Level scaling and its misuse

[Valorian]

*foam dripping from mouth*

 

Clean it up first and take a deep breath, please. People don't go to jail because of colossal inconsistencies in their posts, don't worry. You're also all foamy and I can't see you.

 

 

It's crystal clear to anyone with at least a brain cell present in the head that when you kept elaborating your little level scaled goblin factory in dungeons you weren't talking about "crit path special encounters" only. You were advocating something that isn't even remotely similar.

 

 

I still think that LS is feces, in any form, and I've explained why.

 

I have no reason to be disappointed since I had already known, because it was already asked and answered, that there will be some level scaling present for the critical path.

His phrasing "the only things we're likely to scale with player level are crit-path special encounters" makes it sound like an even rarer occurence than what has previously been said.

 

I think this sounds better; why would I be disappointed all of a sudden over this improvement?

[Helm]

Pan's Labyrinth is a fantasy film because it has fantasy elements despite most of it being a typical drama it's not the same as Lord of the Rings yet both are labeled fantasy.

 

PE is not going to be level scaled the same way as TES games were, yet it will have level scaled elements (encounters, bosses etc.) hence it will be level scaled, partially level scaled if you want. That's that. Sawyer made it clear, at least to some people.

This is like talking to a brick wall. lol I mean, I would tell you to google "level scaling" but somehow I doubt that you know how google works. ^^ Level scaling is when you level scale the game substantially and not just some enemies because of balancing issues.

 

What Sawyer has just proposed is totally different from the scaling used in New Vegas (which he originally proposed) and other games.

 

But ok. I give up, this is ridiculous. Baldur's Gate is romance simulator because it had romance. Baldur's gate is a sleeping simulator because you can sleep. And it is cat killing simulator because you can kill cats. etc. etc. etc. Your logic is correct. Happy?

[Karkarov]

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.

Praise baby Jesus! A good game designer made a good game design decision, go figure. The fact that some posters in this thread consider that to be "level scaling" is funny but not really surprising.

 

Let me sum up level scaling for those who seem to love it but don't know what it is.

 

Leveling Scaling is balancing the encounter a player faces based on their level to maintain a consistent challenge curve throughout the entire game. Meaning entering Cave X at level 5 will give you a good challenge that you can complete with reasonable loot and exp for you. Entering Cave X at level 20 will give you a good challenge that you can complete with reasonable loot and exp for you. Entering Cave X at level 50 will give you a good challenge that you can complete with reasonable loot and exp for you. Entering Cave X at level .....

 

Do you understand what "Level Scaling" is now? I don't care "how" you level scale your game, it is always about achieving the effect I just described. The player always gets good loot for their level, good exp for their level, and the game is never too hard or too easy.

 

Tuning one encounter here and there to be based around a close set of levels like 10-15 is not level scaling. It is called good game design. If I show up at level 20 I am going to walk the dog but the exp and loot will suck. If I show up at level 7 it will be tough but I can maybe win for big exp and great loot for my level. If I show up at levels 10-15 it will be a reasonable challenge and will have good, but not great, loot and exp for me.

 

 

Hey guys, what's going on in h-

 

 

Burn all videogames forever.

Best post ever.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Karkarov

[Valorian]

Pan's Labyrinth is a fantasy film because it has fantasy elements despite most of it being a typical drama it's not the same as Lord of the Rings yet both are labeled fantasy.

 

PE is not going to be level scaled the same way as TES games were, yet it will have level scaled elements (encounters, bosses etc.) hence it will be level scaled, partially level scaled if you want. That's that. Sawyer made it clear, at least to some people.

This is like talking to a brick wall. lol

 

 

A brick wall is considerate enough to be quiet. He's pretty loud and hysterical.

I'm not sure how many more times he's going to edit my posts to include Sawyer's name to attract attention to his bizarre thought(?) processes. It's good for the shock factor at least, I guess.

 

All in all, I think he's not going to understand that level scaling the entire game (except rats!!), within a range or not, is not the same thing as scaling certain crit path encounters, even if we drilled it through his skull directly into the brain.

[Gfted1]

I only skimmed the last 10 pages so maybe this was already addressed. Arent they already removing kill experience so people cant "degeneratively gain experience"? With that mechanic in effect the developers should know exactly what the party level will be at any given location and adjust the encounter accordingly. Now a second contived mechanic is required to ensure the first contrived mechanic is working?

[J.E. Sawyer]

All mechanics are contrived. Regardless of how experience is gained, PE is not a linear, IWD-style adventure. Even in Icewind Dale II, the majority of experience gained was from quests. If you chose to skip optional side quests (especially near the beginning of the game) the party could easily be lower level when they hit an encounter.

[Somna]

I only skimmed the last 10 pages so maybe this was already addressed. Arent they already removing kill experience so people cant "degeneratively gain experience"? With that mechanic in effect the developers should know exactly what the party level will be at any given location and adjust the encounter accordingly. Now a second contived mechanic is required to ensure the first contrived mechanic is working?

 

They are putting forth the possibility of making the main encounters scale to the expected party level range to accomdate people who like to go side-questing.

 

Most of the 10 pages is ad hominem attacks and sniping about what level scaling is and isn't, so you really didn't miss much by skimming.

[Gfted1]

All mechanics are contrived. Regardless of how experience is gained, PE is not a linear, IWD-style adventure. Even in Icewind Dale II, the majority of experience gained was from quests. If you chose to skip optional side quests (especially near the beginning of the game) the party could easily be lower level when they hit an encounter.

 

I disagree. Some mechanics feel logical and natural, for example getting better at killing things (level up) because you have experience in killing things. Other mechanics can feel shoehorned in, like you can only play a game the way someone else wants you to play it. But I digress.

 

If kill experience was removed to keep degenerates from outleveling an area, wouldnt the same be accomplished with just scaling every encounter in the game to the current party level range? Why the need for both?

[Karkarov]

All mechanics are contrived. Regardless of how experience is gained, PE is not a linear, IWD-style adventure. Even in Icewind Dale II, the majority of experience gained was from quests. If you chose to skip optional side quests (especially near the beginning of the game) the party could easily be lower level when they hit an encounter.

 

I disagree. Some mechanics feel logical and natural, for example getting better at killing things (level up) because you have experience in killing things. Other mechanics can feel shoehorned in, like you can only play a game the way someone else wants you to play it. But I digress.

 

If kill experience was removed to keep degenerates from outleveling an area, wouldnt the same be accomplished with just scaling every encounter in the game to the current party level range? Why the need for both?

Sigh.... They aren't doing both. Very specific main story mission only encounters will be scaled to a level "range". Meaning this encounter will always be tuned for someone who is at least level 10 but maybe as high as level 13 but never higher than that. Meanwhile 95% + of the game has no scaling period and this level 5 area is always meant for level 5, and that level 20 area is always meant for level 20, etc. etc.

 

That is not level scaling, that's tweaking a small set of very specific encounters to make sure they are matched to what power level the player is likely to be when they get there.

[Helm]

Regardless of how experience is gained, PE is not a linear

Btw objective + kill based XP is the way to go imo. You should be rewarded for doing both and not just one or the other.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Helm

[Helm]

If kill experience was removed to keep degenerates from outleveling an area, wouldnt the same be accomplished with just scaling every encounter in the game to the current party level range? Why the need for both?

Josh is opting for an approach similar to what we had in BG, the only difference being that it will not be encounter level scaling but ranged place centric level scaling (as I understand). It should be minimal (I hope) so you will probably not even notice it.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Helm

[J.E. Sawyer]

I disagree. Some mechanics feel logical and natural, for example getting better at killing things (level up) because you have experience in killing things.

That is a logical association, but characters in D&D and many other games (including Project Eternity) also get better at doing things other than killing from experience points. As I wrote before, a large amount of experience in IE games (in many cases, the majority of the XP) comes from completing quests, which may or may not have any direct link to killing things. Experience points in the IE games (and in PE) are an abstraction.

 

Other mechanics can feel shoehorned in, like you can only play a game the way someone else wants you to play it. But I digress.

Player behaviors are always influenced by the rules designed for the game. I've tried to be forthcoming about the ways in which we are designing the game and the reasons for making the choices we are making.

 

If kill experience was removed to keep degenerates from outleveling an area, wouldnt the same be accomplished with just scaling every encounter in the game to the current party level range? Why the need for both?

Kill experience wasn't "removed" (it wasn't ever implemented) to prevent anyone from outleveling an area. When XP is rewarded for killing creatures, quests solutions than involve not killing creatures still systemically encourage players to go back and kill those creatures -- or make players feel like they have completed the quest "wrong" because they didn't kill the target. The issue isn't necessarily one of balance, because often players will exhibit the same behavior even if the amount of XP gained from creatures is extremely small.

 

The reason I refer to this as "degenerate gameplay" is because the player chose a non-combat solution but ultimately went back to using combat after the solution was selected because the game systemically provides an incentive to do so. When designers create non-combat resolutions and players select non-combat resolutions, I believe it's reasonable to assume they both created and selected those options because that's what they wanted to do. In PE, nothing will necessarily prevent the player from killing characters/creatures they avoided on a quest, but I don't think it's necessary to systematically reward them for doing so.

 

As a side note, I've already explained to you once this week what I mean by degenerate gameplay. I don't believe I've ever referred to the people who engage in degenerate gameplay as "degenerates", nor have I insinuated they are doing something wrong or bad. They're playing the game in the way that the rules encourage them to play. Those rules are made by designers, so again, it's ultimately our responsibility.

[SqueakyCat]

I'm actually starting to somewhat like the goal/quest experience as long as the experience is awarded in smaller incremental amounts rather than a larger sum at the end of the quest. Someone in another thread gave a very good example of how a sample quest and experience accumulation could theoretically work. In their example, there were several points along the way in the quest where experience would be awarded and would accomodate different playstyles.

 

My biggest apprehension originally was that it would make the game feel much more linear, and there would be long stretches of time (depending on depth of the quest) where no experience would be accumulated. If the example given in the other thread is a somewhat accurate depiction of what Josh is envisioning, then I have no problem with quest/goal experience.

 

In short, I stand corrected.

[Helm]

If kill experience was removed to keep degenerates from outleveling an area, wouldnt the same be accomplished with just scaling every encounter in the game to the current party level range? Why the need for both?

Kill experience wasn't "removed" (it wasn't ever implemented) to prevent anyone from outleveling an area. When XP is rewarded for killing creatures, quests solutions than involve not killing creatures still systemically encourage players to go back and kill those creatures -- or make players feel like they have completed the quest "wrong" because they didn't kill the target. The issue isn't necessarily one of balance, because often players will exhibit the same behavior even if the amount of XP gained from creatures is extremely small.

Aha, and what about loot? Do the enemies not drop any or are you implementing an economy where cash is worthless (like in Skyrim) so you wouldn't bother picking up anything anyway?

 

The reason I refer to this as "degenerate gameplay" is because the player chose a non-combat solution but ultimately went back to using combat after the solution was selected because the game systemically provides an incentive to do so. When designers create non-combat resolutions and players select non-combat resolutions, I believe it's reasonable to assume they both created and selected those options because that's what they wanted to do. In PE, nothing will necessarily prevent the player from killing characters/creatures they avoided on a quest, but I don't think it's necessary to systematically reward them for doing so.

Wow, sounds like a cool game where combat is always avoided because it is pointless. Maybe you should call the game Pacifist: The Pacifisting.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Helm

[J.E. Sawyer]

Aha, and what about loot? Do the enemies not drop any or are you implementing an economy where cash is worthless (like in Skyrim) so you wouldn't bother picking up anything anyway?

Loot isn't systemically connected with killing a target/any targets specifically.

 

Wow, sounds like a cool game where combat is always avoided because it is pointless. Maybe you should call the game Pacifist: The Pacifisting.

I don't think gaining experience points is the only reason why players engage in combat.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Wow, sounds like a cool game where combat is always avoided because it is pointless.

 

Yeah, rewarding sociopathic behavior is so much better and is proven to enhance gameplay in every possible way imaginable.

Edited January 10, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[aVENGER]

Loot isn't systemically connected with killing a target/any targets specifically.

 

Just chiming in to say that I'm very happy that you're going with this in addition to the goal-based XP approach.

 

Combined, these two gameplay aspects should make for some a really interesting choices in terms of quest resolution. It gives players the freedom to choose the quest solution which suits their character, rather than base their decision purely around XP/loot gain. Nice work.

[J.E. Sawyer]

I'm actually starting to somewhat like the goal/quest experience as long as the experience is awarded in smaller incremental amounts rather than a larger sum at the end of the quest. Someone in another thread gave a very good example of how a sample quest and experience accumulation could theoretically work. In their example, there were several points along the way in the quest where experience would be awarded and would accomodate different playstyles.

 

My biggest apprehension originally was that it would make the game feel much more linear, and there would be long stretches of time (depending on depth of the quest) where no experience would be accumulated. If the example given in the other thread is a somewhat accurate depiction of what Josh is envisioning, then I have no problem with quest/goal experience.

Ultimately, it comes down to how people play the game. If players really do wind up avoiding combat all the time (I don't believe this will be the case), that's not what we're trying to encourage/reward.

 

At the highest level, it is my sincere desire to allow people to play the sorts of characters they want the way they want to play them -- while experiencing enjoyable challenges in the game. If you want to play the game as a solo wizard in plate armor who talks his way past as many conflicts as he can, I think that is good/fine/great and would like to design mechanics to support that. If you want to make a party of orlan barbarians with hatchets who slaughter every living and unliving creature you see, that is also good/fine/great.

 

But simply allowing something doesn't mean it's viable, and we do need to think about how our systems and content influence play styles and behaviors.

[aVENGER]

Wow, sounds like a cool game where combat is always avoided because it is pointless. Maybe you should call the game Pacifist: The Pacifisting.

 

Who's to say that resolving a quest through combat won't be the best solution in certain situations? For example, if you spare a bunch of enemies during one quest, they might come back as reinforcements in another one and make things more difficult for you.

 

Also, fighting can be very satisfying if you are playing a combat-oriented character. I enjoyed my Brujah playthrough in VTM:Bloodlines even though you didn't get any XP for killing enemies in that game either. I simply liked the feeling that my character was powerful enough to single-handedly take out a bunch of tough enemies while the Ventrue character from my previous playthrough had a lot of trouble in the same situation.

Edited January 10, 2013 by aVENGER

[Hormalakh]

One point I want to make since I've been reading through this thread is that a lot of people argue for experience gain through killing by basing their arguments on a "realism" or "verisimilitude" reasoning. The argument usually goes something like "since fighters gain experience in fighting in real life, then fighters in the game should gain experience in the same way." I don't think that this is a very strong argument for why a game mechanic should exist.

[Helm]

Aha, and what about loot? Do the enemies not drop any or are you implementing an economy where cash is worthless (like in Skyrim) so you wouldn't bother picking up anything anyway?

Loot isn't systemically connected with killing a target/any targets specifically.

Okay, so NPCs drop worthless loot (if at all). Check.

 

Wow, sounds like a cool game where combat is always avoided because it is pointless. Maybe you should call the game Pacifist: The Pacifisting.

I don't think gaining experience points is the only reason why players engage in combat.

I love Deus Ex, Thief and Hitman. Are you making an isometric stealthy Thief game, then the objective based XP would really make sense. An isometric thief game would be pretty cool beca------- oh no wait, PE is supposed to be a spiritual successor to the IE games. Too bad.

 

But seriously, no, XP and loot is not the only reason that we engage in combat, but it is a reason to engage in combat and perhaps not avoid combat as much as possible. But why should I engage in combat with Orks if they only drop crap loot (if at all) and I am not rewarded with XP either? If there is no point in doing something then I personally will not do it either. I'll just kill what is in the way and forget the rest. You're the designer, maybe you have something up your sleep to not make combat (under many but not all circumstances) totally redundant.

 

And PE should be heavily based on combat (well it supposed too, you know, like in the IE games).... But I guess you'll have to hear that from the playtesters first before your change your mind and switch back to quest + kill XP.

[Helm]

Wow, sounds like a cool game where combat is always avoided because it is pointless.

 

Yeah, rewarding sociopathic behavior is so much better and is proven to enhance gameplay in every possible way imaginable.

Please. Go and play the Sims or My Little Pony and leave Baldur's Gate to us psychos and sociopaths.

[Helm]

Wow, sounds like a cool game where combat is always avoided because it is pointless. Maybe you should call the game Pacifist: The Pacifisting.

 

Who's to say that resolving a quest through combat won't be the best solution in certain situations? For example, if you spare a bunch of enemies during one quest, they might come back as reinforcements in another one and make things more difficult for you.

 

Also, fighting can be very satisfying if you are playing a combat-oriented character. I enjoyed my Brujah playthrough in VTM:Bloodlines even though you didn't get any XP for killing enemies in that game either. I simply liked the feeling that my character was powerful enough to single-handedly take out a bunch of tough enemies while the Ventrue character from my previous playthrough had a lot of trouble in the same situation.

Resolving a quest either peacefully or brutally should of course be in the game.

 

It just does not make sense to not give any XP for combat at all. Combat and quest/objective XP is the way to go. This is not Deus EX, Thief, whatever. This is a spiritual successor to the IE games and they were based heavily upon combat and you were rewarded for doing so.

[Somna]

[...]

But why should I engage in combat with Orks if they only drop crap loot (if at all) and I am not rewarded with XP either? If there is no point in doing something then I personally will not do it either. I'll just kill what is in the way and forget the rest.

[...]

 

I'm quite sure this is exactly what they want you to do, instead of killing every thing that moves (and some things that don't) along the way to milk as much XP out of it as possible.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Okay, so NPCs drop worthless loot (if at all). Check.

No.

 

And PE should be heavily based on combat (well it supposed too, you know, like in the IE games).

It is, although Torment was not heavily combat-based.