Level scaling

[Jarmo]

Actually I don't hate it with as much passion as I might think, and scaling could be implemented in some *clever* way that's not all in your face.

 

KotOR was just about fine, as was The Sith Lords. After the beginning run, you'd have the choice of traveling to one of... was it 3 planets or so? It would actually have been pretty silly if only 1 of those was the right one you could actually solve at the level you were. So the mobs would be slightly altered depending on the order you'd visit the planets, the scripted boss fight would happen at the last planet you'd visit and stuff like that.

 

Oblivion was a complete disaster and Fallout 3 (and even New Vegas) were almost as bad. You do just fine with a hunting rifle, until *pling* you reach the level where the wasteland is suddenly filled with twice as hard monsters. Meaning sticking at level 1 is suddenly the best way to beat the game.

 

Ooh, I do hate that kind of scaling with as much passion as the next passionist.

[IrishLuigi]

I think, locations should be filled with enemies of different levels, so they will be useful for players with different levels and not just "oh, this is newbie location, I will kill everyone here without a problem".

But that would add to immersion. It is realistic that it would be relatively easy for high-powered bandits to rape and pillage relatively unprotected small villages, although it of course also means that the rewards in items and gold would make it not worth it.

I`m trying to say that existance of completely newbie location is not very realistic.

You're wrong. It's completely realistic that not every single village in the game would be guarded. It's completely realistic that stronger monsters would be likely to hang out in some types of location whilst weaker monsters would be likely to hang out in others.

 

Why don't you just come out and say you support level scaling?

[Luckmann]

Kill it. Preferably with several different kinds of fire.

[Alweth]

I don't mind certain kinds of selective level scaling. For example, some main bosses could level up with you if you over-level, because why should they just sit around doing nothing while you're out searching dungeons?

[Jozape]

I don't really care either way. More subtle level scalling like the one in Fallout 3 is acceptable for me, but Oblivion's is not.

 

While I enjoyed Fallout 3, I wouldn't call it's level scaling even remotely subtle. But yes, definitely way better than Oblivion.

[Maerr]

Hate level scalling. Especially the one in Oblivion. Some bums from forest were stronger later in game than top fighters of colloseum you fought earlier :/

[daz23]

Please, no level scalling. I want to experience the satisfaction of returning to the start of the game, and killing that rat with one blow.

[Zonn]

I think, locations should be filled with enemies of different levels, so they will be useful for players with different levels and not just "oh, this is newbie location, I will kill everyone here without a problem".

But that would add to immersion. It is realistic that it would be relatively easy for high-powered bandits to rape and pillage relatively unprotected small villages, although it of course also means that the rewards in items and gold would make it not worth it.

I`m trying to say that existance of completely newbie location is not very realistic.

You're wrong. It's completely realistic that not every single village in the game would be guarded. It's completely realistic that stronger monsters would be likely to hang out in some types of location whilst weaker monsters would be likely to hang out in others.

Oh, come on. Why should all monsters of similar level be in one place? Is it some solidarity?

Yes, some intelligent ones looking for more cool shiny things that they can rob in wealthy cities, other looking for power there and there is best trained guards.

But what about less inteligent or ambitious foes? I think they should search for such places because they`ll be mightiest and nobody`ll fight them there.

And there are reasons why strong intelligent villains can search for remote poorly guarded place.

It`s good that world is changing and strong will take a place of feeble. It`s more realistic and interesting then if you clear all newbie locations and there won`t be anyone anytime soon.

 

And I didn`t ever say that it`s ok just to give some uber equipment for goblin villagers and make them all high level fighters and mages.

 

Added: If you ask what`s the reason of all the changes - well that`s up to scenarists.

As example, while in the city protagonist smashed down head of criminal organisation, reveal activities of blood cult and persuaded mayor to increase sanitary state of sewers. So parts of these organisations escaped city, and, just as these sewers monsters, swarmed the countryside. Or elven council changed their policies and forced all those fearful monsters out of their forest. There are thousands of posibilities.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Zonn

[BSoda]

Wow, not a single vote in favor of level scaling.

[kenup]

Yeah, kill it with fire. Then cast a container spell around it a cast a planet buster spell on it. It was REALLY ANNOYING in oblivion and JE and not much better in skyrim. While we are at it, it would be good if not everything you killed respawned out of nowhere every few hours/days/travels through the area.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The general population of bandits is of roughly constant level. Any particular group of bandits you meet can fall within some reasonable level range, but it strains credulity to only meet the bandits at the low end of that range when you're weak, and only at the upper end of that range when you're powerful.

 

Of course, being able to meet powerful bandits at low levels would then require some ability to run away from combat when you're outmatched. I hope Obsidian is building this in.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Sylvius the Mad

[morhilane]

This thread is filled with pyromancers!

 

No level scaling. Well, it's more like "a good level scaling feature is one where the player doesn't realize there is level scaling happening". The BG games were like this, beside BG2 sun god temple area (go there at level 15+ and get lots of demi-liches and no skeletons, yeah!).

[Tychoxi]

while I'm not opposed to some minor level-scaling, I voted for it to be cleansed with fire just in case.

[Kissamies]

Limited use of level scaling can work if only certain enemies scale with you. For example, if the primary antagonist scales with the player, this ensures that s/he will present a challenge regardless of how much you may have outleveled your average bandit, thug, gnoll, etc. Personally, I don't mind if I can kill a boss easily due to leveling up a lot, but I understand why designers might want to avoid this.

Yeah, this kind of level scaling may be perhaps sometimes kind of justifiable if done right. Depending of the plot, of course. It can even be kind of explained. If the PC takes his sweet time getting to the next main plot point because he's doing sidequests and getting XP, maybe the bad guy is doing the same or strenghtening his fortifications.

 

Otherwise no level scaling and it's cathartic to wade through some monsters that were giving you a hard time earlier so I would want to keep encountering those occasionally.

[dlux]

This thread is filled with pyromancers!

 

No level scaling. Well, it's more like "a good level scaling feature is one where the player doesn't realize there is level scaling happening". The BG games were like this, beside BG2 sun god temple area (go there at level 15+ and get lots of demi-liches and no skeletons, yeah!).

The Baldur's Gate games are not level scaled.

 

In certain areas a few more enemies might be added or replaced when you reach a higher level. Like a lich is added to a group of skeltons or something. That is not level scaling.

Edited September 18, 2012 by dlux

[Jozape]

Wow, not a single vote in favor of level scaling.

 

Someone voted just to spite you.

[NoxNoctum]

I want to be able to walk into a late game dungeon and get completely owned if I'm not far enough along. Likewise, early game enemies should prove no threat later on.

 

Basically I want to see enemies stronger/weaker in one region of the map (designed for late game) and weaker in another.

[LadyCrimson]

I definitely prefer enemies in an area to have a level range vs. everyone everywhere always scaling to be your level or a little higher throughout the game. Also, a game should end, especially a story-RPG. If you want to play some more after they win, that's what making a new character is for.

[KateM]

Level scaling is a good thing. It has been handled poorly in several of Bethesda's games, but that's not a reason to hate level scaling in general. I thought that level scaling was handled very well in New Vegas.

[Chunkyman]

I hate level scaling. The only "good" level scaling is when it's so minor that you barely notice it (like in Morrowind and New Vegas).

 

I want to be completely decimated by high level enemies if I wander into somewhere dangerous, I do not need my hand held.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Chunkyman

[Xantomas]

Level scaling has no place in an old school RPG like we've been promised. Old school RPG's are hard, they don't hold your hand. If I go wandering deep into the mountains far away from the peaceful village I just started the game in and find a cave where a drow army is hiding they should eviscerate me in an instant. It is completely ridiculous to expect every creature you come across in your journey to just happen to be a even fight for you.

 

There should never ever be a common bandit, or kobold, or zombie that's anywhere near a challenge for a powerful high level character. A dragon or demi-lich should never ever be something a low level beginning character should expect to even see and live to tell about it. Furthermore having some areas in a game be really hard and others really easy makes perfect sense. Of course the powerful ogre tribe isn't going to be living right outside the well armed and aggressive human citadel. Miles in every direction from civilization is probably going to be safe. That decrepit haunted looking castle waaaaay in the deep scary woods might just be full of powerful undead. And that makes sense because nobody ever goes there. Probably because everybody that ever has is dead! It makes perfect sense to me that some areas are easy and some areas are hard. A good story guides you to those places at the appropriate time. And if it's the kind of game that gives you the freedom to roam around you'd better be prepared to deal with the dangers of doing so.

[dlux]

Level scaling is a good thing. It has been handled poorly in several of Bethesda's games, but that's not a reason to hate level scaling in general. I thought that level scaling was handled very well in New Vegas.

Yes, they tried to circumvent the level scaling by adding areas with higher leveled enemies. While it was of course not perfect (Bethesda was probably breathing down their neck so that they don't make the game too hard for the kiddies, lol ^^) it was a lot better than in Fallout 3, where you could kill a super mutant with a tooth pick at level 1. ^^

 

[odjntrade]

I have always seen level scalling as being utilized improperly. Oblivion took it way too far. Fallout 3 never felt challenging until post level 20 (10 minutes of shooting one super mutant in the face in one encounter, though it still didn't feel challenging). I prefer the feel of never knowing exactly what I'll encounter.

 

Predicting what enemies I'll come across becomes dull. I like the idea of enemy loading off of a chance generation. Certain areas would spawn specific enemies without fail but then have a variety of spots that may or may not load a completely random enemy. Single lost mid level soldier that has gone crazy, small band of low level bandits testing out new hunting grounds, a high level wizard testing out the effects of a new spell on anything he finds, or even a large orc battle detachment on the war march with mixed levels.

 

I would expect to find goblins near a goblin tunnel filled with potentially hundreds lurking within but it is always nice to find things you never expected to find, like say a certain bridge in Fallout involving stat or skill requirements. Off the top of my head I can't remember how it went. I just... I don't know. *blows up*

[morhilane]

This thread is filled with pyromancers!

 

No level scaling. Well, it's more like "a good level scaling feature is one where the player doesn't realize there is level scaling happening". The BG games were like this, beside BG2 sun god temple area (go there at level 15+ and get lots of demi-liches and no skeletons, yeah!).

The Baldur's Gate games are not level scaled.

 

In certain areas a few more enemies might be added or replaced when you reach a higher level. Like a lich is added to a group of skeltons or something. That is not level scaling.

 

Scaling encounters by adding more creatures or changing the spawns based on your party level isn't level scaling?

[Gyges]

By the outer gods, no level-scaling!