Valorian

I think that effects such as blind, stun etc. should be reserved for specific monsters to not make them mundane and ordinary. I'd like to go "wow, that monster just blinded my character with its claws after a failed save", "aaah, this creature stuns with its touch on a failed save". If everyone can produce such an effect with a critical hit.. it's not that interesting and special when it happens.

I wouldn't mind a special feat or at most two. Something that makes them unique but not overpowered, as long as they naturally follow the same rules like every other creature in the game. That goes without saying, I think. On the other hand, I wouldn't miss these special feats either.

Anyway, I find it odd that Feargus would invent something on the fly just to be corrected by a developer later. They probably discussed about level scaling prior to his answer about it and I think it's reasonable to assume that Sawyer took part in such discussions, as well. That's where I believe "some will scale" comes from. It's entirely possible that, in the meantime, their opinion transformed from "some" to "if at all". It's also possible that someone misunderstood their initial goal regarding this subject.

I was not implying, it is all in your head. I think you are just blind with annoyance that you just want to nitpick and fight. Too bad, I have no interest in arguing with you about it. Ok, so actually "the world still scaled" doesn't mean anything at all.. you wrote it just like that... randomly and meaninglessly. Alright. Of course bunny, it's very annoying when people randomly state "it's like this and it's like that", without having a clue what they're talking about. When people are interjecting with false informations presenting them as facts, it prevents a constructive conversation.

For sure. Awesome like the awesome button. And now to change subjects from how you guess level scaling was handled in F:NV to a response from a developer some time ago via PM: "Side locations - not scaled to your level Crit path - scaled to your level" And indeed, assassins that were sent to kill you were scaled, for example. The large open world and all those locations weren't.

He didn't say resolutely there won't be level scaling in PE, sadly. He just doesn't plan to use it much, if at all. And we all know plans can change. I believe this is one of those things you either like or dislike as a designer and therefore you kind of know if you want it included in your game, so I expected a concrete answer. This is still "maybe".

New Vegas did it quite well, Deathclaws were dangerous from early game right into the late, radroach's were always a one shot kill. The world still scaled, but it was within reason. "The world still scaled." When you're saying that the world scaled, you're implying that it scaled as a whole. And you just said that deathclaws and radroaches for example didn't. So what you're saying is in contradiction. Do you even know what exactly scaled?

I disagree. Like almost anything, it depends on how it is implemented. In the case of level scaling, it does not. Whatever form it takes... it's still there and it's still an abomination. I don't want enemies to scale in strength depending on my character's level or where I go first. Even if it's just a small scaling range. It doesn't make sense and it's not fun knowing that the world artificially adjusts itself with the level of the character I'm playing. Range or not.

I'd rather see what they come up with and not run in a circle like my hair was on fire before we even had confirmed dev statements on the topic.But hey, to each their own. So, we should actually wait for someone to confirm what Feargus says? Yep, voicing concerns is akin to running in circles with burning hair, Ned. You nailed it.

Now, on a serious note, just in case they change their minds in the development process, and from "if at all" it goes to "maybe a bit more"... considering you're going to include various modes such as a mode that deletes saved games, modes that completely change encounters; how about a mode that eliminates all traces of level or encounter scaling based on the player's level/exploration order, Obsidian?

No. My opinion is that level-scaling can be done smartly and doesn't always completely fubar a game. I do not need it to be present, I'm indifferent about it. If they can pull it off without any level scaling, fine! If they choose to implement it somewhere for playability's sake, also fine. It's hard to please everyone with their design decisions, but so far, I think Obsidian is doing a really good job. No need to bitch and moan just yet. Alrighty Mr. Flanders, whatever they do is fine with you. That's ok too. *thumbs up*

Right. So now that we have a confirmation that, after all, it's "if at all"... what about the apologists that all of sudden had started liking level scaling, but "smartly implemented"? Are you sad? I asked a developer what was exactly level scaled in F:NV. He said only the critical path was and that the side locations (the majority of the game) were not scaled to the player's level at all. Ineed, I noticed that only the assassins being sent to kill you were scaled.

uh... huh... if you think your insults are why i opened this then you're a bit full of yourself on that account, had nothing to do with this, and i don't care i you believe that or not. what it did have to do with was the sky is falling mentality that the OP and most of the rest of the comments in the thread were fostering. making assumptions like it was going to be the worst thing ever (because that's always what happens IRL...) don't accomplish anything. No, I wasn't assuming it will be "the worst thing ever". It's not like level scaling is something new, right? The only other swords&sorcery(&technology) game mechanics and combat ruleset they designed was Arcanum. I don't think Arcanum shined in this aspect. So I do have my doubts and these doubts have just become bigger when they confirmed they'll use level scaling for (some) encounters. It's really simple. I'm not going to lose sleep over it or anything. I just stated it blatantly without ifs and apologies. part of the problem with arcanum was that the publishers literally demanded that they include the real time with it because that was they way everything was going at the time. the game itself was designed to be turn based, in which form it is highly enjoyable. but the realtime part of it is so tacked on that it's barely functional. i do have one question for you though. considering the quote does specifically say that level scaling is only one of the systems that they're using, and it also specifically says that it is going to have static areas, why were you so upset with having just part of the game level scaled when they already said it was going to have static areas as well? why did you assume that it was going to take over every aspect of the game, which was what i got from what you posted. maybe i misread, which i'm sure you'll let me know if i did. not going to reply to what you say about it, just want to know. Because I don't want parts of the game being a ****ty level scaled experience. I believe it's really simple to comprehend. Why are you upset about me not wanting to deal with level scaling in parts of the game? guess i was just curious why you focused so exclusively on that one part of the quote. anyway, i'm done. not going to talk about it anymore until there's more information. If someone gave you a cake which has a half that contains ****.. would you focus on the good parts or throw the cake in a waste container?

uh... huh... if you think your insults are why i opened this then you're a bit full of yourself on that account, had nothing to do with this, and i don't care i you believe that or not. what it did have to do with was the sky is falling mentality that the OP and most of the rest of the comments in the thread were fostering. making assumptions like it was going to be the worst thing ever (because that's always what happens IRL...) don't accomplish anything. No, I wasn't assuming it will be "the worst thing ever". It's not like level scaling is something new, right? The only other swords&sorcery(&technology) game mechanics and combat ruleset they designed was Arcanum. I don't think Arcanum shined in this aspect. So I do have my doubts and these doubts have just become bigger when they confirmed they'll use level scaling for (some) encounters. It's really simple. I'm not going to lose sleep over it or anything. I just stated it blatantly without ifs and apologies. part of the problem with arcanum was that the publishers literally demanded that they include the real time with it because that was they way everything was going at the time. the game itself was designed to be turn based, in which form it is highly enjoyable. but the realtime part of it is so tacked on that it's barely functional. i do have one question for you though. considering the quote does specifically say that level scaling is only one of the systems that they're using, and it also specifically says that it is going to have static areas, why were you so upset with having just part of the game level scaled when they already said it was going to have static areas as well? why did you assume that it was going to take over every aspect of the game, which was what i got from what you posted. maybe i misread, which i'm sure you'll let me know if i did. not going to reply to what you say about it, just want to know. Because I don't want parts of the game being a ****ty level scaled experience. I believe it's really simple to comprehend. Why are you upset about me not wanting to deal with level scaling in parts of the game?

You should keep yourself into that drama-queen topic you opened about people being dramatic.. because you simply can't squeeze that single atom of logic in your head hard enough. "Some are fixed." "Some are scaled." Yep, that's exactly how someone would be describing BG2 and 95% of its non scaled encounters.

So BG2 is a level scaled games even though 95% of encounters didn't scale? Ok. ... It's not "some scaled", "some were fixed". It's 95% vs 5%. And even then it's not level scaling in the sense that a creature with the same name would just increase in levels, as explained. Yes, I could, but I'm restraining myself from telling some of you what I really think. 1. You stil haven't pointed out a single example. 2. I don't get the difference between the two? How is that so when I'm stressing the difference all the time? There are different types of encounter scaling, and that's what you don't get. 3. Hahaha. Gets even more stupid. That's NOT how it worked in IE games, at all. And that *is* level scaling. 4. There weren't any relevant changes. I don't find the appearence of a couple more gibberlings every 50 encounters relevant.

They're scaled but they're fixed. They're fixed but they're scaled to your level +1. Oh, it's ok, because once you enter an area and once they're scaled... they're fixed ever after.. forevah.. I'm starting to see I'm discussing with mentally challenged people. Yes mods, maybe this is not the forum or the game for me.

No, they weren't the same. BG2 had more enemies if you were higher levels, as well as different ones- sometimes greater mummies instead of mummies, sometimes liches where there were vampires, and so on. The fact that you didn't notice it is because it was well done. Also, it is the same for BG1- except that BG1, having only 7 or so level, four of those being maybe in the first 2 hours of playing, it was much harder to notice. I just mentioned this in an example. Can't you people read? All named, unique enemies, didn't scale at all. The only things that scaled were 2 f. versions of mummies and vampires, in some areas. And a lich would perhaps be added to a couple of encounters if you were really high leveled. How that makes BG2 a level scaled game?

Except that it was phrased: Now, what were you saying about cognitive capabilities? "Some creatures will be fixed based upon where they are in the world. Some will scale <>" Yes, it's in the first posts and you've just proven you're comprehension impaired. So agains, "some creatures will be fixed", "some creatures will scale". I separated it into two parts to not confuse you further.

I should ignore half of these idiotic comments made in an apologetic frenzy, but since they're addressing my posts... yeah, I can't resist to slap them down. 1. The topic is about level scaling. So what kind of encounter scaling are you talking about? 2. You don't seem to be able to use mod tools. 3. Still no level scaling, right? So you're saying BG had scaling because (MAYBE) a few more gibberling appeared based on your level? Doesn't matter if all named enemies and everything else was the same regardless of your party XP, right? 4. I tried. Don't see your point.

How does that address anything? It's not about making the encounters challenging at all costs. It's about having a believable world without creatures scaled depending on where you go first/your level, where some creatures are much tougher than your party and some much weaker. This is not about being "macho man", it's about a simple fact that having encounters change their level depending on the power of the player character - is an awful concept. And yes, you-go-here-first-so-creatures-scale-there, is also scaling to the power of the player. Level scaling in another form.

Ok, I am really starting to doubt many people posting in this forum have a decent level of cognitive capabilities. We all know what "scaling" is in this context. "Some will scale, some will be fixed". Obviously enough will scale to warrant a mention. How is this comparable to Athkatla/Underdark? Do you remember the fight with that party with an ogre and imp, or the wizards and liches freed from that vault, in the Underdark? Or the Unseeing Eye quest, or the Celestial Fury encounters, or Kangaxx, in Athkatla. Or anything. They were exactly the same enemies no matter when or in which order you came to the Underdark or what level was your party. They were completely static. When he talks about "scaling" it means that these encounters will not be static and will be, guess what, scaled.

Yes, I can. There is a program called character creator by TeamBG. You can extract and have a look at all the creatures present in BG1. All the creatures spawned in BG 1 (and 2 if you have BG2 installed) are on that list. You can see all their stats. Creatures (except party members) have generally only one version with a static character sheet. There aren't versions of these creatures at different levels (which would be needed if encounters were level scaled). There's also another program where you can see all encounter spawns for each area. These encounters are static. I have modded the game a bit myself for fun so I know what's going on behind the scenes. You're either blatantly lying or simply don't have a clue what you're talking about. Probably both.

Look, you're the one who is comprehension impaired. The guy asked a simple question which can be summed up with: "Will there be level scaling?" The answer could have been a simple yes or no. And the answer can be summed up with: yes. Enemies will be level scaled based on where we go first. This *is* a prime example of level scaling.

Alright, considering all of the apologists that suddenly and conveniently felt the urge to explain how this idiotic concept of level scaling can be done right, I have a proposition. If you're going out of your way, Obsidian, to include various modes such as a mode that deletes saved games, modes that completely change encounters.. how about a mode that eliminates all traces of the abomination known as level scaling? So that some of these people can enjoy their "free exploration" with the safety net of level scaling, and the rest of us can deal with hard obstacles?