Level scaling and its misuse

[Osvir]

Conceptual, not a suggestion, just improvisation.

 

Chapter Based Scaling:

 

* Chapter 1

You are thrown into the world, it is at a current state somehow. The world might be a little bit docile, and little to find or fight. Some bands of bandits lurking about etc. etc. of what you can explore during chapter 1. Maybe you can travel to a Xvarts Village and thwart them somehow.

 

* Chapter 2

Unlocking more areas possible to explore, monsters from both Chapter 1 and newly introduced monsters reacting to how you played in Chapter 1 (non-lethal or lethal) and providing some sort of "counter-evolution" to that ("How many X did you slay in Chapter 1?").

 

* Chapter 3

Further unlocking more areas to explore, perhaps you choose Faction A above Faction B in Chapter 2 and that effects what kinds of soldiers run around guarding cities and towns around the world or whatnot (random towns?). Character/Party gets introduced to the world, starts to gain in reputation. Though, one could possibly take the route to not gain a reputation and choose to stay more suburb?

 

* Chapter 4

Etc. etc. plot related~demon summoned from outer realms~character could be the "Catalyst"? (Knowing the True Name of a Demon side-quest that transforms into Player triggered main quest? :D)

 

On Level Scaling I think you need to bring it into 4 brackets:

 

How does Level Scaling work on Easy?

How does Level Scaling work on Normal?

How does Level Scaling work on Hard?

How does Level Scaling work on Hardcore Ironman?

 

Additionally important, where do you feel you belong?

Edited December 28, 2012 by Osvir

[argan]

I hate level-scaling. I want to be able to go back at a later stage and completely obliterate entire tribes of the damn gnolls/kobolds/goblins/whatevers that swarmed me when I was a weak first level character. (the kind of level scaling present in e.g. Oblivion, that is)

Edited December 29, 2012 by argan

[PrimeJunta]

TLDR:

 

Valorian: "Games should be balanced for knerds. Anyone not playing to maximize his power must suffer. Therefore, the crit path must be scaled assuming that the player has completed all optional content and carefully leveled up and optimized his party. Level scaling detracts from this and is therefore of Satan."

 

PrimeJunta: "Games should be balanced for knights, under the assumption that they haven't been able to fully optimize their character and party and have completed a reasonable number of sidequests, but are not completionists. Judiciously used, level scaling is a tool that can be used to balance the experience even allowing for different party strength in different parts of the game. Knerds should be accommodated through higher difficulty levels."

 

 

No, it's not the opposite because you ridiculously assume that the crit path would have a-walk-in-the-park non-scaled enemies, when in fact it's only logical to assume that devs would design the critical path having in mind a player that has grown in power by doing side quest and exploring the word.

 

Strawman much?

 

 

 

How is it a strawman when you said this yourself: "That without level scaling, the main quest would be so easy it's boring for the most enthusiastic players. Why wouldn't you want it scaled up to your level?"

 

I think what you're saying I'm saying is that the crit path should be designed to be ridiculously easy no matter what. Whereas I'm actually saying that it should be designed for knights, in which case it would be ridiculously easy for knerds.

 

If that is indeed what you're saying I'm saying, you are misrepresenting my position in order to make it easier to argue against it. Strawman.

 

And I think that that is indeed more or less what you're saying I'm saying, based on what you're saying next.

 

I'm only assuming that the game is designed for players who have not played the game through yet, and therefore will inevitably make less than optimal choices through it. They'll pick less effective skill/feat/class combinations, spend their gold on less than optimal items, miss or fail sidequests. This applies to knights and first-playthrough knerds equally.

 

Where's the problem? Respec is confirmed. Easy difficulty is confirmed. Adventurer's Hall is confirmed.

Awww, poor player - he chose a (much) less than optimal build and missed side quests because he didn't bother to explore or tried a bit harder. Let's scale the crit path to his level so he can finish this BOOK without any inconveniences.

 

Oh, but it's not a book, it's a GAME. A game where choices matter, where you need to level-up your party to be good combatants or diplomats or sneakers or good at something. If you fail to do so you have: Respec is confirmed. Easy difficulty is confirmed. Adventurer's Hall is confirmed. And you can always backtrack and try to finish more side quests.

 

Yup, that's the strawman again, right there. Please re-read my post defining knights and knerds, and then come back to this if you're so inclined. It would also help if you calmed down a little; things get unnecessarily complicated if you get too emotional.

 

As for content "not being optional/the game being linear" if the crit path encounters are hard and not scaled down to the player's level. Come on, you can do better than this..

 

There you go, the same strawman again.

 

Once again: I'm not arguing for scaling things down. I'm arguing for scaling them up. Once again: design for knights, accommodate knerds through judicious use of level scaling in selected areas of the game plus harder difficulty levels for repeat play-throughs, accomodate knoobs through easy difficulty levels. Not what you're saying I'm saying.

 

The game doesn't need to be linear at all if it's not level scaled. There can be several areas with level 1-2 enemies, several with level 3-4 enemies, some mixed areas.. etc. If the power curve is not too steep you can defeat even higher level monsters if you use good tactics.

 

Not talking about the main quest anymore, eh? If so, that ain't quite so either. The trouble with areas scaled to a level is that you level up when going through them. So there isn't much point in having "zones" with many more similarly leveled areas than it takes to level you up through them. Otherwise you'll have a couple of levels with approriate challenge and reward, and then many more that are boringly easy and bring no rewards. Or if you make the level spread bigger, that inverted difficulty curve again, depending on which area you stumble upon first.

 

Mutually exclusive content is also optional content. With the crit path not being scaled you can choose to ignore most of the side quests but that will result in the crit path being much harder.. So you can opt to ignore the majority of the game if you so wish and then turn the diffculty down to finish it.

 

In other words, you want to frustrate players who aren't knerds, right? The fools must suffer! If they're not as knerdy as ME! Ooookay.

 

And you're strongly opposed to level scaling of any form, but totally cool with the option of changing difficulty level on the fly? Oookay again, I guess. I disagree strongly.

 

What about the player who finished most of the sidequests and the crit path becomes harder as a result? That's a slap in the face.

 

Yes, that would mean that the level scaling was done poorly. Just like it would be a slap in the face if the final boss died in one hit because you were overpowered. Either way I'd feel cheated. Doing sidequests should absolutely have an effect on the crit path, but the effect should not push it out of the band of enjoyable gaming, into frustratingly difficult or boringly easy territory.

 

Or even a worse scenario, what if he plays ironmode or with limited reloads? Doing side-quests is like shooting yourself in the foot for this kind of playthrough.

 

Yup, that, again, would be an example of level scaling done wrong. That does not mean it should not be done at all.

 

The level scaling rules of thumb are pretty simple really:

 

(1) If doing lots of sidequests makes the crit path harder to complete relative to the actual power of your party, then you've overdone it.

(2) If doing lots of sidequests makes the crit path so easy the game loses its challenge, then you haven't done it enough.

[Valorian]

I always find it amusing how people who argue the least sensible points have the hugest stamina ever when it comes to dissecting posts, sentence by sentence, and then spewing nonsense over and over again after each paragraph.

 

PrimeJunta, I had hoped you'd stop with the nonsense by now, but you've doubled it.

 

Let's reiterate some facts, just for you:

 

A) Finishing the crit path in a GAME, especially a game heavy on choices and consequences, is not a God-given right.

 

B) It's especially not a God-given right for those who don't want to work on improving the character they're playing, for those who have mistaken rpgs for interactive novels, and for those who can't find the difficulty slider and silde it down to "easy".

 

C) Silly classifications aside (knoobs, knerds... knoodles etc.), rpgs are not rocket science, every player should be able to grasp the basics and face challenges without mommy Levylla Scallyng staying by his/her side and breastfeeding when baby Junita starts crying hysterically - because, it's a GAME.

 

In a game, people can lose sometimes. It's a shocking concept, I know...

[Valorian]

Oh, and one more thing, because you've confused yourself with your own nonsense.

 

 

Your points about "scaling up" instead of "scaling down" are completely irrelevant because it's a matter of in-game perspective - if you're a level 5 character facing a crit path monster that scales from level 6-12 it would be scaled down to level 6. If you're a level 11 character it would be scaled up to level 11.

 

Level scaling always accomodates the knoodle because it makes life for the knoodle easier by keeping monsters at a lower level and makes life harder for the higher level player by making monsters tougher.

[Osvir]

^So basically you both agree that Hardcore should be Hardcore and Easy should be Easy?

[PrimeJunta]

A) Finishing the crit path in a GAME, especially a game heavy on choices and consequences, is not a God-given right.

 

Quite.

 

B) It's especially not a God-given right for those who don't want to work on improving the character they're playing, for those who have mistaken rpgs for interactive novels, and for those who can't find the difficulty slider and silde it down to "easy".

 

Indubitably.

 

I would add: neither is it a God-given right to expect that a game is designed, by default, for completionist, powergamer knerds, while making it nigh-on unplayable by knights and knoobs.

 

What makes you more entitled to this type of design than the knoob to his easy-peasy waltz-through?

 

C) Silly classifications aside (knoobs, knerds... knoodles etc.), rpgs are not rocket science, every player should be able to grasp the basics and face challenges without mommy Levylla Scallyng staying by his/her side and breastfeeding when baby Junita starts crying hysterically - because, it's a GAME.

 

Uh-huh.

 

That's your pet strawman rearing up its golden head again. Looks like you caught yourself with your next message though. I commend you for that. Perhaps next time you'll take a deep breath before posting, hmm?

 

In a game, people can lose sometimes. It's a shocking concept, I know...

 

Not really in a computer game without permadeath, though. You can abandon a character for whatever reason and start another or dump the whole game, naturally, but you can't really lose since dying and reloading from a save is more or less an expected part of gameplay.

 

(From your other post:)

 

 

Your points about "scaling up" instead of "scaling down" are completely irrelevant because it's a matter of in-game perspective - if you're a level 5 character facing a crit path monster that scales from level 6-12 it would be scaled down to level 6. If you're a level 11 character it would be scaled up to level 11.

 

Level scaling always accomodates the knoodle because it makes life for the knoodle easier by keeping monsters at a lower level and makes life harder for the higher level player by making monsters tougher.

You're still taking examples of level scaling done wrong. I.e., scaling an encounter to the precise level of your character/party. I agree, that would be boring, as it would eliminate all variability in challenge, and would make everything the same. It's precisely the kind of ham-handed brute-force thing Oblivion is infamous for, and I'm quite sure the P:E devs aren't dumb enough to do it that way. I repeat: I am totally opposed to brute-force level scaling where all encounters are scaled precisely to your level.

 

However, there are many other ways to do it, many of which have been explored in this thread. Since you appear to have missed them and don't appear to be very interested in hearing what I have to say about them, though, I won't waste your time by exploring them more here.

 

Anyhoo, since you didn't address any of the points I raised, I'll take that as a concession.

 

Whatever your feelings about level scaling -- and, yes, it will be in the game -- I hope both of us will enjoy it anyway.

[Valorian]

I would add: neither is it a God-given right to expect that a game is designed, by default, for completionist, powergamer knerds, while making it nigh-on unplayable by knights and knoobs.

 

So doing side quests is powergaming now? Playing the game and exploring the world has somehow become a degenerashun in itself?

The ridiculous in your posts keeps getting stronger and stronger with each post you make.

 

A sports team is training for the championship, the culmination of their career as adventurers sportsmen. They start facing strong teams as they advance, but they haven't really trained much. Suddenly, they lose 10:0. "OMG! Powergamers and completionists beat us! Quick, let's contact Junita for an advice how to deal with it."

"Ah, k, we should just ask the teams to scale themselves down to our level and problem solved."

 

 

 

 

And actually I'm not quoting/responding to big chunks of your posts because the vast majority of it is not worthy of a response and I just fast scroll/read through it.

[PrimeJunta]

So doing side quests is powergaming now? Playing the game and exploring the world has somehow become a degenerashun in itself?

 

Yes, dear. That's exactly what I'm saying. I commend you for your reading-comprehension skills.

[Valorian]

So doing side quests is powergaming now? Playing the game and exploring the world has somehow become a degenerashun in itself?

 

Yes, dear. That's exactly what I'm saying. I commend you for your reading-comprehension skills.

 

You're implying it Junita by bringing powergamers and "completionists" (lumping them together too) in a discussion about level scaling as an "argument" in favor of it. But I'm not surprised you don't get it because you've confused yourself with all the nonsense you've written so far to the point of completely losing the compass.

 

Look this horror over there! A player completed many side quests and then used level ups on smart character building choices. Let's label him a powergamer and completionist!

Also, easy difficulty is not enough! Players who consistenly make dumb choices (including character building choices) should be rewarded with monsters scaled down to their level!

Players who do make smart choices should be punished with enemies scaled up to their level!

[Lephys]

And actually I'm not quoting/responding to big chunks of your posts because the vast majority of it is not worthy of a response and I just fast scroll/read through it.

 

Your ignorance of huge portions of his posts is quite obvious. And, this isn't a personal attack, but merely a constructive observation: If you're not going to read someone's actual post in a discussion, then you're simply rolling the dice on whether or not your response is actually applicable to the discussion (the discussion being comprised solely of everyone's collective posts in a given thread).

 

Seriously, whatever merits can be found in all of your posts as a whole, you just argued about 4 times in a row how bad down-scaling to the player's level would be, when Junta specifically emphasized about 4 times in a row that he did not advocate such a mechanic.

 

I don't see how that's constructive in the least. If someone says "you're right" on some point, and you turn around and say "Wow, you are STILL wrong!", what are we even supposed to think?

 

 

Touching on some of the main points of level-scaling:

 

1) Difficulty settings are there specifically to scale the entire playthrough. If you want things to be easier, you pick an easier difficulty. Getting a level 20 party with vorpal blades isn't intended to make everything easy, it's intended to allow you to take on more difficult challenges by dragging them from impossible down toward relatively challenging. Want things to be easy? Easy difficulty would bring that "relatively challenging" down to a "barely challenging."

 

2) You either have to have a linear game (in the sense that you HAVE to do all the stuff in the game, and not necessarily in the sense that there aren't different paths to take through all of said content), or have a game that offers non-mandatory options. If failing to complete all (or 90%) of the side/contextual quests and content prevents you from being able to complete the mandatory parts of the game, then you've basically eliminated the "non-mandatory" bit. It's absolutely correct that no degree of scaling implementation would be needed in this situation, but it still doesn't address the "what if you want more optional stuff for various other game design purposes?" dilemma. Without some form of scaling, that remains un-addressed in such an event.

 

3) Scaling can be done using innumerable factors to a variety of degrees, and it doesn't need to come into play until AFTER you've surpassed an enemy's level. For example, if the average player is going to reach a boss at (player) level 7, and the boss is designed to be level 9 for that purpose, then the player who RUSHES to the boss is obviously going to have a tough time of things. Regardless of the level numbers, maybe it's POSSIBLE to beat the boss at such at level 5, just reallllly realllly hard. If that player wants to beat the boss at that level, but doesn't want to suffer such a penalty, then they can exploit the difficulty settings, once again. If they want to play on Normal or Hard and do a speed run, then they have to deal with the path they've chosen. However, if a player does ALL possible optional content (exploration, additional little detailed side quests, gotten all the best equipment via crafting, etc.) that we're assuming you don't want to require ALL players to do just to be capable of overcoming story milestones, let's say that player is level 12 when he reaches the boss. Well, maybe the boss gets scaled up to level 10 or 11 (not necessarily 12) to prevent him from doing 30 damage and having 500 hit points against your party that all has 25 AC and 300 hit points a piece and deals 100 damage a piece. Obviously there are plenty of factors incorporated into a level, which is why the way you scale, and how much, depends on the specifics of these factors.

 

Relying on character progression to achieve "easiness" is a slap in the face to the difficulty system. Instead of selecting "easy," you're imposing your own chorish way of achieving the same goal, and, at the same time, you're taking all the challenge out of the game for those who want to explore everything and complete all the side content but still want a challenge.

 

How is the main villain/threat in the game a legitimate threat if he can be EASILY vanquished by a mithril blade +10? He might as well be a heavy appliance. "Oh my gosh, how will we ever lift this?! It's going to take over the world! Wait... I'll go gather up lots of ore, and we'll forge... A DOLLY! Wow... now vanquishing that evil, doomsday appliance is just as easy as flipping a light switch! 8D! Thanks, dolly!"

 

Regardless of what anyone wants or likes more or less in games, you have to look at gameplay mechanics objectively. There are observable problems that scaling was created to address. And just because it CAN be done terribly and it does have cons to watch out for doesn't mean it's inherently bad. Unless you can provide evidence that it's inherently bad, besides citing very specific implementations of set values within a field of highly variable factors, there's no reason to believe it is.

 

Too much heat burns down houses. That doesn't mean temperature is bad.

 

The point of this thread is to discuss what specific implementations ARE bad, what makes them bad, and how we can use that knowledge to figure out how to do it not-bad.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Lephys

[Valorian]

Seriously, whatever merits can be found in all of your posts as a whole, you just argued about 4 times in a row how bad down-scaling to the player's level would be, when Junta literally emphasized about 4 times in a row that he did not advocate such a mechanic.

 

 

And how would a system where you only level scale up without level scaling down look like?

 

Imagine a character that is level 5 and then a character that is level 12 who face a monster that is only supposed to "up-scale". Tell me.

[Somna]

Seriously, whatever merits can be found in all of your posts as a whole, you just argued about 4 times in a row how bad down-scaling to the player's level would be, when Junta literally emphasized about 4 times in a row that he did not advocate such a mechanic.

 

 

And how would a system where you only level scale up without level scaling down look like?

 

Imagine a character that is level 5 and then a character that is level 12 who face a monster that is only supposed to "up-scale". Tell me.

 

Wizardry 8 on a speed run.

[Valorian]

1) Difficulty settings are there specifically to scale the entire playthrough. If you want things to be easier, you pick an easier difficulty. Getting a level 20 party with vorpal blades isn't intended to make everything easy, it's intended to allow you to take on more difficult challenges by dragging them from impossible down toward relatively challenging. Want things to be easy? Easy difficulty would bring that "relatively challenging" down to a "barely challenging."

 

Which has nothing to do with level scaling.

I mentioned the easy difficulty as a solution for the "knoobs" who would find the non-scaled crit path too hard.

 

 

2) You either have to have a linear game (in the sense that you HAVE to do all the stuff in the game, and not necessarily in the sense that there aren't different paths to take through all of said content), or have a game that offers non-mandatory options. If failing to complete all (or 90%) of the side/contextual quests and content prevents you from being able to complete the mandatory parts of the game, then you've basically eliminated the "non-mandatory" bit. It's absolutely correct that no degree of scaling implementation would be needed in this situation, but it still doesn't address the "what if you want more optional stuff for various other game design purposes?" dilemma. Without some form of scaling, that remains un-addressed in such an event.

 

This is simply not true.

Mutually exclusive content is also optional content. Players can choose one path or the otrher, but not both, for instance.

 

 

3) Scaling can be done using innumerable factors to a variety of degrees, and it doesn't need to come into play until AFTER you've surpassed an enemy's level. For example, if the average player is going to reach a boss at (player) level 7, and the boss is designed to be level 9 for that purpose, then the player who RUSHES to the boss is obviously going to have a tough time of things. Regardless of the level numbers, maybe it's POSSIBLE to beat the boss at such at level 5, just reallllly realllly hard. If that player wants to beat the boss at that level, but doesn't want to suffer such a penalty, then they can exploit the difficulty settings, once again. If they want to play on Normal or Hard and do a speed run, then they have to deal with the path they've chosen. However, if a player does ALL possible optional content (exploration, additional little detailed side quests, gotten all the best equipment via crafting, etc.) that we're assuming you don't want to require ALL players to do just to be capable of overcoming story milestones, let's say that player is level 12 when he reaches the boss. Well, maybe the boss gets scaled up to level 10 or 11 (not necessarily 12) to prevent him from doing 30 damage and having 500 hit points against your party that all has 25 AC and 300 hit points a piece and deals 100 damage a piece. Obviously there are plenty of factors incorporated into a level, which is why the way you scale, and how much, depends on the specifics of these factors.

 

Again, incorrect.

You keep mentioning some kind of "scaling up", which is nonsensical; this is simply a level scaling sytsem where you have a minimal level for each area/monster, like in DA:O. Which is basically the same feces.

 

 

Relying on character progression to achieve "easiness" is a slap in the face to the difficulty system. Instead of selecting "easy," you're imposing your own chorish way of achieving the same goal, and, at the same time, you're taking all the challenge out of the game for those who want to explore everything and complete all the side content but still want a challenge.

 

Still incorrect. The thing I'm proposing would make the crit path challenging for a person who actually invested some time into playing the game and doing side quests, and admittedly very challenging or almost impossible for a person who wished to run straight through the plot.

It wouldn't be challenging only if there was an unlimited amount of xp available in the game, but that would be a horrible design decision.

[Lephys]

Which has nothing to do with level scaling.

I mentioned the easy difficulty as a solution for the "knoobs" who would find the non-scaled crit path too hard.

 

Actually, it does, because it's literally the same thing but with the entire playthrough, rather than individual encounters/areas/foes. Whether you change the actual level number, or you change the values of the attributes encompassed within level increments, you're scaling for the sake of challenge, and you're using levels and the changes in attribute/skill/pool values that levels organize in order to do so. So, it's quite pertinent.

 

Difficulty settings are already in place to scale the entire batch of gameplay, whatever it is (doesn't even have to be an RPG... RPGs just tend to use the level system.) Therefore, you'd expect to have the difficulty as a basis for the relative challenge of everything from there on out. Rats are obviously easier than Earth Elementals, but they're both derived from the same difficulty setting. Which is exactly why I was stating that advancement (both in gear and stats/abilities) should never be used to make the game easier.

 

An Earth Elemental should never be as easy as a rat. Otherwise, the developers could have simply put in rats. You only have so many alternatives to this. Swap to a different enemy (even if the story would've been better with the same enemy type there) that's tougher whenever Earth Elementals become too easy (which is essentially level-scaling in disguise), limit the player's advancement such that all optional content in a given area can remain at a static level, or make a purely linear game (so you always know what level the player's going to be at each encounter.)

 

This is simply not true.

Mutually exclusive content is also optional content. Players can choose one path or the otrher, but not both, for instance.

 

You are correct. The fault was in my wording. I simply meant that whether or not you have mutually exclusive content is beside the point in the relationship to which I was referring. I apologize for the confusion.

 

Again, incorrect.

You keep mentioning some kind of "scaling up", which is nonsensical; this is simply a level scaling sytsem where you have a minimal level for each area/monster, like in DA:O. Which is basically the same feces.

 

How is it nonsense? It's nonsense because this would mean there's a minimum level? The fact that DA:O did it is completely circumstantial. I didn't refer to the way in which DA:O did it or the details of DA:O in any way, shape, or fashion. You're saying that scaling down is stupid (I agree... LITERALLY the purpose of easier difficulty modes, again), but that somehow means that only scaling up is nonsense? You've merely stated that it's nonsense, and that DA:O did it, and that it's feces. You have not provided any evidence and/or reasoning.

 

Still incorrect. The thing I'm proposing would make the crit path challenging for a person who actually invested some time into playing the game and doing side quests, and admittedly very challenging or almost impossible for a person who wished to run straight through the plot.

It wouldn't be challenging only if there was an unlimited amount of xp available in the game, but that would be a horrible design decision.

 

But the only two options aren't:

 

A) A fixed amount of exp in the game, and the challenge of the game is scaled to the attainment of ALL of it.

 

B) Unlimited XP in the game, and everything's always scaled to the player's level.

 

There's a whole range in between those two implementations. Which is what is being heavily suggested, that you're so opposed to.

 

You're basically arguing for the exact same thing as we are. You want there to be a challenge, even if you do everything. Only difference? You're suggesting that the people who don't do everything in the game should get penalized, OR that you should be required to do everything in the game (I should say "everything that is possible to be done within one playthrough" to accomodate the mutually-exclusive branch-options thing). There's a range between speed run and did-everything, too.

 

There are reasons for implementing content that is supportive of but not integral to the main story of the game, just as there are reasons to allow for any-order side quest batches. Under such circumstances, you cannot scale the challenges appropriately from the get-go without herding the player onto a linear path. If you make the side quests lvls 4,5,6,7, and 8, respectively, then the vast majority of people are going to do them in the order of their levels. Thus, you're encouraging linear gameplay. And if you do them OUT of order, to try to give yourself more of a challenge, then you're going to do the 6 and 7 one first, thereby making the 4 and 5 ones basically challengeless (which is exactly what you're saying shouldn't occur... things failing to present a challenge at all.)

 

Also, there's a huge difference between making sure intentionally-challenging things don't become too easy, and making sure they never ever become any easier at all. The same goes for "too challenging." There's a difference between making sure the people who skip EVERYTHING are pretty much screwed, and making sure the people who skip ANYTHING are pretty much screwed.

[Valorian]

Which has nothing to do with level scaling.

I mentioned the easy difficulty as a solution for the "knoobs" who would find the non-scaled crit path too hard.

 

Actually, it does, because it's literally the same thing but with the entire playthrough, rather than individual encounters/areas/foes. Whether you change the actual level number, or you change the values of the attributes encompassed within level increments, you're scaling for the sake of challenge, and you're using levels and the changes in attribute/skill/pool values that levels organize in order to do so. So, it's quite pertinent.

 

 

...

The fact that you're equating difficulty levels with the imbecilic concept called level scaling shows that you have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about.

You honestly don't see a substantial difference between monsters' levels/power being decided on the fly in relation to the player's level and the monster's power being decided by a game options slider that affects all monsters regardless of the player's level?

 

In fact, if there's a difficulty slider, why wouldn't there be a level scaling slider?

Because as it is now, a player can decide to turn the difficulty up or down, but I can't use an option to turn off level scaling which is ruining my experience.

 

So you and Junta can knock yourself out with all the level scaling you want, including scaling squirrels up or down to your level, and I can play the damn game without any traces of it.

 

 

You are correct. The fault was in my wording. I simply meant that whether or not you have mutually exclusive content is beside the point in the relationship to which I was referring. I apologize for the confusion.

 

No, it's not beside the point because mutually exclusive content is also optional content.

I will remind you, in case you forgot, that the point you and Junta were making was that if you have to complete most of the side quests for the crit path to not be too hard/impossible; then it's not optional content any more.

Including mutually exclusive content means that the player gets to choose what side quests to explore (optional content), complete them all, and still have a challenging non-scaled crit path balanced around the player who completed a lot of side content.

 

Not that I think it's necessary, but since you clearly have a problem with the notion that the crit path should be balanced for a player who completed most side quests and that side content would suddenly become "non-optional".. there you go.

 

 

 

 

How is it nonsense? It's nonsense because this would mean there's a minimum level? The fact that DA:O did it is completely circumstantial. I didn't refer to the way in which DA:O did it or the details of DA:O in any way, shape, or fashion. You're saying that scaling down is stupid (I agree... LITERALLY the purpose of easier difficulty modes, again), but that somehow means that only scaling up is nonsense? You've merely stated that it's nonsense, and that DA:O did it, and that it's feces. You have not provided any evidence and/or reasoning.

 

Again, you didn't understand anything.

It's nonsense that you're referring to it as "scaling up", when in fact you're just proposing a level scaling range, which has been done in other games. Level scaling is feces and it has been explained why many times, but you're still dead set that it can be done right if you give it some cute little boundaries. A feces doesn't become any better if it's "neatly" packaged.

 

It's not my problem that you don't comprehend the reasoning and don't understand why tying the monster's level to the player's level in any shape or form is counter-intuitive and idiotic. Which doesn't mean I am talking only about level scaling in which content is scaled always exactly to your level. Bolded to stress the part you also keep getting confused about. I am talking about "your" little level scaling "improvement", as well.

 

 

 

 

But the only two options aren't:

 

 

A) A fixed amount of exp in the game, and the challenge of the game is scaled to the attainment of ALL of it.

 

B) Unlimited XP in the game, and everything's always scaled to the player's level.

 

 

Or how about...

 

C) A fixed amount of exp in the game, and the challenge of the CRITICAL PATH is BALANCED around the attainment of MOST of it.

 

Let's say, 75% of it.

 

The player who did only 50% would have a hard time but still maybe manage to get through the crit path, a player who did 95% of the side content would have an easier time. If he's that good, what the hell, let him enjoy having an easier time through the main quest since he probably faced enough hard challenges to complete almost all side quests. And the player still has the freaking DIFFICULTY slider, I haven't heard about a 'kill level scaling with fire' game OPTION from PE devs yet.

 

The fundamental thing you don't get is that level scaling in any form is ruining the experience for many players, REGARDLESS of the difficulty, which you can adjust with the difficulty slider anyway.

 

You spew that level scaling and difficulty settings are "literally the same thing" and then you wonder why I'm skipping your nonsensical walls of text; I skip it becasue I know that if the premise is filled with logical fallacy holes like a sponge, the rest won't be any better.

[PrimeJunta]

Woah, what was that about stamina again, Val?

 

Anyway, let me try to recap this discussion one more time, as compactly as I'm able:

 

You appear to be saying that a game should be designed so that there's only one enjoyable way to play it, viz. complete all sidequests and make as effective a party as the system allows. Level scaling is bad because it accommodates players who, for whatever reason, do not play in this way.

 

I disagree this position. It strikes me as contrary to the goals of a game explicitly designed to provide a variety of different experiences and significant replayability potential through open areas, large swathes of optional content, a large base of party members to draw from, and a complex and open character development system.

 

What I'm sayin' is that a well-designed game -- especially a game designed to provide a variety of experiences etc. -- should accommodate multiple styles of players, and for such a game, especially if it is combat-heavy, well applied level scaling can help achieve this. I'm also saying that any style of player will benefit from this design approach: people who enjoy a combat challenge but ignore the lore will still find the deeper lore written for people who don't care for combat but love story makes a difference.

 

I sincerely apologize if I've said something to upset you. That's not my intention. And since I only seem to be making you more upset as I go, I think it's best I drop this for now; in any case, I've said everything I have to say on the topic.

 

Finally, what you're looking for would certainly be easy to mod in. All you'd have to do is set a switch that would scale all encounters to their maximum level, regardless of party strength.

[Valorian]

Whatever your feelings about level scaling -- and, yes, it will be in the game -- I hope both of us will enjoy it anyway.

....

 

And, once again, in a game with a significant amount of optional content and a significant amount of openness, you will either have to have a very, very creative design, or some form of level scaling, or frustrate everybody but the small minority who happen to do stuff in the order the designer intended it

 

Dear PJ,

I hope this doesn't frustrate you even further, but there won't be any level scaling in general exploration, side quests and optional content. Which is unfortunate for you, because I fear that the completely UNscaled openness of the game, coupled with your play style, could cause you to experience unheard-of levels of utter frustration.

 

"Project Eternity will have very little level scaling and almost entirely in critical path areas since there’s a lot of variability in when players approach them. Especially when it comes to optional content and general exploration, there will be no level-scaling."

 

"I don't know where this topic came from, but I don't expect to use level scaling much, if at all, in PE."

 

 

 

I sincerely hope you can enjoy the game and tone down the hysteria when you notice, with shock and horror, that the vast majority of content doesn't scale down to your level, at all.

 

 

Oh, and also, I'm kind of for you that you're among the 2% who are frustrated by the lack of (substantial) level scaling.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60248-level-scaling/

[PrimeJunta]

You do realize, Valorian, that I just explicitly stated that I would not like to see level scaling in optional areas? Crit-path level scaling is all I'm asking for, really. And I'm asking for it because I expect to be on a higher level than the design default once well into the game, due to my powergaming/completionist proclivities. Like it or not, they are not going to design the crit path with the assumption that you will have completed every bit of optional content all the time. You seem to be laboring under the misconception that I'm a casual gamer who can't handle the challenge and complexities of a tough cRPG. Well, you would be wrong about that. I've ascended most of the classes in NetHack {with no save-scumming or pudding farming} for crying out loud.

 

The difference between you and me is that you appear to hold gamers who play games in other ways than you do in great disdain, whereas I believe there are many perfectly enjoyable and legit ways of enjoying the game and would like to see designers make an effort to accomodate as many of them as they can without compromising their overall vision.

 

Why, other than general humanitarianism? Because I, just like you, am a minority of one, and I, just like you, will benefit if designers make an effort to accomodate such minorities.

[Valorian]

You do realize, Valorian, that I just explicitly stated that I would not like to see level scaling in optional areas? Crit-path level scaling is all I'm asking for, really.

 

You wrote this:

And, once again, in a game with a significant amount of optional content and a significant amount of openness, you will either have to have a very, very creative design, or some form of level scaling, or frustrate everybody but the small minority who happen to do stuff in the order the designer intended it

...

 

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.

 

 

In which you imply that openness and optional content would be frustrating (for everybody, even) without level scaling, unless done in a specific order.

So unless when you mentioned openness, optional content, the mid-game and doing stuff in a specific order you actually meant doing the "critical path" (and it's called path for a reason) in the order the designer intended it .. then what you're stating now is not quite true.

You didn't mention the critical path until I did.

 

The difference between you and me is that you appear to hold gamers who play games in other ways than you do in great disdain, whereas I believe there are many perfectly enjoyable and legit ways of enjoying the game and would like to see designers make an effort to accomodate as many of them as they can without compromising their overall vision.

 

 

I'm not sure whether you're simply confused or outright lying.

 

Level scaling affects my enjoyment of the game. I already explained to you that I don't care how somebody else plays the game and the irony is that you apparently do:

And you're strongly opposed to level scaling of any form, but totally cool with the option of changing difficulty level on the fly? Oookay again, I guess. I disagree strongly.

 

 

I wonder if the critical path level scaling will be to your liking, because from what I've read it seems there will be little level scaling even in those critical path areas. I mean, if there's enough of it to not make the game too railroaded, frustrating, boring and linear for you...

[Osvir]

^So basically PrimeJunta would like a game that accommodates to as many different players as possible, and Valorian would like a game that accommodates only to him?

 

*popcorn*

[PrimeJunta]

I wonder if the critical path level scaling will be to your liking, because from what I've read it seems there will be little level scaling even in those critical path areas. I mean, if there's enough of it to not make the game too railroaded, frustrating, boring and linear for you...

 

Walp, we'll see when we'll see, won't we? I did find the crit path encounters in BG2 to be too easy towards the end of the game (and occasionally frustratingly hard in the early part of the game, before I figured out which ones were best to do first, i.e., NOT Firkraag), which detracted significantly from my experience. OTOH much of the optional content made up for it. Loved those liches. I do hope P:E will manage to do better, and provide interesting gameplay challenges even for later "optimized" playthroughs.

 

I think MotB is a pretty good example of how to do it right in terms of level of combat challenge. That makes me feel pretty good about the prospects for P:E. (Of course epic-level D&D is ridiculous in many ways as it is, but that's a different matter.)

[Valorian]

^So basically PrimeJunta would like a game that accommodates to as many different players as possible, and Valorian would like a game that accommodates only to him?

 

The logic class wasn't your forte in high school (and later on, obviously), right?

 

How does PJ's pro level scaling stance accomodate the interests of as many players as possible when there was a poll on the PE forum in which out of more than 600 people, 94% voted against level scaling?

 

Not to mention that he is "strongly against" giving players the option to change the difficulty setting during the game, which doesn't affect him at all, unless he has an obsessive-compulsive disorder and can't resist the urge to change the difficulty all the time himself.

On the other hand I really wouldn't mind if there was an option to turn level scaling on, for those 2% out of 600+ that appreciate it.

 

A sports team is training for the championship, the culmination of their career as adventurers sportsmen. They start facing strong teams as they advance, but they haven't really trained much. Suddenly, they lose 10:0. "OMG! Powergamers and completionists beat us! Quick, let's contact Junita for an advice how to deal with it."

"Ah, k, we should just ask the teams to scale themselves down to our level and problem solved."

 

It's better than Valdorkian:

"Let's train for the next year and we will beat them because they will stay exactly the same level, because only our team is capable of improving and level up our skills."

 

Your points about "scaling up" instead of "scaling down" are completely irrelevant because it's a matter of in-game perspective - if you're a level 5 character facing a crit path monster that scales from level 6-12 it would be scaled down to level 6.

 

Valdorkian train(wreck) of thoughts:

"Of look the price for X is 600$, it was 600$ yesterday they scaled down the price, what a bargain I should buy it immediately"

 

Amusing...

 

Cpt Sharp Banality, the opposing team probably did train and improve, even if you weren't there to witness it, but their improvement wasn't directly tied in any way to your team's improvement. That's the little detail you seem to miss over and over and over... again.

 

Also, cutie pie, your second shot at a "counter-example" (or whatever that was) made even less sense in this context, but whatever floats your sinking logic-boat. Please, just don't spend the New Year celebrations overloading your brain with attempts at witty retorts and other pearls of wisdom. Although, there is one thing you're good at, which you've shown immediately upon registering; ironic nicknames.

[PrimeJunta]

Of course we know the majority is always right. Now, how many copies did Oblivion sell, again?

[Valorian]

Of course we know the majority is always right. Now, how many copies did Oblivion sell, again?

 

You're funny, I was responding to your forum buddy who claimed that your pro level stance "accommodates to as many different players as possible", which is a blatant lie. You need to follow the flow of the tangent if you want to add anything relevant to it.

 

The majority is not always right, no. Neither are minorities always right.

Speaking of minorities there is also, for example, a minority of delusional, but very persistent people who need a reality check.