Level scaling and its misuse

[Hormalakh]

So, I've been thinking about previous games where level-scaling has been used to keep the difficulty of the story in balance, and one thing that I've noticed is that there is a tendency for some players to try to gain as little experience as possible to not advance in levels so as to keep the game fairly low-level (and easy). At that point, you'd have ridiculous mismatches with the main badguy being really low-level and it just not making any sense as to why such a so-called "powerful" badguy is so low-level that higher level grunts (which aren't level-scaled) could easily kill him.

 

Like imagine keeping your party at such a low-level where everyone stays at Level 5, and the boss is a level 7. That's challenging for you, maybe, but it doesn't make sense how a level 7 boss is roaming the countryside striking fear into the hearts of lords and kings (or something to that effect). Imagine if Sarevok was Level 7: he wouldn't be as scary and it would become a little ridiculous.

 

One idea I had about this was to set up certain "level-checks" mid or late-game that would be not-scaled, but being on the easy/medium defiiculty, so that the player would still have to force his characters to level up/ pass some certain quests before being able to finish the game or beat the final boss. This serves as a way to force players to actually scale up the difficulty in the main story before finishing the game.

 

These in effect, play as forced level-ups, to keep players from not misusing the level scaling in the main story-line to do ridiculously short "speed-runs" or to make bosses not feel realistically challenging.

 

Thoughts?

 

Also: the devs should definitely try to test-play their game with this in mind, and see how thegame feels with a forced low-level party and make sure that the encounters don't feel out-of-place or not in line with the lore due to level scaling.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Hormalakh

[PrimeJunta]

In before the "level scaling is of the devil" crowd.

 

I'll say this much: BG2 did level-scaling well. It was so subtle you almost didn't notice it, but it was there, just enough to make things the mid-game palatable, where you did stuff in pretty much any ol' order. (And even so, if you stumbled into the Firkraag quest first thing, as I did on my first attempts, you would be in for a bad time.) It did it not by making goblins tougher, but by changing the composition of enemy groups. That IMO is the only way and only situation where level-scaling is useful. If you have a long mid-game that can (technically) be played in any order, having no level-scaling will either railroad you into one particular order in which case you might as well make it linear (if you make some quests lower-level than others), or reverse the difficulty curve, which makes for frustration early on and boredom later.

 

It would be even better if there's some in-game rationale for the mid-game quest difficulty ramping up regardless of the order in which you do them. Or if they presented such a broad range of different types of challenges that combat difficulty would be only one component, in which case it'd be OK that the fights are tougher to start with and easier at the end.

[Sacred_Path]

bosses shouldn't be subject to level scaling, period.

 

Wizardry 8 did this very well where on your first playthrough, you inevitably got pwned by a level 5 or 6 giant ****roach. This taught you early on that you can't save those level ups infinitely.

That was important because players would soon notice that it's preferrable to stay on level 1 or 2 two train up your skills, because on level 3 monsters started to have ranged attacks and on >3 they started to paralyze you.

 

That said I hope there won't be level scaling in PE at all. It takes away the open-world feeling completely. I'd rather the XP was scaled to your level (ECL).

[Hormalakh]

level scaling's been confirmed for main story line. optional stuff is not level scaled. sorry s_p...

[Imrix]

Ah well. I always did like the sidequests more

[Sacred_Path]

level scaling's been confirmed for main story line. optional stuff is not level scaled. sorry s_p...

that sounds a bit weird... i.e. we'll punish the player if he wanders off to explore because he could hit monsters much higher in level. OTOH, if he just wants to breeze through the game, let all mandatory combat be scaled to a low level.

 

That's just one interpretation of course

[Lephys]

I actually just posted a long bit about this in the level cap thread, heh. So, I'll just reiterate the relevant portion here:

 

Whether or not to scale levels is merely one possible pair of choices in how to address the control of the challenge presented by combat. Even in a game in which levels aren't used (in which case level scaling would be moot), this control must be balanced. Otherwise, combat is allowed to be infinitely easy and/or infinitely difficult. Even without scaling enemies, you're making the exact same type of adjustment by limiting the amount by which the player characters' hitpoints/armor/damage/abilities/equipment can change per level. Leveling, itself, is a mechanic specifically designed to control the rate at which your characters progress in power and prowess.

 

Also, as I pointed out, since levels are merely an organizational tool for various stats and attributes, using levels to regulate the power difference is simply using a specific set of stat/attribute values to do so (as opposed to using a different set than what levels encompass, or even individual values.) There are many different ways of adjusting the player-enemy power difference that all affect different aspects of the game beyond that power balance.

 

So, is there a reasonable way of using level-adjustment to accomplish the goal? And, if not, how SHOULD it be handled?

[wanderon]

So, I've been thinking about previous games where level-scaling has been used to keep the difficulty of the story in balance, and one thing that I've noticed is that there is a tendency for some players to try to gain as little experience as possible to not advance in levels so as to keep the game fairly low-level (and easy). At that point, you'd have ridiculous mismatches with the main badguy being really low-level and it just not making any sense as to why such a so-called "powerful" badguy is so low-level that higher level grunts (which aren't level-scaled) could easily kill him.

 

Like imagine keeping your party at such a low-level where everyone stays at Level 5, and the boss is a level 7. That's challenging for you, maybe, but it doesn't make sense how a level 7 boss is roaming the countryside striking fear into the hearts of lords and kings (or something to that effect). Imagine if Sarevok was Level 7: he wouldn't be as scary and it would become a little ridiculous.

 

One idea I had about this was to set up certain "level-checks" mid or late-game that would be not-scaled, but being on the easy/medium defiiculty, so that the player would still have to force his characters to level up/ pass some certain quests before being able to finish the game or beat the final boss. This serves as a way to force players to actually scale up the difficulty in the main story before finishing the game.

 

These in effect, play as forced level-ups, to keep players from not misusing the level scaling in the main story-line to do ridiculously short "speed-runs" or to make bosses not feel realistically challenging.

 

Thoughts?

 

Also: the devs should definitely try to test-play their game with this in mind, and see how thegame feels with a forced low-level party and make sure that the encounters don't feel out-of-place or not in line with the lore due to level scaling.

 

I'm sorry I just don't get this - why in the nine hells should the devs be worried about individual gamers intentionally staying low level to make their games easier or to facilitate speed runs or for whatever other reason they choose to play THEIR game in their own manner? Why should the devs intentionally force them to play otherwise?

 

If those people are happy playing their games in that way let them do so - it has exactly zero effect on anyone elses game - in fact the only effect that might be considered mildy problematic is then they might decide to come on the forums and whine that the game is too easy or that it's the level scaling that has ruined this stupid game or that anyone who can't see how broken this is is a moron and the devs have already fixed that issue - they installed an ignore option here...

[Ieo]

There's level scaling (level number) and encounter scaling (type of mob), a bit different. MMOs tend to do level scaling. BG did encounter scaling and minimal level scaling within a certain range for certain things (e.g. meeting a new party NPC) or somesuch.

 

Also, http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60889-level-scaling-dont-scale-individual-enemies-scale-encounters/

 

That said, given what Obsidian has basically decided already.... mm, whatever.

[Lephys]

I'm sorry I just don't get this - why in the nine hells should the devs be worried about individual gamers intentionally staying low level to make their games easier or to facilitate speed runs or for whatever other reason they choose to play THEIR game in their own manner? Why should the devs intentionally force them to play otherwise?

 

One could also ask, why in Narnia should those who unintentionally stay low level be forced to put up with a lack of challenge in all the story progression simply because of the way the game mechanics happen to work? Shouldn't the difficulty setting serve that purpose just fine, rather than a hole in the scaling mechanic (whose soul purpose is to preserve relative combat challenge throughout the game, to whatever degree)?

 

It's one thing to allow people, who so choose to, to put in extra effort to level up beyond the "average level" for an encounter and therefore make it easier to take on, but it's another thing entirely to say "This boss will no longer present a challenge to you because you didn't complete enough optional content before getting to him."

 

Not everyone who wants to try a speed run (or just doesn't want to partake in certain content) also wants to make the game less challenging. Therefore you have a mechanic with an unintentional effect, which is what would make that a design flaw, in that scenario.

[wanderon]

I'm sorry I just don't get this - why in the nine hells should the devs be worried about individual gamers intentionally staying low level to make their games easier or to facilitate speed runs or for whatever other reason they choose to play THEIR game in their own manner? Why should the devs intentionally force them to play otherwise?

 

One could also ask, why in Narnia should those who unintentionally stay low level be forced to put up with a lack of challenge in all the story progression simply because of the way the game mechanics happen to work? Shouldn't the difficulty setting serve that purpose just fine, rather than a hole in the scaling mechanic (whose soul purpose is to preserve relative combat challenge throughout the game, to whatever degree)?

 

It's one thing to allow people, who so choose to, to put in extra effort to level up beyond the "average level" for an encounter and therefore make it easier to take on, but it's another thing entirely to say "This boss will no longer present a challenge to you because you didn't complete enough optional content before getting to him."

 

Not everyone who wants to try a speed run (or just doesn't want to partake in certain content) also wants to make the game less challenging. Therefore you have a mechanic with an unintentional effect, which is what would make that a design flaw, in that scenario.

 

Really?? We are just looking out for all those poor souls that unintentionally stay lower unknowing the disaster that awaits when they discover (gasp) their game doesn't have the same challenge level as those who managed to level normally....Ohhhh the horror of it all please please don't let this happen to these good good people just becuase they are too clueless to figure out how to play normally like everyone else ....

 

give me a break this is in fact just another one of the tangents that are popping up more and more regularly on these forums where people seem to be most concernmed about getting the devs to program the game so people have no choice but to play it RIGHT dammit! You know like WE do...you know who we are - we serve the GAME POLICE and you will bow to our will....

[Lephys]

....Ohhhh the horror of it all please please don't let this happen to these good good people just becuase they are too clueless to figure out how to play normally like everyone else ....

 

So... the people who are intentionally exploiting the unintentional effects of game mechanics are playing "abnormally"?

 

Maybe you're right, though. I mean, if there's ever a certain corner of a building you can run into from a certain angle and some quest automatically gets flagged as complete, who are the devs to name that a "bug" and FORCE you to actually go and complete the quest by "fixing" it? Why not just leave it in the game, and those who want to play the game the "right" way can simply avoid that structure's corner. u_u

 

Silly devs... implementing limitations for reasons and whatnot. Limitations are for strange, Iron Man, Insane Difficulty people.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Lephys

[Hormalakh]

Ah my mistake Ieo - thanks for clarifying. 'm not sure if encouter scaling is in though. At this point, i think this thread is moot. apologies to everyone for the waste of time.

[Ieo]

Ah my mistake Ieo - thanks for clarifying. 'm not sure if encouter scaling is in though. At this point, i think this thread is moot. apologies to everyone for the waste of time.

 

I'm not sure if encounter scaling specifically is in either, but I like the idea (perhaps within a range--like a 4-level creature difference, etc.). Overall, the proposed (what little we know, anyway) partial scaling sounds fine to me and makes sense in a very broad exploratory world. More reading: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60883-level-scaling-confirmed/

[AGX-17]

bosses shouldn't be subject to level scaling, period.

 

Wizardry 8 did this very well where on your first playthrough, you inevitably got pwned by a level 5 or 6 giant ****roach. This taught you early on that you can't save those level ups infinitely.

That was important because players would soon notice that it's preferrable to stay on level 1 or 2 two train up your skills, because on level 3 monsters started to have ranged attacks and on >3 they started to paralyze you.

 

That said I hope there won't be level scaling in PE at all. It takes away the open-world feeling completely. I'd rather the XP was scaled to your level (ECL).

 

Bosses should always have a set level but mooks should be capable of surpassing their bosses?

 

A legitimate boss fight (i.e. not one meant as an anti-climax or used for comic effect,) should always be a challenge. What is a boss, if not a challenge?

[Cultist]

Level scaling helps game to be interesting. But quite often it is implemented in a way that ruins the game. Oblivion - rats that punched through ebony armor, bandits in daedric stuff and such. It was moddable and was solved quite quickly. Dragon Age 2 - unmoddable, and with scaling so harsh that completely eliminated entire concepts of role-playing, like attributes and skill usage. No matter what you do, you'll always be battling the same way as even the weakest foe will be scaled.

Scaling should be subtle like in BG2, that will make game challenging but will not drive it into absurdity.

[Heresiarch]

When I think about scaling, TES is what comes to mind first. Because quite often they did it wrong. Especially in Skyrim.

 

I think there should only be upscaling. In other words, there should be no way whatsoever for the player to access dedicated end game content at early levels.

[PrimeJunta]

I'm sorry I just don't get this - why in the nine hells should the devs be worried about individual gamers intentionally staying low level to make their games easier or to facilitate speed runs or for whatever other reason they choose to play THEIR game in their own manner? Why should the devs intentionally force them to play otherwise?

 

The devs -- especially JE Sawyer -- have discussed degenerate gaming at length and on multiple occasions. They do want to make it a design goal to make a game that discourages it. I agree with them. Degenerate gaming is symptomatic of a design flaw.

 

Why? Because degenerate tactics are not fun. They're repetitive, compulsive behavior. It's characterized by Skinner box mechanics: pull a lever and sometimes -- but not always -- a pellet comes out. It's quite easy to design a Skinner box that traps people. Some do it on purpose, in order to squeeze as much money out of you as possible (slot machines, MMO's). Degenerate behavior in cRPG's is accidental and benefits no-one, not the player, not the maker of the game. It's just an accidental trap that captures the player and makes him waste his time stuck in a loop.

 

Therefore, a game should be designed in a way that does not promote degenerate gaming, as far as it's feasible or possible. It may not be possible to completely eliminate it, but it is certainly possible to push it to the margins. I hope the P:E team succeeds in their effort to marginalize it.

[Tamerlane]

Wait, Skyrim is our go-to example of bad scaling in an Elder Scrolls?

[Amberion]

I'm sorry I just don't get this - why in the nine hells should the devs be worried about individual gamers intentionally staying low level to make their games easier or to facilitate speed runs or for whatever other reason they choose to play THEIR game in their own manner? Why should the devs intentionally force them to play otherwise?

 

The devs -- especially JE Sawyer -- have discussed degenerate gaming at length and on multiple occasions. They do want to make it a design goal to make a game that discourages it. I agree with them. Degenerate gaming is symptomatic of a design flaw.

 

Why? Because degenerate tactics are not fun. They're repetitive, compulsive behavior. It's characterized by Skinner box mechanics: pull a lever and sometimes -- but not always -- a pellet comes out. It's quite easy to design a Skinner box that traps people. Some do it on purpose, in order to squeeze as much money out of you as possible (slot machines, MMO's). Degenerate behavior in cRPG's is accidental and benefits no-one, not the player, not the maker of the game. It's just an accidental trap that captures the player and makes him waste his time stuck in a loop.

 

Therefore, a game should be designed in a way that does not promote degenerate gaming, as far as it's feasible or possible. It may not be possible to completely eliminate it, but it is certainly possible to push it to the margins. I hope the P:E team succeeds in their effort to marginalize it.

I'm confused. How is having fun with playing in your own unique way(low level play) a trap? How is it preferable to go out of your way to prevent low level play?

[PrimeJunta]

I'm confused. How is having fun with playing in your own unique way(low level play) a trap? How is it preferable to go out of your way to prevent low level play?

 

Very simple. It's not "having fun playing in your own way." It's playing in a way that's not fun only because the game system rewards you for playing that way.

 

That's the problem with all degenerate mechanics, whether we're talking savegame abuse, grinding, farming, or whatever. A well-designed game should not reward such gameplay.

 

An exploitable level scaling mechanic that makes the game easier by avoiding becoming more powerful is a variant of this. It rewards degenerate gaming. Therefore it should be avoided.

 

It would be doubly Not Fun in a game like P:E where you get all or most of your experience by completing things rather than killing things, since it would reward people for avoiding content. All it would do is make speed runs easier. This would be Not Fun, because in order to be Fun, a speed run has to be a special challenge, not the easiest way to play a game.

[Heresiarch]

Wait, Skyrim is our go-to example of bad scaling in an Elder Scrolls?

Well, TES I and II went right over my head, since I was an RTS fan at the time. Morrowind quests were so bloody good that I never payed much attention to anything else, while Oblivion never really challenged me difficulty-wise. Maybe that's because I never bothered to change the settings. And Skyrim really felt punishing for every point in any skill not directly related to combat that you pick up along the way. Normal enemies were fine, but God help if you you stumble across a dragon or a dragon priest and try to impress them with your really advanced alchemy and restoration techniques.

[Sacred_Path]

Bosses should always have a set level but mooks should be capable of surpassing their bosses?

 

A legitimate boss fight (i.e. not one meant as an anti-climax or used for comic effect,) should always be a challenge. What is a boss, if not a challenge?

 

Except that a boss that's scaled to a low level might not be a challenge at all, rite?

 

It's more about consistency IMO. Like saying "I can breeze through low level enemies here but I'll need to level up to stand up to that boss". Making a boss monster gradually more powerful by adding more resistances and more status effect attacks seems a bit contrived to me. Like reaching a boss at level 7 and he's a complete pushover, but get there at level 12 and he'll kick your ass.

 

I hope that grinding and XP farming will be limited, so that you'll probably never be much higher in level than the mandatory bosses you face. Unless you really do every side quest, at least. IMO there should be ways to reward players if they didn't grind much (like a score at the end of the game where your ingame time factors in heavily [like in Might& Magic games]).

[Sacred_Path]

There would not be grinding the exp is not given for kills, only objective based like in VtM: Bloodlines.

 

I'm in favor of calling side quests you only do to get XP grinding. I was talking about how it would be good if, instead of having bosses scale, the possible XP players could get before they reach the boss-bottleneck would be limited. This doesn't necessarily have to happen by limiting the number of quests in the game, but possibly by tying them tightly to factions so you only get to see a portion of them on any playthrough.

[wanderon]

And what would we call side quests you do becuase you are a completionist or perhaps just becuase they are offered and seem interesting to your character?