Level scaling and its misuse

[Lephys]

It might just be my failure to communicate it clearly, but you're still misunderstanding my point. You're still skirting the actual relationship.

 

Traveling to a place where loot is available to get loot = not degenerative. Traveling to a place where healing is allowed to get healing = not degenerative.

 

Traveling back and forth because you can't carry all the loot = degenerative. Traveling back and forth because you can't "carry" all the health (heal up to full) = degenerative.

 

We won't have to disagree, but it's totally your prerogative. We can leave it at that, and I'll stop attempting to clear up the misunderstanding, if you'd like.

[PrimeJunta]

You have no idea how much health will be recovered by resting or how long it will take. 10 points per 24 hours? 48? Who knows. Youre simply replacing one reward (loot) for another (health) and then claiming its different.

Loot is a reward. Health is a resource. These are qualitatively different things. That's what shops are for -- they allow you to convert loot into resources.

 

The ability to rest anywhere makes it unnecessary to manage health and spell use strategically. You'll always be at full health with a full spellbook in every battle. That removes a pretty big and interesting strategic element from the game.

 

A well-designed game should be designed in such a way that the most efficient way to play it should also be the most enjoyable way to play it.

 

"Most enjoyable" is a matter of preference of course which leaves lots of room for legitimate differences. Some people don't like strategic resource management and want to be at full strength before every encounter, for example. That's a totally legit preference, and many games are specifically designed around that -- Dragon Age: Origins, to pick one. If you fall into that category, then naturally you're going to hate restricted resting, or things like the curse in MotB. So there's certainly room for disagreement about this mechanic. The discussion here about it has been almost completely worthless though; it's been all "hurr durr degenerashun" on the one hand and "bow be4 me, I iz hardkore, resting is teh girly" on the other.

 

Still, most degenerate strategies are not enjoyable for most people. Which is why I find the hostility to the very idea of getting rid of them completely baffling. I wish the discussion was more about what kinds of gameplay you enjoy (or not), and which kinds of mechanics support (or restrict) those kinds of gameplay. We might actually get somewhere.

Edited February 1, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[Lephys]

^ Yeah, I don't know why it's so hard to say "Valid point, there. I still don't prefer limited resting, though," instead of apparently "Oh crap! Our preferences differ, and therefore I must pretend everything is sheerly an argument about preferences!"

 

If I hate Roman numerals, and someone tells me V plus II = VII, I'm not going to say "actually, that's wrong, because there's no reason to use Roman numerals." No preference in the world makes V plus II in Roman numerals not = VII. I don't own Roman numerals, or addition, so it doesn't matter if I'm the biggest idiot inthe world. I'm still simply pointing at something that existed on its own, and is completely and utterly true.

 

*shrug*

[eirik]

I personally feel that scaling should be done with consideration to how good a certain being can be expected to be.

 

A dragon can be anything from a little puke to a great wyrm, but if it has a reputation for burning down villages, it most likely has some prowess.

 

At the same time, a party of goblins can be expected to be vicious, but perhaps not dangerous to a party of adventurers that single-handedly killed the dragon above. Even if they have magical gear, the average level of a goblin should not be high, unless they've lived through some extreme experiences and actually come out on top.

 

A group of brigands that have only roamed the countryside harassing small farming villages, will probably not be very proficient fighters, or have any special gear, which should become apparent when the dragon slayers decide to help the little man and take care of the brigand threat.

 

On the topic of bosses always being challenging, just apply the above logic. Will a warboss be a fierce foe? Definitely, if he's bent the will of his army by his own might. If he's done it through manipulation - well, his elite guard is most likely quite dangerous.

 

The brigand boss? Most likely, he's not much stronger than the rest of the band, meaning most experienced adventurers would dispatch him quickly, and the handful of bullies that surround him.

 

Would the brigands be challenging to a group of fresh adventurers? Certainly. Would they get utterly destroyed by the warboss in an all-on-one? Definitely.

 

Would the same situation be true for a party of adventurers that have braved the dragon and lived? Would the ability of the brigands change based on that experience? Maybe, if they've even heard of the deed.

 

I think level scaling can be done, but it has to be believable. Is it reasonable that the brigands suddenly become powerful enough to level cities, while only going after small villages? Is it reasonable for a warboss to be defeated by a group of inexperienced adventurers, when he/she has bullied an army to march by himself?

 

tl;dr, I think level scaling works, as long as it doesn't break the suspension of disbelief. (And that happens ALL the time, in all the AAA-games I've played the last ten years. Godspeed, Obsidian.)