Another idea could be to trim down the excessive amount of xp you get when finishing some quests. (or when disabling traps/unlocking chests/reading scrolls)
38,000*6 or even 75,000*6 is ridiculously too high. But then this is the kind of update that can modify the balance of the whole ToB, it is more risky.
Yes, without ToB installed. With ToB installed the cap is extended to 8 million because it is asssumed that you will continue your party into the expansion.
If you want to play with the SoA cap, then simply dont install ToB.
And for the fact that you lose interest when not seeing your xp increasing, I'm sorry but I don't think you represent the majority of players there.
Dont put words in other peoples mouths. I dont lose interest when my XP stops increasing, I find it less enjoyable if my character is not advancing and gaining new spells and abilities during the game. I like gaining new spell levels and slots and using them as they unlock, which you cant do if the XP is hard capped. Under SoA's XP cap, you also cant sufficiently build a strong dual or multiclassed character as you have to spread that EXP between two classes.
Because, for a fighter for instance, I would not be able to select my HLAs as I wish without using a save editor. Why not making the better choice right from the start? Which is not the grosbill one. Right now, SoA has a very bad endgame balance because of ToB, not sure they intended to reduce that much the difficulty of it, it is your interpretation, there. They are going to correct bugs, why not consider this one as a ToB side-effect bug, since it definitely reduces the interest of SoA?
Dont put words in other peoples mouths. I dont lose interest when my XP stops increasing, I find it less enjoyable if my character is not advancing and gaining new spells and abilities during the game. I like gaining new spell levels and slots and using them as they unlock, which you cant do if the XP is hard capped. Under SoA's XP cap, you also cant sufficiently build a strong dual or multiclassed character as you have to spread that EXP between two classes.
Dual classes are ridiculously OP starting from SoA end game... Nerfing them just a bit? Not a problem. I don't see the problem for multiclasses, they were supposed to cap at 2,950,000 originally. ToB xp has been cheaply managed in my opinion
Another issue here is that if players choose to play Watchers Keep during SoA and the EXP is capped to 2.95 million, then they would end up losing out on a huge chunk of EXP that they could use when playing ToB.
As Mungri pointed out, there's nothing that forces you to level your character up once they get enough exp for next level. You can just avoid the level-up button from 2,9M exp and until you start ToB, and that should simulate what you want.
Would be interesting if the system scaled to your level, or your average party level.
Ex: If you were say level 35 fighting Irenicus (O.o what have you been doing? lol) Then Irenicus would be scaled sufficiently higher than you and with some comrades, etc.
Please no. I can't stand what Bethesda has done to the morrowind series. Level scaling is counterintuitive to playing an RPG. If you were going to scale a monsters level based off your char it might as well be an action game with a story instead of an RPG. At least I personally think of RPGs as a game where you gain levels and become stronger, but what is the point if everything gets stronger with you.
No you can't, it interferes with the HLA selection.
Are you sure? If I give a character a few million exp with the console, he gets multiple HLA selections upon level up. I can't identify anything immediately wrong with it.
Would be interesting if the system scaled to your level, or your average party level.
Ex: If you were say level 35 fighting Irenicus (O.o what have you been doing? lol) Then Irenicus would be scaled sufficiently higher than you and with some comrades, etc.
Please no. I can't stand what Bethesda has done to the morrowind series. Level scaling is counterintuitive to playing an RPG. If you were going to scale a monsters level based off your char it might as well be an action game with a story instead of an RPG. At least I personally think of RPGs as a game where you gain levels and become stronger, but what is the point if everything gets stronger with you.
Exactly.
A good RPG should have static, balanced opponents, who are in line with their story/background. Irenicus should definitely be stronger than your stronger mage when using his "internal" spells at the end of SoA, just like Sarevok is a better fighter than you are an when unbuffed at the end of BG1.
Currently, at the end of SoA, no matter if you're an experienced player or not, Irenicus is just lame when you have improved alacrity and time stop in your memorized spells... He never feels like an archmage to me, to say the least.
Please no. I can't stand what Bethesda has done to the morrowind series. Level scaling is counterintuitive to playing an RPG. If you were going to scale a monsters level based off your char it might as well be an action game with a story instead of an RPG. At least I personally think of RPGs as a game where you gain levels and become stronger, but what is the point if everything gets stronger with you.
I disagree, I prefer games where monsters level up with me because I find it very boring to run around stomping weak monsters.
Please no. I can't stand what Bethesda has done to the morrowind series. Level scaling is counterintuitive to playing an RPG. If you were going to scale a monsters level based off your char it might as well be an action game with a story instead of an RPG. At least I personally think of RPGs as a game where you gain levels and become stronger, but what is the point if everything gets stronger with you.
I disagree, I prefer games where monsters level up with me because I find it very boring to run around stomping weak monsters.
Watcher's Keep is not a problem if granted xp is just inhibited during SoA time, reactivated after you retrieve your soul.
To me, the *beauty* of this upgrade is that it doesn't have any effect for ToB, which is a really good thing, no fine tuning headaches...
It is boring to kill weak monster, sure, but it is a really cheap solution to match them to your level automatically... And if end of SoA has too many weak monsters and bosses, it is because ToB definitely unbalanced this part. Before it it was in line with the difficulty of end of BG1, which is really what I want to be brought back in BG2:EE.
Can't you select 1, escape the menu, select another?
Djonne is right, you cant select the same HLA twice if you have more than one level waiting. Normally this isnt a problem because people dont bank their levels, but in his case it would stop him building his character how he wants if he had to delay leveling up. Its also a problem when EXP modding characters in the console.
I think there should be an in game option to uncap or cap the experience. Maybe even set the cap ourselves (with a button we can press to restore it to its original state).
Comments
38,000*6 or even 75,000*6 is ridiculously too high. But then this is the kind of update that can modify the balance of the whole ToB, it is more risky.
If you want to play with the SoA cap, then simply dont install ToB.
And no I just can't not level up until ToB.
Because, for a fighter for instance, I would not be able to select my HLAs as I wish without using a save editor.
Why not making the better choice right from the start? Which is not the grosbill one. Right now, SoA has a very bad endgame balance because of ToB, not sure they intended to reduce that much the difficulty of it, it is your interpretation, there.
They are going to correct bugs, why not consider this one as a ToB side-effect bug, since it definitely reduces the interest of SoA?
No one is forcing you to over level if you dont like it.
They wont be fixing this non issue because it isnt a bug. The XP cap works exactly how it should after the expansion is installed.
I don't see the problem for multiclasses, they were supposed to cap at 2,950,000 originally.
ToB xp has been cheaply managed in my opinion
Currently, end of SoA is bad for everybody.
BG1 and BG2 only get easy after you've learned everything about each game.
Hence no change for ToB time.
Your suggestion punishes all players that dont want it, mine only benefits those that want their XP capped.
A good RPG should have static, balanced opponents, who are in line with their story/background.
Irenicus should definitely be stronger than your stronger mage when using his "internal" spells at the end of SoA, just like Sarevok is a better fighter than you are an when unbuffed at the end of BG1.
Currently, at the end of SoA, no matter if you're an experienced player or not, Irenicus is just lame when you have improved alacrity and time stop in your memorized spells... He never feels like an archmage to me, to say the least.
As for this argument though: You're forgetting that with ToB installed you also have access to Watcher's Keep. I disagree, I prefer games where monsters level up with me because I find it very boring to run around stomping weak monsters.
To me, the *beauty* of this upgrade is that it doesn't have any effect for ToB, which is a really good thing, no fine tuning headaches...
It is boring to kill weak monster, sure, but it is a really cheap solution to match them to your level automatically...
And if end of SoA has too many weak monsters and bosses, it is because ToB definitely unbalanced this part. Before it it was in line with the difficulty of end of BG1, which is really what I want to be brought back in BG2:EE.