, that little after all...and i stand behind this)
chapter 1 - 3000
chapter 2 - 6000
chapter 3 - 7500
chapter 4 - 10000
chapter 5 - 15000
chapter 6 - 50000
HoW - 132000
ToTL - 82500
Edited by bob_veng
Link to comment

 

some might be ok with balancing the extra exp by making the rest of the content harder, some would rather nerf the experience so the power levels stay in the same range for a longer play time.

...

Seeing my character get stronger over time is one of my interests and SoD is already light on that from my viewpoint.

...

As I said though, this is just a reflection of what I would like to see in an IWD campaign, I'd like to see it be reasonnably challenging while not diminishing too harshly the growth of my character by playtime.

I look at it like this: this trilogy is already very long (>100 hours depending on play style) and it goes from level 1 to level 30. Adding in a while other game + 2 expansions is going to add a whole lot more hours.

 

One way the integrated game could handle that is to expand its scope - now it can go from level 1 to level 50, and you will level just as fast. This will be what happens with core IWD-in-EET.

 

But some people like myself and bob_veng might be traditionalists, and want the game capped at level 25-30. And we can tolerate slower leveling. So what I'm discussing is how to achieve that.

 

Exactly yes, but "expanding the scope" isn't an operation that doesn't require tweaking either so it is also required to think about how "core IWD-in-EET" would achieve that. I put the " " because it's not yet clear which one should be the default. Changing the scope isn't as simple as making the content available.

Only once we have both viewpoints (and other interesting and different viewpoints maybe) working, then we should decide which one should be the default behaviour, maybe based on how well each one was achieved and how restrictive they end up.

Link to comment

The idea of scaling monster spawns to level across all of EET sounds fascinating. It sounds like a whole ton of work, and quite a few people would dislike possible immersion breaking (why is the sunken house S of Beregost guarded by a Lich now? What happened to the little ghouls?) Sounds like a lot of fun to me though.

 

Goblins occupying the pass into Kuldahar? Not at level 25. Say hello to Frost Giants!

 

I'm not a modder, so I have no idea what kind of work would go into something like this. Is it as simple as adjusting the contents of spawn tables or something? I know there is already some amount of scaling. Watcher's Keep does it. I seem to recall that sunken house S of Beregost replaces ghouls with ghasts at some point in the game. The house near Thalantyr upgrades its spiders at some point. Is a project like that feasible?

Link to comment

 

 

some might be ok with balancing the extra exp by making the rest of the content harder, some would rather nerf the experience so the power levels stay in the same range for a longer play time.

...

Seeing my character get stronger over time is one of my interests and SoD is already light on that from my viewpoint.

...

As I said though, this is just a reflection of what I would like to see in an IWD campaign, I'd like to see it be reasonnably challenging while not diminishing too harshly the growth of my character by playtime.

I look at it like this: this trilogy is already very long (>100 hours depending on play style) and it goes from level 1 to level 30. Adding in a while other game + 2 expansions is going to add a whole lot more hours.

 

One way the integrated game could handle that is to expand its scope - now it can go from level 1 to level 50, and you will level just as fast. This will be what happens with core IWD-in-EET.

 

But some people like myself and bob_veng might be traditionalists, and want the game capped at level 25-30. And we can tolerate slower leveling. So what I'm discussing is how to achieve that.

 

Exactly yes, but "expanding the scope" isn't an operation that doesn't require tweaking either so it is also required to think about how "core IWD-in-EET" would achieve that. I put the " " because it's not yet clear which one should be the default. Changing the scope isn't as simple as making the content available.

Only once we have both viewpoints (and other interesting and different viewpoints maybe) working, then we should decide which one should be the default behaviour, maybe based on how well each one was achieved and how restrictive they end up.

 

Agreed wholeheartedly. Much of our discussions (though interesting!) are somewhat academic at this point.

Link to comment

 

some might be ok with balancing the extra exp by making the rest of the content harder, some would rather nerf the experience so the power levels stay in the same range for a longer play time.

...

Seeing my character get stronger over time is one of my interests and SoD is already light on that from my viewpoint.

...

As I said though, this is just a reflection of what I would like to see in an IWD campaign, I'd like to see it be reasonnably challenging while not diminishing too harshly the growth of my character by playtime.

I look at it like this: this trilogy is already very long (>100 hours depending on play style) and it goes from level 1 to level 30. Adding in a while other game + 2 expansions is going to add a whole lot more hours.

 

One way the integrated game could handle that is to expand its scope - now it can go from level 1 to level 50, and you will level just as fast. This will be what happens with core IWD-in-EET.

 

But some people like myself and bob_veng might be traditionalists, and want the game capped at level 25-30. And we can tolerate slower leveling. So what I'm discussing is how to achieve that.

 

Gotcha, gotcha. Sorry to beat a dead horse, so to speak :D

 

Honestly, I'm not sure what camp I'm in. Guess I'll find out!

Link to comment

 

 

some might be ok with balancing the extra exp by making the rest of the content harder, some would rather nerf the experience so the power levels stay in the same range for a longer play time.

...

Seeing my character get stronger over time is one of my interests and SoD is already light on that from my viewpoint.

...

As I said though, this is just a reflection of what I would like to see in an IWD campaign, I'd like to see it be reasonnably challenging while not diminishing too harshly the growth of my character by playtime.

I look at it like this: this trilogy is already very long (>100 hours depending on play style) and it goes from level 1 to level 30. Adding in a while other game + 2 expansions is going to add a whole lot more hours.

 

One way the integrated game could handle that is to expand its scope - now it can go from level 1 to level 50, and you will level just as fast. This will be what happens with core IWD-in-EET.

 

But some people like myself and bob_veng might be traditionalists, and want the game capped at level 25-30. And we can tolerate slower leveling. So what I'm discussing is how to achieve that.

 

Gotcha, gotcha. Sorry to beat a dead horse, so to speak :D

 

Honestly, I'm not sure what camp I'm in. Guess I'll find out!

 

As an attempt to resurrect the poor horsie and give it yummy snacks, and as an aide to those who may have been confused by derailing as I was:

 

The point of this thread is not (I believe) to debate the merits of the traditionalist or the expansive approach to level scaling for IWD-EET. Instead, this thread was to have the traditionalists discuss how their tweak should work. The rest of us can go back to enjoying our level 1-50 binge, and they can plan out their enjoyably slow walk through 1-25ish.

 

Did I get that mostly right, bob_veng and subltedoctor? ... And sorry it took me so long? :D

Edited by Lightbringer
Link to comment

yeah but i wouldn't consider myself traditional because i advocate changing stuff

 

this is how i'd put it

 

1. revisionist and restrictive mindset (my position) - restrict the availability of resources, make any change that is needed

2. revisionist and permissive mindset - don't restrict the availability of resources, let us *have it all* - i want to feel the powah...but revamp ecounters to make them higher level! even more power! (a respectable position, i don't mean to parody it)

3. conservative and restrictive - don't make any change unless it's absolutely mandatory in order to keep the game functioning at a basic level (so - just "stagger" iwd, but no alterations on the inside, etc.); this is the minimalist perspective and i sympathise with it in substance but it's not a constructive perspective for modding because we're talking about an optional tweak here

4. conservative and permissive - this is the libertarian position: "it's not for you to touch anything, to impose any restrictions on the player when he is so wise, he will self moderate, use the console and NI, create his own mods etc". this is the anti-modding position in essence. it's completely absurd imo. no one is doing that here (but elsewhere on the internet, in different contexts - a lot of people...it's a virus)

 

it's always like this in all discussions of this type

Edited by bob_veng
Link to comment

@ bob_veng

where in your system do you put the (in my experience) average mega-mod player - I put this up because I see IWD-in-EET as just another mega mod added to the game?

Description

Interested in all new content with the intention to get a slightly different story in every playthrough. Wants to take his party all over the possible landscape but for a reason that fits into the overall contents. Items and encounters and XP are welcome but not necessarily the main goal. Not a purist when it comes to what is OP or not, but it still has to be reasonable. The main issue is to try to keep the flow of the game despite the extra contents (and thus gained experience), i.e. some bad villain in the main plot is still a challenge of sorts. Someone who is aware that playing the game in this way always requires some compromise (and some self-discipline - if an item is poor cheese, drop it, resist the persuasion to cheat).

Link to comment

between 3 & 4. mostly minimalist, somewhat libertarian (change of already existing content is acceptable only as a last resort and self moderation is often preferable). i think for you it's almost always better to add something new than to change what already exists.

 

this is my criticism (not directed at you personally): if the question is "what is the best change" (and balance issues entail that), than change-averse perspectives, on average, don't offer answers of equal value as pro-change perspectives, because the answer can't always be "best change is minimal change, just to keep the flow going" or "best change is no change at all". it just can't always be that. sometimes more extensive, more revisionist thinking is required.

sometimes you need a massive overhaul to "just" keep the flow going.

it's better to think radically at fist in order to maybe turn around, look back and say "no, that too much, it's an overreach; more can be done with less" than to always stick to a conservative perspective and not even know or want to know what can be done with "more".

 

i hope you don't mind anything i've said, i take it all back if i've misrepresented you

 

i'm sure everyone will be satisfied in the end, i don't want to "politicize" this topic. it's really not a big deal.

 

after all, we already have all types at least partially represented in existing solutions

1. there is the already existing percentage based xp tweak (not ideal but still great)

2. LoB added high-tier enemies in SoD is a good approach that in theory can be extended

3. there is already a possibility to separate IWD expansions from the main campaign

4. there's the option to have totally vanilla everything

Link to comment

where in your system do you put the (in my experience) average mega-mod player - I put this up because I see IWD-in-EET as just another mega mod added to the game?

...

Someone who is aware that playing the game in this way always requires some compromise (and some self-discipline - if an item is poor cheese, drop it, resist the persuasion to cheat).

 

Seems to me the players who use all the megamods are pretty clearly in category #2.

 

For myself, I always disagree with these arguments that "the modder should not restrict things, the player can just exercise some self-control." There is a ruleset here, and there are good and bad rulesets. If mods upset the balance of the ruleset - yeah, even in a single-player game - then they make the ruleset worse. There is always work you can do to improve the ruleset, it need not be a lost cause. That's why I tend to mod the mechanics of the game. There is room for improvement in the ruleset. It should put restrictions and challenges on the player, because overcoming restrictions and challenges is what separates good games from mediocre games.

 

yeah but i wouldn't consider myself traditional because i advocate changing stuff

 

I only meant traditionalist in the ADnD level cap sense: it is a game designed to reach level 20, max, and then some high-level rules were grafted on to reach level 30. But level 30 was always the ultimate, utter end. Insofar as we are playing with the ADnD ruleset, I am a traditionalist in this way: even when adding new content, I'd rather slow down leveling and keep the level range between 1 and 30, than keep leveling up to 40, 50, 60, whatever.

 

Not trying to define you or box you in... it just seemed, based on this thread, that you would similarly tolerate slower leveling in order to keep the game's basic overall power range the same.

Link to comment

yeah but i wouldn't consider myself traditional because i advocate changing stuff

 

this is how i'd put it

 

1. revisionist and restrictive mindset (my position) - restrict the availability of resources, make any change that is needed

2. revisionist and permissive mindset - don't restrict the availability of resources, let us *have it all* - i want to feel the powah...but revamp ecounters to make them higher level! even more power! (a respectable position, i don't mean to parody it)

3. conservative and restrictive - don't make any change unless it's absolutely mandatory in order to keep the game functioning at a basic level (so - just "stagger" iwd, but no alterations on the inside, etc.); this is the minimalist perspective and i sympathise with it in substance but it's not a constructive perspective for modding because we're talking about an optional tweak here

4. conservative and permissive - this is the libertarian position: "it's not for you to touch anything, to impose any restrictions on the player when he is so wise, he will self moderate, use the console and NI, create his own mods etc". this is the anti-modding position in essence. it's completely absurd imo. no one is doing that here (but elsewhere on the internet, in different contexts - a lot of people...it's a virus)

 

it's always like this in all discussions of this type

Interesting definitions. I think I mostly agree. I'd consider myself a limited #2. Don't just give me all the things like candy, but maybe have all the things available for me to earn. Sky's the limit, but I gotta earn it.

 

 

@ bob_veng

where in your system do you put the (in my experience) average mega-mod player - I put this up because I see IWD-in-EET as just another mega mod added to the game?

Description

Interested in all new content with the intention to get a slightly different story in every playthrough. Wants to take his party all over the possible landscape but for a reason that fits into the overall contents. Items and encounters and XP are welcome but not necessarily the main goal. Not a purist when it comes to what is OP or not, but it still has to be reasonable. The main issue is to try to keep the flow of the game despite the extra contents (and thus gained experience), i.e. some bad villain in the main plot is still a challenge of sorts. Someone who is aware that playing the game in this way always requires some compromise (and some self-discipline - if an item is poor cheese, drop it, resist the persuasion to cheat).

Ah, there's the rest of it :D Merge that with #2, and I'm golden.

 

Seems to me the players who use all the megamods are pretty clearly in category #2.

 

For myself, I always disagree with these arguments that "the modder should not restrict things, the player can just exercise some self-control." There is a ruleset here, and there are good and bad rulesets. If mods upset the balance of the ruleset - yeah, even in a single-player game - then they make the ruleset worse. There is always work you can do to improve the ruleset, it need not be a lost cause. That's why I tend to mod the mechanics of the game. There is room for improvement in the ruleset. It should put restrictions and challenges on the player, because overcoming restrictions and challenges is what separates good games from mediocre games.

 

I agree with you there. I definitely believe that a player should not have to compensate for a content creator's breach of internal consistency by denying themselves rewards that have been granted. It's a total immersion breaker. Of course whether the player is being picky or fair in such an assessment is another matter entirely. I am wary of modders too frequently excusing odd reward choices by saying, "well if they don't like it, a player can just exercise some self-discipline". I consider it a content-creator's duty to minimize the instances where a player has to consider whether or not to say that.

 

I may not be a modder, but I have created and ran my own D&D adventures in table-top for over 15 years, across 4 editions, very frequently "modding" the D&D ruleset to increase enjoyment at my table. For you table-top players, I consider myself a power-gamer and a roleplayer, but not a munchkin -- and I run and design my adventures with that in mind.

 

I do still expect mega-mod creators to keep some kind of internal balance. This is the problem I had with Dark Horizons -- the rewards far outstripped the challenges, and came at an inappropriate point in the story. I'm very OK with mods changing the balance of the game as originally envisioned by Bioware/Beamdog, as long as they are internally consistent. I've been doing just that with table-top for many years.

 

Of course, mod makers do what they do as a hobby, for free, and we all get to enjoy the fruit of their labors -- and to decide what to play or not based on our own tastes.

As bob_veng as stated, there are multiple ways to approach it, most of which are quite valid in their own rights :)

Edited by Lightbringer
Link to comment
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...