Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shadowlord]

The problem with the way Gothic II did it was that if you didn't level up enough before progressing the main quest, you would eventually (once you left the area around the city and went into the valley) discover that you were far too weak to stand up to the orcs in there, and would basically get wtfpwned and, at that point, you would have no choice but to restart the entire game, and this time, kill every single creature possible that could give you XP before advancing the main quest, then do it again before going to that area, INSTEAD of heeding the characters telling you that time is of the essence.

(I never did get past that part. I started over several times, or really, started playing again several different times, months apart, but had the same issue because I. Hate. Grinding.)

[Virtz]

The problem with the way Gothic II did it was that if you didn't level up enough before progressing the main quest, you would eventually (once you left the area around the city and went into the valley) discover that you were far too weak to stand up to the orcs in there, and would basically get wtfpwned and, at that point, you would have no choice but to restart the entire game, and this time, kill every single creature possible that could give you XP before advancing the main quest, then do it again before going to that area, INSTEAD of heeding the characters telling you that time is of the essence.

(I never did get past that part. I started over several times, or really, started playing again several different times, months apart, but had the same issue because I. Hate. Grinding.)

Uh. You could return from the Gothic I area any time you wanted. If that's what you're talking about. I don't recall an area from which you could not return. Although progressing the story at one point did make harder enemies appear in an earlier area.

And there ain't much grinding in Gothic as such since stuff doesn't respawn until the next chapter. I never actually went out of my way to grind. I guess you might have problems if you spent the skill points all around rather than focusing on something, though.

[zilpin]

The way level scaling is usually done, yes, I hate it.

If there is a plot theme to the scaling, e.g. the Evil Dark One sends more powerful minions to assassinate you as you progress, that can make sense.

But most of the game world should be what it is.  A level 1 dungeon should always be level 1, and level 100 should always be level 100.  Maybe throw in some scaling dungeons, and dungeons with random level, for seasoning.
(This is one of the things the original Fallout got right.)

Oblivion was the worst at this.  Everything scaled.  Super-powered thieves on the roads, ugh.

[Muz]

I actually kind of like level scaling because it forces me to branch out and try to be a step ahead of the game. I mean sure, If you want to murder leaf bunnies for 6 days and then fuck everybodie's shit all the way to the Floating Continent, then it's your business not mine.

Not sure what you mean by 'branch out and be a step ahead'. Level scaling, by design, means that you're never actually one step ahead, no matter how much you try. You can't branch out, because if you have a bunch of casual, non-survival skills like spells you keep for lulz, you pay for it with tougher monsters. It only rewards specialization and mastering one kind of skill and ignoring the rest.

Bethesda is the worst at this. One of the best parts about RPGs is that your character improves, you see yourself getting better. With level scaling, you never improve. In fact, if you play around, switching between one handed weapons and two handed weapons, or increasing shield skill "just in case I need it", you're punished rather severely. It's the main reason I stopped playing any Bethesda game, except FO3, which didn't scale so badly.

Another major part about games is achievement. You go in to a tough fight, come out alive, and brag to the world about it. With level scaling, difficulty is out of whack. I may have to try 10 times to get through a certain fight because I'm level 30, while you might go through it on the first try because you're level 10. I can complain about it to you, I can say "hey, beating that necromancer was really hard because he kept one-hit-killing me with his life steal" but you can't relate because you killed the necromancer in a couple of hits.

What's worst is that Bethesda takes such a lazy approach, I know a lot of people who say "If it's too hard or easy, just change the difficulty setting" about these games. Which really just messes with the sense of achievement. It's like a game designer telling you to look up a puzzle solution on the wiki if you get stuck, ruins the challenge.

Level scaling was also my biggest beef with Max Payne as well. It's well intentioned enough, trying to give you a challenge. But when you go on a fun killing spree with weak enemies, then all of a sudden get headshot 3 times in a row when you take a step into the room, it's just ridiculous.

I agree with scaling the maximum difficulty, though.. I'd say dungeon crawlers would be better off if you could fight some wtfdifficult boss and run through the minions, rather than have regular minions as tough as several previous bosses you fought.

[webadict]

If doing the thing where different enemies or areas are more challenging than others, one thing games could do to let players know what is a challenge and what is not is to take a leaf from tabletop role-playing's book and simply let a player know anything their character would know. So, when you come across a sort of enemy you've never seen before or you're in a certain area, an icon would show up on your screen, and you could pause the game and access some information about it. And if you come across something your character would have no way of knowing anything about, the thing would say, "Shit, you don't even know what this is, you may want to consider running or something." And maybe the game would remember what you had seen of the thing, so you could use that information to do some in-game research about it, if you wanted to. And for things that your character doesn't know everything about, but that he or she could make some assumptions about, you would get your character's best guess, and it would, of course, indicate how accurate your character believes the information to be.

This is actually done in ADOM, where your character observes what the enemy does (like 12 damage in an attack or has fast speed) and every time you look up information on the creature, it will tell you all the statistical data your character has collected. In all honesty, though, if you don't see that Greater Moloch doing any damage to you, and have no idea what it is, you're probably not going to live very long to know.

So, it has good things and bad things about it. I'd say that it is a nice thing to do in roguelikes, where you learn from your mistakes, anyhow. I think it could also work in an RPG, too.

Of course, ADOM also had a rather annoying way to level scale. There were a couple different things in the game, but the most notorious one is the uber-jackal. Basically, the more of a specific monster you kill, the more they level up, through what can only be described as your own personal natural selection. This can lead to relatively weak monsters, i.e. jackals, punching through your adamantium armor in packs of 20. Also, I think monster got stronger over time, as well (though the world was being corrupted, so that was plot-related.)

As for level scaling... meh. It really is lazy. I'd say you're better off with adding monsters where monsters should logically be. You shouldn't add a monster just because you suddenly hit level 5. That doesn't make sense. You shouldn't have monster level up because you did. That also makes no sense. You SHOULD have monsters scale with the plot or area. Even in an open world, it is okay to place that giant that can kill you at level 1 in the same cave your first quest is in. Why? Because you don't have control over the world. That giant was just minding its own business. If you were stupid enough to try and fight it at level 1, when several bones and skulls and what-not were sitting right next to it, that's your fault.

Now, the problem with this sort of gameplay is that people take this sort of thing as a challenge. You can't NOT kill the giant at level 1. No matter how obvious you make the "this guy will kill you pretty fast" sign, someone will tell you "omg, dis game sux! u cant even kill da gaint!" I'm sure you can't at level 1. That's the point. There are some challenges that you cannot beat at that moment. But, that's how the world works. That's the challenge. The challenge isn't making the giant more powerful as you get more powerful. As long as there's a way back, you don't have to be able to kill it at that moment.

I get it, though. It punishes grinding. But, really, grinding is its own punishment. I'd rather not have the same difficulty no matter what level I am. If I'm level 50 in a level 30 zone, I just wasted like 4 hours of my life making this stupidly easy. Go me! I'm SOOOO COOOOOL!

[Akhier the Dragon hearted]

   I guess I should throw my hat into this internet fight so here it goes. I dislike level scaling because it gives the player a direct control on their enemies. Now some of you might be saying I could change it so that people could not game the system. This is not my problem with it. My problem is that those players who don't know how the system works will be mercilessly slaughtered. In Oblivion if you don't choose to level by combat skills a player who wanted to be a herbalist or what have you could end up being quite high a level without any real combat ability and be blasted anytime they leave a town because they did not know how to game the system. Now I will admit most games are not quite that broken with the system as Oblivion is but still, punishing players because they don't meta-game is a horrible thing to do.
   How would I fix it? Well first of all connect the scaling to combat skills and such only so all those games where level is how good you are would be fine. Second is make generic enemies like wolves in the forest be set in difficulty and have only enemies from the games evil progress with the player. Also depending on how dangerous the area looks will change how dangerous the generic enemies are so a wolf in a bright and cheery forest would be easier and probably by itself while one in a dark forest where most of the trees look dead would have a whole pack with it and be tougher.

[freeformschooler]

The AVWW thing I brought up earlier does have the same kind of meaningless levels other games (Skyrim, etc.) have, but it also brings something to the table that upon researching it further I feel is as good an alternative as any: progression that matters to an individual player.

In AVWW, when you gain enough enchant points to collect an enchant, you gain a procedurally generated piece of equipment that, when equipped, actually affects how you play in a meaningful way. Did you get the +50% fire damage/rate of fire enchantment? Yeah, that's good if you like how the fire spells work and play. If not, too bad, get one for the light spells or something. Do you have to choose between the 50% damage resistance or the 15% damage resistance+emit light enchants? That's a good thing, because it's real progression: the type that's meaningful to the player. More "This is an encouragement to my playstyle" and less "this makes my HP go up so I can make the enemy HP go down more."

Let me provide another example: League of Legends. It may not quite be an RPG but the underlying concept can be implemented in an RPG. In League of Legends, each character progresses in a different way. Additionally, as you play that character, your skill and knowledge of how to use them progresses. You gain items (or whatever they call them, it's been a while) to equip to your character that form a meaningful combination based on your playstyle. In the end, the progression means something to you because it's the kind of progression you wanted.

A further example: while some Pokemon may be less viable in general, in competitive battling each has their own playstyle that still depends on what builds the player finds optimal, some slightly different, some heavily different.

I feel this type of progression is hard to get "right", and level scaling/basic boring level ups are both certainly easier ways to go. If implemented correctly, though, it can be very rewarding. I say that as an RPG veteran who has scaled the 99 level towers and gained the five hundred meaningless strength points

[LeoLeonardoIII]

I think you could give control to the player over what monsters appear.

The first layer would be a stealth control. You decide how stealthy or noisy you're moving around. Maybe wearing heavy armor makes your wandering monster chance higher, but the difficulty of the encounter is based on whether you're trying to sneak through the dungeon or swaggering around slapping faces. The encounter would be with more monsters and with leader-type bigger monsters of that group.

The next layer would be choice in where you travel. The easier dungeons closer to the surface and closer to town would have mostly low-level monsters because regular NPC patrols clear out anything really dangerous. If you wander back alleys in the bad part of town, or travel far from towns, or plumb deep dungeons, or travel to the next town through the closed-due-to-landslides pass instead of the one the merchants use, you'll hit harder encounters.

You could also have "easier" towns with nearby dungeons that make sense (this is an abandoned wizard's tower, here is a sealed-off catacombs) and a "harder" town with a nastier dungeon nearby (Waterdeep / Undermountain, this could also be used with the sentient castle in Girl Genius).

The next layer would be player impact on the world. The player could work hard to tame an area of wilderness, building civilization there, creating NPC patrols of soldiers, reducing the danger in that region. Likewise, a player could aid certain necromancers and foul magical experimenters, encourage banditry and piracy, release terrible monsters into the world, and so raise the danger in an area.

You could have scripted events like everyone saying how the Mushroom Forest dried out and the Shroomers all went into hibernation. If anybody diverted the river from the town's aqueduct, not only would the town have trouble farming but the Shroomers would waken again and cause trouble in the countryside. This even could be something the player does to dry out the Shroomers in the first place, or maybe it could be an optional difficulty increase.

A magic item you carry could reduce or increase wandering monster chance. You could look at it as a cursed item, but maybe you want to attract attention, such as if you're hunting a certain monster for monster parts and they're being really shy. This has been done with just about every JRPG but it can be traced at least as far back as the Jewel of Attacks in 1st edition D&D.

These are all pretty standard ideas from a tabletop D&D perspective.

[Akhier the Dragon hearted]

<snip>

   These are all great ideas but they are not scaling. What you just described is the opposite of level scaling which is monsters getting tougher depending on the players level in something. Its also not the player controlling what monsters appear but instead going places where certain monsters appear thus having the monster appear. Even the sneaking is the player controlling the situation and not the monsters though it is the closest as a better sneak skill could be directly connected to monster difficulty though it might be the reverse of the usual as the better you sneak the less you fight or it might cause only tougher monsters to find you thus returning it to the normal setup.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Yep. I was offering alternatives to level scaling, because I also dislike level scaling. Sorry I forgot to actually say that part

[Zangi]

   I guess I should throw my hat into this internet fight so here it goes. I dislike level scaling because it gives the player a direct control on their enemies. Now some of you might be saying I could change it so that people could not game the system. This is not my problem with it. My problem is that those players who don't know how the system works will be mercilessly slaughtered. In Oblivion if you don't choose to level by combat skills a player who wanted to be a herbalist or what have you could end up being quite high a level without any real combat ability and be blasted anytime they leave a town because they did not know how to game the system. Now I will admit most games are not quite that broken with the system as Oblivion is but still, punishing players because they don't meta-game is a horrible thing to do.
   How would I fix it? Well first of all connect the scaling to combat skills and such only so all those games where level is how good you are would be fine. Second is make generic enemies like wolves in the forest be set in difficulty and have only enemies from the games evil progress with the player. Also depending on how dangerous the area looks will change how dangerous the generic enemies are so a wolf in a bright and cheery forest would be easier and probably by itself while one in a dark forest where most of the trees look dead would have a whole pack with it and be tougher.

I'm gonna agree with you here. 
Level scaling should really only apply to combat skills, not non-combat.  Players that 'play the game right' are heavily penalized for it... like taking forever to kill a normal npc or getting 1 or 2 shotted by them.  (That happened to me in Skyrim... WTB dodge!)

Indicators of monster strength other then hitting it or getting hit by it may help...  but... yea if you use Demon/Dark Souls mentality... everything is dangerous and can't be ignored.  Though patience and visual tells go a long way toward telling you what kind of danger it is... >.>

[Shadowlord]

Level scaling was also my biggest beef with Max Payne as well. It's well intentioned enough, trying to give you a challenge. But when you go on a fun killing spree with weak enemies, then all of a sudden get headshot 3 times in a row when you take a step into the room, it's just ridiculous.

:boggle: There aren't... Max Payne doesn't have XP or skills, you don't ever level up...

Whatever. Were you not bothering to use bullet-time or something?

The hardest part about the first Max Payne was the crazy "Max Payne's been drugged / is dreaming" levels. The hardest part about the second game was... uh. I can't really think of one. I beat that on every difficulty level from normal up to the hardest one, and had no issues at all.

[3]

Max Payne does have scaling difficulty. It was criticized a lot for being pretty much exactly as Muz describes.

Expanding on what I said earlier - there isn't anything explicitly wrong with level scaling; in fact, it's a great idea, it's just when it's used to cover holes in lazy design that it's a problem. To relate to the above conversation, if every element of a given game's design was as compelling as the combat system, there wouldn't be any problem with everything being level-scaled, because it'd be relevant to everything. When the only compelling aspect of a game/the only aspect with any depth is the combat system, it doesn't make any sense to scale content, because everyone's going to be doing the same thing anyway.

So if picking flowers and performing alchemy was as interesting as fighting things, then scaled content would make perfect sense.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

True. You wouldn't have that complaint if the level-scaling occurred in all areas separately. For example, if you're good at picking flowers, flower-picking scales harder but combat remains scaled low.

It seems like there shouldn't suddenly be awesome flowers everywhere just because you're higher level, or that the people in the sleepy rural town are now suddenly complex to interact with socially just because your social skill is high. It's a weird phenomenon where you leave a podunk town as a high school student because nobody there knows anything about math, you go to an internationally recognized mathematics program and earn your PHD, you come back to your hometown and everyone suddenly has a math PHD. Wtf?

It turns the game into something with a twisted reality that revolves around the protagonist. Not in the way a story is told by a narrator or in relation to the protagonist, but in which the world exists because of and directly subordinate to the actions of the protagonist. You pick up rocks a lot, rocks become heavier. You masturbate a lot, masturbation becomes more challenging. If the game was explicitly about such a strange reality I could see it, but none of these games describe the world as locked to the protagonist in that mystical way.

I think it just sounds dumb. It prevents me from wanting to interact with the game at all.

[kg333]

Meh, Half-Life 2 scaled according to how well you did, so it can't be the end to all games.

Say what?

Half-life and Half-life 2, the difficulty of enemies scaled based on how well or how crappy you do.

If you do bad enough, the zombies will just stare at you half the time.

If you pop off every tom dick and jane instantly, shit gets real.

Is there a source for this?  I've never heard this before, and can't find any references to that kind of scaling going on elsewhere, other than the AI trying to adapt to whatever strategy you use in the later ones.

KG