Level scaling and its misuse

[Helm]

An action RPG like does not have to be bad, it can be very good like in "A link to the past". The only thing is that the Nintendo DID NOT rob the player his sense of progression, there are obstacles in that game that cannot be simply overcome. You had to collect many items (heart containers, better swords an other magical items) in order to continue through the dungeons and eventually complete the game. So even in a game like Zelda you had to develop your character to win (which is a key factor of an RPG) - this is not true for these terrible level scaled games.

 

 

Zelda is linear. You go do dungeon 1, and then make your way to dungeon 2, and so on. They don't have to level scale because of this. Games like TES require some level scaling because you can ignore the main quest till you are near max level. At which point the difficulty would be non existant. Any single player game with rpg progression that is open like that had to consider that.

 

It isn't necessary in iwd to level scale because it is linear. I hope PE is more open, and allows me to do what I wish, when I wish. Which means they may require some level scaling. Sounds to me like you want it to be more of a funneled experience than I do. It is all personal taste, but I prefer a little freedom vs funneled story arc.

Hmmm, well I like freedom too, but you just seem to like games with RPG mechanics dumbed down to retard level where you just wander around aimlessly just hacking and slashing away without any tactics or strategy.

 

Btw "A Link to the past " is not clearly linear. There is a lot of exploration and you also have to figure out what to do. Not to mention that you do not have to enter every dungeon in a linear fashion.

[Ganrich]

Hmmm, well I like freedom too, but you just seem to like games with RPG mechanics dumbed down to retard level where you just wander around aimlessly just hacking and slashing away without any tactics or strategy.

 

Btw "A Link to the past " is not clearly linear. There is a lot of exploration and you also have to figure out what to do. Not to mention that you do not have to enter every dungeon in a linear fashion.

 

You caught me, I love easy games, and simplistic games. That is why I am here. /Sarcasm.

 

I find it odd that you use Zelda as an example and accuse me of liking dumbed down gameplay in a forum supporting a type of game much more complex than Zelda has ever been, but I digress.

 

In Zelda, you cannot do dungeon 2 without doing dungeon 1 because you get the boomerang helps you complete dungeon 2's puzzles. The boomerang is in dungeon 1 though. Completing dungeons will give you new accessories/weapons, and you use those accessories/weapons to get to (and complete) the following dungeons. As you progress this way you get new heart containers, and possibly sword upgrades. Thus your power grows as you complete dungeons, those dungeons must be completed in order, and that is linear.

 

Exploration doesn't mean it's non-linear. Are there games more linear than Zelda? Absolutely. However, Zelda is not, not has it ever been, the pinnacle of non-linear gameplay.

[Dream]

You don't inform yourself about elements which are important to you in games or products that you're potentially going to buy? You just blindly purchase things? You're the ideal consumer!

 

I try not to inform myself about things that are going to spoil the experience for me.

[Helm]

Hmmm, well I like freedom too, but you just seem to like games with RPG mechanics dumbed down to retard level where you just wander around aimlessly just hacking and slashing away without any tactics or strategy.

 

Btw "A Link to the past " is not clearly linear. There is a lot of exploration and you also have to figure out what to do. Not to mention that you do not have to enter every dungeon in a linear fashion.

 

You caught me, I love easy games, and simplistic games. That is why I am here. /Sarcasm.

I hate Bethesda games, but don't take it personal. Even if you like games like Skyrim with dumb downed mechanics does mean that you are stupid.

 

I find it odd that you use Zelda as an example and accuse me of liking dumbed down gameplay in a forum supporting a type of game much more complex than Zelda has ever been, but I digress.

 

In Zelda, you cannot do dungeon 2 without doing dungeon 1 because you get the boomerang helps you complete dungeon 2's puzzles. The boomerang is in dungeon 1 though. Completing dungeons will give you new accessories/weapons, and you use those accessories/weapons to get to (and complete) the following dungeons. As you progress this way you get new heart containers, and possibly sword upgrades. Thus your power grows as you complete dungeons, those dungeons must be completed in order, and that is linear.

 

Exploration doesn't mean it's non-linear. Are there games more linear than Zelda? Absolutely. However, Zelda is not, not has it ever been, the pinnacle of non-linear gameplay.

I am talking about "The legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past" (Zelda 3) and not "The Legend of Zelda" (Zelda 1). Zelda 1 is actually pretty linear (even though it is also an awesome game).

[Helm]

*DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU ARE STUPID.

 

Omg, sorry. Thank god I saw that typo. Sadly I can't edit that post anymore....

Edited January 9, 2013 by Helm

[J.E. Sawyer]

In a good game, in my opinion, minions should become easier to kill as you level up, while boss mobs and other special encounters should become more difficult. I think that it takes a combination of good level design and encounter scaling to achieving this to a workable degree in most games. Perhaps in conjunction with an encounter-changing difficulty slider.

I think we've said this before, but the only things we're likely to scale with player level are crit-path special encounters and even then, only within a range of levels. E.g. take a boss like Sherincal in IWD2. Maybe you'll encounter her at 5th level, but it's possible you could encounter her at 8th level. If 5th-8th is the most common range, we'd scale around that, but if you encounter her sub-5th level, you'll have to deal with the difference. If you encounter her at 9th or 10th by some x-treme XP mining, it will be a little easier for you.

 

The reason to scale the crit path special encounters is to allow for the fact that not everyone wants to do a lot of side content. Some people want to (largely) stick to the crit path with minimal side quests.

 

When it comes to the optional/side content, there won't be any scaling at all. Rats in the cellar will still be rats and may explode from your mere presence and the dragon Chrysophylax will probably burn you to ashes if you mosey up to his lair at 3rd level.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think we've said this before, but the only things we're likely to scale with player level are crit-path special encounters and even then, only within a range of levels. E.g. take a boss like Sherincal in IWD2. Maybe you'll encounter her at 5th level, but it's possible you could encounter her at 8th level. If 5th-8th is the most common range, we'd scale around that, but if you encounter her sub-5th level, you'll have to deal with the difference. If you encounter her at 9th or 10th by some x-treme XP mining, it will be a little easier for you.

 

The reason to scale the crit path special encounters is to allow for the fact that not everyone wants to do a lot of side content. Some people want to (largely) stick to the crit path with minimal side quests.

 

When it comes to the optional/side content, there won't be any scaling at all. Rats in the cellar will still be rats and may explode from your mere presence and the dragon Chrysophylax will probably burn you to ashes if you mosey up to his lair at 3rd level.

I'll be content with this design if it's not obvious which content is crit-path and which content is optional.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Sylvius the Mad

[Helm]

In a good game, in my opinion, minions should become easier to kill as you level up, while boss mobs and other special encounters should become more difficult. I think that it takes a combination of good level design and encounter scaling to achieving this to a workable degree in most games. Perhaps in conjunction with an encounter-changing difficulty slider.

I think we've said this before, but the only things we're likely to scale with player level are crit-path special encounters and even then, only within a range of levels. E.g. take a boss like Sherincal in IWD2. Maybe you'll encounter her at 5th level, but it's possible you could encounter her at 8th level. If 5th-8th is the most common range, we'd scale around that, but if you encounter her sub-5th level, you'll have to deal with the difference. If you encounter her at 9th or 10th by some x-treme XP mining, it will be a little easier for you.

 

The reason to scale the crit path special encounters is to allow for the fact that not everyone wants to do a lot of side content. Some people want to (largely) stick to the crit path with minimal side quests.

 

When it comes to the optional/side content, there won't be any scaling at all. Rats in the cellar will still be rats and may explode from your mere presence and the dragon Chrysophylax will probably burn you to ashes if you mosey up to his lair at 3rd level.

I do believe you have not been this clear on the subject as of yet. I would prefer encounter scaling for balancing issues (like in Baldur's Gate), but I can live with this system.

 

It is somewhat similar to the system used in Dragon Age (which was ok but not great btw), just not as extensive. Just make sure that you make hardcore ironman mode extremely brutal (practically forcing a player to harvest as much XP as possible.)

 

Cool, exactly what I wrote few pages ago. Good to hear.

But what Josh just proposed isn't level scaling. It is a hybrid content scaling of some sort and will only be used very little and only for specific balancing issues.

 

Thank goodness.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Helm

[Valorian]

I can't say I'm disappointed. "Crit path special encounters" sounds limited enough, as opposed to "crit path areas" for instance. Scaling the crit path special encounter by increasing/decreasing the number of combatants instead of altering their levels could also be an option to consider.

 

That said, I believe it would be nice to include a game mode (Expert all the way! ) to have them at a fixed level.

[Somna]

@Helm: He's said it before; he just didn't give specific examples. It's why the whole "OMG LEVEL SCALING BAD" drama going on in the thread is ridiculous.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Somna

[Helm]

@Helm: He's said it before; he just didn't give specific examples. It's why the whole "OMG LEVEL SCALING BAD" drama going on in the thread is ridiculous.

No, he said that the main campaign will be level caled similar to what we had in New Vegas. If this is what he meant from the beginning, well, then he should have been more specific and not have chosen such an unfortunate description.

 

I can't say I'm disappointed. "Crit path special encounters" sounds limited enough, as opposed to "crit path areas" for instance. Scaling the crit path special encounter by increasing/decreasing the number of combatants instead of altering their levels could also be an option to consider.

 

That said, I believe it would be nice to include a game mode (Expert all the way! ) to have them at a fixed level.

Yeah, that is called encounter scaling. It would be preferable.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Helm

[Somna]

No, he said that the main campaign will be level caled similar to what we had in New Vegas. If this is what he meant from the beginning, well, then he should have been more specific and not have chosen such an unfortunate description.

 

 

Full quote from the PC Gamer article:

 

“We 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' date=' there will be no level-scaling. [/b']In this regard, Fallout: New Vegas might be a fair comparison.”

 

Again. He's said it before. He just didn't give examples.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Somna

[Helm]

Again. He's said it before. He just didn't give examples.

Again, as I have already said, his description was very unfortunate if he meant otherwise. Read this:

 

In this regard, Fallout: New Vegas might be a fair comparison

The entire main campaign path New Vegas was heavily level scaled you know.

 

But why are we even arguing about this? Sawyer has just confirmed that the game will not be level scaled so who cares.

 

/close thread.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Helm

[Somna]

Again. He's said it before. He just didn't give examples.

Again, as I have already said, his description was very unfortunate if he meant otherwise. Read this:

 

In this regard, Fallout: New Vegas might be a fair comparison

The entire main campaign path New Vegas was heavily level scaled you know.

 

But why are we even arguing about this? Sawyer has just confirmed that the game will not be level scaled so who cares.

 

/close thread.

 

When you choose to start quibbling over details, this is what results.

 

My contention is that people completely ignored the first two lines and ignored what "might" means. "Might" does not mean "is," which is how you chose to interpret the last sentence. You MIGHT choose to keep quibbling over this when he's clarified that it's not. Are you?

[Helm]

My contention is that people completely ignored the first two lines and ignored what "might" means. "Might" does not mean "is," which is how you chose to interpret the last sentence. You MIGHT choose to keep quibbling over this when he's clarified that it's not. Are you?

Mmm, sure. If Mr. Sawyer says "the main campaign will be level scaled and New Vegas might be a good comparison" then that of course meant that the game will not be level scaled at all...

 

You do know that the design for this game is not set in stone yet, anything can change. Maybe he changed his mind, maybe he meant something else. It is hard to say. But like I said, who cares. No level scaling confirmed. The end.

 

If you are mad or something about this thread then open a new one called "all teh winers about teh lvl skaling r 2 stupid" and go and flame there instead.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Helm

[Somna]

My contention is that people completely ignored the first two lines and ignored what "might" means. "Might" does not mean "is," which is how you chose to interpret the last sentence. You MIGHT choose to keep quibbling over this when he's clarified that it's not. Are you?

Mmm, sure. If Mr. Sawyer says "the main campaign will be level scaled and New Vegas might be a good comparison" then that of course meant that the game will not be level scaled at all.

 

 

 

lol

You might have thought that, but that doesn't mean it's correct.

[Somna]

[...]

You do know that the design for this game is not set in stone yet, anything can change. Maybe he changed his mind, maybe he meant something else. It is hard to say. But like I said, who cares. No level scaling confirmed. The end.

 

If you are mad or something about this thread then open a new one called "all teh winers about teh lvl skaling r 2 stupid" and go and flame there instead.

 

I'm not mad. I'm just feeding your trolling and your lack of comprehension. It might be what keeps sucking you into the thread and re-editing your posts. right?.

[Helm]

[...]

You do know that the design for this game is not set in stone yet, anything can change. Maybe he changed his mind, maybe he meant something else. It is hard to say. But like I said, who cares. No level scaling confirmed. The end.

 

If you are mad or something about this thread then open a new one called "all teh winers about teh lvl skaling r 2 stupid" and go and flame there instead.

 

I'm not mad. I'm just feeding your trolling and your lack of comprehension. It might be what keeps sucking you into the thread and re-editing your posts. right?.

lol. You are the one who is trolling and flaming (because you are mad or something). Sawyer said in that quote that the game would be level scaled no matter what you say.

 

Anyway, you mean our lack of comprehension, right? Or did you want to say that EVERYONE in this thread (except for you and Sawyer of course) is a retard because we understood what Sawyer said differently?

Edited January 9, 2013 by Helm

[Somna]

[...]

You do know that the design for this game is not set in stone yet, anything can change. Maybe he changed his mind, maybe he meant something else. It is hard to say. But like I said, who cares. No level scaling confirmed. The end.

 

If you are mad or something about this thread then open a new one called "all teh winers about teh lvl skaling r 2 stupid" and go and flame there instead.

 

I'm not mad. I'm just feeding your trolling and your lack of comprehension. It might be what keeps sucking you into the thread and re-editing your posts. right?.

lol. You are the one who is trolling and flaming (because you are mad or something). Sawyer said in that quote that the game would be level scaled no matter what you say.

 

Anyway, you mean our lack of comprehension, right? Or did you want to say that EVERYONE in this thread (except for you and Sawyer of course) is a retard because we understood what Sawyer said differently?

 

Especially when it comes to optional content and general exploration, there will be no level-scaling.

Failure of reading comprehension is failure of reading comprehension, no matter how you try to spin it. Part of the game being level scaled does not mean all of the game is level scaled. Some parts of the game not being level scaled does not mean all of the game will not be level scaled. The thread starter even said a summarized version of Sawyer's original statement on the first page of the thread,

 

Edit: dropped a "not."

Edited January 9, 2013 by Somna

[Helm]

Failure of reading comprehension is failure of reading comprehension, no matter how you try to spin it. Part of the game being level scaled does not mean all of the game is level scaled. Some parts of the game not being level scaled does not mean all of the game will not be level scaled. The thread starter even said a summarized version of Sawyer's original statement on the first page of the thread,

 

Edit: dropped a "not."

Umm, nobody said that the entire game would be level scaled, because Sawyer himself never said that. Just the main campaign, comparable to NEW VEGAS. I have even written that myself somehwere in this thread. Anyway, that was how things stood for a few months.

 

But now it has been confirmed. NO LEVEL SCALING. The end. Thank god.

 

This is a stupid argument anyway, I refuse to respond anymore. You comprehension skills either lack substantially or you are a troll. Choose one. Buh bye.

[Lephys]

I just want to note that when I said "Level-scaling could be used in a limited fashion (not 'everything is always your level') to accomplish some cool goals under certain circumstances, some folks pulled the Luke Skywalker "That's not true... that's imPOSSible!!!" bit on me. Then, our beloved Josh Sawyer comes along and says "We're going to use limited implementations of level scaling to accomplish some cool goals under certain circumstances" (paraphrased), and suddenly it's entirely possible and makes perfect sense to those same folks.

 

*shrug* I apologize for observing things that were simultaneously both true and false.

 

For what it's worth, I support Josh's views of and intended implementation of scaling that involves level values. Seems like it takes raw level-scaling ore and refines it into nice, contextually-functional ingots.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Lephys

[Somna]

Umm, nobody said that the entire game would be level scaled, because Sawyer himself never said that. Just the main campaign, comparable to NEW VEGAS. I have even written that myself somehwere in this thread. Anyway, that was how things stood for a few months.

You clearly haven't been keeping up on the thread. Regardless, I put that in because people have issues seeing anything but black (there's Level scaling) and white (there's no level scaling). The grey (there's some level scaling, but it's not everywhere) just can't click.

 

But now it has been confirmed. NO LEVEL SCALING. The end. Thank god.

 

This is a stupid argument anyway, I refuse to respond anymore. You comprehension skills either lack substantially or you are a troll. Choose one. Buh bye.

Case in point. Because there's a limited level scaling during the main campaign, the way you chose to interpret it is that there's NO level scaling at all.

[Valorian]

Lephys, your detachment from reality is amusing.

 

You've been advocating level scaling in a form that's nothing like what Sawyer described in this thread. Yet you start a charade how people suddenly accept it even if "you were saying the same things all along!" ...

 

That's absolutely correct, but you still run into a problem when you have wide branching options. If you have 5 optional quests open up at once (as opposed to a much more linear restriction on quest/story progression), how do you make sure they're all tailored to the player's level (as they could be done in any order) without forcibly keeping the player from progressing past that level for the duration of all 5 quests OR implementing some form of scaling to some degree?

 

And if you never have multiple options like that, how do you keep the game from being too linear?

 

 

Lephys: Optional branching quests need level scaling, because we have to make sure it's tailored to the player's level.

Sawyer: Optional/side/exploration content will not be scaled at all.

Lephys: See! I was saying the exact same thing all along. Why did you disagree with me!?

 

 

 

 

Your forum buddy S_o lives in a parallel universe of his own, as well.

His first post in this topic:

 

A low level dungeon can have goblins in first caves. Now a low level party (1-3) will encounter lets say 10 goblins with scrapped weapons, but if the party arrive at higher level (5-6) the goblins could be tougher (higher level) with better weapons (normal iron ones) and there could be an extra few archers plus a shaman or two at the highest possible permutation (6+ level).

...

Also bosses could progress this way being a level 5 at start up to level 7 with various abilities being unlocked along this progression. I think this kind of level scaling would be good.

 

Basically advocating level scaling for the entire game from the get-go.

 

 

Sawyer: Optional/side/exploration content will not be scaled at all.

S_o in response to Sawyer's comment: "Cool, exactly what I wrote few pages ago. Good to hear."

 

 

 

The amount of irony is so huge that I'm not sure if serious, or just forum clowns.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Valorian

[Tamerlane]

Hey guys, what's going on in h-

 

 

Burn all videogames forever.

[Helm]

Hey guys, what's going on in h-

Some guys are saying that this method of balancing:

the only things we're likely to scale with player level are crit-path special encounters and even then, only within a range of levels.

 

is level scaling... So if you balance a few encounters (ONLY in the main campaign), then it is a level scaled game... In other words if you level scale an entire game without range or only a few encounters in the main campaign within a certain range, then that is the exact same thing.

 

I know, I know. It's ridiculous. lol.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Helm