a) Level based Machine Level Scaling: Well speaks for itself: machines would no longer be “region coloured” or “region classed”, but based on the level of the player.
Thus, Archipelo would feature FNIX types for high levels, but when a level 1 made it all the way up North, North machines would be orange.
b) For high levels on Mainland: Right now there are (hardly) Apocalypse Machines, but they are there.
Should, for say, level 25 and up more Apoc Machines spawn?
MP Machine Scaling: Also quite self-explaining, I reckon.
a) Should machines scale up per player in the game session?
b) IF so, by how much per player?
Few times requested by some, how do you feel about this?
3) Do you think either one should be “enforced”, should it be kept optional IF they implemented this?
a) I think so, it would I think be logical.
b) Yes, about 5 to 10 % could/should be apocalypse.
a) Same, I think it should, since, well, logical.
Bit boring if not?
b) I think, 30% increase in machine stats/player would do?
Well, those who know me know this answer: Optional.
I hate to force stuff on others, Freedom, people, FREEEEEEDOOOOOOM… XD
Oi, that was another movie, my bad.
I will just give opinion with the MP Scaling.
For solo players the game is fine.
Multiplayer is another matter.
It gets ridiculous easy with 4 people using experimental weapons.
The problem is not the experimental weapons but the number of machines being almost the same and their difficulty being the same as in SOLO player.
What we need is giving the enemies greater numbers and Health having in consideration the number of players.
But please let the single player remain as it is, hard for newcomers, interesting for almost everyone else.
I would mind if it was not optional!
I like dark souls games (and clones)
But i do not want this to be called Dark Mech.
Just wanted more clusters of enemies in the non DLC areas.
Interesting idea but it has a fundamental flaw in it.
Interesting since machines would scale up with you, not when you cross one region border to another.
Something like this perhaps (simplified):
Char lvl 0 - 14 = proto enemies
Char lvl 15 - 22 = military enemies
Char lvl 23 - 30 = FNIX enemies
Char lvl 31 = apo enemies
But a bit more complex formula would give variety, like so:
Char lvl 0 - 7 = 100% proto enemies
Char lvl 8 - 13 = 50% proto enemies + 50% military
Char lvl 14 - 19 = 100% military enemies
Char lvl 20 - 24 = 50% military enemies + 50% FINX
Char lvl 25 - 28 = 100% FNIX enemies
Char lvl 29 - 30 = 50% FNIX enemies + 50% apo enemies
Char lvl 31 = 70% apo enemies + 15% FNIX + 10% military + 5% proto
Even more complicated formula would give smoother crossover between proto, military, FNIX and apo, where the higher lvl you are, the more of stronger class enemies you’ll start to see and the less of weaker class. Added all types to lvl31 since it’s lvl cap and i’d get tired looking only apo enemies all the time.
And now the flaw:
This scaling works very well in SP game, but how about MP game? Who’s char level is taken in MP game? Host’s? If so and when host is e.g max lvl, other lower lvl players would be outmatched, especially when considering your 2nd point. If host is low lvl and high/max lvl players join, they wouldn’t have much initiative to engage proto enemies with poor rewards.
I think the current spawn rate of apo enemies on vanilla island is enough since it gives you “taste” what is to come if you decide to buy Alpine Unrest and travel there, since that small island is crawling with apo enemies, with few FNIX ones in the mix.
Here, the question is, if to increase the enemies amount or enemies HP in MP game depending on how many players join. Or even both. In either way, that only works IF the team plays together alongside host. So far, i’ve seen it very rarely since most of the times, there is one or two rouge players who go and do what they want.
“Optional” works if GZ would be SP game only. But since it is MP as well, with emphasis on co-op, that “optional” will became “enforced” to anyone who joins MP as a client.
Example: Let’s say that the “MP machine scaling” is optional to everyone and it’s up to you if you want to use the old system with less and lower HP enemies or the new system with more challenge.
I open up my game, thus becoming Host and i also enable MP machine scaling (for added difficulty). Another (low lvl) player joins and he/she has set the MP machine scaling off in his/hers game since he/she may have trouble dealing with vanilla enemies, let alone dealing with more and higher HP enemies even when in MP.
Since i’m host, my settings will be enforced to anybody who joins my game, which results in no option for others, thus, “optional” becomes “enforced”.
No… Difficulty should be scaled according to location. Something like south cost, face roll solo. North coast challenging for the top 10% solo. Expand to the remaining islands scaled to 4 players, an easy one and a hard one.
Sometimes people want a little power Trip/face roll after getting stomped on in a difficult area.
Logically, the highest level, sir.
It would not be host level based, but at the highest level of the team.
Both, as well as (hopefully) AI.
Awareness, and reaction time.
If you want to team, it can be dealt with ingame or even before, Discord maybe.
So it would be up to the host, what he wants, unless in advanced agreed, sir.
Do you think this would be an issue?
Note, I am not saying this is how it has to be, I am only answering where a question was, or filling in an idea.
Thank you for replying.
That is how it is ow, sir.
“Zone coloured” so to speak.
Archipelago is Orange (proto), and each zone alters to it’s colour(s).
Addendum, I believe, you missed the “optional” part, sir?
Well, IF they would do it, naturally. XD
Personally, I REALLY dislike “face roll situations”, to me these are truly pure waste of time, effort and ammo…
However, I respect your opinion in the matter.
“The highest level of team” <- what do you mean by that exactly?
Awareness ties into the aggro range of machines. Latter is fairly limited, alongside 400m visual range of machines and about 150m of damage sparks render distance. Here, i don’t think those values would be increased by the devs and i have an idea why.
These limits look strange when playing on PC since PCs are capable to render into far longer distances than set in game. But what aren’t able to do that are consoles. With console, what internals you have in there are there without any hope to upgrade CPU/GPU/PSU whatsoever. Consoles are like laptops. They are portable but you’ll sacrifice upgradeability with them.
I’ve seen several games on PC which have severe limitations since console version of that game also exists and the console is the reason why devs need to hold back when making a game.
Best example is with how many key binds there are in game. If a console port exists, the PC version of the game has about 15 or so different key binds (since that’s about how many buttons console controllers have). PC keyboard, in the other hand has 104 keys. Include the simple mouse and you can bring key binds to 113 if not more.
Setting up a team in current game doesn’t happen until devs implement feature with MP where you can choose with whom you connect, not to the random person as it currently is.
Also, the Discord option works mainly for PC users since last i checked, consoles doesn’t have Discord. Console users would need to fiddle between their console and phone/PC when setting game up within Discord. Of course, not all players use Discord or don’t want to while playing GZ.
Offtopic but still a question to you: Why do you keep calling me:“sir”?
This thread is another example of “Why, oh why…” to me.
If you really want “level-based machine levels” to be a thing vs. region based (and I am not sure it should), you should devote much more time to outlining why this is important vs. how specifically this would be implemented to the last detail.
You get the devs on your side. By short, clear-cut, compelling arguments. Not by walls of text.
@Aesyle
About the sir: i am polite, sir.
It is a token of respect.
Well, there are several ways to implement it.
As I saw it, was thinking of, the highest level of the team would be base value, and then increase per person in the team.
I threw in 35%, but that is just a thought…
In some cases… yes.
Depends on how nice a chap the host is.
But one can always go to another host if he/she does not like the setting it is on, and the host refuses to change…?
It would be, indeed, a bit host-responsibility…
However, for GZ I have high hopes: people here are decent.
Well… yesterday I had runners walking past me while I had dinner on my table.
I simply fail just what awareness is, here…
Now, seeing awareness is such a strange concept in here…
One would assume, following the logic of scaling, that awareness as well would be scaled?
And I just followed this assumption here.
As for limitations for console, that is very sad for PC users.
We’re virtually ‘punished’ by these consoles, limited to what they can run, it’s not really fair.
But, it is what it is, I fear.
Now, as to how it would relate to scaling, I fail to understand, sir.
I mean: scaling an enemy is nothing more than a few values that change.
No extra data comes in place that would hog a system?
Also, I fail to understand why you bring up the keys for console/PC.
Here as well nothing would change?
As for inviting on consoles, I REALLY have no clue.
Never had one.
I can only use PC for relating to the game…
Was not aware of this limitation for consoles…
Apologies if it comes across like that.
Both however are a very different topic, sir.
I do not think, there are walls of text here either?
Save for this one, due to several parts addressed/responded to.
