Level scaling confirmed

[Volourn]

Level scale can be good or bad. Depends soley on how its implmented. it should be noted that in pnp, encounters are 90% level scaled.

 

No matter what, i personally prefer that creatures/npcs drop what they are using. ie. If a warrior uses spear + banded mail that's what they should drop.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Volourn

[Kopi]

Level Scaling, really? That's just awful ..

[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

 

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.

 

Sorry, I should have inserted the following text between the two paragraphs:

"Regardless of how it was done in BG2 and/or the Elder Scrolls, here are some pro's and con's that I think are worth talking a bit about, before condemning either level scaling, or no level scaling at all:"

 

I know I sometimes hop from one thought to another without explaining myself further. I'm sorry if that made you misinterpret my intentions and/or knowledge of the Baldur's Gate 2 level scaling mechanics .

[limaxophobiacq]

Urgh. Given that them thinking level-scaling is required probably means the characters will scale nonsensically in power once again, plus the elder-scrolls style crafting they seem to be talking about in the latest update, these last two days have been a serious damper on my enthusiasm for this project.

[qloher]

What they are trying to say is that, if you are given a CHOICE between towns A, B, and C, they want the encounter difficulty to be easiest in the first town and hardest in the last town, no matter what order you visit them in. And then, once that order has been established BY THE PLAYER, the encounters are scaled and then FIXED; that means that after the initial scaling, there will be NO more scaling and the difficulty will be fixed. So if you come back to the easy town after playing through the hard one, it will still be easy; it won't scale anymore because it's been FIXED.

 

Honestly, all of you are so paranoid, throwing around your accusations of BIOWARE and BETHSEDA, when they made it perfectly clear they weren't doing anything of the sort.

But in Fallout 1/2 for example it was not even a choice between towns A, B and C, but basically between towns A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H. And that was possible without level-scaling involved in the process 96% of the time. And it worked perfectly!

[Macbeth]

Lots of huffing and puffing going on in here over what seems to be a very reasonable approach to scaling. Not to mention the Path of the Damned difficulty, which should easily address many of the raised concerns.

[AwesomeOcelot]

I'd be inclined not to see level scaling. Scaling via some mob replacement and adding a more tougher monster type or two... but not artificial increase of power of the same goons...

 

which is pretty much exactly what they're doing. they aren't going to make rats uber or anything like that. i mean seriously, THINK people, don't just react!

 

Come on, the quote is right here in this thread, it doesn't say either of these options are what they're doing. No need to panic about Bethesda silliness, but also lets try not to apologize for Obsidian by making things up.

[Madzookeeper]

Urgh. Given that them thinking level-scaling is required probably means the characters will scale nonsensically in power once again, plus the elder-scrolls style crafting they seem to be talking about in the latest update, these last two days have been a serious damper on my enthusiasm for this project.

 

because that's totally what was actually said...

 

you have to realize that what you have here is a quote taken completely out of context, and without any followup of any sort. they aren't doing oblivion style level scaling in the slightest.

 

it also doesn't even remotely sound like they're doing bethesda style crafting. what was said in the comments is that at least part of it is going to be like in BG/BG2 where you put back together a legendary item. but you don't know that because you aren't hanging out in the comments where you can ask people that have been in direct contact with the devs. or ask the devs themselves.

[Reddie]

But in Fallout 1/2 for example it was not even a choice between towns A, B and C, but basically between towns A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H. And that was possible without level-scaling involved in the process 96% of the time. And it worked perfectly!

 

For you. And Fallout is not an IE game and not a major inspiration (BG, PS:T and IWD are). If you are expecting more Fallout-ish game, Obsidian has stated from the start that it most likely won't be the case.

[The Sharmat]

I think you guys just saw the words "level scaling" and freaked out. Which is understandable, because modern games do it horribly. But we're forgetting a number of games that had VERY unobtrusive level scaling, because it was applied logically, and not at all globally. People have mentioned Elder Scrolls games: Skyrim and Oblivion were HUGE offenders in terms of awful level scaling. But then go back to Morrowind: Level scaling was only applied in a few ways in a few areas. It didn't matter if you were level 1 or level 30, Daedric ruins were always more dangerous than bandit caves, and named NPCs were always the same no matter what your level in a manner that reflected their talents. this is because the level scaling was very limited. A cave might adjust somewhat in difficulty between levels 1 and 10 and then freeze, so a level 30 character will still cut a path through it. Try and invade a temple to Cthulhu and you're still fighting eldritch horrors that will almost certainly murder you at level 1 unless you REALLY know what you're doing; because while it would scale in level as you got higher, the minimum strength of the enemies was tailored for a character closer to level 15 or above, even if they were the first places you explored. And interspersed with all this is tons of hand crafted content so that nothing feels randomly generated.

 

This can be done right. And I suspect this is closer to how they'll do it.

[Madzookeeper]

I'd be inclined not to see level scaling. Scaling via some mob replacement and adding a more tougher monster type or two... but not artificial increase of power of the same goons...

 

which is pretty much exactly what they're doing. they aren't going to make rats uber or anything like that. i mean seriously, THINK people, don't just react!

 

Come on, the quote is right here in this thread, it doesn't say either of these options are what they're doing. No need to panic about Bethesda silliness, but also lets try not to apologize for Obsidian by making things up.

 

given that i was there for that back and forth in the comments i think i'm probably better informed than the person in the OP? possibly? that was a concern that was addressed. they aren't doing that. pretty much everyone in the comments who had been worried about level scaling was pretty much put at ease about it. and there was a fairly differing opinion on the subject overall.

 

and there have been plenty of people acting like the sky is falling and it's going to be oblivion kinda level scaling. it's just insane to think that.

[AwesomeOcelot]

What they are trying to say is that, if you are given a CHOICE between towns A, B, and C, they want the encounter difficulty to be easiest in the first town and hardest in the last town, no matter what order you visit them in. And then, once that order has been established BY THE PLAYER, the encounters are scaled and then FIXED; that means that after the initial scaling, there will be NO more scaling and the difficulty will be fixed. So if you come back to the easy town after playing through the hard one, it will still be easy; it won't scale anymore because it's been FIXED.

 

Honestly, all of you are so paranoid, throwing around your accusations of BIOWARE and BETHSEDA, when they made it perfectly clear they weren't doing anything of the sort.

But in Fallout 1/2 for example it was not even a choice between towns A, B and C, but basically between towns A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H. And that was possible without level-scaling involved in the process 96% of the time. And it worked perfectly!

 

Exactly, and you could get information about the difference places as well, you were guided but not by hand holding, by common sense, but you could also choose not to use common sense and that was fun too. Why not take this system that worked really well and do it better using the greater resources available? Instead we get stupid and lazy decisions that's one of the reasons why people yearn for the old-school RPG in the first place.

[Valorian]

I don't quite understand the OP - he mentions how Obsidian betrays their promise of doing Infinity-style RPG, but then obviously forgets that the only Infinity game with fairly open world and no level scaling was BG1. In all the other games it was exactly the way Obsidian declared it will be: difficulty was scaled according to order in which PC would enter different areas, and then fixed. The enemies in Underdark and Curse were objectively stronger than in starting areas of Athkatla and Sigil.

 

I think the outcry comes from misunderstanding between reading "level" as "difficulty level" vs. "PC level".

 

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.

[Baudolino05]

You're either blatantly lying or simply don't have a clue what you're talking about. Probably both.

 

You know, what? I was thinking exactly the same

 

1- I just told about encounter scaling, not enemy level scaling.

2- Do you really think you are the only one accustomed to mod tools ?

3- Scaling is automatically made through a simple script based on the party experience. Nothing that you can change via encounter design

4- Try to solo-play BG or BG2 and than came back to tell me if I'm wrong or right

Edited October 2, 2012 by Baudolino05

[AwesomeOcelot]

 

I'd be inclined not to see level scaling. Scaling via some mob replacement and adding a more tougher monster type or two... but not artificial increase of power of the same goons...

 

which is pretty much exactly what they're doing. they aren't going to make rats uber or anything like that. i mean seriously, THINK people, don't just react!

 

Come on, the quote is right here in this thread, it doesn't say either of these options are what they're doing. No need to panic about Bethesda silliness, but also lets try not to apologize for Obsidian by making things up.

 

 

 

given that i was there for that back and forth in the comments i think i'm probably better informed than the person in the OP? possibly? that was a concern that was addressed. they aren't doing that. pretty much everyone in the comments who had been worried about level scaling was pretty much put at ease about it. and there was a fairly differing opinion on the subject overall.

 

and there have been plenty of people acting like the sky is falling and it's going to be oblivion kinda level scaling. it's just insane to think that.

 

Then don't shout at people to "THINK", quote the relevant parts here so people have the information they need to form valid opinions. At least say how you know that's pretty much exactly what they're doing.

Edited October 2, 2012 by AwesomeOcelot

[Reddie]

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.

 

Except that it was phrased:

Some will scale and then be fixed

 

Now, what were you saying about cognitive capabilities?

[Madzookeeper]

 

I'd be inclined not to see level scaling. Scaling via some mob replacement and adding a more tougher monster type or two... but not artificial increase of power of the same goons...

 

which is pretty much exactly what they're doing. they aren't going to make rats uber or anything like that. i mean seriously, THINK people, don't just react!

 

Come on, the quote is right here in this thread, it doesn't say either of these options are what they're doing. No need to panic about Bethesda silliness, but also lets try not to apologize for Obsidian by making things up.

 

 

 

given that i was there for that back and forth in the comments i think i'm probably better informed than the person in the OP? possibly? that was a concern that was addressed. they aren't doing that. pretty much everyone in the comments who had been worried about level scaling was pretty much put at ease about it. and there was a fairly differing opinion on the subject overall.

 

and there have been plenty of people acting like the sky is falling and it's going to be oblivion kinda level scaling. it's just insane to think that.

 

Then don't shout at people to "THINK", quote the relevant parts here so people have the information they need to form valid opinions. At least say how you know that's pretty much exactly what they're doing.

 

part of it can be seen by just reading the comment. they aren't doing oblivion level scaling. that is basic reading comprehension.

 

the rest of it is buried about 600+ comments ago. not really up to digging it up.

 

regardless, i'm done in here. i'm just going to get angry and start yelling at people. and that won't help anything.

[DCParry]

Emphasis YOURS, and still don't get it? Are you kidding me?

 

When they say "scale and then be fixed based upon where you go in the world first", how does that even remotely mean enemies in the same location will level up with you?

 

What they are trying to say is that, if you are given a CHOICE between towns A, B, and C, they want the encounter difficulty to be easiest in the first town and hardest in the last town, no matter what order you visit them in. And then, once that order has been established BY THE PLAYER, the encounters are scaled and then FIXED; that means that after the initial scaling, there will be NO more scaling and the difficulty will be fixed. So if you come back to the easy town after playing through the hard one, it will still be easy; it won't scale anymore because it's been FIXED.

 

Honestly, all of you are so paranoid, throwing around your accusations of BIOWARE and BETHSEDA, when they made it perfectly clear they weren't doing anything of the sort.

 

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.

 

Actually, you are wrong. Not just have a different opinion, but factually wrong and intentionally misreading the answer to suit your own hyperbolic rant.

 

First, level-scaling, according to the ONE COMMENT we have, will not be complete. Some, as a qualifier, necessarily represents a sub set of a whole, and as such, does not refer to the entirety of the game.

 

Just as you envision a disastrous slap to the face, I can postulate a more likely scenario. You are looking for a stolen necklace in order to get the backing of a rich but eccentric noble. You can search one of three places - a crossroads where the noble barely escaped the attacks of ravenous band of were-otters, the brothel where he spends all his time (which turns out to be a front for an evil scheme to interbreed particularly attractive and tall goblins with the local human population) or the headquarters of local thieves, which is in fact a surly pack of orphans lead by there mysterious benefactor. Let's say all the normal mobs (were-otters, goblin hookers, orphan assassins) stay the same level, all around level 10, the level you start the scenario. The first area you check you struggle through, the second is a little easier and you breeze through packs of orphans at the end. That's all fine. The Were-otter Shaman king, Huggy Owlbear the Goblin Pimp, and Missus Featherbottom the evil nanny, the bosses of the respective areas, as well as some of their lieutenants scale to your level +1.

 

This provides a relatively stable experience that rewards approaching an area well prepared (i.e. over leveled) but also presents a challenge with the ultimate fights at each one.

[Valorian]

Lots of huffing and puffing going on in here over what seems to be a very reasonable approach to scaling. Not to mention the Path of the Damned difficulty, which should easily address many of the raised concerns.

 

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.

[Wintersong]

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.

So like Dragon Age of "Go to site 'A', where a dragon is, to trigger the level scaling of enemies and then leave to come back some levels later."?

[Caerdon]

Emphasis YOURS, and still don't get it? Are you kidding me?

 

When they say "scale and then be fixed based upon where you go in the world first", how does that even remotely mean enemies in the same location will level up with you?

 

What they are trying to say is that, if you are given a CHOICE between towns A, B, and C, they want the encounter difficulty to be easiest in the first town and hardest in the last town, no matter what order you visit them in. And then, once that order has been established BY THE PLAYER, the encounters are scaled and then FIXED; that means that after the initial scaling, there will be NO more scaling and the difficulty will be fixed. So if you come back to the easy town after playing through the hard one, it will still be easy; it won't scale anymore because it's been FIXED.

 

Honestly, all of you are so paranoid, throwing around your accusations of BIOWARE and BETHSEDA, when they made it perfectly clear they weren't doing anything of the sort.

 

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.

 

I love how you actually demonstrate yourself how your entire argument depends on simplifying the whole issue into black-and-white yes-or-no question. Yes, there will be level scaling. But there are so many ways to do and utilize level scaling that reducing it to a plain yes-or-no issue is just plain idiotic, especially when Feargus was very clear this is very limited kind of level scaling.

[Valorian]

You know, what? I was thinking exactly the same

 

1- I just told about encounter scaling, not enemy level scaling.

2- Do you really think you are the only one accustomed to mod tools ?

3- Scaling is automatically made through a simple script based on the party experience. Nothing that you can change via encounter design

4- Try to solo-play BG or BG2 and than came back to tell me if I'm wrong or right

 

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.

[norolim]

This discussion is pointless until we know more. So Obsidian...the news is out...or rumour. Could you please confirm or deny? Can we have a clarification, please? Could you tell us, if you are indeed going to use level scaling and how?

[Arkeus]

 

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.

 

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.

[Valorian]

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.

 

Except that it was phrased:

Some will scale and then be fixed

 

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.