Level scaling

[Stun]

One of the Dragon Age devs (can't remember which one) said that there was *some* level scaling in Baldur's Gate 2, but it was based on scripts, not actual monsters being tougher. I'd prefer no level scaling myself though, or at least, unnoticeable.

There was plenty of level scaling in Both BG games, but it was far more imaginitive than the lazy nonsense we got in, say, Oblivion or DA2.

 

In BG1, if your party was, like, 1st or 2nd level and you're out in the wilderness, you'd encounter A wolf. or A couple of Kobolds, but if your party is 7th level you'd encounter, 10 wolves, or a small army of Kobolds.

 

In BG2, the type of enemy actually changed according to your level. If you're 10th level and you're in Fiirkrag's dungeon, you'd face, say, a pack of Yuanti. But if you're 18th level, you'd encounter a group of Golems.

 

 

Personally, I'd soon see the entire notion of level scaling wiped from the minds of every developer in the world. It's a lazy mechanic at its core, used in place of a good imagination. There are ways to challenge a high level party that do not involve suddenly giving that guard an extra 200 hp, or worse: breeaking the game's lore and making even common bandits into 30th level demi-gods.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Stun

[Longknife]

I like how Vegas did it.

 

General enemies didn't level scale, enemies in DLCs did. This was smart because usually by the time people bought the DLCs, they were higher level and could kill everything in the wastes.

Having said that, level scaling only became essential in the DLCs because the DLC meant everyone was reaching level 30+.

 

 

 

I think level scaling should be reserved SOLELY for "legendary" enemy types, like Deathclaws with Fallout. It would definitely be odd if you could reach a point of a Fallout game where deathclaws are just a nuisance, and I'm sure PE will have one too. But for the love of god, don't make a friggin bear or a generic bandit level scale.

[Freddo]

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.

They been using level scaling far longer than 7 years, Morrowind was released in 2002 and had level scaling too. Not as excessive level scaling as in Oblivion, but level scaling non the less.

 

I think level scaling is a lot more common than some people here seem to realise, it was in BG1 & BG2 too, as Stun explained 2 posts up.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Freddo

[Zed]

Polls like this give me faith in humanity.

 

Level-scaling is baaaad.

[Bos_hybrid]

I think level scaling is a lot more common than some people here seem to realise, it was in BG1 & BG2 too, as Stun explained 2 posts up.

 

Herpes is a lot more common than people realise, doesn't make it good to have.

[Jeime]

It's probably possible to make level scaling a beneift if used on a limited in some encounters if needed, but then again, where do you draw the line? Better get rid of it completely than risk screwing the whole game. Have plenty of level scaling misuse in all modern games already. So, no thanks.

[Brishingr]

Umm, okay, let me do a double take for a second. *Looks at his toon that is playing on Expert on Skyrim, yeah, two hits dead. Yup improper scaling. Now on that note, if and I say *if* its tested properly its can be great for some not so much for others. Seeing how the trend is going back to the older sytle, I would rather it have no scaleing what so ever.

 

Now Im good with say how the mods are spawn at level, or on that foot note. But if im a lvl 20 in a lvl 10 zone, yeah I sould be flying through those mobs.

[Grimlorn]

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.

... Sounds a bit strange that. So all creatures are the same challenge, no matter the level? Ick. Bit extreme and I doubt we'll see it here.

They're too afraid of upsetting players and/or lazy. Their strength is really just with designing big, unique worlds. Combat and encounter design has always been bad in their games (haven't played Arena or Daggerfall) and with Skyrim they removed all stats, making it more of an adventure game than a RPG. I'm really surprised it sold so well, but I guess it just shows how important visuals are to mainstream gaming. Main quest was terrible too.

[Sistergoldring]

I'd like to toast marshmallows over it's smouldering corpse

[alanschu]

Dear God, no. I am yet to see a game that uses level scaling to its advantage. Most of the time it's a game breaking mechanic, in one way or the other (gameplay or immersion).

 

BG2?

[True_Spike]

Dear God, no. I am yet to see a game that uses level scaling to its advantage. Most of the time it's a game breaking mechanic, in one way or the other (gameplay or immersion).

 

BG2?

 

That's true, but level scaling has come to be associated with tweaking enemies rather than changing entire encounters. BG2 did the latter and did it in a very, very limited fashion. i'm all for changing entire groups of enemies for the sake of balance, but not everywhere and every monster.. I'm against all monsters being scaled to your level somehow, i.e. level scaling. IE games had none of that. A simple kobold was a simple kobold, period, not a 500hp kobold with Carsomyr in his hand.

Edited September 21, 2012 by True_Spike

[Mabster]

Obviously any game can be ruined with bad design, but let's give Obsidian some credit here. Level scaling doesn't come pre-packaged with stupid, so using the mechanic where it's appropriate doesn't mean that leveling becomes non-important, or that some areas can't be too easy or too murdeous, or that every bunny we'll come across will be the Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog. Having at least things like scaled encounters where the amount and type of enemies depends on the player's abilities is just smart. Screaming 'burn it with fire' every time level scaling is mentioned, effectively reduces any impact users might have on this topic.

 

My personal preference to reduce the need for much level scaling would be to keep power progression under control, so that even lower level enemies would still pose a potential threat to a higher level player character. If a knight gets mobbed by peasants he shouldn't be able to stand there smugly in his Full Plate of Can't-Touch-This, while the poor sods keep stabbling air with their pitch forks.

[Darth Trethon]

All I care about is the story, that's it. Difficulty I can work around with everything from the insanely crazy to the very easy but generally prefer it when other aspects don't get between me and the next epic story moment. I really have no difficulty bias where I start thinking that I'm somehow awesome/badass/old school/better than others/whatever just because I overcame some insane difficulty. And no your junk doesn't grow when you beat high difficulties either.

 

Still as I said, it's whatever....if the story is good enough I'll beat whatever insane difficulty to experience it.

[Death Saved]

No!

[Odarbi]

Voted for the first option.

 

I don't mind weaker enemies being scaled up a bit, in a "Oh, these kobolds were better prepared than those other kobolds" type way... but even only to a certain extent with the weaker enemies. They probably shouldn't still be relevant later in the game. Definitely no scaling down enemies to match my level. That crazy red dragon? Should not be able to kill him early on, and he should still be an powerful enemy later on.

 

I'm not a huge fan of feeling like I'm crazy super awesome powerful and able to destroy anything with a single swing by the end of the game, but I should definitely feel like I've gained some power from those days of "Oh god, these wolves are eating my face for the 3rd time today."

[hideo kuze]

It really depends on how it's done.

 

Blind level scaling:

I'm not even going to spend time putting arguments in this. It's illogical to say the least. Its only advantage is making the game "accessible" to players who don't even like cRPGs.

 

Fixed levels:

The problem with it has to do it non-linearity, which results in some battles being impossible and others being trash mobs. While I agree with the former, I find the latter a waste of resources.

 

What I find that makes sense from a real world perspective and works from a gameplay POV:

- have enemies/critters have an initial level, it makes sense since they were already there before you even started your adventure. If the player tries to bite more than he can chew, well then he's going to die.

- certain enemies/critters progress at a certain rate in respect to the player. While you're adventuring (and progressing) other enemies/critters are doing it too.

 

This becomes even more interesting with the new $5000 tier OE has introduced. All parties (your party and the enemies parties) start at the same level, exploring, adventuring, improving... and eventually they meet up. If they meet sooner it's a low level battle (from other D&D cRPGs these tend to be the most fun), if latter... then sh*t gonna' get epic.

And this also opens up for time mechanics. Example: a small group of bandits have been robbing old ladies. You decide to ignore the problem. Latter on you find out they've taken over a town. They've improved and are a lot harder to defeat now.

Not all of the npcs/critters should level up since, like real people, most tend to be lazy as hell.

Edited September 22, 2012 by hideo kuze

[damage99]

Please no level scaling!!!

[Yaz]

I hate scaling in RPGs for general mobs, it pretty much voids the idea that your character has grown over the course of the story when the entire rest of the world progresses at the same pace while sitting at home and doing nothing.

 

That said certain things should scale. For example they're talking about competing adventure groups, it makes perfect sense that they should scale to some extent as they themselves are adventuring.

 

So in general very much against scaling but it's something that can be intelligently applied to situations that make sense. If when thinking in terms of the world and from my character's perspective I can understand why something has scaled and gotten better then it's fine, if it doesn't make sense in context of the world then it's bad.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Yaz

[NerdBoner]

level scaling?

 

is that when those cellar rats you kill as part of your first quest can still hurt you when you're a demi-god because they "scaled up" to your level?

 

sounds like some ole bullshlt to me!

[alanschu]

I'm not even going to spend time putting arguments in this. It's illogical to say the least. Its only advantage is making the game "accessible" to players who don't even like cRPGs.

 

I wouldn't say it's added for accessibility. Accessibility is arguably improved if mobs can get outleveled. It's done, as you hint at, to try to address difficulty with respect to a non-linear campaign.

[TCJ]

I voted no. There's a sense of accomplishment in going into a really, really tough battle (read: way beyond your level) and managing to come out as the victor. There's also something deliciously satisfying about giving weaker enemies a sound trundling before squishing them beneath your boot heel. Level scaling would remove both of those, it would make everything predictable, dull.

 

Now, I could see, perhaps, an exception to the rule on a few occasions. Perhaps a few opposing adventuring parties or something could be level scaled depending on when you meet them in the game, but I think that should be an exceedingly rare thing if implemented at all. It would still be preferably (in my opinion) to avoid it entirely.

[Zeckul]

Few people remember that Baldur's Gate 2 actually had level scaling. In several instances, the game will spawn different mobs depending on your level: there's even a component in SCS2 to force the game to always choose the hardest encounters.

 

I think some amount of level scaling adds to the experience, in the way BG2 did it, but Oblivion and Skyrim are definitely examples of how NOT to implement it.

[TCJ]

Few people remember that Baldur's Gate 2 actually had level scaling. In several instances, the game will spawn different mobs depending on your level: there's even a component in SCS2 to force the game to always choose the hardest encounters.

 

I think some amount of level scaling adds to the experience, in the way BG2 did it, but Oblivion and Skyrim are definitely examples of how NOT to implement it.

 

That's what I was talking about with exceptions. BG2 did it very well. The only way you'd ever find out is if you replayed the game and did things in another order. Even then you might not notice the difference if it's been awhile since the last time you played. I'm assuming the OP was referring to across the board level scaling, in which EVERYTHING is geard to be exactly at the party level.

[Alc Cides]

Please, don't implement level scaling. I want to be killed if I'm level 1 and try to kill a level 5 monster and of course I want to kill all that lame orcs without effor when I'm level 20.

[khango]

I generally hate level scaling. That said, I wouldn't be against letting certain types of NPCs/humanoids earn experience themselves.

 

For example, if there were one or two other parties of adventurers that were doing stuff that you crossed paths with every so often, it would make sense that they got stronger.

 

Likewise, if there's some kind of ongoing war or battle, it makes sense that those participating in it would get stronger as they fought in more battles.

 

However, it does not make sense that the sewer rats would continually become stronger and stronger mutant menaces.

 

 

 

This brings me to the other side of the coin -- I hate hate hate level scaling, but I also hate it when 6 people can barely kill a rat when starting out. If you can kill a peasant at level one with no issues, why the heck is killing a stupid wild animal next to impossible? (I haven't had huge problems with this in infinity engine games, perhaps excluding Icewind Dale, but just keep it mind.)