Level scaling - don't scale individual enemies, scale ENCOUNTERS

[Infinitron]

I don't want existing monsters to magically become tougher based on my party's level. Why not just replace them with different, tougher monsters, or beef up their numbers?

 

For instance, in Baldur's Gate 2, depending on party-level more and/or more powerful enemies got added to certain encounters, probably also depending on difficulty level. For instance, Demogorgon would spawn babaus or glabrezus on normal, but balors and mariliths on higher difficulties, IIRC.

 

With some adjustments, Project Eternity's "level scaling" mechanic could in fact be implemented entirely by the difficulty level based encounter changes which have already been confirmed for the game!

Edited October 2, 2012 by Infinitron

[Rabain]

Whats the difference so long as it is done well? I assume you are thinking of the situation where your level 20 fighter gets his ass kicked by a scaled up beetle or rat or something? I'm sure Obsidian won't be so silly.

 

If you are level 1 and you meet a bandit and he kills you, why should you care if you come back through the area 10 levels later and get killed by a level 10 bandit? Seems find to me, bandits are bad people.

 

I don't see the point in my character walking through a forest a level 1 and being attacked by a wolf and just because he walks through later at level 10 he should be attacked by a demon just because he could kill every wolf in the world at level 10.

 

Try not to think of your level as a degree of power but as a degree of experience. That way wolves can still be dangerous to you at level 10 just as they were at level 1.

 

I don't think scaling monsters is a bad thing, just needs to be approached properly, trust them to do that.

[Crusty]

Good thread and completely agreed.

[thracian]

they will change the monster types of the maps according to your level of first visit

[Infinitron]

Whats the difference so long as it is done well?

 

The difference is that beefing up individual monsters encourages lazy design ("LOL LETS JUST PUT THESE MONSTERS HERE, LEVEL SCALING WILL MAKE IT WORK"), while setting up a scalable encounter requires careful thought and planning.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Infinitron

[Zack Fair]

That way wolves can still be dangerous to you at level 10 just as they were at level 1.

But that is stupid. That wolf shouldn't be dangerous to my level 10 fighter. My fighter eats demons for breakfast. The OP is right, level scaling is lazy.

[diablo169]

Please Obsidian, for the love of all thats holy listen to this post.

[cealicu_ca]

well, lazy design or not, remember guys this is a limited budget game. they can't really make all the **** we want them to, really.

 

i have great confidence that this (along with wasteland 2 and two other projects i backed up) will turn out great an kick some publisher's balls in the process.

 

ok, level scaling, so what? we don't even know how that will be implemented (for example you'd get one skeleton at level one, one necromanver at level 10 and one arch lich at level 20). who's to say? and most of all:

 

they can't really do all the things we want them to. they need to focus on some aspects and others will most likely be standard. you guys really expect a miracle or what? there are tons of other stuff (that so far they said they'd be focusing on) that should make this a great experience, and overall make up for all this silly level scaling rage.

[Sensuki]

COMPLETELY AGREED

Edited October 2, 2012 by Sensuki

[Jarmo]

Whats the difference so long as it is done well? I assume you are thinking of the situation where your level 20 fighter gets his ass kicked by a scaled up beetle or rat or something? I'm sure Obsidian won't be so silly.

 

Actually something like that bothered the hell out of me in Mask of the Betrayer.

Going in, the character has already beaten up the end boss of NWN2, who in turn was strong enough to beat armies, legendary heroes and elder dragons.

Yet halfway through MotB, the characters face orcs who are scaled to be level appropriate opponents, dunno.. 200HP each or something, and near the end

after beating some more legendary opponents, there's another pitched battle against a bunch of guardian gnolls, again level appropriate.

 

It didn't seem to matter then, if the opponent is some fiend from hell, or an orc, just scale the slider so combat is suitably hard.

Now I don't know if the battles scaled or if they were just designed as such, but that's something I'd rather not see here.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Jarmo

[Living One]

I don't know why I'm even bothering after the level-scaling/cooldowns combo and reading Sawyer's posts about accessibilty at SA but,yes level scaling is bad and lazy and it should be encounters the ones to get more attention.

 

Then again,clowndowns are bad and lazy too and they are still in.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Living One

[anek]

Whats the difference so long as it is done well?

 

The difference is, that scaling individual monsters takes away any objective measure for how difficult that type of monster is, and how "tough" your party needs to become to be able to handle it easily.

 

That is unfortunate for two reasons:

1. Players who like to carefully micro-optimize their characters to the max (which is usually necessary when playing on high-difficulty / perma-death mode) are denied that empirical feedback.
   
2. Players are denied the satisfaction of seeing how far they've come, in the form of meeting a type of monster which a few weeks ago of in-game time almost tore them apart, but now it doesn't even give them a scratch.
   

So I totally agree with the OP: Replace monsters with different ones, or scale their numbers - don't scale their individual toughness.

Edited October 2, 2012 by anek

[wormix]

well, lazy design or not, remember guys this is a limited budget game. they can't really make all the **** we want them to, really.

 

i have great confidence that this (along with wasteland 2 and two other projects i backed up) will turn out great an kick some publisher's balls in the process.

 

ok, level scaling, so what? we don't even know how that will be implemented (for example you'd get one skeleton at level one, one necromanver at level 10 and one arch lich at level 20). who's to say? and most of all:

 

they can't really do all the things we want them to. they need to focus on some aspects and others will most likely be standard. you guys really expect a miracle or what? there are tons of other stuff (that so far they said they'd be focusing on) that should make this a great experience, and overall make up for all this silly level scaling rage.

In a game where tactical and interesting combat is meant to be a feature, you don't turn around and say "we don't have time to develop this properly".

I can accept scaling difficulty to your party to some degree, but the system needs to be fully realised and not just a band-aid fix to let parties go wherever they want, whenever they want. It is this concern that a lot of people (rightfully so) share based on the context of the level scaling comment.

 

You might have confidence that things will turn out 'for the best', but not everyone shares this sentimentality, nor should they. This is a place to discuss the game, and voice their concerns about the game. Hopefully these concerns will be addressed so that we better know how things will work. People are not going to donate their own money to a game when this is the response to their concerns.

[dlux]

We don't really know how and to which degree Obsidian is planning on using level scaling. It needs clarification and *should* arrive soon.

[Althernai]

If you are level 1 and you meet a bandit and he kills you, why should you care if you come back through the area 10 levels later and get killed by a level 10 bandit? Seems find to me, bandits are bad people.

Because this kind of scaling cuts into suspension of disbelief. A low level bandit makes sense, but why would a high level bandit still be a bandit when he can singlehandedly subjugate or destroy entire villages?

 

I strongly agree with the original post: don't just scale the level of the enemies. Either replace them with more powerful versions or increase their numbers or both.

[norolim]

Yes. That's what we need. Please, Obsidian, hear us on this or talk to us and give us your reasons, maybe a bit more details. As you can no doubt see (or will no dobt see, when you wake up) some of us are rather worried.

Edited October 2, 2012 by norolim

[cealicu_ca]

Whats the difference so long as it is done well?

 

The difference is, that scaling individual monsters takes away any objective measure for how difficult that type of monster is, and how "tough" your party needs to become to be able to handle it easily.

 

That is unfortunate for two reasons:

1. Players who like to carefully micro-optimize their characters to the max (which is usually necessary when playing on high-difficulty / perma-death mode) are denied that empirical feedback.
    
    
   
2. Players are denied the satisfaction of seeing how far they've come, in the form of meeting a type of monster which a few weeks of in-game time almost tore them apart, but now it doesn't even give them a scratch.
   

So I totally agree with the OP: Replace monsters with different ones, or scale their numbers - don't scale their individual toughness.

 

who said that monsters, when they level up, they stay the same? what if the monster leveling means different models with different abilities? (not that i'd know but just as an example)

 

a lvl 1 skeleton is, well, a Skeleton

a lvl 10 skeleton is a Skeleton Warrior

a lvl 15 skeleton is a Necromancer

a lvl 20 skeleton is an Arch Lich

 

or whatever. i think there needs to be more info on this subject before we (you) start the flame tsunami...

[Tigranes]

It's not immediately terrible to put in level scaling, but it usually opens the doors of hell. As Infinitron says, I think the best way to do it is scale encounters, doing things like adding an archer to an all-melee encounter or bumping one or two spell levels (max) for the caster. Do it more than a small level range, or do it for enemies so that a single bandit can go from zero to hero, and you have a stupid, nonsensical world.

 

The weird thing is, if you have really limited level-scaling, then players can barely notice it's there (it was hard to notice in BG2, and not that easy to notice in FNV also), and you don't really get the effect you intended (which, I assume, is protect players from too difficult encounters). Crank it up, and you can't avoid getting idiotic situations. It's really tricky to balance level scaling so that you achieve a good curve for everyone and keep the world reasonably realistic. Which begs the question, if level scaling isn't a quick & easy solution, why not just take that time to create a proper hand-crafted world, with extremely limited scaling ranges at most?

 

Disappointing news and I don't want Obsidian to kowtow to the community for every little design feature, but that also puts the onus on them to make the right decisions.

 

Finally, the way this kind of news is trickling forth via Kickstarter comments or twitter comments is.... an interesting strategy. You'd think they'd want to give themselves the chance to clarify what they mean by putting it in the updates, instead of these little comments where you really can't tell how things will end up.

[diablo169]

Monsters and enemy npcs should be more or less challenging based on what or who they are, not what level you are. If I wander into a mind flayer city or a greater liches tomb at level 1 I should get my ass handed to me, not be pandered to.

 

Imagine wandering into Firkraag's lair early at a lower level and fighting sewer rats and the dragon battle music kicking in only for the end boss to be a sprite dragon. Its just damned lazy design.

 

Likewise my kickass adventuring company should be able to point and laugh at low level bandits and goblins as I slaughter them. Infinitrons post is the only example of any type of level scaling I would like to see in any RPG, never mind one touting itself as a return to the good old days.

[cealicu_ca]

well, lazy design or not, remember guys this is a limited budget game. they can't really make all the **** we want them to, really.

 

i have great confidence that this (along with wasteland 2 and two other projects i backed up) will turn out great an kick some publisher's balls in the process.

 

ok, level scaling, so what? we don't even know how that will be implemented (for example you'd get one skeleton at level one, one necromanver at level 10 and one arch lich at level 20). who's to say? and most of all:

 

they can't really do all the things we want them to. they need to focus on some aspects and others will most likely be standard. you guys really expect a miracle or what? there are tons of other stuff (that so far they said they'd be focusing on) that should make this a great experience, and overall make up for all this silly level scaling rage.

In a game where tactical and interesting combat is meant to be a feature, you don't turn around and say "we don't have time to develop this properly".

I can accept scaling difficulty to your party to some degree, but the system needs to be fully realised and not just a band-aid fix to let parties go wherever they want, whenever they want. It is this concern that a lot of people (rightfully so) share based on the context of the level scaling comment.

 

You might have confidence that things will turn out 'for the best', but not everyone shares this sentimentality, nor should they. This is a place to discuss the game, and voice their concerns about the game. Hopefully these concerns will be addressed so that we better know how things will work. People are not going to donate their own money to a game when this is the response to their concerns.

 

the point is that we really don't know how this will be implemented. as per my example we might get different models (with different abilities) monsters as they level up.

 

so if at level 1 you'd get bandits, at level 10 you'd get rogues, at level 20 you'd get assassins or whatever.

 

thing is that there needs to be more information, more details before we jump to conclusions.

[ogrezilla]

I hope there is just a level range that enemies can scale between. If I go back to the very first forest I traveled through as a max level fighter, I want to feel like I am stronger than I was the first time I was there. And on the flip side, I don't want high level enemies to ever be too weak because I got there at a low level. There should be content that I can get to that I just am plain not ready to face.

[wormix]

the point is that we really don't know how this will be implemented. as per my example we might get different models (with different abilities) monsters as they level up.

 

so if at level 1 you'd get bandits, at level 10 you'd get rogues, at level 20 you'd get assassins or whatever.

 

thing is that there needs to be more information, more details before we jump to conclusions.

The point is this doesn't even make sense.

If there's a bandit camp outside a town, and I go there at level 20, suddenly it's an camp full of assassins? Or a camp full of bandits who could singlehandedly go and slay dragons or kill the entire towns populace?

 

Level scaling only works if there is a limit to how the scaling works. Blanket scaling from 1 to infinity gives you Oblivion style level scaling, and even encounter scaling wouldn't save this. The only benefit "level-scaling" has over "encounter-scaling" is that it lets the developer be lazy. This should be something no one wants.

[cealicu_ca]

the point is that we really don't know how this will be implemented. as per my example we might get different models (with different abilities) monsters as they level up.

 

so if at level 1 you'd get bandits, at level 10 you'd get rogues, at level 20 you'd get assassins or whatever.

 

thing is that there needs to be more information, more details before we jump to conclusions.

The point is this doesn't even make sense.

If there's a bandit camp outside a town, and I go there at level 20, suddenly it's an camp full of assassins? Or a camp full of bandits who could singlehandedly go and slay dragons or kill the entire towns populace?

 

Level scaling only works if there is a limit to how the scaling works. Blanket scaling from 1 to infinity gives you Oblivion style level scaling, and even encounter scaling wouldn't save this. The only benefit "level-scaling" has over "encounter-scaling" is that it lets the developer be lazy. This should be something no one wants.

 

well, i didn't say i want it. i personally find it frustrating to battle the same monster only beefed up whenever i meet them, regardless of level. like switching from normal to nightmare mode in diablo (only without starting a new game, instead leveling up).

 

BUT... i have yet to see the details of how they will implement it or what this system will be like. level scaling is just a bit too vague atm. or at least i hope it's not what you guys say seem to be sure it is

[evdk]

the point is that we really don't know how this will be implemented. as per my example we might get different models (with different abilities) monsters as they level up.

 

so if at level 1 you'd get bandits, at level 10 you'd get rogues, at level 20 you'd get assassins or whatever.

 

thing is that there needs to be more information, more details before we jump to conclusions.

The point is this doesn't even make sense.

If there's a bandit camp outside a town, and I go there at level 20, suddenly it's an camp full of assassins? Or a camp full of bandits who could singlehandedly go and slay dragons or kill the entire towns populace?

 

Level scaling only works if there is a limit to how the scaling works. Blanket scaling from 1 to infinity gives you Oblivion style level scaling, and even encounter scaling wouldn't save this. The only benefit "level-scaling" has over "encounter-scaling" is that it lets the developer be lazy. This should be something no one wants.

Well, level scaling, when used, should have a upper limit that would change depending on location, so no bandit in the camp ever would be higher then say level 7, even if you decide to visit them at level 20. This would to some degree preserve internal consistency.

[dlux]

the point is that we really don't know how this will be implemented. as per my example we might get different models (with different abilities) monsters as they level up.

 

so if at level 1 you'd get bandits, at level 10 you'd get rogues, at level 20 you'd get assassins or whatever.

 

thing is that there needs to be more information, more details before we jump to conclusions.

The point is this doesn't even make sense.

If there's a bandit camp outside a town, and I go there at level 20, suddenly it's an camp full of assassins? Or a camp full of bandits who could singlehandedly go and slay dragons or kill the entire towns populace?

 

Level scaling only works if there is a limit to how the scaling works. Blanket scaling from 1 to infinity gives you Oblivion style level scaling, and even encounter scaling wouldn't save this. The only benefit "level-scaling" has over "encounter-scaling" is that it lets the developer be lazy. This should be something no one wants.

Well, level scaling, when used, should have a upper limit that would change depending on location, so no bandit in the camp ever would be higher then say level 7, even if you decide to visit them at level 20. This would to some degree preserve internal consistency.

Having them scale to level 7 and then stop leveling is practically the same thing as in Oblivion, the only difference is that in Oblivion they never stop scaling.