Drunk girl rambles

[Amentep]

Right there are other ways to do it, but my question is whether doing it via "level scaling" breaks the verisimilitude or not since contextually the level scaling is an attempt to address the "reality" of the game situation

Edited April 8, 2013 by Amentep

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

On the other hand, level scaling destroys entirely an aspect that I believe enhances an rpg universe; verisimilitude.

 

Interesting approach

 

And, sadly, terribly wrong. In RPG design, your goal isn't to create verisimilitude (as in "semblance to reality") through game mechanics. Rather, aforementioned game mechanics exist to emulate genre tropes. Survival mechanics are necessary when post-apocalyptic wastelands are involved. Chances of getting blood poisoning from a stab of a rusty dagger are only significant if your game seeks to emulate a gritty low fantasy environment. Elaborate combat mechanics are completely unnecessary in a game of modern investigative horror. On the other hand, in-combat powerups which trigger during a suitably dramatic demonstration of Heroic Resolve after getting badly beaten would be an absolute must in a shonen rpg.

 

Since we only have a rather sketchy idea of what tropes are significant enough to warrant mechanical representation in the context of P:E, the point of the whole conversation is moot. Furthermore, it would tremendously improve everybody's mood and digestion if Valorian would just kindly shut his piehole already and accept that the people working on the game may be somewhat more competent and experienced (on the field they've been working on for God knows how long) than he (who probably has no qualifications whatsoever) is, instead of flailing about and screaming in a futile, yet increasingly tiresome manner.

 

Btw., he's still on ignore, so if he raises an actual point instead of spewing some condescending but ultimately useless bull****, please do notify me.

Edited April 8, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Lephys]

Well first of all thanks for being first person to answer me here, and for that note at the very end. It helped 'cause my English is not good enough to always get other's intentions. No irony or sarcasm here.

In fact this forum is the very first time I'm trying to communicate more elaborate thoughts in English since... high school and failed attempt to study English philology almost 10 to 13 years ago. So it's quite a task and again, thanks for the help provided. But enough about it.

Ahh, no problem. And, I've gotta say, your English is pretty good. Really.

 

Right, so "selective level scaling removes challenge" goes out the window - 1:0 for you

Nahh, . True discussion is cooperative, not competitive. I'm just trying to make sure I understand exactly what it is you're trying to say. And I'm still just a little unclear on this bit, because you initially said that turning OFF the scaling ADDS challenge. It might be that I misunderstood what you meant, but you seemed to be asking "Why should anyone get mad because someone wants to add some difficulty by using the 'turn off level scaling' option?" But, it seems if you turn it off, then the only possible change will be enemies that are lower level than they could've been, because the scaling would've raised their level at a certain point. *shrug* I was just a little confused by that, is all, and was trying to make sure I didn't miss something.

 

And now, let me address your other point. So, I do not know how difficulty levels will translate to the leveling speed of my party/PC. Maybe it won't have any impact on xp distribution, but maybe (as many times before) I will be able to develop my skills faster, the harder game mode I pick.

You're right that we don't know exactly everything that will be affected by difficulty options, but what it will definitely affect (unless it's not doing at all what it's supposed to do) is the difficulty/challenge of combat encounters. Whether it does it by changing levels, or just making the AI crappier, or making the player characters better, or all of the above, we don't know yet. But, the problem brought up with level-scaling is that it will increase the level of enemies when some players might not want it to. And no matter how scary or wussy an enemy is, it's going to be better and more challenging if it's a higher level. It's going to be more capable of killing you than something at a lower level.

 

So, specifically, the problem brought up was "No, I earned that level 7 thing being easily stompable into the ground, because I leveled up to level 10 before fighting it. I don't want it to be level 8 or 9 now that I'm level 10!". Which means "I don't want that thing to get more difficult than it's 'supposed' to be." But, my argument is, "How do you know how difficult it's 'supposed' to be?".

 

Let's say you CAN fight something that's level 7, but it could possibly be scaled up to a maximum of level 10, if you level up past it before trying to fight it (and that's as high as you can go before you either have to fight it, or quit playing the game forever and never progress). Well, if they just decided the thing was level 10, no matter what (even though you don't know what level it is until you encounter it -- it's hidden underlying game-code knowledge), would that be totally fine, suddenly? Is it more important HOW the level was decided (by some guy in an office while the game's being made, then never again will it change as opposed to by the character's level, to some degree) than it is whether or not the level's appropriate, or what opportunities the game presents? If the enemy were just-plain level 10, then it would be harder, relative to the rest of the game. You'd pretty much have to get to maximum level (10) before fighting it, JUST to be able to take it on on an "even" playing field (you'd be the same level, but that doesn't necessarily mean you'd have the same HP, damage, abilities, etc.). So, the game becomes more linear, if not perfectly linear. You COULD fight it at level 7, or 8, or 9. But then, if everything in the game were like that, then your options are pretty much hard mode, or a perfectly linear game. Because, every time you don't take on things in a particular order (to be higher level whenever you fight the high-level thing), you'd have a ridiculously high challenge there.

 

Does that make sense? I don't want everything to scale, all the time (and neither does Obsidian). So since it serves its purpose when there's a purpose to serve, I don't see removing it as anything but statically shifting the difficulty of the game either up or down, and introducing more a more obviously linear path to the game.

 

You know what would be awesome? If there was an explanation for the "scaling," and if it were time-sensitive. What I mean is, if you have the option of: A) taking out a bandit outpost that's causing trouble in the area, or B) investigating a cave, maybe choosing to investigate the cave FIRST gives the bandits more time to better outfit themselves and train, etc. So, since checking out a cave takes time (maybe a few days, or a week, with travel in there, depending on where it is, etc.), the bandits have existed and done things during that time, as well. Maybe that's a good way to look at controlled level-scaling.

 

I mean, if your whole party can gain levels in the amount of time it takes to investigate a cave, why can't the bandits improve enough to gain a level, maybe by the time you've gained 2? Again, it doesn't need to be "Every time you take a step, they take a step", 1:1 scaling. It's not about keeping them exactly on-par with you. But, if you can fight the bandits now, or in 4 weeks, why would they still just be sitting around, not doing anything whatsoever, in 4 weeks? It could even be worked into the story and such. Just, situations changing when you don't deal with them immediately, but every time you deal with 1 situation out of a handful presented to you at once, time passes, and the others change. You can never take them all on at once.

 

*shrug*

 

So, to sum things up - turns out I'd be happy with an independent feature of maxing opponents levels and overall customizing given difficulty levels (much like original System Shock did it long time ago).

 

<sigh> In any case, I hope you're right, my guts are wrong and I won't be disappointed by difficulty factor of the main quest. Because, you know, I find myself to old and to busy to (re)play (over and over again) a hard boiled iron mode only for making that story driven encounters worth the build up.

If not, there's always hope for some kind of Kangaxx incarnation in the P:E universe 

 

cheers

Well, I don't even really want to maximize opponents' levels. I mean, that'd be an interesting option, too. Like I've said on the topic before, Oblivion actually had a level-scaling slider. You could control the ratio. I think it went all the way up to like 2:1. So, if you were level 5, everything you fought was level 10. That's kinda similar, in terms of maximizing opponents' levels. But, yeah, that's not something I think we need in here. I don't even think much scaling is necessary at all, and, as I said, neither does Obsidian. They're intending to use the most minimal amount they need to, and only on the core story content, which makes sense.

 

If you have to go confront some story boss guy at the Blargity Blarg Outpost, but you can do like 10 other quests that are completely optional, if you so choose, then it's almost impossible, like I said, to not either make the guy a static level that's too high (basically requiring you to do all 10 quests just to level enough to have him not be crazy difficult) or make the guy a static level that's too low (basically, he's already your level, and if you so choose to do all 10 side quests, you're not 5 levels above him).

 

This is just a simplified example, keep in mind... BUT, the best thing to do would be to have both, right? So the people who say "But, what's the point in playing the game if you aren't going to do all those quests? That's just normal to me, and I expect an appropriate story encounter after doing all the quests" can be level 10 and fight their level 10 guy (same level for the sake of simplicity, for the example), and the people who say "Man, why do all that side stuff? It's just optional, anyway. I'm just here for the story, and I wanna progress that right now!" can be level 5 and can have their level 5 guy.

 

The people who want to be level 5 and have their level 10 guy can put the game on Hard (Because why would they want a tough guy ONLY RIGHT THERE and nowhere else in the game?), and the people who want to be level 10 and have their level 5 guy to fight can put the game on Easy (because, again, why would they want JUST that one fight to be super easy, and all the other ones to be difficult?). So, everyone wins, really.

 

Except for Valorian, apparently. Valorian believes you should have to get out a calculator and figure out exactly which order of quests will yield you the appropriate amount of XP to keep everything moderately challenging relative to your party level, without having it be a roller-coaster. That's totally up to the player, not the game. These bandits are level 50 and you're level 30? Welp, should've done other stuff first, obviously. This quest you didn't discover yet is now level 5, but you're level 20 by the time you discovered it? Welp, that's your bad. You should've known about all the content in the game, and printed out a detailed itinerary on how to get through it all, like making the most of a 4-night stay at Disneyworld with a bus group.

 

The developers are in no way responsible for consistency. They just slap stuff into a game, and you figure it out from there, OR ELSE! o_O

[Ffordesoon]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

*sobs, bangs head repeatedly against wall*

 

I had a long response to Valorian all typed out, one that was logically sound and rigorous and as unassailable as I could make it... AND MY IPAD BATTERY DIED JUST AS I FINISHED IT!

 

SON OF A—

 

*flips table*

 

Oh well, at least I was only doing it for myself and not to feed the troll (which I would've been doing, no doubt, but that wasn't the reason I wrote it).

 

Maaaaaaaan, now I'm bummed...

Edited April 9, 2013 by Ffordesoon

[Lephys]

^ I know that feel, bro. I hate it when that happens.

 

Oh, hey, it might be saved (or most of it might). The forums autosave (if you have that feature activated, which I think it is by default), and you can go to "More Reply Options," then somewhere there's a "view autosaved content" (I think it's under the body box where you type/edit your reply.)

 

Of course, it might be gone forever now. Maybe it was overwritten. *shrug*

 

*Pats you on the back*

 

There there...

[Valorian]

 

On the other hand, level scaling destroys entirely an aspect that I believe enhances an rpg universe; verisimilitude.

 

Interesting approach; I suppose this may be the crux of the difference between us in that I see the game mechanics as an abstraction that never approaches "real" but simulates same (in this case, equating "real" with "true"). So as long as the mechanics are relatively consistent within themselves I'm not terribly bothered with how faithfully they adapt the setting.

 

Two questions come to mind -

 

(1) "would you rather have no level scaling even if it makes the game worse for all experiences because it still reads as "false" in your verisimilitude test?"

 

and

 

(2) "If the RPGs main storyline is a fight against another adventuring party who has also been gaining experience during the time the player has, shouldn't the adventuring party have its own leveling system that equates to what experience it has gained during the time you took to get to it so as to be "real" within your verisimilitude test(ie level scaling)?"

 

Or am I misreading your use of verisimilitude?

1. It wouldn't make my experience worse because I despise level scaling.

That's like asking; would you prefer not adding this ingredient [that you're allergic to] to your meal even if it means that it would taste a bit.. different?

 

2. Why are they always getting experience at the same time my party does? Are we some kind of long lost cosmic twins?

 

Verisimilitude is just one thing on the list of why getting rid of level scaling is important.

Without level scaling each player has a truly unique playthrough. Some will find xy encounter horribly hard, others will just cut through it, the third group will find it a moderate challenge. Level scaling largely evens it and it all becomes much duller.

[Lephys]

1. It wouldn't make my experience worse because I despise level scaling.

That's like asking; would you prefer not adding this ingredient [that you're allergic to] to your meal even if it means that it would taste a bit.. different?

Level-scaling allergy. Finally a valid need to remove/toggle it.

 

2. Why are they always getting experience at the same time my party does? Are we some kind of long lost cosmic twins?

Who says they're always getting experience at the exact same time your party does? Oh, that's right... you are.

 

Is your party capable of progressing in an hour as far as it takes bandits weeks to progress? Unless your party is 7,000% more productive than everyone else in the land, it doesn't make any sense that others wouldn't make SOME progress alongside your own, if only because time passes for both parties.

 

Without level scaling each player has a truly unique playthrough. Some will find xy encounter horribly hard, others will just cut through it, the third group will find it a moderate challenge. Level scaling largely evens it and it all becomes much duller.

The fact that level-scaling doesn't necessarily determine the initial level at which the player is exposed to a given encounter, and that it also doesn't prevent an encounter from ever becoming any easier, begs to differ.

 

Some will still find xy encounter hard, others will still cut through it, and the third group will still find it a moderate challenge.

 

You still seem to hold on to this facade that moderation in its use does not exist, and I do not know why.

[Somna]

Could be that he's one of those people who defines level scaling specifically as a sub category of itself and can't (or doesn't want to) think of the terminology to make it more distinct.

 

In their definition, level scaling that is in moderation is no longer actual level scaling, because their perceived internal definition of level scaling includes "unmoderated" or "unrestricted" in the definition. So putting up examples of a boss that has a 2-3 level range can no longer qualifies as actual "level scaling," depending on the person.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Somna

[forfs]

Level scaling may even be necessary if player has a lot of freedom in terms of the quests order. Take  DA:O for example (and possibly KOTOR games?). If the level was fixed, there would be no point in allowing player to choose, when there is clearly one and only one correct order of doing quests.

Having said that, IF P:E is going for more linear storyline I would prefer fixed levels. A wizard that you fight at levels 5-7? Make him level 8 and let player deal with it. You could always use difficulty slider to affect A.I. I'm always wary when developers try to optimize the gameplay to every style (rushing vs exploring). Clearly on of the most important factors distinguishing games from books is inability to lose at reading, while you can lose at game. Why take that away? Yes it can force you to do some side quests that you didn't plan on doing, but on the other hand it increases replay value. When you explored every nook and cranny and you still want to play again you set yourself an artificial challenges (What's the lowest level/party size I can beat this guy with?). With scaling you don't have that or it's diminished by the knowledge that the game will bent over backwards to let you win. What would be the joy of playing your first solo character in BG, if the game scaled to your level? I will probably never forget the wonderful feeling when I defeated Firkraag with my solo 15lvl sorcerer wielding only wooden staff +0. Or when I cleared whole map in act 1 Gothic 2 and still saved points for mage skills... Ahh happy days   To sum up: Games without level scaling have - historically - provided me with more fun than the games with it, and therefore by induction I would opt for no level scaling in PE. 

[Ffordesoon]

Could be that he's one of those people who defines level scaling specifically as a sub category of itself and can't (or doesn't want to) think of the terminology to make it more distinct.

 

In their definition, level scaling that is in moderation is no longer actual level scaling, because their perceived internal definition of level scaling includes "unmoderated" or "unrestricted" in the definition. So putting up examples of a boss that has a 2-3 level range can no longer qualifies as actual "level scaling," depending on the person.

So the game has no level scaling, then. Glad that's settled.

 

Yo, Valorian! There's no level scaling! You happy now?

 

(Nobody tell him.)

[Lephys]

Level scaling may even be necessary if player has a lot of freedom in terms of the quests order. Take  DA:O for example (and possibly KOTOR games?). If the level was fixed, there would be no point in allowing player to choose, when there is clearly one and only one correct order of doing quests.

Having said that, IF P:E is going for more linear storyline I would prefer fixed levels. A wizard that you fight at levels 5-7? Make him level 8 and let player deal with it. You could always use difficulty slider to affect A.I. I'm always wary when developers try to optimize the gameplay to every style (rushing vs exploring). Clearly on of the most important factors distinguishing games from books is inability to lose at reading, while you can lose at game. Why take that away? Yes it can force you to do some side quests that you didn't plan on doing, but on the other hand it increases replay value. When you explored every nook and cranny and you still want to play again you set yourself an artificial challenges (What's the lowest level/party size I can beat this guy with?). With scaling you don't have that or it's diminished by the knowledge that the game will bent over backwards to let you win. What would be the joy of playing your first solo character in BG, if the game scaled to your level? I will probably never forget the wonderful feeling when I defeated Firkraag with my solo 15lvl sorcerer wielding only wooden staff +0. Or when I cleared whole map in act 1 Gothic 2 and still saved points for mage skills... Ahh happy days   To sum up: Games without level scaling have - historically - provided me with more fun than the games with it, and therefore by induction I would opt for no level scaling in PE.

Well, just to fill you in, personally, they have officially taken the stance that they will use minimal level-scaling on core-content, and that there will be plenty of things that don't scale at all.

 

Also, I just want to point out to you that level-scaling is simply the determination of level ratings of combat encounters/enemies using the player character/party's level as a basis. Things don't have to be the same level as you for scaling to occur.

 

This is the point that I've tried to make umpteen times, heh. Okay, take a fixed scenario. Your party is all level 5. Encounter A is level 3, and Encounter B is level 7. With fixed levels, if you progress up to level 7 before taking on either encounter, then A is going to be easy as pie, and B is going to be pretty "meh." There is no "challenging stuff" option, shy of changing the difficulty. And you don't really need Encounter A to be THAT easy. I mean, if you just need to walk within 10 feet of an enemy for it to disintegrate because of your sheer level difference, what's the point in even facing it? Combat devoid of any challenge, whatsoever, is pointless. Easy? Sure, that's fine. That's MINOR challenge, not challenge-less.

 

So, okay, let's take the same exact scenario, but put in a little scaling, where useful. Encounter A is level 3, and Encounter B is level 7. So you progress up to level 7, then want to take on one of the two encounters. Well, you knew progressing would make higher-level stuff easier to take on, so it can be assumed that you didn't need Encounter B to be super difficult for you, in order to have a good time playing the game (or you'd probably put it on Hard), right? So, you're level 7, and Encounter B is level 7. But now, lo-and-behold, Encounter A is, I dunno... level 5. So, guess what... Encounter A = still easy, but not so ridiculously easy that it's not benefitting anyone to be so easy. And Encounter B = completely unaffected by scaling (you haven't surpassed it). Maybe if you get to level 8 before tackling it, it bumps up to level 8? Then, when you hit level 9 before tackling it, it only bumps up to 8. *shrug*

 

That's the beauty of it. It's like spice/seasoning in cooking. Just because you want cinnamon in something doesn't mean you have to put 8 cups of cinnamon in it. You can put a tiny pinch, or a tablespoon, or 8 cups, and anywhere in between.

 

Also, there's more than one reason (I want to affect how difficult challenges are!) for taking on encounters in a given order (like doing quests B and C and leveling up before tackling quest A). Just because you gained 2 levels in the process doesn't mean your intention was specifically to level up to mitigate the challenge of the high level of challenge quest A presented. So, what point is there in forcing that alteration?

 

Thus is my case, u_u, for what it's worth.

 

They're going to use it some in P:E, it would seem, so there's no sense shunning it and trying to burn it at the steak for being a heretic. It's really not so bad as people like to think at-a-glance.

[Ffordesoon]

I like to burn chicken at the steak. Gives it a smoky flavor.

 

BA-ZING! I JUST LEPHYS'D LEPHYS!

 

On topic: it's also worth noting that exact enemy levels will probably not be displayed. The IE games didn't do that, after all. Perhaps Challenge Rating-type things (though I'd prefer it if those were subject to a player-controlled perception check), but no actual levels. Therefore, if the scaling works as intended, you'd have to go outside the game to prove conclusively that level scaling was going on. Nothing within the fiction would tell you so. Ergo, verisimilitude (which is consistency within a fiction, not truth) is maintained. Ergo, the only concievable problem anyone could have with it is a sort of Schrödinger's Cat problem, which the designers necessarily can't deal with because it's on you.

 

BOOM! I'm on a ro-o-o-o-oll!

[Amentep]

Ergo, verisimilitude (which is consistency within a fiction, not truth) is maintained.

As I understand it, verisimilitude as a theoretical construct is about truth (or, perhaps better put, how to express degrees of falseness away from truth).

 

Verisimilitude in writing is about approaching reality (or, more correctly put, in my opinion, plausibility), which could be considered the "truth" that all falsehoods are then removed by degrees from.

[Ffordesoon]

I meant verisimilitude in the narrative sense, which is normally used to refer to a fiction's internal consistency - in my experience, anyway. Sorry, I should have clarified.

 

"Plausibility" doesn't work for me, as it's overly unclear what it means in the context of a fantasy or SF story without further explanation, and it cleaves too closely to the notion that a good story is of necessity a realistic story. I prefer "internal consistency," as I said. It's not perfect, but it's a far more flexible term, and is ultimately more truthful about the artificial nature of storytelling.

 

I'm not the biggest fan of realism as the dominant mode of fictional expression anyway, of course, so I'll grant you that I'm using the term that suits my needs. But if a fiction is striving for realism, it will need to be internally consistent anyway, so I feel it's a fairly objective term to use. You are, of course, free to disagree.

[Amentep]

I think "plausibility" in this sense is consistent with your take on internal consistency; in essence do the events logically follow from the set-up be it fantasy, realism, science fiction, horror, etc.

[Ffordesoon]

I think "plausibility" in this sense is consistent with your take on internal consistency; in essence do the events logically follow from the set-up be it fantasy, realism, science fiction, horror, etc.

Eh, fair enough. It's all semantics anyway; as long as we each know what the other is saying, everything's cool.

[Iucounu]

To put it another way, all level-scaling (in the implementation Obsidian is using) really does is lessen the relative rate of challenge difference as you progress past a given enemy's lowest encounterable level. So, if, on Normal difficulty, Boss #1 starts at level 5, and can go as high as level 6 (depending on your progression before facing him), and on Easy difficulty, he starts at level 3 and can go as high as level 4, why does anything else need to handle the increased relative difficulty of that boss?

If the difference through level-scaling ends up to be so low, you can just do without it imho, not much of a change. And personally, it really irritates me when opponents adapt to my level, even when it's just a bit. For me, monsters, opponents, especially bosses must be constants in a game. They are the measure of my PC's power. If they aren't, I can't convincingly estimate my power-status within the world, and I can't compare how my PC did compared to PCs from other playthroughs, as everything is distorted through this artificial adaption. 

 

If it's really necessary to adjust difficulty, I'd take encounter scaling over level scaling any day, for said reasons. Besides, I think there's nothing wrong with some easy fights as long as there are still challenging fights in between. Perhaps there are even lots of encounters where the only option is to flee, or to avoid them from the start, if you're weak, and if you're powerful, you just go for them -> no level- or encounter-scaling needed (I guess that's the reason Gothic worked so well). Furthermore that adds some unpredictability to games, which I really like. Nothing like the artificial levels of DA or Oblivion (worst case), where everything was adjusted to your level to the point where you didn't even notice any progress in power.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Iucounu

[Lephys]

If the difference through level-scaling ends up to be so low, you can just do without it imho, not much of a change. And personally, it really irritates me when opponents adapt to my level, even when it's just a bit. For me, monsters, opponents, especially bosses must be constants in a game. They are the measure of my PC's power. If they aren't, I can't convincingly estimate my power-status within the world, and I can't compare how my PC did compared to PCs from other playthroughs, as everything is distorted through this artificial adaption.

It's only low if you never have dynamic opportunity ranges. Which is why, if you can only fight something between level 7 and level 9 (just, all things considered, there is no possible way to have progressed to that point in the game and be lower than level 7, and there is no possible way to progress past level 9 before taking on a given encounter), then there's really not any point in it. But, when you can do something at level 5, or at level 11, it serves a purpose.

 

As for gauging your power, the ability to gauge your power doesn't change. It's still there. Example:

 

During the player's level range from 5-8, there are going to be some level 4 encounters, some level 5 encounters, some level 6 encounters, some level 7 encounters, some level 8 encounters, and some level 9 encounters, hell, maybe even some level 10 encounters, for good measure. Also keep in mind that they're only planning on scaling SOME of the core content, so there'll be plenty of things that don't ever scale, ever. Annnywho... you can only ever get up to level 8, so the level 10 stuff is still tough for you to fight. You can't even make it be easy to fight, simply because you're not allowed to level up beyond 8 before deciding whether or not to take it on. This is completely unaffected by level-scaling. And, as I said before, the level 4 thing being half your level when you take it on is pointless. There might as well be a "complete encounter" button to click, at that point. HALF your level? But, see, the encounter's level is not the encounter's purpose in the game. It's not there to say "Hey, you do me before I get ungodly easy." It's there to be able to be confronted without HAVING to level up to get to it, just like the level 10 stuff is there to say "Hey, you're not quite ready for me yet."

 

The point is that, completely outside the range of level-scaling, there are already opportunities for things to be tougher, more moderate, or easier. And the other point is that, in programming the game so that there are a variety of situations to tackle, you have the side-effect of leveling up in the process. The entire point there is that the situations you can tackle are more dynamic and less of a linear path, which is completely defeated by an utter lack of any kind of adjustment.

 

Basically, regardless of whether it's scaling or purely static levels that do it, the game gets to decide how easy or difficult something should be... not the player (with the exception of the difficulty setting, which makes a sweeping adjustment to the entire playthrough). So, scaling doesn't prevent enemies from being stomp-into-the-ground-able any more than static levels that are always set 2 levels above your party's maximum possible level do. So if everything was too tough, or everything was too easy, or you couldn't alter your power relative to some particular encounter enough to suit your liking, it's not scaling's fault. It's the game's design in the first place, or your pickiness's, fault.

 

Your concerns are perfectly valid (they are things that aren't stupid to desire or make sure the game has), but the simple fact is that level-scaling and the gameplay you're looking for are not mutually exclusive things. It's just from the particular angle you're looking on that they seem to be.

[Iucounu]

During the player's level range from 5-8, there are going to be some level 4 encounters, some level 5 encounters, some level 6 encounters, some level 7 encounters, some level 8 encounters, and some level 9 encounters, hell, maybe even some level 10 encounters, for good measure. 

Are you proposing that the level of each opponent should be displayed on the screen like in Arcanum or WoW? If so, I can't say I'm fond of that concept. Also, of course I don't know what type of enemies Obsidian will scale, but a wolf remains a wolf, and an Umber Hulk remains an Umber Hulk. There might be stronger and weaker exemplars, but it would feel weird if in one area, all the wolves you encounter are all of a sudden twice as tough as in the previous area, and all Umber Hulks you fight are much stronger than in a previous playthrough. 

 

Furthermore, I'm also of the opionion that Sarevok should remain Sarevok and Malavon should remain Malavon, regardless what your level is. 

When it comes to faceless warriors, level-scaling might be at least bearable for me (well ok, it's not THAT bad actually), but it would still feel weird if the warriors of some organization are extremely tough in one playthrough, and a bunch of pansies in another. Especially when there is another organization that is supposed to rival them, but their members are a bad joke compared to them, or the other way around, depending on what you do first. 

 

BTW, if the combat is made halfway intelligent, Level 10 X does not neccessarily pose the same challenge to a party as Level 10 Y, which also makes gauging power harder and again, might be irritating for me.

 

 

 

The point is that, completely outside the range of level-scaling, there are already opportunities for things to be tougher, more moderate, or easier. And the other point is that, in programming the game so that there are a variety of situations to tackle, you have the side-effect of leveling up in the process. The entire point there is that the situations you can tackle are more dynamic and less of a linear path, which is completely defeated by an utter lack of any kind of adjustment.

It also depends on how dynamic the game is, and how fast you gain in power. When you level rather slow and/or the game is made so that you must still be on your guard against weaker foes, it can still be possible to do without any adjustments. For example, you have three branches that you can choose of in any order that all have more or less equally strong opponents:

 

| | |

 

The first branch might be very challenging, the second one less so, and in the third branch things would run pretty smoothly. But for me, the latter can be satisfactory as well, especially when you cut through the same opponents that were giving you trouble in the previous branches. Furthermore, in branch 1 and 2, there might be encounters that you can only avoid, sneak past, whatever, whereas in branch 3 you're finally stong enough to take on everything that you encounter, even though it's tough, but that way you still get some really challenging fights in between without any scaling. 

And if the first branch is too tough for you, there might still be ways. Just sneaking past most of your foes, using a lot of magical items with limited usage, even organizing aid or whatever intelligent ways the game offers you to make it through. To a certain extent, it can be the player who decides how difficult the game is going to be. 

 

Of course, it could also be like this:

 

|/

|

|/

|     |

 

But I don't think the game is going to look like this (at least not the core content). Branch 2 (the short one) would probably just be a sidequest, and thus, according to Obsidian, not subjected to level-scaling anyway. However, if you first do branch 1 and branch 2 after that, you can still make branch 2 interesting. Perhaps some event that you can trigger during branch 1 leads to a party of super tough bounty hunters ambushing you in branch 2. This brings me to encounter-scaling. What problem does level-scaling solve, that encounter-scaling could not? And what are the advantages? Perhaps it's just a matter of taste in some cases, but for me it's clear what I prefer. 

Edited April 11, 2013 by Iucounu

[Lephys]

I am not opting for levels to be displayed, like in WoW, no... not at all, heh.

 

Also, I want to clarify that I'm not advocating the merits of level-scaling as the sole means of solving all dynamic-content-navigation problems. As you said, there's encounter scaling, as well as times when you're going to be fighting a different group of the same/same-type of enemies, and even amongst a group of wolves one should expect variance in size/shape/hp/damage/ferocity/speed, etc.

 

I don't really have anything to say against anything you've just said. I really just see level-scaling as a single type of adjustment within the realm of encounter scaling, because nothing says you have to say "Wait, I want there to be a more appropriate challenge here, but there's NO WAY I can change this group of 5 goblins to be more numerous, or of a different makeup," just as nothing says you have to say "I want this fight to be a bit tougher because of how-and-when the player got to it, but ALL I CAN DO is up the quantity of enemies, rather than taking this group that the player never did and never WILL face and 'replacing' them with a group of slightly tougher-though-still-varietous enemies."

 

Basically, I think it's equally silly to shun ANY specific type of adjustment to the combat challenge that's made before you even ever face the challenge itself. As long as it makes sense.

 

Like you said... some specific story baddy? He should probably still be tough (however you manage that) whether or not you complete 7 sidequests before facing him, or complete no sidequests and rush straight to him (though there should obviously be a relative difference between the two). Because, how much sense does it make that you went out and fought some wolves and bandits, and explored a cave, and now you can just wipe the floor with this guy who even the entire local garrison could not cause to break a sweat? That sort of thing.

 

It just seems as though so many view "scaling" as some kind of mutant change to something that already exists. If I throw a party, and 6 people tell me they're coming, and I go buy some food and drinks for the party, I might get more messages while at the store from 4 other people who are coming, and maybe I'll turn around and pick up some more food and drinks. OMG, I JUST SCALED MY PARTY SUPPLIES! Yeah, and when the party happens, the supplies will be appropriate for it. There'd be absolutely no sense in me just buying food and drinks for 100 people, IN CASE that many people come, OR in buying food and drinks for only 3 people, because I assume that few people will show up.

 

That's the whole point. Presenting an adequately appropriate challenge. If you do that, and there's still a range of difficulty available (a bit tougher to a bit easier), then I don't see how there's a problem. "I should've been able to eventually stomp that really tough thing into the ground, just because I went and did a bunch of other stuff first and came back to it!" Well, what if the game didn't even present you with enough leveling opportunities to do that? What makes anyone entitled to being able to decide which specific things should be which specific level of challenge? That's what I want to know. "I want an angry group of peasants to be ultra hard, but I want Malforr the Malevolent to COWER BEFORE MY BOOT SOLE!!!"?

 

Because, maybe it's just me, but that seems to make absolutely no sense, and that seems to be about the only "problem" caused by any type of scaling (assuming you don't blatantly implement it improperly).

 

The only thing the player should get to decide is whether or not to make something easier or not. Not whether or not it should be easy, on the fly. And the game already allows you to do that by not being linear. You can go take care of these situations before you fight Malforr the Malevolent, thereby allowing you to be better equipped and a bit more capable when facing him, as opposed to having absolutely no means by which to progress before facing him or not getting to face him until you've done other things first, in a specific order (linear game). This in no way entitles the player to decide just how easy Malforr can become, relative to the player's party. That whole argument has absolutely nothing to do with level-scaling, or scaling of any kind, and everything to do with whether or not the game allows you oodles of (or even infinite) level progression whenever you so choose.

[Iucounu]

I don't really have anything to say against anything you've just said. I really just see level-scaling as a single type of adjustment within the realm of encounter scaling, because nothing says you have to say "Wait, I want there to be a more appropriate challenge here, but there's NO WAY I can change this group of 5 goblins to be more numerous, or of a different makeup," just as nothing says you have to say "I want this fight to be a bit tougher because of how-and-when the player got to it, but ALL I CAN DO is up the quantity of enemies, rather than taking this group that the player never did and never WILL face and 'replacing' them with a group of slightly tougher-though-still-varietous enemies."

 

Basically, I think it's equally silly to shun ANY specific type of adjustment to the combat challenge that's made before you even ever face the challenge itself. As long as it makes sense.

It needs to make sense for opponents in a setting to be this strong, and then on the other hand to be twice as strong, which is not necessarily easy to design, if it's supposed to be good. I think some gamers have permanently running a power-ranking in their heads, and keep much attention to power ratios and how they make sense in a world. So usually, the less information you have about your enemy, and about the world, the more you can scale not recurring enemy types (to the point where it's totally redundant who you your enemies are, and level-scaling isn't really any different from encounter scaling anymore). But since Obsidian is going to scale only core content..

 

Furthermore, if the game is good, and you really like it, you play it more than once. If there is some boss XY, I receive an impression of him, his rank in his organization, his abilities, his accomplishments, his power-level in his organization, his power-level in the world, his power-level compared to mine. And now I play the game a second time and the guy is either twice as strong, or much weaker. Nothing fits together anymore. For some players, this might not be an issue, as they focus on other aspects of the game or are flexible enough to sort of reinvent everything. For other players hoever, it might ruin a good part of the fun. But usually, if something like that occurs, it's a sign that the developers weren't paying much attention to distincitve and coherent power-ratios from the start, and the game lacks a very appealing aspect.. at least for me. 

 

Like you said... some specific story baddy? He should probably still be tough (however you manage that) whether or not you complete 7 sidequests before facing him, or complete no sidequests and rush straight to him (though there should obviously be a relative difference between the two). Because, how much sense does it make that you went out and fought some wolves and bandits, and explored a cave, and now you can just wipe the floor with this guy who even the entire local garrison could not cause to break a sweat? That sort of thing.

In this case, I don't think I'd like some would-be-hero to do none of the available sidequests at all and right go for some big baddy (unless he's a very experienced player, I don't want to scare off speedrunners). I prefer the philosophy here that you're not entitled to win a game, and the game mustn't adapt to how you play, but you have to adapt to the challenges of the game. This might make the game less dynamic to play, but it mustn't make it totally linear either. 

 

It just seems as though so many view "scaling" as some kind of mutant change to something that already exists. If I throw a party, and 6 people tell me they're coming, and I go buy some food and drinks for the party, I might get more messages while at the store from 4 other people who are coming, and maybe I'll turn around and pick up some more food and drinks. OMG, I JUST SCALED MY PARTY SUPPLIES! Yeah, and when the party happens, the supplies will be appropriate for it. There'd be absolutely no sense in me just buying food and drinks for 100 people, IN CASE that many people come, OR in buying food and drinks for only 3 people, because I assume that few people will show up.

If the developers had no clear concept of the opponents they want to throw at the player, than it really doesn't matter much. But take a D&D creature catalogue, and make the creatures stronger or weaker. Wouldn't this be kind of a mutant change? Even if you had been completely ignorant to D&D before, the creatures might have been designed with a certain lore and idea in mind, and now that you've changed their power and their challenge-rating for parties of a specific level, perhaps not everything fits as well together as it originally would have. 

 

Like I said, I want to have constants in a game. For example, there might be some elite unit that totally kicks my ass. Now I have the ambition to make my PC just as strong as this elite unit, I plan ahead, give my PC this feat, these stats, this skill, this equipment etc.. and in the end, I'm still weaker than the elite unit, as it has been scaled. Or the elite unit isn't subjected to level-scaling, but since almost everything else is, being as strong as the elite unit isn't really much of an accomplishment, and the elite unit isn't an elite unit anymore.

When there is level-scaling, there is also fake-progression. DA is perhaps the perfect example for that. In a way, DA was more realistic than the IE games. While in Icewind Dale, you started with a group of total nobs who became half-gods within just a few months, in Dragon Age your PC is a killing-machine from the start, that is only honing his skills during the course of the game, and not experiences dramatic boosts in power. And yet there is even more HP- and damage-inflation in DA than in IWD. How is that possible? It's possible, because the stat-inflation in DA is mostly meaningless. You gain HP -> the standard Darkspawn unit does more damage. You do more damage -> the standard Darkspawn unit has more HP. The system becomes intransparent, the abilities, stats, skills and spells you gain are no longer absolute representations of power that enable you to determine your power-status and power-progress in the world, because there is no way to tell how the game will scale your enemies in response. 

Likewise, it's hard to gauge the power of your enemies. Are they stronger because they are really stronger, or were they just subjected to level-scaling?

In the end it's also about role-playing. The power you wield ultimately decides about your status in the world, and your status usually decides a great deal what role you're playing, as well as it decides the role of your enemies. 

I'm aware that you probably don't advocate such a form of level-scaling. But some points may still be valid if you play a game several times. 

Edited April 13, 2013 by Iucounu

[Lephys]

Agh... lost what I was typing...

Edited April 15, 2013 by Lephys

[Ffordesoon]

Ouch. Sorry.

[Lephys]

Yeahh... lemme see if I can recap the main points (my head hurts ferociously right now ):

 

 

Basically, Iucounu, there is value in everything you said. But, I just wanted to stress the importance of going to far in either direction causing a problem, hence the value of moderated scaling.

 

In a purely linear game, you have no options but whatever comes next. SOMETIMES, this is going to be relatively easy, sometimes moderately challenging, and sometimes quite tough. As far as combat goes, there, you might battle encounters below your level, at your level, and above your level. You have a mix. You just don't get to choose when you take on what, but the easy stuff is never hard, and the hard stuff is never easy.

 

So, you decide "well, I don't want the game's story experience to be so restrictive. I want different things to happen, and different effects to be generated in various situations when you do things in a different order, or sometimes don't do certain things at all." So you throw some choice into the mix. Now, that thing that was above your level (for a reason) in the purely linear form of game suddenly CAN be below your level, if you take on all the options before you take it on. But, the choice you added to your game was never meant to make the tough thing easier. That was a byproduct of the choice you just injected, because "That guy's tough" wasn't a problem. Difficulty settings already took care of that. On easy, he was less tough, and on Hard, he was even tougher, for those hardcore players who have mastered the gameplay and still want a challenge.

 

What reason, then, is there to say "since I can now do things that happen to level me up before facing this tough boss, it would somehow be a crime to prevent me from using my new-found doing-various-amounts-of-stuff-before-taking-on-this-boss powers to put myself above that boss in level."? There is none, that I can think of. So, my point of emphasis is this: The ability to change your standing relative to specific combat challenges in the game is not inherently owed to you as a component of expansive story/path choices. (That being said, I'm still not advocating 1:1 "no relative change, ever" scaling, as that becomes an "overdoing it" problem, even if it's not simply a "doing it at all" problem.)

 

So, yes, you don't want the game to assume the would-be-hero isn't going to do ANYTHING but go straight for the next boss/story encounter, but you also don't want to assume the would-be-hero is going to do ALL of the other things before going for the next main encounter. It's just as you said. So, where then would the fault be in retaining SOME relative-challenge integrity amongst combat challenges? Is that boss supposed to be tough? Doesn't it aid the story that he's tougher than all the other things you've fought thus far? Would he be such a multi-chapter, ongoing threat if he wasn't? And why must he sit there and block a gate while you somehow fight wolves and bandits until you're easily better than him, doing absolutely nothing to improve his own power, which was apparently only a few days' worth of questing above your own?

 

Again, I'm not suggesting that your own stance on the matter is in direct opposition to this. I'm merely pointing out the problem I find with the anti-scaling cases made thus far.

 

It seems to me that a system that accounts for both the people who go straight for the boss AND the people who want to do all the quests they can is FAR more pro than con. I mean, to use an overly simplified example, a 1:2 ratio would mean that things level up 1 level for every 2 levels you gain. So, if you had a 4-level range during which to take on a given set of scenarios, then the one 2 levels above you COULD be brought down to your level, while the one at your level would end up 2 levels below you. You still gain 2 levels from your beginning relative stance.

 

What need even exists to have EVERYTHING be able to be made easy that choosing "easy" from the options menu doesn't already fulfill? "I know that guy is supposed to be really hard, but you OWE it to me, game developers, to make sure I can be 3 levels above him if I want to!" Really? Do they? Oh, but then, you MIGHT, 10 minutes later, want something to be 4 levels above you? That doesn't make any sense. With scaling + path branching, all you do is make sure that some things stay relatively tough, some things stay relatively moderate, and some things stay relatively easy. So, the only situations that doesn't cover are "I wanted these WOLVES to be hard as crap, but for this crazy boss-fight guy single-handedly laying siege to this entire fortress to be EASY, dammit!" situations, and that, to be quite honest, seems a bit childishly silly.

 

Want some things to be easier than others? Scaling doesn't take that away. Want tough things to become easier, based on your decisions? Scaling also doesn't take that away, either. Feel like your combat challenges, in general, are too tough (even though some are easier than others) for whatever amount of optional stuff you like to do before progressing the story? Difficulty options have you covered. Want that "fetch the kitten" quest to be super difficult, and that "take out the elite band of trolls" quest to be super easy? Well, A) that doesn't really make any sense, and B), I think it's a waste of the developers' time to ensure that's possible.

[JFSOCC]

Encounter scaling can be barely visible. At first you're accosted by robbers at lower levels in the cities back alley, as you get more powerful the robbers wise up and leave you alone, however, you've surely attracted the attention of a powerful antagonist by now, and he's sending assassins on his way to deal with you, or keep you busy as he progresses his evil plans.

 

Or in the wilderness, you still come across those pesky enemies you did at first, but now their brood queen and soldiers are nearby as well.

 

If you mix this up with "normal" unscaled encounters, you won't get the feeling that you're not making progress, because there's still those little creatures which you can now slaughter as an afterthought, it's just the world has adapted to your presence.