[Borderlands] Enemy levels in DLC4.

[Jigoku]

@AdamF or any Gearbox employee - Gearbox Software Community

Been a bit busy - But I also wanted to make sure I got the right info to you guys so sorry for the delayed response

Good question!

-If you haven't played DLC3 then the level of things in DLC4 will be in the mid 40s.

-If the player has completed the Loot Larceny mission of DLC3 (Basically the end of the DLC3 story), then DLC4 will be in the upper-mid 50s.

-If the player has completed the Crawmerax mission then DLC4 will be level 61.

With the title update, which is expected to hit sometime in October, DLC4 will follow these rules or rebalance itself based on the player's level so long as the player is on playthrough 2.5 and their level is higher than what DLC4 would want to be based on the above rules. So if a level 55 player is on PT 2.5 and has not played DLC3 then DLC4 will be rebalanced for this player. If, however, this level 55 player has DLC3 and has killed finished the Crawmerax mission then DLC4 would be level 61.

So get your Crawmerax killing boots on if you haven't already!

[Ned]

Cheers for this info!

I have many hours ahead of me with this AWESOME game

[Drac]

The more I play Borderlands the more I keep thinking "I can't wait for them to do a sequel".

Don't get me wrong, the DLC is awesome, but it'd love to see them have a 2nd stab at it with all of the DLC ideas rolled into the main game plus whatever else they add. If they ever do a sequel it's going to be awesome.

[ticklenut]

2 craw kills but with the same char i think.

Will have to organise a craw night.

[Reoh]

Originally Posted by Drac

The more I play Borderlands the more I keep thinking "I can't wait for them to do a sequel".

Don't get me wrong, the DLC is awesome, but it'd love to see them have a 2nd stab at it with all of the DLC ideas rolled into the main game plus whatever else they add. If they ever do a sequel it's going to be awesome.

For some reason when I think Borderlands 2, I get this image of it being set in space. You'd get to cruise about to different places and see whole new worlds. Lines up perfectly with DLC and new planets to explore.

I'd be disappointed if it was just more of the same. They'd have to throw in some new game play mechanics and stuff. Maybe some ornithopter missions where you hang out the side and shoot at shit that tries to grab you and pull you out to your death.

Actually you know what, that Warhammer co-op game sounded interesting too.

[Drac]

Well they've already trademarked "BorderWorlds" so that's kind of a given.

There's also lots of obvious areas to expand the gameplay. Armour and additional equipment drops, crafting, more vehicle gameplay, more classes (6 to 8 player co-op) and more "end game" content like what they've been playing around with in DLC4. If they're going off-planet then there could be missions set on space stations, varying degrees of gravity or even Zero-G jetpack stuff. They've pretty much got limitless potential because they haven't laid down too much universe law in the first game.

My guess is that the scope and scale of additions/changes from the first game will depend largely on the budget they have for the game. I don't think they'll turn it into an MMO though, I believe they fully realise that the game is popular specifically because it's no hosted online in a central place - although cloud based character saves would be nice.

[Chief]

If they do make a sequel, I hope they improve the co-op aspect. The one thing that really put me off was how that worked, for a game supposedly designed for co-op it felt pretty half arsed to me.

You can only do the hosts quests, levels make a HUGE difference in this game but all enemies were scaled to the hosts level which is such a bad idea.

I mean if I'm level 35 but join the game of a lvl 38 I'm basically just a hindrance, dealing next to no damage and taking a hell of a lot, dying constantly, etc. On the other hand, if I join the game of a level 28, I'll just wipe everything out too easily and neither will end up with a decent amount of exp.

Really need to make characters less level based and add some kind of scaling so enemy levels are an average of all the players levels. Also see no reason why the majority of quests couldn't still be available if you're not the host. Sure, restrict main quests which unlock certain areas and such, but all the more basic side quests? See no good reason for restricting them really.

[Jigoku]

Originally Posted by Chief

You can only do the hosts quests, levels make a HUGE difference in this game but all enemies were scaled to the hosts level which is such a bad idea.

You can do all the side quests you come across. Why should you be able to complete story related quests that are ahead of where you have completed to? If they let you do this, it is possible for story critical NPCs to die or become unavailable.

Until DLC3, enemy levels were hardcoded. Even in DLC3 they have hardcoded minimums and maximums.

Originally Posted by Chief

I mean if I'm level 35 but join the game of a lvl 38 I'm basically just a hindrance, dealing next to no damage and taking a hell of a lot, dying constantly, etc. On the other hand, if I join the game of a level 28, I'll just wipe everything out too easily and neither will end up with a decent amount of exp.

As above, enemy levels are hardcoded so that will all depend on which area of the game they are in. If those level 38s are in an area of level 40 enemies, then, yes, you'll provide little more than distraction. As long as you are within four levels of the enemies you are encountering you'll generally be able to help.

You aren't thinking in RPG terms. If you are below an area level you will get smashed.

Originally Posted by Chief

Also see no reason why the majority of quests couldn't still be available if you're not the host. Sure, restrict main quests which unlock certain areas and such, but all the more basic side quests? See no good reason for restricting them really.

All the side quests are available as long as they haven't already been completed by the host. You can complete any quest you pick up though. From a consistency perspective, you can't, for example, go and collect TK's leg from Scar if it has already been done. He only lost one leg ... =p

[Drac]

A few simple changes would fix the co-op issues most people have.

1) Individual Quest Systems.

This would let people progress in their story regardless of the host. The host should be able to see a list of all players "non complete" quests and elect one for the entire group to "track" rather than everyone being forced to play in the hosts gameworld. If multiple people share the same quest then doing that quest will complete it for everyone who had it.

It's a system that's worked in MMOs for years now. The only downside to this is if story events change part of the world (like a town blowing up after you complete a certain part of the storyline quests), but despite Borderlands restrictive quest system very little like that actually happens in the game except perhaps General Knoxx's Armoury. Even then as the armoury is contained in a separate level-load then the currently tagged Knoxx quest could dictate which version of it you load into (or it could simple ask the host to pick one players version as you travel to it).

2) A Sidekick/Champion system to equalize player levels.

This system is simple, one person elects to be a champion and other player in the game can choose to have their level/damage/ha artificially scaled up/down to that level during that play session. Or you could even base it on the currently tagged mission, people who are too high or too low could elect to have their level/hp/shields/damage ect modified to better fit the level of the mission.

[Ned]

I'm actually finding this game a better singleplayer experience than a co-op one. It's great just cruising around at my own pace. I'm trying to make sure I complete ALL missions with every character.

Originally Posted by Drac

although cloud based character saves would be nice.

Agree.