Level scaling confirmed

[Valorian]

Q: Will you do the level/power of the creatures scaled? Im really worried about that, I'm playing a new "RPG" (aka hack and slash adventure game) and I hate how the NPCs are harder everytime. Same guys, just more power. I mean, Im a kind of demigod or something, then, the vulgar thief of the town spank me. Thats annoying! Please, say "no level scaling!"

 

A: We are going to use a number of different systems. Some creatures will be fixed based upon where they are in the world. Some will scale and then be fixed based upon where you go in the world first. Why we do it that way is so we can have the world be non-linear in places. For instance, if you can goto three adventure areas in any order you want, we have to scale them to make sure that they all remain challenging when you get to the second and third ones.

 

 

 

 

I can't believe I'm reading this.

After all the (empty) words how they're making this game for fans of the "old school" style games, and "You are our boss on this one" and "we want to make sure we're doing our best for you".. and after the poll where 440 people voted against level scaling (95%) and 2 for it... http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60248-level-scaling/

 

So after this rare occurrence when everybody agrees on a subject... they.. pull a Bioware and declare: yep, level scaling is in!

 

 

 

Didn't you think about a shallower power curve, Obsidian.. so that enemies remain challenging unless you're quite a few levels above them?

[jarpie]

It all depends how they do it imo, level scaling like Oblivion is stupid beyond the belief but well done level scaling can work at least well enough. Level scaling in the style of "If player is lvl 10 then he will have X amount of monsters Y but if he's level 20 then there's gonna be X amount of monsters Y and X amount of monsters Z is much better.

[flarglebargle]

im pretty sure he was talking about boss characters

[Jarmo]

Pretty much the way it was done in KotOR then? I approve.

 

Giving you a freedom to choose from 3 places to go next, but having only one of the choices be the correct one for your level,

is actually not freedom at all but frustration.

[TEODEX]

We need some serious clarification on this one.

[cuteLittleRabbit]

I like the level scaling as it was implemented in BG2. I don't like the way it's implemented in Elder Scrolls games.

 

+ Level scaling some mobs, or adding one mob that auto-buffs the rest, can make trivial fights exciting

+ Level scaling mobs makes it possible to add loot tables that also scale to your level (cash drops, consumables, materials, low-magic gear, ...)

- If level scaling mobs is implemented in a way that makes every separate mob a challenge in itself, it's hard to have that feeling of "yes, I'm a hero here, look at me!" if you get ponched by an overlevelled sewer rat

- If loot scaling is implemented in a way that makes every encounter a loot fest, it's hard to get excited by rare drops/legendary items/special materials that are marginally better, or even worse, than the random drops you get

[metiman]

Although I prefer no level scaling at all, keep in mind that level scaling can be done right. For instance by changing your encounter to a different monster type. At level one you might encounter a few Kobolds. At level 20 you might encounter a few ancient dragons. In some cases even that sort of level scaling sucks, like in fixed dungeons with stories behind them where it makes no sense, but in other cases simply switching the encounter type by increasing the number of foes and/or the type of foes seems to work fairly well if used in moderation. In BG2 Watchers Keep was level scaled in a somewhat annoying way because the monsters at higher levels were more interesting and fun to fight (the difference was minor or major depending at what level you arrive), but it was still much better than Bethesda style scaling where the same puny bandit stays as powerful as you throughout the entire game.

 

If level scaling is the price of nonlinear locations I'm not convinced that it's worth it. It may be more fun to have to progress in a certain order geographically at the penalty of being instakilled at your first encounter. It does more or less force you to proceed in a certain way, but at least the monster levels and types don't feel so ad hoc or random.

Edited October 2, 2012 by metiman

[Valorian]

Pretty much the way it was done in KotOR then? I approve.

 

Giving you a freedom to choose from 3 places to go next, but having only one of the choices be the correct one for your level,

is actually not freedom at all but frustration.

 

That's what the absence of level scaling is all about.. you choose to go to an area (where monsters more powerful than you dwell) -- you deal with the consequences.

 

It's funny how you voted in that poll for level scaling to be killed with fire. Is it that easy to sway your "position"? Do you hope Biow.. ehm, Obsidian will implement some of your little ideas if you blindly support them for every decision they make? Disgusting.

[TrashMan]

Pretty much the way it was done in KotOR then? I approve.

 

Giving you a freedom to choose from 3 places to go next, but having only one of the choices be the correct one for your level,

is actually not freedom at all but frustration.

 

Only if the pwoer curve is such that lowever-level parties stand no chance.

 

If the power progresion is more..normal (or should I say more real) then such a problem doesnt' exist. At all.

 

EVERY area is doable from lvl1 (altough some may be very, VERY hard)

 

 

But noooo... we get suepr-duper level scales to feed someones ego and power fantasies.

 

I keep getting dissapointed the more news gets released. I swear, if this keeps up I'm cutting my pledge in half.

[Lusankya]

Pretty much the way it was done in KotOR then? I approve.

That's how I understand it and I approve as well. Level scaling is good when done in a correct way.

[Valorian]

I like the level scaling as it was implemented in BG2. I don't like the way it's implemented in Elder Scrolls games.

 

+ Level scaling some mobs, or adding one mob that auto-buffs the rest, can make trivial fights exciting

+ Level scaling mobs makes it possible to add loot tables that also scale to your level (cash drops, consumables, materials, low-magic gear, ...)

- If level scaling mobs is implemented in a way that makes every separate mob a challenge in itself, it's hard to have that feeling of "yes, I'm a hero here, look at me!" if you get ponched by an overlevelled sewer rat

- If loot scaling is implemented in a way that makes every encounter a loot fest, it's hard to get excited by rare drops/legendary items/special materials that are marginally better, or even worse, than the random drops you get

 

The way he put it, it will not be the same as in BG2.

 

In BG2 some additional monsters or different types of creatures were spawned instead, ONLY in rare specific instances and it was only generic mobs. It was a rarity. The vast majority of encounters wasn't scaled at all. There were many enemies with unique names in BG2, none of them were scaled to be more powerful as you level up. You'd have some "mature vampires" instead of "vampires" or "greater mummies" instead of "mummies", and/or more of them in some places and that's pretty much all the "level scaling" of BG2. Don't misuse the term.

 

I'm amused how people talk about things they have no idea about.

[Hagen]

Their reply to the question makes absolute sense. If you have a large world and want to give the player freedom of choice when to go where, you have to include some form of level scaling. Fixed creature levels *everywhere* are just a gentler form of railroading.

 

Also, level scaling can be done very differently from "lowly street punk (lvl 1) will be a lvl 20 badass when I come back later". Instead, encounters can spawn more creatures of the same type with more dangerous abilities. That's how you defined encounters in the NWN toolset, for example. If the player is level X, spawn Y - Z amount of creatures of types A, B, or C, etc.

 

Places that are meant to be challenging should not scale below a certain level (i.e., dungeons), and some places should not scale above a certain level either (street thugs and such should be about the same difficulty everywhere, there's no reason for a city to have tougher street scum just because I was a higher level when I got there).

 

Places that are level-scaled should retain the original level they are scaled to. A den of lowly bandits should remain a den of lowly bandits, and a crypt of horrible undead should not scale down to accommodate a low level party.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Hagen

[qloher]

This makes me sad.

[Valorian]

Their reply to the question makes absolute sense. If you have a large world and want to give the player freedom of choice when to go where, you have to include some form of level scaling. Fixed creature levels *everywhere* are just a gentler form of railroading.

 

Also, level scaling can be done very differently from "lowly street punk (lvl 1) will be a lvl 20 badass when I come back later". Instead, encounters can spawn more creatures of the same type with more dangerous abilities. That's how you defined encounters in the NWN toolset, for example. If player is level X, spawn Y amout of creatures of types A, B, or C, etc.

 

Places that are meant to be challenging should not scale below a certain level (i.e., dungeons), and some places should not scale above a certain level either (street thugs and such should be about the same difficulty everywhere, there's no reason for a city to have tougher street scum just because I was a higher level when I got there).

 

Places that are level-scaled should retain the original level they are scaled to. A den of lowly bandits should remain a den of lowly bandits, and a crypt of horrible undead should not scale down to accommodate a low level party.

 

BG 1 had free exploration and no level scaling at all. It was a wonderful and challenging game.

 

Level scaling ranges are the same **** but neatly packed into "oh look we're progressive so we'll make this area scale only from level 1 to 10, so if you're within this level range of 10 levels.. it'll scale exactly to your level."

[DocDoomII]

Not the Oblivion scaling I hope.

A little level scaling wouldn't be too bad, but not at the point where if you go back to the starting region, every critter scaled up to your level and became godlike too.

[AwesomeOcelot]

Of course you don't need to do this, it does not make sense to do this, look at Fallout. If areas change and perhaps get harder as time progresses that's good. Level scaling is lazy, stupid design, and I expected more from Obsidian, especially when they talk about old-school games.

[dlux]

Wtf!? This definitely needs some clarification!!

 

The only thing that was scaled in BG2 were SOME (very few) of the trivial encounters. For example, a Lich would be added to a group of ghouls when you reached a higher level. But this is all that I will personally tolerate, nothing more!

 

I want an Old School 90's RPG and not Skyrim 2.0 or something with an isometric camera!

Edited October 2, 2012 by dlux

[Lusankya]

Level scaling is lazy, stupid design

No, it's not. There is not only one way to have level scaling in your game.

[Gibbscape_Torment]

Good stuff. Level scaling adds far more freedom to the game.

[Baudolino05]

BG 1 had free exploration and no level scaling at all. It was a wonderful and challenging game.

 

It did, or, to be more specific, it had encounter scaling, something that you have in any p&p session (at least with a good Game Master).

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/baldurs-gate-level-scaling.45566/

[cyberarmy]

Level scaling is lazy, stupid design

No, it's not. There is not only one way to have level scaling in your game.

 

This!

It wont be a stupid design if it'd done properly and not overused. Unlike Bethesda games.

[TrashMan]

Their reply to the question makes absolute sense. If you have a large world and want to give the player freedom of choice when to go where, you have to include some form of level scaling.

 

Nope.

No you don't.

Only if your power scaling and mechanics in general are ill-thought.

Heck, not even then.

[Valorian]

BG 1 had free exploration and no level scaling at all. It was a wonderful and challenging game.

 

It did, or, to be more specific, it had encounter scaling, something that you have in any p&p session (at least with a good Game Master).

http://www.rpgcodex....-scaling.45566/

 

It didn't.

You point me to a thread where one of the first answers is this: "Only BG doesn't have level scaling. BG2 has." And I explained what kind of "level scaling" is in BG2.

 

Can you prove that BG1 has level scaling with specific examples for each area? You can't.

[Inertia]

I'm not worried about how they will handle the level scaling I'm sure they have gripes with how they are done poorly in some games just as we do and hope to alleviate them in their own game. What i am worried about is the devs being more cautious about what information if any they give us in an attempt to minimize the amount of **** storm responses like this one and it becomes the slow drip feed of info publisher backed projects get.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

This definitely needs to be challenged. In BG1, if I went to the Sirine/Golem Cave to get the Con Tome at level 1, then I'm likely to get killed. If I go at level 5, the fight is going to be challenging. If I go at level 8, it will be easier. That's the sort of difficulty I would expect from Project Eternity.

 

If there's any scaling, then I would expect certain monsters to be scaled. Not going back near the start when I'm level 10 and finding a goblin that's also the same level as me.