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

[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.

Not every encounter should be scaled. Not every encounter in BG scaled either.

Edited October 2, 2012 by dlux

[Living One]

To clarify one thing:this shouldn't mean that said 'scaled encounters' should scale enough to make levelling up as pointless as it is in a level-scaling contest.Just some minor tweaks,not a major encounter overhaul.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Living One

[evdk]

 

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.

Smallpox and chickenpox are basically the same thing, except that one goes away eventually while the other doesn't.

[DocDoomII]

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.

That's because normally level scaling is implemented by simply scaling enemies stats and equipment.

 

But what if said bandit camp would be wider, with a couple more tents, the majority of bandits only 1-2 levels higher than normal and with the addition of few higher level rogues here and there.

Just like any 'normal' criminal organization that grew over time because no one opposed to them

 

There are lazy and cool ways to implement level scaling. We still know nothing about it in P:E.

[dlux]

To add one thing:this shouldn't mean that said 'scaled encounters' should scale enough to make levelling up as pointless as it is in a level-scaling contest.Just some tweaks not a major encounter overhaul.

Exactly. Some of the encounters can be augmented or tweaked, but that is it.

 

If I make an unwise decision about visiting a certain area, then I want the game to kick my ass so hard that I either die or just barely make it with 1 HP left. No hand holding please Obsidian!!

[Rozkurwiciel]

Absolutely agreed, note that for sake of realism it's neither advisable to make every encounter (doesn't include random ones) and place scaling but definitelly all of the notable significance.

[Skradacz]

No level scaling, at all. That's how EVERY game should be done. Level scaling just doesn't make sense, no matter how it is implemented

[firek]

I don't know if you guys have played Guild Wars 2, but they have an excellent leveling solution. You're level scales down to the area that you're in. Even if you're level 20, you get scaled to level 10 in a level 10 area. All enemies in that area are around levels 5-10. However, even though your stats scale, you still have better equipment and skills a level 10 character wouldn't have. The weapon stats scale, but a level 20 sword is still much better than a level 10 sword in a level 10 area.

 

With this system, you don't have to make creatures appear in areas where they shouldn't. There's no need to have "a lvl 20 skeleton is an Arch Lich" in area where there was previously just normal skeletons.

 

After playing GW2 for a while, I find the system very well done. It makes lower level areas easy, but not a waste of time.

[Sensuki]

^ Heeeeellll no.

[DocDoomII]

No level scaling, at all. That's how EVERY game should be done. Level scaling just doesn't make sense, no matter how it is implemented

If you spent a month of in-game time going around doing stuff and neglecting the bandit camp we were talking a few post above, it doesn't seem to far-fetched to me if said camp expanded or the bandits got new members.

Clearly if all the bandits only became stronger to match your level for no apparent reason, that would make no sense at all.

[ogrezilla]

No level scaling, at all. That's how EVERY game should be done. Level scaling just doesn't make sense, no matter how it is implemented

If you spent a month of in-game time going around doing stuff and neglecting the bandit camp we were talking a few post above, it doesn't seem to far-fetched to me if said camp expanded or the bandits got new members.

Clearly if all the bandits only became stronger to match your level for no apparent reason, that would make no sense at all.

wouldn't the bandits be saying the exact same thing about you? If we can go adventuring to become higher level adventurers, why can't they be out robbing people and becoming higher level bandits?

[Gorth]

As mentioned in a different thread, level scaling sucks. I took great pleasure in getting back at the deathclaws in FO:NV when I was finally strong enough to survive and explore Quarry Junction (let's forget that I then crawled up on top of the heavy machinery, fell down and killed myself in the fall).

 

[wormix]

wouldn't the bandits be saying the exact same thing about you? If we can go adventuring to become higher level adventurers, why can't they be out robbing people and becoming higher level bandits?

Level scaling implies that all that's changed is their level. If you ignore the bandits, become level 10 and you come back and the bandits are higher level and have razed the town, then that's OK.

 

But that is definitely not what level scaling suggests.

[DocDoomII]

No level scaling, at all. That's how EVERY game should be done. Level scaling just doesn't make sense, no matter how it is implemented

If you spent a month of in-game time going around doing stuff and neglecting the bandit camp we were talking a few post above, it doesn't seem to far-fetched to me if said camp expanded or the bandits got new members.

Clearly if all the bandits only became stronger to match your level for no apparent reason, that would make no sense at all.

wouldn't the bandits be saying the exact same thing about you? If we can go adventuring to become higher level adventurers, why can't they be out robbing people and becoming higher level bandits?

I see what you mean, but they are bandits and rogues, at best they point a knife at you and steal your coins.

Maybe they go as far as breaking into some houses.

But I seriously doubt that such activities would allow them to become equally stronger to a party of adventurers that constantly meddle with monster, quests and exploration. This kind of activities should be much more rewarding, experience wise.

Edited October 2, 2012 by DocDoomII

[C2B]

As mentioned in a different thread, level scaling sucks. I took great pleasure in getting back at the deathclaws in FO:NV when I was finally strong enough to survive and explore Quarry Junction (let's forget that I then crawled up on top of the heavy machinery, fell down and killed myself in the fall).

 

F:NV used Level-Scaling

 

Which brings us back to: We have no specifics on how exactly it's used and people are automatically assuming their worst nightmare here.

[diablo169]

I don't know if you guys have played Guild Wars 2, but they have an excellent leveling solution. You're level scales down to the area that you're in. Even if you're level 20, you get scaled to level 10 in a level 10 area. All enemies in that area are around levels 5-10. However, even though your stats scale, you still have better equipment and skills a level 10 character wouldn't have. The weapon stats scale, but a level 20 sword is still much better than a level 10 sword in a level 10 area.

 

With this system, you don't have to make creatures appear in areas where they shouldn't. There's no need to have "a lvl 20 skeleton is an Arch Lich" in area where there was previously just normal skeletons.

 

After playing GW2 for a while, I find the system very well done. It makes lower level areas easy, but not a waste of time.

 

This isnt an MMO title nor should it emulate one, mentions of cooldowns are bad enough but this would render any challegen related to different enemy types meaningless.

[C2B]

As mentioned in a different thread, level scaling sucks. I took great pleasure in getting back at the deathclaws in FO:NV when I was finally strong enough to survive and explore Quarry Junction (let's forget that I then crawled up on top of the heavy machinery, fell down and killed myself in the fall).

 

F:NV used Level-Scaling

 

Which brings us back to: We have no specifics on how exactly it's used and people are automatically assuming their worst nightmare here.

 

Quoting this for the new page to let Gorth see it.

[ogrezilla]

wouldn't the bandits be saying the exact same thing about you? If we can go adventuring to become higher level adventurers, why can't they be out robbing people and becoming higher level bandits?

Level scaling implies that all that's changed is their level. If you ignore the bandits, become level 10 and you come back and the bandits are higher level and have razed the town, then that's OK.

 

But that is definitely not what level scaling suggests.

Like I said, there should be a limit to how much they scale. But if the town guards are level 5, I don't see the harm in having bandits increase from level 1 to level 3 or 4.

Edited October 2, 2012 by ogrezilla

[dlux]

No level scaling, at all. That's how EVERY game should be done. Level scaling just doesn't make sense, no matter how it is implemented

If you spent a month of in-game time going around doing stuff and neglecting the bandit camp we were talking a few post above, it doesn't seem to far-fetched to me if said camp expanded or the bandits got new members.

Clearly if all the bandits only became stronger to match your level for no apparent reason, that would make no sense at all.

That isn't enough for me. Lets say that in a certain area I receive a quest from the King (voiced by Gilbert Gottfried of course ^^) to take care of the bandit threat in a certain area. After I wipe out the first camp, the other bandit camps should reinforce themselves by adding higher level enemies. A scout of the King could then cross my path telling me that the bandits are reinforcing (in order to improve story telling and immersion).

 

That is level scaling done right... as long as it isn't used too often.

Edited October 2, 2012 by dlux

[Gorth]

As mentioned in a different thread, level scaling sucks. I took great pleasure in getting back at the deathclaws in FO:NV when I was finally strong enough to survive and explore Quarry Junction (let's forget that I then crawled up on top of the heavy machinery, fell down and killed myself in the fall).

 

F:NV used Level-Scaling

 

Which brings us back to: We have no specifics on how exactly it's used and people are automatically assuming their worst nightmare here.

 

Quoting this for the new page to let Gorth see it.

It did? It sure fooled me. I found the deathclaws damn near invincible until I came back later. How was it implemented then (genuinely curious) as I felt it was more an "area" difficulty than meeting first whimpy deathclaws and then later deathclaws from hell in the same area.

[C2B]

As mentioned in a different thread, level scaling sucks. I took great pleasure in getting back at the deathclaws in FO:NV when I was finally strong enough to survive and explore Quarry Junction (let's forget that I then crawled up on top of the heavy machinery, fell down and killed myself in the fall).

 

F:NV used Level-Scaling

 

Which brings us back to: We have no specifics on how exactly it's used and people are automatically assuming their worst nightmare here.

 

Quoting this for the new page to let Gorth see it.

It did? It sure fooled me. I found the deathclaws damn near invincible until I came back later. How was it implemented then (genuinely curious) as I felt it was more an "area" difficulty than meeting first whimpy deathclaws and then later deathclaws from hell in the same area.

 

IIRC they are leveling in a certain range I think. They have minimum stats and maximum stats and depending on the player they vary within them.

 

Something else too, but I don't recall what exactly.

[dlux]

As mentioned in a different thread, level scaling sucks. I took great pleasure in getting back at the deathclaws in FO:NV when I was finally strong enough to survive and explore Quarry Junction (let's forget that I then crawled up on top of the heavy machinery, fell down and killed myself in the fall).

 

F:NV used Level-Scaling

 

Which brings us back to: We have no specifics on how exactly it's used and people are automatically assuming their worst nightmare here.

 

Quoting this for the new page to let Gorth see it.

It did? It sure fooled me. I found the deathclaws damn near invincible until I came back later. How was it implemented then (genuinely curious) as I felt it was more an "area" difficulty than meeting first whimpy deathclaws and then later deathclaws from hell in the same area.

Yes, New Vegas did also use level scaling actually. Obsidian just did a better job with it. Check the link.

 

http://forums.obsidi...60#entry1194163

Edited October 2, 2012 by dlux

[ogrezilla]

I really don't have a problem with small scale leveling. You still can't kill things you are vastly underleveled for. You still can snap your fingers and kill things you are vastly overleveled for. But it balances the game for both the person who just plays through the main story quests and the person who explores every nook and cranny in the world. I tend to enjoy exploring everything, but in games without level scaling it makes everything easier because I'm usually overleveled.

Edited October 2, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Malcador]

Well, depends on how they do it. I'm not too fond of the idea, myself - mooks just magically getting tougher despite everything else in the situation being equal. But if they do it with a cap based on the 'zone' it wouldn't be that ridiculous.

[Tale]

It did? It sure fooled me. I found the deathclaws damn near invincible until I came back later. How was it implemented then (genuinely curious) as I felt it was more an "area" difficulty than meeting first whimpy deathclaws and then later deathclaws from hell in the same area.

It fools a lot of people. Even Baldur's Gate had level scaling. But too often people only think of Oblivion or Fallout 3 style when they hear about it. There's multiple implementations.