Print

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

[LeoLeonardoIII]

I totally agree about level scaling, HOWAYVER, as a D&D DM I've seen firsthand what happens when the players end up in a low-level area you expected them to tackle earlier.

Make it a race to get the macguffin before the level-scaled anti-party does.

I think I'd put it like this:

Dungeons / Adventures A-Z are available. Many are level 1, many level 2, etc.

Antiparty chooses where they will go, and party chooses. If there's no spying, each won't know what the other party is doing. Maybe they accidentally hit the same dungeon. Figure out some table of how many rooms the antiparty gets through, chance of success for party level vs. dungeon level, and you note which items were taken and which monsters slain by the anti party. If the player party comes by later they will walk through some empty rooms that the antiparty cleared, similar to how the antiparty enters a dungeon partially cleared by the player party.

Instead of random encounters with another random adventuring party, you track hour-by-hour turns if there are two parties in the same dungeon to see if they cross paths. It's possible the player party will go down one hallway, adventure several hours, and return to find that someone else has come through and cleared the other hallway while they were gone.

The top-level work is making up a bunch of adventuring parties, the success tables for party level vs. dungeon level, and rolling to see where each party goes. Once that's done, you might have no NPC parties in the dungeon with the PCs - in which case, you can leave the rolling for their success for lull periods such as players dividing treasure. You really don't need to know how the other parties did until the players return to town and hear about their exploits - success or failure.

This also opens up interesting inter-party interactions:

It's not just that "several adventuring parties have gone missing near the Scorched Caves", but it's specific parties like the Reavers in Red and Coldwell's Delvers. Maybe something to do with their party composition was a problem - not enough Clerics to fight the Undead, or their wizard specialized in cold magic and the creatures there are also magically cold?

An NPC party has been mostly destroyed. Only the Thief and some hirelings survived. Will some party add the Thief to their group to get his intelligence and experience with that dungeon? What if the Thief's story of how his party died isn't entirely true?

Another party finds a cool magic item that the player wizard really wants. Will you attempt to purchase, or steal it, or hire someone to do your dirty work?

Your party finds a relic that's needed by another party. They don't want to tell you why. Maybe it's the last piece of a thing that unlocks a treasure - or an ancient evil! Will they try to steal it from you if you won't sell? Will they try to steal it just so you don't suspect its importance?

An NPC party's Fighter is high enough level to build a stronghold. He's calling adventurers to help clear out the wilderness around it while his group supervises construction.

A new adventuring party has arrived from the Utter South, made up of cloaked monks who refuse to speak, led by a mysterious wizard. Why does he look suspiciously like the necromancer you chased out of the graveyard?

The dungeon you cleared - and vacated - has been claimed by some other adventuring party, who came up with a legal deed of antique origin for the property. Why do they want the place? Did you miss something in your previous excursions? Are you willing to trespass and investigate?

The dragon comes by every decade to accept the offering that the townsfolk give it - one virgin. Now that the town is full of adventurers, are you all willing to just let some innocent soul be spirited away to an awful fate?

The swamps harbor mischievous sprites and druids who waylay travelers and steal from caravans. But any individual attempt to enter the swamp gets distracted and misdirected, ending up back at the perimeter or else drowning in muck. One adventuring party wants to gather a massive force to sweep the swamp and, with superior coverage, defeat the swamp-dwellers.

[Telgin]

I'm more tolerant of games that try to explain level scaling, as in LeoLeonardoIII's example.  I still prefer it to be handled with reason and, even better, limits like Sensei just said.  I think the recent Fallout games do something like that: enemies get better equipment and may level up, but it's usually restricted how far they can go.  That's mostly tolerable.

The DLCs show what happens when you uncap this however.  I'm glad I'm done with the DLCs at this point, because frankly, I don't want to be introduced to yet another monster that is smaller than me but can bite my leg off in one hit through the best defenses in the game.  They always come in packs too.  Being melee only is supposed to make up for that I guess, but then they can all also outrun you, usually even if you cripple both legs.

Sometimes, I just want to be able to stomp something.  I like to be able to come back to the Den in Fallout 2 with heavy armor and a great weapon and just kill all of the slavers with impunity.  If that was in Fallout 3 or New Vegas, the slavers would magically gain Metal Armor Mk. II and a combination of plasma rifles and anti-materiel rifles for no apparent reason.

It's not possible to be like in the worst example, Oblivion

I'm only aware of one other game that comes close to Oblivion's level of brokenness with level scaling, and that's Final Fantasy VIII.  Both games actively punish you for leveling, but at least with Final Fantasy VIII the bosses (usually) have fixed levels.  I will admit that the one time I did a low level run, it was great fun though.  Enemies were complete jokes.  I'm guessing Oblivion is similar if you exploit it properly, but it soured me enough in general that I can't be bothered to try.

[MorleyDev]

Morrowind had a levelled 'overworld' and some minor levelling on enemies, more dangerous wild animals spawned more frequently on higher levels  and enemies often had random levels within a certain range. But I do think Morrowind got it better than Oblivion and Skyrim, and they should of gone more in that direction and tried to get levelling right.

Personally, I think a good approach would be to perhaps make it so players can detect if they're in a dangerous area, and flee from fights effectively if they find themselves out matched. Perhaps the game provides hints as to an areas difficulty in relation to their own. A cheap cop-out would be for the game to say that they have a feeling of unease in areas they are outmatched. But I like the idea of making it so they know what to expect from an area based on that area.

Daedric ruins contain Daedra, Daedra are badass. Only go into them if you are also badass. Bigger ruins have more badass daedra, smaller ruins tend to be lesser cultists and lesser daedra. Give Vampire lairs tell-tale signs that they are vampire lairs.

And then have NPCs who will appraise the skills of the player, telling them what they think the player is ready for. NPCs could evaluate how risky they think it'd be for the player to fight the bandits, vampires, have guides who understand areas and how risky they are the player can go to for self-evaluation of that area.

"Oh, I want to risk a Daedric ruin but am not confident in my ability to handle it? Hey, you! Scout! You know of these ruin, what can I expect and do you think I can handle it?"

The problem with this approach is it's more work for the developer, but I think it'd be a better approach than level scaling.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

You could also just let the player know how tough something is when they walk up. Whether clearly, as in "This is a 5th level Dungeon" or more ambiguously but with guidelines in the background like MorleyDev suggested. The player has a choice to do the quest or not. There are going to be far more Level 1 Kobold Dungeons in the world than one person needs in order to hit Level 3 or whatever level you need to be to just stomp kobolds fearlessly and without risk (and also their loot isn't worth the time to pick it up and sell it).

Players don't like to leave dungeons behind, so if it's too hard the player's ego or completionist attitude will spur him to tackle that challenge - plus the rewards available from loot or whatever.

But because of that attitude, players are less likely to leave behind a dungeon that there's nothing left to gain from. Perhaps the game naturally lets them skip past a lot of that play time in weak dungeons because the fights are easier, they're more mobile, need to spend less time buffing and healing, and don't need to sneak.

Say you have a bunch of dungeons at Level 1. Player will go through one of them in 10 minutes and gain half a level. Every level below takes about 50% less time, and every level above takes 50% more time. So if he skulks carefully through a Level 3 dungeon he might make it, but he's going to spend over 22 minutes. Let's say he does level 1 dungeons and goes through 2 of them, leveling up. Now he can delve a level 1 dungeon in 7 minutes or a level 3 dungeon in 15. Which means he can do twice as many level 1 dungeons. But during that time he will probably get more benefit from the Level 3, rather than two Level 1s, along with the greater risk of failure in the 3.

I think despite that, players will worry that there's something they're missing in that 1st level dungeon even though the player is 5th, and he'll run through it anyway. And probably feel like he wasted his time. If you make all the dungeons pretty cool, it certainly won't feel like a waste because you enjoyed it.

Here's another idea:

The orc shaman has the ability to summon a great serpent-demon from a well in the caves. But he knows if he does the serpent will eat his soul, which is worse than just dying. The orc will not summon the serpent if he thinks there is a chance for the tribe to win against the PCs. Only if the PCs seem so powerful that they can destroy the orc defenders before the women and children can flee, will he risk summoning it. Also, they need to seem powerful enough to kill the serpent. It seems odd but the shaman considers the following outcomes:

1: Don't summon serpent, orcs can overcome the PCs. Save Tribe.
2: Don't summon, orcs fail to kill PCs but family flees. Save Tribe.
3: Don't summon, orcs fail completely and whole tribe wiped out. Lose Tribe.
4: Summon the serpent, but it wasn't needed because the orcs totally had this one. Lose Soul.
5: Summon the serpent, and only because the serpent was summoned the tribe wins. Lose Soul, Save Tribe.
6: Summon the serpent, and the PCs slay the serpent, which allows the families time to flee. Save Tribe.

So the shaman will want to summon the serpent if the PCs are way too tough for the orcs and especially if the PCs are incredibly strong.

That's a bump in difficulty in response to the character level.

//

Similarly, a nobleman who knows he's not in danger because he's in his safe room, but burglars are stealing his stuff. He can release special defenses, but not unless he thinks he's personally in danger or the burglars will enter his rare vault. Maybe it's trained leopards or animated armor or whatever, but deploying the special defense only occurs if the nobleman thinks he's in danger.

//

You can also put special areas of extreme challenge in your dungeons. Consider these to be "out-of-depth" areas that are clearly more difficult but possibly have great rewards. Maybe it's a thing to return back to later when you have the tools required to handle it. Then again, players will agonize over leaving rooms behind for the same reasons they agonize over leaving a whole high-level dungeon behind.

[Mech#4]

Daedric ruins contain Daedra, Daedra are badass. Only go into them if you are also badass. Bigger ruins have more badass daedra, smaller ruins tend to be lesser cultists and lesser daedra. Give Vampire lairs tell-tale signs that they are vampire lairs.

And then have NPCs who will appraise the skills of the player, telling them what they think the player is ready for. NPCs could evaluate how risky they think it'd be for the player to fight the bandits, vampires, have guides who understand areas and how risky they are the player can go to for self-evaluation of that area.

"Oh, I want to risk a Daedric ruin but am not confident in my ability to handle it? Hey, you! Scout! You know of these ruin, what can I expect and do you think I can handle it?"

The problem with this approach is it's more work for the developer, but I think it'd be a better approach than level scaling.

Yah, the dungeons in Oblivion were always a hodgepodge of different enemies. Ayleid ruins could hold bandits, wild animals, vampires, undead or any combinations of those. There was nothing to really say "You better put off going into here until you're stronger".

Skyrim handled that better, with bandit lairs being easier then, say, the Forsworn being easier then Dwemer ruins.


Aside: Wasn't the levelled monster model in Morrowind a ninja monkey?

[BurnedToast]

Personally, I don't really mind level scaling all that much.

Does it make any sense that the whole world adapts to you? no. Is it kind of stupid that bandits in area B are twice as tough as bandits from area A? Yes.

But, on the other hand, it's also pretty stupid that you go from being a skill-less peasant dirt farmer to a grandmaster mage or whatever in like a week to a month with no formal training.

In both cases, it's just a gameplay mechanic that exists to make the game more fun... best not to think about it too much.

[Xantalos]

Elder-Scrolls Series in general: More choices. Not necessarily moral choices, but each instalment has felt more and more like a Roller-coaster experience.

The Great House Dagoth mod improves Morrowind's main quest so much by making joining House Dagoth possible, as well as making it possible to betray Dagoth Ur and become a god alongside the Tribunal, or betray the entire Tribunal as well as Dagoth Ur and become the sole god of Morrowind. Or you can even commit a Heroic Sacrifice, and destroy the heart to kill both yourself and Dagoth Ur.

All of this whilst still fulfilling the deliberately poorly worded prophecy of Nerevarine and staying completely within the themes of the game to the point it feels like a natural part of the game.

That kind of thing, that you can do this kind of thing but only if you are smart enough to realise you can do it and not just blindly follow the quest marker, is what Elder Scrolls is truly missing. What Role-playing games in general lately have been missing.

Oh, and level scaling: Stop it. I much prefer Morrowind's static world to Oblivion and Skyrim's approach.

This is all good things.
That said, do you have a link to the mod in question? I might be able to get Morrowind soon and yeah.

[Ogdibus]

I don't really like the way leveling is implemented in most RPGs.   The characters power multiplies, and it causes older equipment and encounters to become obsolete.  Often times, I will like the aesthetic of a piece of equipment, or type of encounter, but it will become outdated by level progression.  Late game equipment often feels gaudy, and immersion is ruined by things like no-name NPCs being as strong as legendary heros, on par with Herculese or Gilgamesh.  They could really stand to tone down the magnitude of progression.  There are plenty of games that are fun with no player leveling at all.

When leveling isn't the main factor in whether you can succeed, leveled content won't be necessary.  Rare and powerful things will stay rare and powerful, instead of being vendor trash, or the next wave of mooks.

[WealthyRadish]

I agree, most games would be better without any level based progression. I would much rather see a sideways kind of progression, where players start out as bland but balanced, and level towards something more and more specific to what they want to play as. That character would get more powerful by being played in a specific way, rather than just from incremental statistical upgrades. Games with skill trees do this to an extent, but for some reason still also cling to the linear stat progression.

[Skyrunner]

Civ 4's navies were utterly useless. You couldn't do much with them ever. I love navies but Civ 4 doesn't endorse navies. I think the final expansion solved some issues but it still feels very unsatisffying.

Civ 5: No unit stacking in cities. You had to sprawl your army of guys with clubs through the entire countryside before you had enough to go attack. It's just so ugly looking.

[Reudh]

Civ 4's navies were utterly useless. You couldn't do much with them ever. I love navies but Civ 4 doesn't endorse navies. I think the final expansion solved some issues but it still feels very unsatisffying.

Civ 5: No unit stacking in cities. You had to sprawl your army of guys with clubs through the entire countryside before you had enough to go attack. It's just so ugly looking.

Civ4 navies were useless because they could do nothing to cities, besides lower their defenses slightly.
Civ5 armies have no unit stacking because of Civ4's idiotic ability to have 9392013812098 units stacked in the city - without constant collateral damage and fighter / bomber plane strikes, there was little chance for an enemy force to take it. What I would like to see is the ability to unit stack return, but have a limit on it - once you exceed a certain amount, it begins to drain food I guess?

[Skyrunner]

Agreed. I think just having a hard cap would work pretty well too. No more than 8 units within a city, for example.

[DoomOnion]

8? With civ 5's system? That would be utterly broken. I would say 2 or 3 would be more suitable.

[Eclectic Wizard]

The games that are free-roam and stuff, but once you get to missions, barrel you down a single path. I LOVE free-roam games, but FOR GOD'S SAKE! Let ME choose how I want to do it, and what outcome I want, rather than some pre-determined path.

Red Faction: Guerilla did this fantastically, you can basically solve any mission any way you want.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

For unit stacking, just say the unit takes support from wherever it is. It needs a gold support for pay and a food support for food. If you support it from its home city, no problem. But if it can't get support from the home city, it takes support from the tile it's on. Units eating up everything in a city that's not their home becomes unpopular in that city. Units can take food support from a non-city tile if that tile could produce a food. Of course, eating a food from a tile worked by a city means the city loses a food. So the cheapest way to encamp your troops is out in the wilderness. A unit that has no food within 1 tile loses morale and becomes ineffective in a fight.