Tlantl Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 So how many of us run PnP rpgs? Do we ignore level appropriate encounters in favor of a constant stream of impossible or walk through encounters? maybe a few set encounters when we build the world but for the most part not so much. My players would have fits and rightfully so. It's the same thing in a crpg, the difference is all of the encounters are preset. A video game can be optimized to give each of us the challenges we desire while keeping the really easy or impossible encounters to a minimum. I'm sure all of you who scream that you don't want level scaling don't really want the game to play that way, what you really want is to be able to play the game in such a way that the level scaling doesn't break immersion. Other wise game designers wouldn't have to make ever increasingly difficult monsters to fight, or allow us to add power to our characters as we play. Oblivion went too far in this, but it was pretty much the way morrowind played as well. The thing about morrowind was that there were those creatures and NPCs in the game that were very hard and some that were easy placed in certain regions, where in oblivion someone for got to tell this to the Todd and his game was pitiful in comparison. I'm sure I never had this problem with any games I played by Obsidian, theirs have other issues, but I can assume that those issues came with using other peoples code and having to adhere to the dictates of a higher authority. An issue I don't for see with a game they designed, wrote and produced in house.. 3
Hagen Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 Nope. No you don't. Only if your power scaling and mechanics in general are ill-thought. Heck, not even then. Then the alternative is what? Everything grows slightly more dangerous in relation to how far away it is from the starting point of the game? Look, I'm all against stupid power scaling à la D&D and such, but somehow, you have to ramp up the challenge as the story progresses. Otherwise the beginning of the game will be hard and will then get easier as you progress. When in deadly danger When beset by doubt Run in little circles Wave your arms and shout.
AwesomeOcelot Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 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/ Encounters are different, they're already generated, they don't necessarily have the same context constraints.
IndiraLightfoot Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) Hi all! Having played most CRPGs there are, and being an old pen-n-paper D&D enthusiast, I must say that the demand for fast levelling nowadays is partly what is to blame here. BG1, which had a fantastic sense of freedom for exploring and all, was based on rather slow levelling and nearly no magical loot at the beginning. Still, it was deliberately unbalanced enough so that you could stumble upon oh so painful Ankhegs early on or get yourself stuck in very dangerous dungeons indeed - you simply hade to leave or die (lovely!) I think one good solution is having a levelling system where levels take progressively longer time to achieve. Personally, I'd merrily accept huge chunks of the map for Project Eternity being explorable, adventurable, etc for hours on end, and you only level twice during that time. In addition, if you're really lucky you have found two basic enchanted weapons and a ring of light during that exiting period of time. The story, the diversity, heck the world, is what should matter the most. This of course means a really wide kind of railroading: Large regions A, B n C, with dozens of areas, dungeons and encounters are level range 1-5. Large regions D, E n F, with even more areas, dungeons and encounters (because levelling takes longer the further in the game you get), then are level range 6-9, and so on, and so forth. Levels fly by too fast in many games today, and it certainly doesn't improve the matter when you encounter stronger opposition all the time just by getting deeper into the story. That said, there are plenty of clever ways to beef up monster categories so that they fit a higher-level setting. As long as it is not done repetitively, like it was in Dragon Age, I'm all for that. Anyone stand the sight of a single more Darkspawn? Can you stomach yet another shambling Draugr ever again? If baddies are to be reused, please add clever variety to them: skills, clothes, weapons, goals, etc. Edited October 2, 2012 by Apex of the Obsidian Order 2 *** "The words of someone who feels ever more the ent among saplings when playing CRPGs" ***
AwesomeOcelot Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 So what's the source this is taken from? Kickstarter comments section, Obsidian's account.
Valorian Posted October 2, 2012 Author Posted October 2, 2012 Alright, considering all of the apologists that suddenly and conveniently felt the urge to explain how this idiotic concept of level scaling can be done right, I have a proposition. If you're going out of your way, Obsidian, to include various modes such as a mode that deletes saved games, modes that completely change encounters.. how about a mode that eliminates all traces of the abomination known as level scaling? So that some of these people can enjoy their "free exploration" with the safety net of level scaling, and the rest of us can deal with hard obstacles? 6
Aedelric Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) I think the topic title is misleading, they seem to be wanting to add partial level scaling. I think it is a decent enough compromise, so long as we do not get a challenge against rats and goblins when we are level 50 armoured knight's or are able to kill a dragon as a level 1 naked thief. So long as they do not go in the Elder Scrolls: Oblivion direction, then I do not think we have much to worry about. Edit - Just to clarify, I am still not for full level scaling. But I am not going to turn my back on the project just because it has one feature I do not 100% agree with. Edited October 2, 2012 by Aedelric 1
kjrubberducky Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 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. 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. 9 Squeak!
Caerdon Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) People are overreacting. This is not Oblivion level scaling. If done right, limited level scaling can be a useful part of adding challenge to the game. I hear these guys have made some good games before, I have faith they know where they're going with this. Edited October 2, 2012 by Caerdon 4
Starwars Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) It's a good thing that it gets brought up for discussion I think. But the impact of it on the actual game-world completely depends on its implementation. New Vegas had level scaling. That did not prevent players from getting mangled, eaten and brutalized by Cazadores, Deathclaws, Giant Radscorpions and what have you if they decided to head north from Goodsprings. That said, I like as little level scaling as possible myself. Storm of Zehir didn't need it for example (to have an example from Obsidian). EDIT: It's also important because I pretend to be Macho Man with no level scaling, unlike you APOLOGISTS, who only like the NEW and BIOWARIAN and BETHESDIAN way of making games! RAAAAH! Edited October 2, 2012 by Starwars 2 Listen to my home-made recordings (some original songs, some not): http://www.youtube.c...low=grid&view=0
LordCrash Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 We all don't want dragon-powered rats for sure. But what's the problem if the dragon at the end of the dungeon is a real threat to the group at every level?
Valorian Posted October 2, 2012 Author Posted October 2, 2012 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.
Baudolino05 Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) 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. Woah, great logic, I'm impressed! Can you prove that BG1 hasn't level scaling with specific examples for each area? You can't. Are we done ? BG has encounter scaling, as many other old shool classic. This is one of the reason you can solo-play the whole game (the other one is that AD&D is a ruleset where it's almost better to have a level 3 character than 3 level 1 characters). PS: anyway. Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of level scaling. Generally speaking, I hate it. But there are some exceptions Edited October 2, 2012 by Baudolino05
AwesomeOcelot Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 We all don't want dragon-powered rats for sure. But what's the problem if the dragon at the end of the dungeon is a real threat to the group at every level? It's the difference between being given a world to explore and being played by a world that's morphing around you and your choices. The feeling that the PC is the centre of the universe is bad, but it seems to be more and more prominent in games. It's the difference between the radio in Fallout "3" where Three Dog won't STFU about you, even when you've done nothing, and VtM: Bloodlines radio where there's occasionally some vague news about something that may have involved you.
Jarmo Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) 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"? That poll was actually "a bit" biased in the way the question and choices were given. When I voted, I was thinking of Oblivion and New Vegas, the scaling of which I hate, but it's more complicated than that. I actually did give about the same answer in the comments as here, at some point. Basically, I'd like the game to be of free roaming style, where you get some indication what kind of areas you're in and if you stop to think, you can probably guess you're in way over your head and have to backtrack for a while. In that kind of game I wouldn't like the scaling to exist. At all, in any form. Explore away and when you see a stone giant, run like hell! But if it's a "we can go here, here, or here" I wouldn't like to go through absolute hell first, and then have the remaining areas be a cakewalk. Without scaling, the logical option would go Icewind Dale way, and make the game simply linear. Don't give the choice if there's only one correct answer. The point would indedd somewhat go away if Eternity was a down to earth realistic game, but I assume and hope it won't be and we'll instead see the champions rise to very high power levels indeed. -- Have to see about this one actually. If it's a case of KotOR I approve, if its New Vegas, it's a mistaken direction. Edited October 2, 2012 by Jarmo
WorstUsernameEver Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) Oblivion is the most infamous example of level scaling, but the mechanic goes way back. Even BGII had level scaling in plenty of instances (but the fact that a lot of people just didn't notice means it was done well and the progression felt natural). Edited October 2, 2012 by WorstUsernameEver
Madzookeeper Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 oy vey... if you actually read what's said, they're pretty much doing exactly what most of you want. things will be the same level as when you entered a place and return. that is stated in the quote. fixed levels, after entry, is exactly what you want. why is it such a big deal if you can choose to do things in a slightly different order, but ultimately get the same challenge out of it? talk about blowing things out of proportion here. Master Wetboy of the Obsidian Order of Eternity
Althernai Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 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.obsidi...-level-scaling/ So after this rare occurrence when everybody agrees on a subject... they.. pull a Bioware and declare: yep, level scaling is in! That poll is biased enough to make politicians blush. If the choice you give people is between "I want to be treated like an adult and won't start crying because a dragon kills me when I'm level one. I also want to feel powerfull at the end of the game." and "I want to be the centre of the world. Everything must kneel before me and scale to my level." then of course 90% of the people who will bother to vote at all will pick the first option. There is nothing in what Obsidian said that implies this will be different from the encounter scaling in Baldur's Gate 2 which was perfectly fine. Of course, they could do it wrong, but the same is true of practically every other aspect of a game that's just getting started so I don't see any reason for concern here. 2
Umberlin Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 Having played most CRPGs there are, and being an old pen-n-paper D&D enthusiast, I must say that the demand for fast levelling nowadays is partly what is to blame here. Personally I always prefered slower leveling forms, with fewer levels covered over the course of a game. "Step away! She has brought truth and you condemn it? The arrogance! You will not harm her, you will not harm her ever again!"
kjrubberducky Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 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. It wasn't JUST a simple question; it may have started that way, but then the person asking qualified the question by voicing their concerns that a common thief would be able to take on their demigod status character. With a qualification like that, Obsidian's response needed to be qualified as well, basically saying that, while they will have level scaling, it will be limited, and won't occur on the scale that the poster was concerned about. 1 Squeak!
Darkpriest Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 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...
Reddie Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 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".
Madzookeeper Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) 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! Edited October 2, 2012 by Madzookeeper 2 Master Wetboy of the Obsidian Order of Eternity
Valorian Posted October 2, 2012 Author Posted October 2, 2012 Woah, great logic, I'm impressed! Can you prove that BG1 hasn't level scaling with specific examples for each area? You can't. Are we done ? BG has encounter scaling, as many other old shool classic. This is one of the reason you can solo-play the whole game (the other one is that AD&D is a ruleset where it's almost better to have a level 3 character than 3 level 1 characters). PS: anyway. Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of level scaling. Generally speaking, I hate it. But there are some exceptions Yes, I can. There is a program called character creator by TeamBG. You can extract and have a look at all the creatures present in BG1. All the creatures spawned in BG 1 (and 2 if you have BG2 installed) are on that list. You can see all their stats. Creatures (except party members) have generally only one version with a static character sheet. There aren't versions of these creatures at different levels (which would be needed if encounters were level scaled). There's also another program where you can see all encounter spawns for each area. These encounters are static. I have modded the game a bit myself for fun so I know what's going on behind the scenes. You're either blatantly lying or simply don't have a clue what you're talking about. Probably both.
Recommended Posts