Level scaling and its misuse

[Ganrich]

I have a love/hate relationship with level scaling. I can tolerate it in many games, but not to the extent Oblivion used it. I definitely don't want a bandit trying to rob me of 100GP when he/she is wearing armor that could sell for 10 times that amount (In Oblivion the Bandits could have Daedric armor....).

 

I think certain creatures should have caps. We don't need level 30 goblins rolling around everywhere in the lower level areas when you come back. However, a more diverse group of goblins, or a larger and more diverse group would be fine. Some level scaling... maybe.

 

I would prefer an increase in enemy numbers or a change in the group composition of the enemies as opposed to full on scaling of their levels. For instance, let's say, if an encounter had 5 melees and a mage when your party is around level 6 then the composition should be 8-10 melees and a mage, or 5 melees 4 archers and a mage, etc when the party is level 12.

 

I definitely don't believe everything should stay at my level as I play the game. To counter an argument made a page or two back... A bandit group hunting and theiving won't get as much experience in a fortnight as my group storming 15 levels of the endless dungeon. No way some deer, and some mercs + merchants equals the monsters in said dungeon. I just don't see it. We are comparing the xp values of fauna to beholders, and likely there will be more beholders than the fauna in that period of time.

 

I am sure scaling of one form or another is going to be in, and I am pretty sure the devs have said it will be. I just hope it is done well, and not lazily tacked on. This subject is right up there with some games using more HP as a difference in difficulty. The enemies do the same damage, and have the same mitigation... So, you just have to hit them more because their hit pool doubled from normal to hard difficulty. That isn't fun, nor hard to accomplish as a dev. All in all, I think we will have to wait and see.

[Lephys]

...

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.

 

Look, man... All I'm doing is simply observing observably true things. I don't know why your responses are so laden with "Ha-HAH! MY thing wins and YOURS is feces!!!" Not only are your words pretty devoid of reason, but I'm not even talking about things that I personally crafted on a logical pottery wheel out of some opinion-clay. It doesn't even matter if P:E uses level-scaling or not. I'm here to discuss "Level Scaling and Its Misuse." And that's what I'm doing.

 

Of course I'm comparing level-scaling and difficulty. It's literally the same concept. Assuming "Normal" is the point of origin, the difficulty setting LITERALLY scales (look up the definiton of the word scale) the difficulty of the game (which is heavily based upon groupings of numerical values called "levels") throughout an entire instance of play. What does it matter if the level of that goblin in that cave was prophesied by a magical, talking Leopluradon 3 million years ago, or if it was determined 3 seconds before your computer loaded it on-screen? The goblin's either as challenging as it's intended to be, or it isn't. That's what matters. You give me a non-level-scaled system and write down all the levels of all the creatures and opponents throughout the entire game in a spreadsheet, and I guarantee you there's a mathematical formula in existence that can derive those EXACT same values, throughout the entire game, purely from the player's level at the time. So, the only difference is HOW you do the math. It's all just math. Lots of it.

 

Also:

A) Point out ONE place in which I stated that a slider for level-scaling would be impossible, and that there wouldn't be one.

B) Explain to me how level-scaling, in all it's terrible, ferocious awfulness, is immune to being altered by difficulty settings. Please. I would really love to know how it is logically impossible for the level-scaling formula to shift to produce lower output values for Easy and higher ones for Hard.

 

 

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

 

Actually, it is. You clearly misunderstood the point (or just didn't care about it in the first place, *shrug*). My point was that, even if you have 1,000,000,000 different branches at some point, and choosing one of them eliminates the availability of all the other paths, that doesn't change the fact that if you choose ZERO of those paths, you gain absolutely nothing in character advancement. Therefore, unless you require all things to be done, your level calculations that you made at the outset of the game for all encounters throughout are going to have to be based on the assumption that:

 

A)The player completes ALL content.

B)The player completes NO optional content and only gets advancement from the mandatory content.

C)The player completes some amount of optional content.

 

You stated that you feel balancing it with approximately 75% of the completed content in mind is a pretty good idea. And, you know what? If you're going to do a game that way, then that's probably not a bad guesstimate. I wouldn't mind playing a game like that. However, that doesn't change the fact that you're still going to have some people do 50% of the "optional" stuff, or less, and the game's going to be impossible. You say "Well, good, those people suck, and they should've done 75% of it." Well, that sounds grade when you're just talking percentages and numbers and generic content. But, there are reasons for people to not want to do quite that much of it.

 

Perhaps 10% of it contains complex puzzles, and someone's really bad with puzzles. Maybe another 15% involves lots of exploration, and someone doesn't like super-meticulous exploration. Maybe there's some based on lore. Maybe someone doesn't like to super-read all the lore that much. Basically, you add all those things together, and you probably aren't going to get an exact number. And, principally, if you're going to let players choose, then it's a bit silly to say "You get to decide how to handle these situations that could easily go uhandled from a story standpoint, but you have to handle 75% of them PURELY because you need your damage and armor to be high enough for the last boss!" That's the same concept as the turn-based RPGs of old (final fantasy) with unlimited experience and ridiculously difficult bosses. I mean, that's pretty much how the term "grind" came about. You do things PURELY to make sure you're high enough level, rather than because they need doing and/or you'd like to do them.

 

Annnnnnd, you've still got the fact that the people who are going to do 100% of all the available optional content. What about them? Based on your "reasoning" regarding the whole "if you have a level range of 6-12 for an enemy, and it's level 6, you're scaling it DOWN to level 6" thing, you're scaling that 100%-ers challenge DOWN to the 75%-er's level, thereby ruining their experience. They didn't necessarily explore everything and complete every quest SO THAT the final bit of the game would be drastically easier, and yet it is! Doesn't matter what your opinion is, or what my opinion is... that's an unintended effect right there, and that's the truth. So, you can either say "SCREW YOU" to those people who want to make the most out of the developers' hard work, or you can use some form of adjustment, aka "scaling" to remedy that. Talk about "ruining your experience."

 

Or you can just balance the game for 100% completion. Problem solved, since you don't care about the people who complete LESS than the 75% estimate. That wouldn't be inherently wrong. That would just be a game that basically provides no optional content. It would all be critical content. It just may not work as well.

 

Another observable dilemma... If stuff's optional, but the final boss's difficulty assumes you've completed 75% of the "optional" content, then what happens when someone completes 60% and gets to the end of the game and can't even come close to beating the final boss? Are they supposed to just start the whole game over and complete more content? Does the game FORCIBLY make sure they complete that 75% before they get to the final boss, to remedy things? If so, how is that not linear? If it's because of the extra 25%, then we're back to the down-scaling for completionists problem.

 

If you don't see why someone thought up level-scaling one day by now, and that it isn't inherently feces, then I don't know what else to say, really.

 

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.

 

You've actually explained why about 0 times. All you've done is pointed out blatantly terrible implementations of level-scaling, and/or a few of its potential cons (depending on how, exactly, it's done), then said "and therefore, i.e. it logically follows that it is feces because I believe it is, u_u!" Feces doesn't change when you wrap it with a pretty package, you're right. Which is precisely why I never said we should wrap feces with a pretty package. If you spent more time logically deducing how the scaling of numbers is inherently feces and less time trying to convince me that feces cannot be alchemically transmuted into gold, we might be getting somewhere.

 

And actually, it is sort of your problem, depending on how you look at it, because I'm here in search of a greater mutual understanding of the topic being discussed. So, every word you type with a blatant disregard for anyone else's understanding in mind is another thing for me to scour for reason. You see, even if you don't care to read other people's words, I actually read all of yours, because I didn't decide that you're wrong before you began typing. I evaluate on-the-fly, kind of like level-scaling, 8D!

[Lephys]

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?

 

You're right. If people don't want something, then it logically can't possibly accomodate their interests. That's why, if you took a pool, asking how many people want to pay taxes, I'm sure 100% would say "I LOVE TAXES! 8D". Because, you know, people aren't capable of being unreasonable. Or, if you break your leg and go to the doctor, and he says he needs to set the bone right then and there with no anesthetic or it won't heal correctly and you'll lose the ability to walk on it, everyone says "Awesome! Go for it, man!" and gives him a big thumbs up and a smile. No one could possibly react to the current level of pain and fail to see past that, and tell the doctor "No, no I don't want you to!"

 

Logically, logic class was everyone's forte. Also, P:E will only be played by 600 people. The very 600 that answered in that poll, who are all perfectly logical and couldn't possibly be basing their decision off of very specific things they don't like about bad implementations of level scaling.

[Valorian]

Alrighty, Lephys, the stage is yours, you can now enjoy your primadonna status as I'm not going to read that wall of text because, frankly, my care-o-meter is now on the lowest levels for a discussion with a person that engages in deficient logical acrobatics that cause him to fall flat on his head all the time.

 

An important aspect of intelligence is knowing how to explain your own point concisely and succinctly, instead of vomiting countless words that noone is going to read.

 

Happy New Year and I hope that all of you will be able to enjoy the very little level scaling, if any at all, that PE will maybe include in its main quest. ... Oh, right, my apologies Lephys, you don't actually care about level scaling or other gameplay mechanics, it's writing forum novels about it that matters... so keep up the good work.

[Lephys]

Well, hopefully the rest of the people left who aren't going to read my words will simply leave it at that, rather than tacking on the extra step of "and then responding anyway." *Crosses fingers* Luckily for us, the discussion isn't about Valorian. It's about level-scaling, which we happened to be talking about.

 

Thus, on spins the world.

 

I think certain creatures should have caps. We don't need level 30 goblins rolling around everywhere in the lower level areas when you come back. However, a more diverse group of goblins, or a larger and more diverse group would be fine. Some level scaling... maybe.

 

I would prefer an increase in enemy numbers or a change in the group composition of the enemies as opposed to full on scaling of their levels. For instance, let's say, if an encounter had 5 melees and a mage when your party is around level 6 then the composition should be 8-10 melees and a mage, or 5 melees 4 archers and a mage, etc when the party is level 12.

 

I'm with you on that, Ganrich. I think there was something briefly mentioned in one of the Q&As about using more than just a level increase to scale challenge. And, who knows, they might have some awesome plan that doesn't really need any scaling at all. They're pretty skilled developers. Either way, though, I think it's much more interesting to change the encounters a bit without just adding in heaps of hit points and damage. But, there are so many things that are affected by levels, it's hard not to at least change some of it, in an applicable instance.

 

The funny thing is, even though Oblivion gets so much flak for their brutal level scaling, they actually had a slider to adjust it. Not that it's the player's responsibility to fix it or anything, heh. But, You can do it on a curve, and it works pretty well (assuming your game has problems that level-scaling is capable of addressing.) Say Goblins are level 3 and your party is now level 30. Well, Goblins might be scaled such that they are now level 10. You can still increase their numbers a bit (which is one reason they don't go up to, say... 20 or something) and throw in various extra types of goblins in goblin encounters, but now each goblin won't be killed by gentle wafting breeze of your blade swinging past them on an attack miss. They're still ridiculously easy, but combat will still provide some manner of challenge, and Goblins will still be usable for lore purposes as combatants even later in the game.

 

Now, obviously, if you don't need to use Goblins later in the game, depending on your story and your lore, then you wouldn't need to apply any scaling to Goblins, really. Which brings up the other bit, that scaling should only be used when the player could approach an encounter or quest at a range of possible levels. But, you could even scale things that are meant to be higher-level than you (like bosses), if they're able to be taken on after varying amounts of optional character progression. If a boss is level 20, and your party is level 22, maybe the boss is now level 23. Perhaps if you'd gone out of your way less to procure quest rewards and various XP gains, you'd be about lvl 15 when you got to the boss. So, now the boss is easier, in relation to your levels (22 vs. 23 instead of 15 vs. 20), but the scaling has prevented him from being lower level than you, and therefore MUCH easier. Again, perhaps this isn't necessary, or doesn't work well with the rest of the factors in P:E, but that's how I see it working.

 

Not a straight line, but a curve, and only where needed.

 

I definitely don't believe everything should stay at my level as I play the game. To counter an argument made a page or two back... A bandit group hunting and theiving won't get as much experience in a fortnight as my group storming 15 levels of the endless dungeon. No way some deer, and some mercs + merchants equals the monsters in said dungeon. I just don't see it. We are comparing the xp values of fauna to beholders, and likely there will be more beholders than the fauna in that period of time.

 

Well, just to point out how this would make sense in relation to scaling, everyone in P:E has super amazetastic souls, so to think that the players can become 30 times more powerful than a group of murderous bandits who survive in a forest hideout amid various hostile creatures is starting to stretch it. If you let the power relation get TOO wide, then you start losing touch with your game world. You'd have to be fighting nothing but nether demons and demigods at that point, because you can fell an entire bandit outpost with your boot. If it's assumed time is passing as you travel about and accomplish feats and the story unfolds, then it makes sense for the bandits to develop a bit, too. That's all. Probably not exactly as much as you did, but some.

 

I am sure scaling of one form or another is going to be in, and I am pretty sure the devs have said it will be. I just hope it is done well, and not lazily tacked on. This subject is right up there with some games using more HP as a difference in difficulty. The enemies do the same damage, and have the same mitigation... So, you just have to hit them more because their hit pool doubled from normal to hard difficulty. That isn't fun, nor hard to accomplish as a dev. All in all, I think we will have to wait and see.

 

Yes! Dragon Age 2 was one of the worst instances of this I've ever seen. I tried playing it on the hardest "difficulty," and it was pretty much impossible. It was a simple matter of numbers. Everyone in your group had about 500 hitpoints, and the first boss had about 100,000. And I think in 10 minutes of fighting him, when I died (time after time after time), I got him down about 20%. He had completely undodgable attacks and everything. *sigh*. So ridiculous. On the other hand Mass Effect 2 on Insanity had it's uber-ridiculous parts, but then Mass Effect 3 wasn't very bad at all. It was extremely challenging. You had to position your squad well, and use your abilities efficiently (you could produce different combo effects with different character's abilities that were useful in different situations), but it was a lot more tactical. It wasn't just "OMG HEAL AND EXTEND YOUR HELTHS UNTIL YOU DO LOTS OF DAMAGEZ!", haha. So, yeah, I definitely hate that "Let's just multiply everything by 20" way of approaching difficulty.

[Ganrich]

I'm with you on that, Ganrich. I think there was something briefly mentioned in one of the Q&As about using more than just a level increase to scale challenge. And, who knows, they might have some awesome plan that doesn't really need any scaling at all. They're pretty skilled developers. Either way, though, I think it's much more interesting to change the encounters a bit without just adding in heaps of hit points and damage. But, there are so many things that are affected by levels, it's hard not to at least change some of it, in an applicable instance.

 

The funny thing is, even though Oblivion gets so much flak for their brutal level scaling, they actually had a slider to adjust it. Not that it's the player's responsibility to fix it or anything, heh. But, You can do it on a curve, and it works pretty well (assuming your game has problems that level-scaling is capable of addressing.) Say Goblins are level 3 and your party is now level 30. Well, Goblins might be scaled such that they are now level 10. You can still increase their numbers a bit (which is one reason they don't go up to, say... 20 or something) and throw in various extra types of goblins in goblin encounters, but now each goblin won't be killed by gentle wafting breeze of your blade swinging past them on an attack miss. They're still ridiculously easy, but combat will still provide some manner of challenge, and Goblins will still be usable for lore purposes as combatants even later in the game.

 

Now, obviously, if you don't need to use Goblins later in the game, depending on your story and your lore, then you wouldn't need to apply any scaling to Goblins, really. Which brings up the other bit, that scaling should only be used when the player could approach an encounter or quest at a range of possible levels. But, you could even scale things that are meant to be higher-level than you (like bosses), if they're able to be taken on after varying amounts of optional character progression. If a boss is level 20, and your party is level 22, maybe the boss is now level 23. Perhaps if you'd gone out of your way less to procure quest rewards and various XP gains, you'd be about lvl 15 when you got to the boss. So, now the boss is easier, in relation to your levels (22 vs. 23 instead of 15 vs. 20), but the scaling has prevented him from being lower level than you, and therefore MUCH easier. Again, perhaps this isn't necessary, or doesn't work well with the rest of the factors in P:E, but that's how I see it working.

 

Not a straight line, but a curve, and only where needed.

 

Yeah, I didn't realize the scaling slider in Oblivion until late game. Sometimes, especially with TES games, and other series I have come to love, I forget to peruse the options menus and dive right in.

 

I also agree that I hope it is a curve, and a bit of level scaling and a bit of increasing the encounter as a whole. As, IMHO, a second playthrough would have some surprises in store if you do things in a slightly different order. The stories would remain constant, but the combat would change because the numbers and composition will change based on the level you stepped into the quest area.

 

I do believe bosses should be a challenge, and should scale more than general content. Staying a little ahead makes it challenging in that regard. I would also find it funny that in this very scenario the player gets overconfidant because he/she is destroying a horde of goblins, and rolls up on a boss as bold as brass to get smote lol. However, I get my kicks in those situations in cRPGs lol.

 

Well, just to point out how this would make sense in relation to scaling, everyone in P:E has super amazetastic souls, so to think that the players can become 30 times more powerful than a group of murderous bandits who survive in a forest hideout amid various hostile creatures is starting to stretch it. If you let the power relation get TOO wide, then you start losing touch with your game world. You'd have to be fighting nothing but nether demons and demigods at that point, because you can fell an entire bandit outpost with your boot. If it's assumed time is passing as you travel about and accomplish feats and the story unfolds, then it makes sense for the bandits to develop a bit, too. That's all. Probably not exactly as much as you did, but some.

 

I agree, too wide a gap is boring, but I will say some areas need that gap. I don't mean all these enemies retain 4 hp, but kobolds can't scale to the same level as say... ogres. However, this is where numbers should play a part, allow some leveling, and use a mixed bag of archetypes (casters, melees, archers). This atleast allows some danger, and still keeps the lowbie type monster from being so powerful it also detatches you from said game world.

 

Heck, I am not against replacing kobolds with Ogres as long as, from a story perspective, it makes sense.

 

Yes! Dragon Age 2 was one of the worst instances of this I've ever seen. I tried playing it on the hardest "difficulty," and it was pretty much impossible. It was a simple matter of numbers. Everyone in your group had about 500 hitpoints, and the first boss had about 100,000. And I think in 10 minutes of fighting him, when I died (time after time after time), I got him down about 20%. He had completely undodgable attacks and everything. *sigh*. So ridiculous. On the other hand Mass Effect 2 on Insanity had it's uber-ridiculous parts, but then Mass Effect 3 wasn't very bad at all. It was extremely challenging. You had to position your squad well, and use your abilities efficiently (you could produce different combo effects with different character's abilities that were useful in different situations), but it was a lot more tactical. It wasn't just "OMG HEAL AND EXTEND YOUR HELTHS UNTIL YOU DO LOTS OF DAMAGEZ!", haha. So, yeah, I definitely hate that "Let's just multiply everything by 20" way of approaching difficulty.

 

It's ironic because I remember Bioware talking about that being a bad way to increase difficulty, and then they went and did it. I think it was the ME studio talking about it though. Admittedly... I haven't been able to play DA2 a second time through though (usually play through on normal first then scale the difficulty with other playthroughs) since the pregenerated-cookiecutter dungeons made me cry. Also, the frame narative was less than intriguing to me, but I know people who liked both those things.

 

I think the lack of the trinity made the health scaling like that impossible in ME, or they couldn't do it to that effect. When you have tank, dps, heals as a mechanic (taunting/aggro management) it makes cranking the hit pool much more tempting. Which is why I loath tank and spank in many games, and even moreso in single player games. I actually hope the tanker classes don't have such mechanics in PE. I may be the minority, but I hope for quick deadly combat encounters. I will play it regardless though.

[PrimeJunta]

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.

 

And it does.

 

Thing is, end users -- including game players -- very often have extremely strong opinions about what {features} they want, or don't want, in a product {game}. They're usually completely wrong. Most of that 94% is wrong about level scaling. They think they want it, but they would whine like Burgundy if P:E didn't have it. Not about level scaling, naturally -- they'd never admit they were wrong about it -- but about the negative secondary consequences of not having it.

 

The trick to software design is to observe what users do, not listen to what they say. Speaking from rather a lot of professional experience here.

 

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.

 

Indeed, I can even think of an example right here on this very thread!

 

Edit: 10 internets sez Valorian can't stick the flounce. Any takers?

Edited December 31, 2012 by PrimeJunta

[LadyCrimson]

Well, hopefully the rest of the people left who aren't going to read my words will simply leave it at that, rather than tacking on the extra step of "and then responding anyway."

There is always hope.

[Valorian]

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.

 

And it does.

 

Thing is, end users -- including game players -- very often have extremely strong opinions about what {features} they want, or don't want, in a product {game}. They're usually completely wrong. Most of that 94% is wrong about level scaling. They think they want it, but they would whine like Burgundy if P:E didn't have it. Not about level scaling, naturally -- they'd never admit they were wrong about it -- but about the negative secondary consequences of not having it.

 

The trick to software design is to observe what users do, not listen to what they say. Speaking from rather a lot of professional experience here.

 

Ah, the mind reader!

The little X-files pumpkin is projecting his views of level scaling and how he thinks it would affect his experience to the general population who doesn't want it in their game. I have always found it amusing how the most stupid people are often the loudest when it comes to shouting "people are stupid!".

 

Your thought process, examples and comparisons ("many people bought Oblivion [a game heavy on level scaling], which means the majority is wrong... therefore the preference of Project Eternity's fans against level scaling is also wrong") are almost as imbecilic as comparing a gameplay mechanics preference with paying taxes.

 

And precisely, designers should not listen to what you say, because if they thought level scaling is generally a good gameplay design choice they wouldn't use words such as "very little", "minimal" or "if any at all" in conjunction with "level scaling".

[PrimeJunta]

Ha! That didn't take long. I win 10 internets!

 

Thing is, gamers are not necessarily any good as game designers. These are two largely unrelated skill sets.

 

That means their opinions about specific game design features are usually wrong. A good designer observes how they play games, listens (critically) to them explaining how they like to play games, and ignore most of what they say about how they'd like games designed.

 

Specifically, gamers who are categorically opposed to level scaling under any circumstances are wrong. They -- even you -- would not enjoy P:E as much if it had no level scaling at all. No mind reading required, just lots of experience working with users in software design.

[Valorian]

Ha! That didn't take long. I win 10 internets!

 

I didn't say I would leave the topic, I said I will ignore pointless novels. My time > pointless novels.

So you don't win 10 internetz, you win some more spanking, as usual. I see you like it.

 

Thing is, gamers are not necessarily any good as game designers. These are two largely unrelated skill sets.

 

That means their opinions about specific game design features are usually wrong. A good designer observes how they play games, listens (critically) to them explaining how they like to play games, and ignore most of what they say about how they'd like games designed.

 

Specifically, gamers who are categorically opposed to level scaling under any circumstances are wrong. They -- even you -- would not enjoy P:E as much if it had no level scaling at all. No mind reading required, just lots of experience working with users in software design.

 

What makes you think that your opinion about specific game design features isn't wrong? What entity are you to proclaim that "the majority is wrong and I'm right.. just because"? Let me help you: you're nothing and nobody to even think of putting forward such a presumptuous statement.

[PrimeJunta]

What makes you think that your opinion about specific game design features isn't wrong? What entity are you to proclaim that "the majority is wrong and I'm right.. just because"? Let me help you: you're nothing and nobody to even think of putting forward such a presumptuous statement.

 

Because I am a professional software designer with 25 years experience at it. Duh.

[Valorian]

What makes you think that your opinion about specific game design features isn't wrong? What entity are you to proclaim that "the majority is wrong and I'm right.. just because"? Let me help you: you're nothing and nobody to even think of putting forward such a presumptuous statement.

 

Because I am a professional software designer with 25 years experience at it. Duh.

 

And let me guess, you implement level scaling in your softwares which makes your points regarding level scaling (and how everyone's wrong about it) somehow more relevant?

 

There are several things to note here. Designing a game is not the same thing as designing, for instance, Windows. Some people lie [about their profession]. Some people are simply bad developers.

 

In conclusion, you're still a nobody.

[PrimeJunta]

I'm not in games, actually; I've only done a couple very small ones in my free time ages ago. Software is software, though, users are users, and design is design. And believe me, Val, I've come across many, many users like you over my career -- and if they have the final say over features, the project is guaranteed to crash and burn. Seen that happen too.

 

That doesn't mean users like you are useless for feedback, though. Quite the contrary. (Although I do prefer to work with users who cop less of an attitude.)

 

No, Val, the trick is to understand what the user needs, and then find a way to provide that. The users generally speaking don't know what they need, so they can't tell you, and what they tell you is usually wrong. So you, the designer, have to figure it out.

 

If I was a designer on P:E, for example, I would consider much of what you've said on this thread very valuable information -- you have described quite eloquently how you like to play a game, what you value in it, what you enjoy, and what you don't enjoy. If you were paying me four meellion dollars to craft a game just for you, I could certainly figure out a way to leave out level scaling. Trouble is, I'd also have to be considering what Sharp_one, Lephys, and that jackass Juanita have been saying about how they play games, and figure out which of them I'm able to accommodate, and how. That's where features like level scaling come in.

 

And if somebody asked me if level scaling is in, I'd probably say "Well, you'll see when it comes out, won't you?" 'Cuz it really isn't any of your -- or my -- business. That kind of decision should be left to the designers.

[Osvir]

4th attempt at making some sense in this post!!! *sigh*

 

Before we can discuss Level Scaling, really, Obsidian needs to give some flirts on how they are doing it. What is the plan? Kind of. It would be a lot easier to discuss the matter, what could be "bad", what could be "good"? etc. etc.

 

Some other questions based on this logic:

Whilst you practice and grow stronger, level scaling would imply that the "mobs" are training too. That they learn new things and that they are out in the world getting stronger by numbers, gear, or whatever. It could also imply that the Bandits could besiege a town (as designed) and either you can weed them out from the town after their siege, or before they even do it, and they could be "scaled" depending on if they are in their cave, or if they have besieged the town with bolstered numbers. Likewise, enemy adventurer parties or rival parties could adventure the world and loot caves etc. etc. you could either take them down in the midst of it (If they are supposed to be there at the time that you are there). Before they go there, after they've been there etc. etc.

 

Let's look at some options/combinations:

 

What is "Time-Based" Scaling?

10 minutes progress, enemies gain X% health/damage or whatever. This gives a sense of urgency, if you stand around and make sandwich your game would also progressively be harder. Enemies grow in strength because they are physically & technically & mechanically becoming stronger.

 

What is "Difficulty-Based" Scaling?

Easy, Normal, Hard, Hardcore? Do they do it differently?

 

What is "Chapter-Based" Scaling?

Chapter by Chapter enemies grow stronger depending on what you did Chapter 1. Heck, how is the encounters handled Chapter by Chapter? Can you make one group weaker in Chapter 2 (down-scaled) if you kill most of their kin in Chapter 1? Likewise, could they bolster in strength and become much more of a threat if you don't deal with them in Chapter 1?

 

What is Level-Scaling?

The only concrete examples I know of is FF8 and Oblivion and they didn't do that any good, however, mods for Oblivion (what I've read) made Oblivion good enough for fans (haven't tried it, vanilla Oblivion took all my energy and frustration). I think that Level Scaling might be an easy tool to work with for modders as well.

 

So what is Level Scaling really..? Bowl 1 has 9 monsters and 1 monster that scales. To get to Bowl 2 you need to take down that 1 monster that scales. If you go about and take out the 9 monsters before, you grow in strength, but at the bottle-neck where Monster #1 stands you'd face an equal challenge if you went there first or if you took everything out first then went to #1. And if it is too difficult for you, you would simply be able to change difficulty to something easier. Vice versa, if it is too easy for you you could just crank up the difficulty.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Osvir

[PrimeJunta]

I think the problem with discussing level scaling is that thanks to Oblivion, it's become a proxy for The Decline. I.e., casual-friendly handholding that removes consequence and challenge from a cRPG. That's rather silly, like declaring credit cards evil because some people have gotten over their heads in debt by misusing them.

 

But hey, let's.

 

Time-based scaling. This would create a positive feedback loop, which is probably not a good idea. If you're ahead of the curve, you'll find the going gets easier, which pushes you even further ahead of the curve, and you'll waltz through the game too easily. If you fall behind, you'll find it harder and harder to catch up, until you hit a brick wall of difficulty. I find it hard to imagine how you could design an interesting game around this mechanic, since an early head start would be so decisive. (Good strategy games have features in place specifically to avoid such decisive early-game winning strategies, since they're particularly prone to this dynamic. Civ V, for example, allows entirely viable single-city strategies.) In any case, it would be a very bad idea for a game like P:E, with, oh, a 15-level optional dungeon to explore.

 

Difficulty-based. This sounds like a synonym for difficulty levels. No comment.

 

Chapter-based. Now this idea has promise. Sure, you could set up the encounters in Chapter 2 at two different levels, and have party strength at the end of Chapter 1 determine which one it gets. For Chapter 3, design them at three levels. Could work, and would have the advantage of hand-crafted encounters every time. OTOH you might get into a situation where a party that just clears the hurdle will find the going gets much tougher, which could be construed as a punishment. I believe you could mitigate this by scaling the rewards to match, though: tougher challenges would be rewarded with greater rewards.

 

Oblivion-style. Kill it with fire. But there are other algorithmic ways to do level scaling that doesn't fall into the Oblivion trap, where avoiding levelups resulted in easier gameplay.

 

What is it, then? From where I'm at, it's a tool that can be used to pull encounters from "boring" and "impossible" into the Goldilocks zone of enjoyable gaming. If you're using it in such a way that avoiding leveling up will make the game easier (which is exactly what happened in Oblivion), you're doing it wrong: you're punishing players for success.

[AGX-17]

What makes you think that your opinion about specific game design features isn't wrong? What entity are you to proclaim that "the majority is wrong and I'm right.. just because"? Let me help you: you're nothing and nobody to even think of putting forward such a presumptuous statement.

 

Because I am a professional software designer with 25 years experience at it. Duh.

 

And let me guess, you implement level scaling in your softwares which makes your points regarding level scaling (and how everyone's wrong about it) somehow more relevant?

 

There are several things to note here. Designing a game is not the same thing as designing, for instance, Windows. Some people lie [about their profession]. Some people are simply bad developers.

 

In conclusion, you're still a nobody.

 

So Bill Gates and Steve Wozniak are nobodies because they aren't game designers, and all game designers are celebrities? That's good to know. I'll be sure to pick up a copy of People magazine to find out what Chris Avellone had for lunch last Tuesday.

 

On a more serious note, an ad hominem attack is little more than evidence of how feeble your argument is.

 

 

At the same time, addressing the other side of the debate, it's not a rule that all gamers would make terrible game designers by virtue of their being gamers. Most game designers got into game design because they loved playing games. It logically follows that most, if not all, game designers were once gamers themselves (and most likely still are to some degree.) Plenty of popular indie games were put out by people with no formal education in game design, just like how plenty of entrepreneurs start successful businesses without formal education in business. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs never earned any college degrees. Ambition and talent trump formal training more often than not.

Edited December 31, 2012 by AGX-17

[Karkarov]

Just to pipe in again I will say once more level scaling is not good, nor is it "better" by any sort of definition. The fact that most people say scaling is done best when you can't tell it is scaling is even more proof that maybe it isn't design wise needed. Open world you can go anywhere the second the game starts projects like Skyrim "maybe" need some scaling to compensate for the fact that the player literally can go anywhere at any time. P:E is not an open world game though. There can be many things limiting where you can go and when, from world or faction elements like a trade route being blockaded, to simple logistics like not being able to go to Cave X because you haven't found a map leading there, or even plot catch all's like you can't go to City W because a plague was unleashed there and until you find a cure traveling there would be your death!

 

There is just all sorts of ways to limit where you can go, when you can go there, and why in a game like this. Even if you leave it largely open you can still stagger large parts of the world out without limiting options. Example: World of Warcraft. That game was so huge at first that you could literally have anywhere from 2-4 different viable leveling zones at any given time and it was totally normal for a person to hit max level and never see certain quests or areas. For the sake of re-playability and depth it would sure be nice if P:E could do this. Not to mention it also nullifies the "linearity" argument which isn't really valid to begin with because the game was never going to be linear and it would never be forced into it simply by not having level scaling.

 

If you do have to go with the design crutch that is level scaling it needs to be based on how it is done in D&D. The enemies don't magically become higher level there are just more of them or some of them are replaced by more threatening variants. Or maybe do something smarter and go with story based encounter changes. At plot point X this happens and now that area is populated by these enemies instead of the old enemies and as a result it is more dangerous etc etc. At least then there is a logical in game reason the scaling happened.

[PrimeJunta]

At the same time, addressing the other side of the debate, it's not a rule that all gamers would make terrible game designers by virtue of their being gamers. Most game designers got into game design because they loved playing games. It logically follows that most, if not all, game designers were once gamers themselves (and most likely still are to some degree.) Plenty of popular indie games were put out by people with no formal education in game design, just like how plenty of entrepreneurs start successful businesses without formal education in business. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs never earned any college degrees. Ambition and talent trump formal training more often than not.

 

That is quite true, and I didn't mean to imply the contrary. Being a good gamer is a prerequisite to being a good game designer (because you do need to understand what the artifact you're designing is supposed to be), but a good gamer with no design experience isn't likely to be any better at game design than any random dude from the street.

 

Design is a skill. You can't really study it; you can only develop it through practice. It's also strongly related to talent -- most people simply aren't capable of becoming good designers, whereas a few pick it up almost naturally. This talent doesn't relate much to general intelligence either; it's somewhat similar to musical, artistic, or mathematical ability IMO. There are a surprising number of top-tier software designers with few or no formal qualifications.

 

Also, Karkarov's last paragraph is very much the kind of thing I had in mind.

Edited January 1, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[Valorian]

I'm not in games, actually; I've only done a couple very small ones in my free time ages ago. Software is software, though, users are users, and design is design. And believe me, Val, I've come across many, many users like you over my career -- and if they have the final say over features, the project is guaranteed to crash and burn. Seen that happen too.

 

That doesn't mean users like you are useless for feedback, though. Quite the contrary. (Although I do prefer to work with users who cop less of an attitude.)

 

No, Val, the trick is to understand what the user needs, and then find a way to provide that. The users generally speaking don't know what they need, so they can't tell you, and what they tell you is usually wrong. So you, the designer, have to figure it out.

 

If I was a designer on P:E, for example, I would consider much of what you've said on this thread very valuable information -- you have described quite eloquently how you like to play a game, what you value in it, what you enjoy, and what you don't enjoy. If you were paying me four meellion dollars to craft a game just for you, I could certainly figure out a way to leave out level scaling. Trouble is, I'd also have to be considering what Sharp_one, Lephys, and that jackass Juanita have been saying about how they play games, and figure out which of them I'm able to accommodate, and how. That's where features like level scaling come in.

 

And if somebody asked me if level scaling is in, I'd probably say "Well, you'll see when it comes out, won't you?" 'Cuz it really isn't any of your -- or my -- business. That kind of decision should be left to the designers.

 

I was sarcastic, of course you don't develop games.

You're most likely a kindergarten nanny and that's where your entitlement comes from: you think you know best what the kids need and have them eat candies even though the naughty ones would prefer vegetables... Then you're projecting your kindergarten experience to game development, equating these kids who would like to eat vegetables (what the hell are they thinking!?), that clearly have no clue what is best for them, to adult customers and their gaming preferences.

 

And yet again you make a comparison that goes on the list of horrible comparisons by PJ . "Software is software", "Baldur's Gate is Photoshop"...

 

I believe that the PE audience does know what they want from this game and they're not wrong just because a nobody from the internetz says they're wrong [because, oooh!, he's supposedly been in software development for 25 years!!]

Even if you were in game development for 125 years, it wouldn't mean much. Quality =/= quantity. A developer's preference for level scaling doesn't make a preference against it wrong, it just means that he's likely to implement it in his game.

 

Oblivion's developers are also experienced game developers, and they implemented level scaling... they can't be wrong, right? They're game developers, for god's sake!

 

 

What makes you think that your opinion about specific game design features isn't wrong? What entity are you to proclaim that "the majority is wrong and I'm right.. just because"? Let me help you: you're nothing and nobody to even think of putting forward such a presumptuous statement.

 

Because I am a professional software designer with 25 years experience at it. Duh.

 

And let me guess, you implement level scaling in your softwares which makes your points regarding level scaling (and how everyone's wrong about it) somehow more relevant?

 

There are several things to note here. Designing a game is not the same thing as designing, for instance, Windows. Some people lie [about their profession]. Some people are simply bad developers.

 

In conclusion, you're still a nobody.

 

So Bill Gates and Steve Wozniak are nobodies because they aren't game designers, and all game designers are celebrities? That's good to know. I'll be sure to pick up a copy of People magazine to find out what Chris Avellone had for lunch last Tuesday.

 

On a more serious note, an ad hominem attack is little more than evidence of how feeble your argument is.

 

 

Oh yeah, baby, you're spot on!

 

I was clearly implying that he's a nobody because he's not a game developAr ... and not because we're all just anonymous forum posters who can claim anything about their lives and/or profession.

 

And it doesn't really matter who he is. It matters what he says.

 

People should stop being butthurt about "ad hominems" especially when they keep slaughtering common sense and massacring logic.

 

 

So until next time peasants, take care!

*waits for his peasant fun club to gather again*

[PrimeJunta]

Whoa, that was an entertaining meltdown. Moar plz?

[Karkarov]

I pulled out of this thread before because it was quickly devolving into a circuitous never ending conversation that was reaching the "yo mama" level of intellectual debate before. It seems like it is already heading back that way again :\

 

It may be that everything constructive that can be said on this topic has already been said.

[Lephys]

It may be that everything constructive that can be said on this topic has already been said.

 

It's possible that everything not-constructive that can be said on this topic has already been said, as well.

[wanderon]

Well when all is said and done there is always much more said than done...

[Helm]

Level scaling is a terrible mechanic and should never, ever be included in an RPG. An RPG is about character development (improving stats and equipment) in order to face tougher areas with tougher enemies. With level scaling a large portion of the character development is completely redundant. In Other words: If you go to an area too early, then you should be prepared for a really tough fight that you will only survive if your plans are tactically and strategically top-notch.

 

Slight encounter scaling on the other hand is a good thing. It makes otherwise trivial battles still challenging in case your level is too high. The IE-Engine games only used encounter scaling (and very rarely too) and this is what I would expect from this game.

 

I would be extremely dissapointed if this game used level scaling, that is not an homage to the IE-Engine games at all. It would be a large scaled mutilation of the mechanics that made the IE-Engine games great.