Level cap and carry capacity

[UnLimiTeD]

You could reach level 20 before the latest version.

[Prytification]

You could hit lvl 20 by finishing everything, as already in earlier version, in Railroad Crossings.

[Fenix]

I suggest oddity system should be changed too.
15 XP per level is too low, level cap reached too fast.

[Eliasfrost]

As for level cap, I haven't reached it yet as I haven't played Underrail since like 2 updates ago or so but I can imagine that the cap will be raised as development progresses. Have anyone hit cap long before the end of the current version?

I believe most players will hit the level cap long before they're done with the current version. The last 2 updates added a lot of content, so there's plenty of XP around.

I see, that could become a problem then. I remember in Fallout 3 that I hit lvl cap before the end of the game and it sort of dragged from there because the game lost the sense of progression it had before that. But they raised it (I think twice) with the expansions so it's not really a big problem anymore. I'm not too worried about Underrail though, I think Styg and co will do what's best for the game.

@Elhazzared: I get what you're saying and in some ways I agree that the new system is problematic (though just slightly) but not for the same reasons as you. For me, it's that the new system didn't really fix what I felt was the core problem, that you get way too much money and not enough ways to sink that money; removing it from the system. Sure, the new system have sinks: repair cost, trade limits, carry weight etc. but it's not enough, you carry way too much money for the area you visit. In fact, you don't really need money since you can easily just do good ol' trading your stuff for equipment because items carry extreme value, especially weapons.

[Elhazzared]

I don't think that is a problem. It is in fact normal unless you want to run a game in which you are always finding yourself too low on funds to buy even the basic stuff.

Think about any other good RPGs and it's the same. Fallout 2 you didn't had any in the beggining but pretty soon you'd hav a lot more than you'd need. Same for Arcanum.

It's not the game's fault that you have a lot of money, it will eventually happen. Maybe you could tone it down a bit and still have more than enough but not as much as now but ultimatly it will be the same.

As for trading items for equipment... I'm not sure how viable that is. Sure lots of things are worth lots of money, but are they accepted? If the merchant won't buy it, he won't accept it for trading too right?

[Eliasfrost]

As I said, I don't think the new system is bad for the same reasons as you but we both have a problem with the new system and I outlaid the reason I find it problematic. I think this can also be served as an example that you ultimately can't please everyone because what you think is a problem is not a problem in my eyes and vice versa. Obviously that doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning subjective viewpoints on specific mechanics and systems in part of critique but, you know, weighing opinions and such, there's only so much a dev can do.

I didn't start trading items in the beginning of the game but once you hit Junkyard, it's very much a viable thing to do throughout the rest of the game (from my experience). I guess it depends on your playstyle, the only thing I needed to buy was ammo and repair kits so it worked fine for me.

[Elhazzared]

That is not the question I made however. What I asked was. If they are not buying the specific item, then you can't just go and trade it for something else right?.. It's not about being able to trade or not but rather, if the merchant won't buy it cause he doesn't buys that type of stuff or has already reached the limit of that type of stuff that he buys, then he wont trade either because he doesn't needs the item? That's the question. Although it's kinda pointless cause evn trading I'd never be able to sell all the excess stuff that I'd get, it does at least satisfies some intellectual curiosity.

As for the systems. You may feel like both this and the previous was wrong, but the previous actually didn't got you as much money as the current one. It also didn't drive some people crazy by not being able to sell all the loot. Though yes, some people prefer the new one cause to them it feels more realistic to have to leave stuff behind though to me it feels like it wastes my time. I went there for nothing as a reward... Pretty much the same reason I kept saying that the vault in the SGS was bad. it is time wasted for no rewards inside. Now there is some form of reward if you play on oddity but if not it's a waste of time... Even then it kinda is a waste of time cause you hit the level cap way before you reach the end of the current content.

Still it's possible to please everyone. All you need is an option to remove all carry weights and merchant buying limits. Those who like to play with those, play with them, those who do don't like them, play without them. And everybody is happy. If you want to go even further because having options is good. You can add options that you select at the beggining of the campaign to say, have merchants buy things cheaper and sell at more expensive prices. Have less drops. Things like that... think of it as ratehr than have a difficulty setting that goes from easy to hard. You have adjustable settings over several paramenters.

That would be great but I don't expect Styg to go that far cause that's more development time and thus more money that needs to be invested into the game. I'm not sure how having a customisable difficulty setting would actually impact on the development schedule. Some simple things like disable this or that I'm sure it's dirty quick to do. things like making merchants buy cheaper and sell higher is also something very easy to code and very quick. But certain difficulty settings might not be as simple and quick... but hey, it's not something to dismiss.

[Eliasfrost]

That is not the question I made however. What I asked was. If they are not buying the specific item, then you can't just go and trade it for something else right?.. It's not about being able to trade or not but rather, if the merchant won't buy it cause he doesn't buys that type of stuff or has already reached the limit of that type of stuff that he buys, then he wont trade either because he doesn't needs the item? That's the question. Although it's kinda pointless cause evn trading I'd never be able to sell all the excess stuff that I'd get, it does at least satisfies some intellectual curiosity.

Sorry for misunderstanding. It's only on rare occassions that I can't trade things with the vendors and get the things I want because I don't exhaust their limit every time I return to town.

As for the systems. You may feel like both this and the previous was wrong, but the previous actually didn't got you as much money as the current one. It also didn't drive some people crazy by not being able to sell all the loot. Though yes, some people prefer the new one cause to them it feels more realistic to have to leave stuff behind though to me it feels like it wastes my time. I went there for nothing as a reward... Pretty much the same reason I kept saying that the vault in the SGS was bad. it is time wasted for no rewards inside. Now there is some form of reward if you play on oddity but if not it's a waste of time... Even then it kinda is a waste of time cause you hit the level cap way before you reach the end of the current content.

I didn't notice a difference in the amount of money gained with the old and the new system, and for the rest of the paragraph, you've already said that and I understand what you mean as I've already said, I just don't see that as a problem because we have different playstyles and means of play.

Still it's possible to please everyone. All you need is an option to remove all carry weights and merchant buying limits. Those who like to play with those, play with them, those who do don't like them, play without them. And everybody is happy. If you want to go even further because having options is good. You can add options that you select at the beggining of the campaign to say, have merchants buy things cheaper and sell at more expensive prices. Have less drops. Things like that... think of it as ratehr than have a difficulty setting that goes from easy to hard. You have adjustable settings over several paramenters.

That would be great but I don't expect Styg to go that far cause that's more development time and thus more money that needs to be invested into the game. I'm not sure how having a customisable difficulty setting would actually impact on the development schedule. Some simple things like disable this or that I'm sure it's dirty quick to do. things like making merchants buy cheaper and sell higher is also something very easy to code and very quick. But certain difficulty settings might not be as simple and quick... but hey, it's not something to dismiss.

I agree, options are nice. But it all boils down to whether compromising the vision for the sake of having different options is a good thing in this case. As a content creator and as someone who have gone through a few playtest sessions with testers for my own game, there are some things that you just can't change because the systems and mechanics are mandatory for the atmosphere to be preserved, even if a a number of people disagree, artistic integrity and all. I don't know about Styg and co but they have been persistent with the changes and I'm confident to say that it's for good reasons. If the current way the economy works is for the sake of building a certain type of realism and also used as a tool to establish the harshness of Underrail then I'm all for it. I just have to adapt to it.

To give an example: Dark Souls, that game have a steep difficulty curve and unforgiving combat, not for the sake of being hard because that was never the goal of the combat system, but it was created to establish a certain type of atmosphere. I don't really like Dark Souls because of that so I just didn't continue playing it after a certain point, my loss I guess.

But who knows they might add options for this kind of thing later on in Underrail, I don't know. But if they don't then I'm ok with that, it's their game after all. I just don't know if going on about it again and again is going to change anything.

[Jamolotl]

The carryweight/trading system is absolutely fine in my book, it adds a survival aspect and a much more grim, immersive feel.

The level cap on the other hand really is too low for me, to the extent where I stopped playing to wait until it's raised. When it comes to levels and how many skills you can take in an RPG there is a fine balance. At the moment it isn't quite there, it feels limiting rather than challenging and frustrating rather than giving the player interesting choices to make.

[UnLimiTeD]

It really just levels too fast.
If the last 5 levels required twice as many oddities, I think we'd have less of a problem.
By then, the character is already fleshed out, and it's just about improving it.
Maybe adding just a few more levels would help.
On the other hand, if you level till the bitter end, you will practically never use all those awesome skills you piled up because the game ends when you've just attained them.

[Elhazzared]

I think you got it wrong Unlimited. It's not about leveling till the end not to ever use those skills. A good system will have you level for roughly 60% of the game to reach the limit of how good you can be at what you mainly do, then you are leveling up secondary stuff to give other small bonus, something outside your area of specialisation, some utility skills if you will.

[Jamolotl]

It really just levels too fast.
If the last 5 levels required twice as many oddities, I think we'd have less of a problem.
By then, the character is already fleshed out, and it's just about improving it.
Maybe adding just a few more levels would help.
On the other hand, if you level till the bitter end, you will practically never use all those awesome skills you piled up because the game ends when you've just attained them.

Yeah I agree completely. The last thing the game needs is to have the challenge nerfed, so simply adding more to the player wouldn't be right. A mixture of some added levels and slower leveling would work well I feel, so that the challenge stays intact but with more room for interesting builds and player freedom.

Elhazzared - I disagree with most of your points, but I agree with that. The player needs to feel like they are progressing in a non-narrative way throughout most of the game, whether that's gaining gear or skills of some form. If that progression stops halfway through the game the player is left relying purely on narrative for that sense of progression. Even Torment quality writing couldn't make that work.

[Eliasfrost]

That's a good point, I've been thinking about that from time to time; whether narrative progression is as important as your own progression as an agent. The problem is will the narrative progression accommodate to the agent's progression? And to what extent? In a lot of RPGs, the narrative will assume that you have a certain skill level when you enounter specific points in the story. In games like Underrail or any other non-linear games with player progression, the juxtaposition between your skill level and the skill level the game assumes you have can become very jarring. One game that did this very well was Morrowind, because the story never assumed anything about you, it would always check your stats and conform to that. There's a point in the early main quest where, if you're too low level, the character will tell you to go away and do other stuff until you're prepared, and you can either go away and improve yourself or accept the challenge regardless, that was a very nice touch and added a lot to the experience.

Too bad not a lot of games do that nowaday. I don't think the agent progression vs narrative progression problem becomes as big as people think when you at least try to join the two together in a way that makes sense from both perspectives.

I haven't actually finished the current version of Underrail or its story so I'm mainly talking from a general point of view.

[tiw]

I think this topic should be revisited -- I do think a level cap in general is a bad idea because it completely stops the idea of character development, but so is unrestricted character power.

I think a diminishing returns system would be ideal for this. As an example:

After level 20, you should stop gaining hit points and psi points per level, making it so that only getting your +1 stat point every 4 levels can increase your health and psi pools. Or, it could be reduced to a flat 2 hp/1 psi boost per level after 20.
After level 24, you should only gain stat points every 8 levels and new feats every 4.
After level 30, your skill point gain should be reduced to 10 each level.

This would prevent characters from being too powerful too soon, but at the same time, if one were so inclined, one could eventually build a character that is a master of everything after multiple playthroughs. If you play the same character for 700 hours, that character kind of deserves to be an OP superman of some sort, and by then you probably have already beaten the game, so why not?

The "import/export character" function also serves as a way to prevent players from being stuck at the game due to "improper" builds, and those characters will reach a hard cap sooner into the game, which would only compound the problems they have near the end of the game. Uncapped but diminished level improvements would still make these characters viable to play the game through, if unoptimal.

[Fenix]

I think this topic should be revisited -- I do think a level cap in general is a bad idea because it completely stops the idea of character development, but so is unrestricted character power.

I think a diminishing returns system would be ideal for this. As an example:

After level 20, you should stop gaining hit points and psi points per level, making it so that only getting your +1 stat point every 4 levels can increase your health and psi pools. Or, it could be reduced to a flat 2 hp/1 psi boost per level after 20.
After level 24, you should only gain stat points every 8 levels and new feats every 4.
After level 30, your skill point gain should be reduced to 10 each level.

This would prevent characters from being too powerful too soon, but at the same time, if one were so inclined, one could eventually build a character that is a master of everything after multiple playthroughs. If you play the same character for 700 hours, that character kind of deserves to be an OP superman of some sort, and by then you probably have already beaten the game, so why not?

The "import/export character" function also serves as a way to prevent players from being stuck at the game due to "improper" builds, and those characters will reach a hard cap sooner into the game, which would only compound the problems they have near the end of the game. Uncapped but diminished level improvements would still make these characters viable to play the game through, if unoptimal.

You should play Elona+. And - this isn't Elona.