Level scaling

[Shevek]

I do not believe this is a scientific poll. Your questions suggests players should select certain responses. That being said, level scaling sucks.

[kenup]

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. ^^

 

 

Yep, NV got it much better than F3. Not perfect, but normal in NV made the F3 Very hard difficulty look like very easy(which it was even before that), without spawning deathclaws and enclave camps everywhere.

[Piccolo]

No level scaling please. I hate feeling like the gameworld all revolves around my character (everything from shop inventories to enemies).

 

I also enjoy a sense of danger when exploring places at lower levels. I should be able to run into enemies far beyond what my character can handle. If every enemy I encounter is scaled to be beatable, then the game just becomes boring.

 

Also, there's a simple solution to the problem of the game becoming too easy once your character becomes powerful. Make progression slower, so you don't reach such a powerful state for a very long time. We're not kids who will lose interest in the game if our characters don't become all-powerful after the first 20 hours.

[Darkpriest]

No level scaling please. I hate feeling like the gameworld all revolves around my character (everything from shop inventories to enemies).

 

I also enjoy a sense of danger when exploring places at lower levels. I should be able to run into enemies far beyond what my character can handle. If every enemy I encounter is scaled to be beatable, then the game just becomes boring.

 

Also, there's a simple solution to the problem of the game becoming too easy once your character becomes powerful. Make progression slower, so you don't reach such a powerful state for a very long time. We're not kids who will lose interest in the game if our characters don't become all-powerful after the first 20 hours.

 

Actually if they plan to make it a franchise they could do the same trick as BG series... you only get a taste of some levels out of the full scope of levels, you get more powerful in next games...

 

 

It's about philosophy on the sequels... will it be like BG series or will it be like Fallout series

[Ulicus]

The Baldur's Gate games are not level scaled.

BG2 sort of was. Not strictly speaking, of course, but the fact that every Amnish guard and common street thug at the beginning of BG2 was basically at the BG1 level cap -- or near enough -- was pretty silly.

[Shaewaros]

Well, the poll results speak louder than words. No level scaling please.

[Ravinous]

Not sure if one of these answers applies to me... if I dont level up and I travel to the Mountain of Gardorns where I encounter the Lich who then blinks his left eye and I fall over dead... DAMN THATS AWESOME!... same token I spend 100 hours and I am full light power and have the will of the gods in my hammer... I want to walk in to that same Mountain and smack the lich with my shoe and have it cower to my will...

 

Stop making the rats 2 levels below me at every point in the game... and I mean how is it possible that EVERY turn I make I just happen to go to the RIGHT area where the mobs now are a little bit harder... maybe I want to level up and then go decimate the poor little fishing vilage! Maybe I want to take my 5 good NPC's with me to a SUPER HIGH level area at lvl 5 and kill them all off and then finish with ONLY EVIL ONES!!!.... oh the possibilites!

[trulez]

The poll is missing the middle of the road option, level scaling with level range limitations.

 

Example:

A rat can be of level 1-5 but cant scale past that.

A peasant can be of level 5-10 but cant be lower or higher.

Wolf can be of level 10-20 but cant be lower or higher.

 

Now if you start out in an area with enemies ranging from your level of 1 to all the way up to 5, then you can have both a challenge and easy fights, but wander too far in to the woods and that Wolf will kill you because it's 10th level at minimum while you're still at 1.

 

This way, rats will never be as mighty as wolfs, nor will wolfs ever be as meager as rats, but you can stomp both when you out level them.

Edited September 19, 2012 by trulez

[General_Disarray]

Level-scaling can work to a degree. I like the fact it means I can go where ever I want and not accidentally wonder into a wooded area to get butt****ed by a level billion bear. However this is only an issue for me if it's not made clear where is dangerous and where is not for my current level. Even if it's just some villager saying, as casually as possible, that they don't think I should go through the bear forest.

 

Buuuut, I agree that if I wonder off into a known dragon lair at level one, I totally deserve the horrible death that awaits me.

 

Hell, I don't think I know what I want really.

[Jozape]

New Vegas did a good job of informing the player. Don't go to X, it's infested with giant mutant deathclaws that will tear you to shreds. Don't go to X because it's infested with ghouls and full of radiation. I'm sure they'll do just as good of a job in PE.

[teknoman2]

i say the right enemy for the right place and situation. i dont want my character to be able to solo a dragon and then get one shoted by a wolf... but i dont want to walk around in the forest and treat dangerous animals like insects cause i got a couple of levels either. so i think a certain semi-scaling would be better. that means that the enemies should have a starting level so you cant just go and beat them from lv1, and once you are past the level of each enemy, he will grow stronger at half your progress, up to a cap of +10 levels of his initial. so a dragon would start at lv20 for example and a wolf at lv2. up until you are lv20, the dragon will stay lv20, and when you are lv22 the wolf will reach his cap of lv12 and the dragon will be 21. when you get to 40, the dragon will get to his cap of 30. this way the enemies will remain chalenging after you passed them in levels, without ruining the feeling that you got stronger than them... in the example, at lv30 the wolf will die if you spit on it, but the 5 level diference with the dragon will ensure that he will feel weaker than he did at lv20, but wont go down without a hard fight. also this system would not allow you to get the edge on certain enemies too easily by just getting a few levels higher (to get a 10 level difference from the dragon, would mean he gets to be an easy opponent, however instead of reaching the "easy to get" 30th level to outpower it, you will have to toil for the 40 or fight a harder battle earlier)

Edited September 19, 2012 by teknoman2

[Ausir]

Limited level scaling can be good if used right.

[Labadal]

If there's something I'm against, it is level scaling. Don't like it and I never will. Sure, if you do a crapton of sidequests, your party could end up overpowered, but that's something that I decided to do. On a second playthrough, I might just run through the main storyline, wich means that battles would be more difficult since you're not likely to be overlevelled and have some of the sidequest loot. Or one could simply decide to up the difficulty, because I'm assuming difficulty choice will be in.

[Redwulf]

If people want level scaling let them make mods that add that instead of having the majority of us go on an egghunt to find mods that take it away. Just add difficulty levels that let us hardcore gamers play it hard, and others play it not as hard. That is the only level scaling any game needs.

[drgonzo]

Hell no, lvl scaling is a total immersion breaker.

[Tlantl]

One of the things I liked about Icewind dale and Baldur's gate was that the monsters remained static. D&D style monsters are always the same level with the same powers and abilities. (until4e anyway) and if I were to run into a challenge that was a little too tough I could always spam the rest button to spawn more goblins or orcs or what ever and earn some more experience before moving on. Some times it was fun to do this, sometimes it was necessary to avoid having to repeat encounters until you figured out the optimum method of dealing with them.

 

I hope that if the game is linear that I can do this again as it was part of what kept me playing their games and looking forward to the next release.

 

If the game turns out to be a sand box where I can choose a path or do some exploring outside of the main story I'd like to know that there are places I could go where the critters are weaker than me or they are impossibly strong. Sure some scaling is good but I'd really prefer static monsters to those that are always my level.

[Badmojo]

I hate level scaling with a passion, the worst thing bethesda has ever done. Of course they think its the best thing ever and even after the huge backlash they STILL put it in every game they make. The worst thing I hated about level scaling was loot scaling, you go into a dungeon, fight off hordes of monsters, bypass traps, find the treasure chest of the great kingdom of whatever, open it up and...fing 20 piece gold and an rusty knife. Seriously?!?! Bethesda games are horrible now and I don't even call the elder scrolls an RPG anymore, its just a FPS with some rpg mechanics.

[DarthAdamRG]

I think the poll results speak for itself, scaling would be a huge turnoff.

[Gatt9]

I hate level scaling with a passion, the worst thing bethesda has ever done. Of course they think its the best thing ever and even after the huge backlash they STILL put it in every game they make. The worst thing I hated about level scaling was loot scaling, you go into a dungeon, fight off hordes of monsters, bypass traps, find the treasure chest of the great kingdom of whatever, open it up and...fing 20 piece gold and an rusty knife. Seriously?!?! Bethesda games are horrible now and I don't even call the elder scrolls an RPG anymore, its just a FPS with some rpg mechanics.

 

Agree 100%.

 

As someone said on the Fallout 3 boards, Bethesda doesn't make RPG's, Bethesda makes "RPG's" for people who hate RPG's. Bethesda doesn't want RPG players, because then they'd actually have to learn how to design, and design is a skill they completely lack. I mean honestly, not only have they been releasing the same game for nearly 20 years, they've been releasing the same game with fewer features and complaining because everyone else doesn't make things the same way.

 

The only bright point to the whole thing is that Bethesda will be wiped out when TES:Online bombs.

[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.

 

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

Your character is level 1, then all of the enemies are level 1.

If your character is level 50, then all of the enemies are level 50.

 

That is level scaling. In BG a Level 10 lich is always a level 10 lich, no matter what level you are.

 

The only bright point to the whole thing is that Bethesda will be wiped out when TES:Online bombs.

I certainly hope so. Not because I don't really like their games (after playing Skyrim I have decided to never buy another Beths developed game), it's because they screwed Obsidian over.

[kenup]

A rat can be of level 1-5 but cant scale past that.

A peasant can be of level 5-10 but cant be lower or higher.

Wolf can be of level 10-20 but cant be lower or higher.

Level 5 rats? They should be guards at cities, no criminal would suspect them!

Level 10 farmers? Why don't I take them in dungeons with me, they certainly would be better than the level 5 paladin I have.

Level 20 wolves? Are they all alpha males or something?

 

I'm sorry, I get what you're saying but I just couldn't help it!

 

 

Agree 100%.

 

As someone said on the Fallout 3 boards, Bethesda doesn't make RPG's, Bethesda makes "RPG's" for people who hate RPG's. Bethesda doesn't want RPG players, because then they'd actually have to learn how to design, and design is a skill they completely lack. I mean honestly, not only have they been releasing the same game for nearly 20 years, they've been releasing the same game with fewer features and complaining because everyone else doesn't make things the same way.

 

The only bright point to the whole thing is that Bethesda will be wiped out when TES:Online bombs.

Couldn't agree more. The most annoying thing are their fanboys. Especially when their games need so many mods just to be playable and remotely enjoyable and they still support Beths every move. You know how everyone was angry at NV's bugs? For me for some reason F3 and Skyrim have way more. And since they are ports, they are the most unstable ones. NV is on the same engine as F3 and it runs a lot better even with shader enhancers!

Edited September 20, 2012 by kenup

[Vaeliorin]

I'd be happy with level scaling only if scaling means that enemies are made higher in level. That way people who excessively level up before the next stage/area will still have a challenge. Honestly, put the critters at high levels to begin with then only go up from there. But if not, I'll look for a way to make the game harder.

This is what I'd like. I find zero value in encounters that have no chance of wiping out my party, so I'd rather not have them. I know people like to feel "powerful", but to me a combat that isn't a challenge is just a waste of my time. It's not fun, and all it does is serve to artificially bloat the game's length/content bullet points.

[kenup]

I'd be happy with level scaling only if scaling means that enemies are made higher in level. That way people who excessively level up before the next stage/area will still have a challenge. Honestly, put the critters at high levels to begin with then only go up from there. But if not, I'll look for a way to make the game harder.

This is what I'd like. I find zero value in encounters that have no chance of wiping out my party, so I'd rather not have them. I know people like to feel "powerful", but to me a combat that isn't a challenge is just a waste of my time. It's not fun, and all it does is serve to artificially bloat the game's length/content bullet points.

 

People don't want to feel poweful exactly. Level scaling means that the world revolves around the player. And while it might make later encounters difficult, it might also make average enemies stupidly difficult, that's were the daedric rats option comes from. When you are level 1, you will fight rats, there is nothing forcing you to do it at level 50. You will be fighting dragons(or even worse cliffracers) by then, and they will be challenge enough. If there is level scaling it should be very limited, like in NV. Every area had specific enemies, with a range of 5 levels at most. In Skyrim if you go in a dungeon in high levels, it will be full of Draugr-Death-SSJ-super-mutant-over-Death-lords and they are not any more difficult for it, just really really annoying.

[kenup]

They are not any more difficult because Bethesda doesn't know the word Balance, and that's pretty much the reason they used level scaling for the last 7 years. I'm sure we won't see it here, but that's mostly why people hate level scaling.

 

It's also the fact that Skyrim has one of the most broken crafting/enchanting systems ever but whatever.

[Grayman]

No level scaling. What I'd really like to see, however, is no level scaling, plus a flatter level power range.

 

One thing I thought was done really well recently in DA2 (and also was in V:tM: Bloodlines, and Arcanum) was that your stats didn't actually get better unless you put points in them. If you never increased your constitution, your health never went up. Never increase your cunning? Your base critical hit chance stays the same (but actually goes down relative to the critical hit resistance of your enemies). Et cetera. And, to an extent, this also applied to your enemies. The hurlocks you struggle defeating at the start of the game have about the same health as the hurlock grunts you kill in one hit later on. That creates a real fealing of progress, as opposed to, say, DA:O (or Oblivion, or any number of other titles), where the "little guys" change to suit the player. Even where there's no "level scaling", in many RPG's there still is level scaling. It's just done by hand instead of being done according to a formula. Consider NWN 2, where the human enemies, lizardlings, and types of undead you can fight all throughout the game are always scaled to the player's expected level, with grunts a level or two below the player and bosses a bit tougher than the player. It's just kinda silly. If, instead, all normal bandits were about the same in terms of combat stats, and the player just never became ten times better at everything, the game would make a good deal more sense and be more fun.

I have enjoyed flatter level curves as well. I find that the longer the game scales upwards the more likely things get shaky somewhere. With games that expand over time like mmos there is usually a tipping point where one of the old caps just felt better.