Will PoE have level scaling? (Please no)

[Lephys]

And it's perfectly feasible they are not better skilled or trained.

I'm still waiting for something that actually contradicts what I said.

 

And wrong with Aragorn. Aragorn and his rangers were protecting Townville (The Shire). If you're going to quote Lord of the Rings, perhaps reading it or doing some research might help before you go off on wild tangents and incorrect analogies.

Didn't say anywhere he wasn't protecting it. I said he wasn't on the payroll. So I wasn't wrong about Aragorn.

 

It's crap like this that makes me wonder how you're NOT doing this intentionally.

 

You're so eager for me to be wrong that you're practically salivating at the chance to throw a "nuh-uh!" at me, before you even mentally process the text that I've typed onto your screen. You want me to be making points that will justify your ability to "NUH-UH!". I don't know if it just makes you feel great about yourself, or what. But it is beyond my comprehension.

 

No. Guards don't need level scaling.

Again... *checks watch*... are you going to actually disagree with me sometime today, or just keep echoing my point, then insisting that my point is surely the opposite of your point. My point was literally that guards don't need level-scaling. Or, more specifically, that was the example of how plenty of things in the game don't need level-scaling. It's not an everything-or-nothing tool.

 

I rest my case. You don't know what the f*ck you're talking about.

One of us clearly doesn't know what I'm talking about, .

 

"Mega dungeon doesn't benefit from any level scaling. Therefore, I have just proved that NOTHING ever benefits from level-scaling!"

 

I've never seen such reasoning skill! It's blinding!

 

Clearly, this is never going to get us anywhere. You go on perceiving everything I say as nonsense, and I'll just spare you that perceived nonsense. And I'll go on knowing what I know, and not worrying about whether or not you ever actually process it before judging it as nonsense. The world will spin on, and the game will still rock and be released just fine. Even with its subtle level-scaling.

 

Good day. And to you, Hiro. Enjoy the thread.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

I'm still waiting for something that actually contradicts what I said.

 

 

Where do I start? I could write pages. Here's an easy one. See below.

 

 

 

Didn't say anywhere he wasn't protecting it. I said he wasn't on the payroll. So I wasn't wrong about Aragorn.

 

It's crap like this that makes me wonder how you're NOT doing this intentionally.

 

You're so eager for me to be wrong that you're practically salivating at the chance to throw a "nuh-uh!" at me, before you even mentally process the text that I've typed onto your screen. You want me to be making points that will justify your ability to "NUH-UH!". I don't know if it just makes you feel great about yourself, or what. But it is beyond my comprehension.

 

 

And what does payroll have to do with anything anyway? What? You're now saying he's not on the payroll but will protect Townsville? So what was the point of you saying, "Friggin' Aragorn is not going to be on the payroll to protect Townville". This comes across as you suggesting he wouldn't be protecting townsville because he wasn't on the payroll. 

 

It's crap like this that makes me wonder how you're NOT doing this intentionally.

 

You say stupid things before even thinking and then when someone calls you out, 'you're misunderstood'. 'Oh, that's not what I meant'. No, Lephys. Just admit you were wrong and stop squirming out of this.

 

 

 

Again... *checks watch*... are you going to actually disagree with me sometime today, or just keep echoing my point, then insisting that my point is surely the opposite of your point. My point was literally that guards don't need level-scaling. Or, more specifically, that was the example of how plenty of things in the game don't need level-scaling. It's not an everything-or-nothing tool.

 

 

On one hand you say guards don't need level scaling and yet you said:

 

"Again, the overall general idea is "If you can progress all the way to level 12, you should get to actually put that progression to good use. Thus, the closer you get to level 12, the closer to level 12 foes should generally become."

 

No, that is wrong. Foes like Guards should not be level 12 just because you have progressed to level 12. And that was my point! Stop going off on tangents, backtracking and trying to make out you're being misunderstood. You're wrong.

 

 

Clearly, this is never going to get us anywhere. You go on perceiving everything I say as nonsense, and I'll just spare you that perceived nonsense. And I'll go on knowing what I know, and not worrying about whether or not you ever actually process it before judging it as nonsense. The world will spin on, and the game will still rock and be released just fine. Even with its subtle level-scaling.

 

Good day. And to you, Hiro. Enjoy the thread.

 

 

It's not that I perceive what you say is nonsense. It is nonsense. Plain and simple.

 

And I'm sure you can't resist yourself to come back into the thread. I await your response.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Just **** already.

[Ffordesoon]

*sigh*

 

I hate to admit it, given that I consider you a jerk at best, but you're right. That was passive-aggressive, out of line, and inappropriate.

 

But please stop calling me a troll. I believe what I'm saying. I'm not out to score internet points. If I seem angry, it's because you angered me. You did push my buttons, expertly. This is the result of that. Please don't do it again.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

*sigh*

 

I hate to admit it, given that I consider you a jerk at best, but you're right. That was passive-aggressive, out of line, and inappropriate.

 

But please stop calling me a troll. I believe what I'm saying. I'm not out to score internet points. If I seem angry, it's because you angered me. You did push my buttons, expertly. This is the result of that. Please don't do it again.

 

Well you are a troll. There was a legitimate discussion going on. And who has taken this off topic? It was you. You came in and started ranting at me. You're a troll, a jerk and you have serious issues.

 

I pushed your buttons and angered you? How? By posting and agreeing with another poster (W.Mackinnon)? Lephys does his usual 'comes into thread to disagree routine' and I post points showing Lephys is wrong.

 

You then come in out of nowhere and start raving like a lunatic. That's all you are Fforsesoon. A troll who likes to rant at others, backbench moderate, tell others what to do and derail threads. Some serious issues with you if you watch a thread and can't either contribute to the discussion or walk away. No, the default for you is to troll, derail and attack myself at what seems any given opportunity. How about putting me on ignore if my posting angers you so much? No? Then why the hell do you read my posts if you can't control yourself? Get some help.

[Stun]

One of us clearly doesn't know what I'm talking about, .

 

"Mega dungeon doesn't benefit from any level scaling. Therefore, I have just proved that NOTHING ever benefits from level-scaling!"

 

I've never seen such reasoning skill! It's blinding!

My citation of the Mega-dungeon was to counter your specific false claim that Level scaling is needed into put a party's power progression to good use.

[Ffordesoon]

@Hiro:

 

I am asking you from the bottom of my heart. Please. I will be happy to point you to all the posts where I haven't done the things you call me a troll for if it matters that terribly much to you. I said something I shouldn't have said in a moment of frustration, and I apologized to you. Please have the basic human decency not to kick me when I'm down. I am being one thousand percent serious right now. I don't know what else you could reasonably expect of me. I will put you on Ignore if that's what you want me to do. Just please, for the love of God, stop with the name-calling. I am not asking much of you.

[W.MacKinnon]

@Ffordesoon & Hiro : Man you guys crack me up. Posting alternating opinions on a forum - isn't about winning. (or spinning the wheels on the same thing for hours on end.) It's just shooting the **** with other the posters. Heck, I dont' know for others but me and my friends talk about rules loop holes and how to better interpret rpg game rules all the time.

 

@Leyphs - That was a good point about differing strengths of town guards. Usually a large town would have better experienced guards - due to a higher rate of crime, just more crime going on, also would be more of them. I usually keep the lv3-4 and throw in a Lv5-8 watch lieutenant. On comparisons to army miltias - regular or otherwise. They should be treated different then town guards as they are different forces. One could reasonably expect a higher level of npc in elite platoons or experienced legions.

 

I'm not sure who posted that Aragon should be considered a town guard - if taken as his intended role in the story, he'd be best considered a Player character(At worst a party member to Frodo's troupe). Heck he's the origin of the two weapon ranger trope.

 

On level scaling in Pillars, I don't think it'll really be needed. Why? Mostly due to the low character level of the game. Lv1 through 12. I think it's reasonable to expect the final "main" boss to be a challenge to a lv10-12 party. With the hidden optional boss (let's be honest, we all expect a Firkragg type boss - Likely at the bottom of the mega dungeon.) That will be even harder then the core path boss. Likely the game will be zoned in sections, first town hub lv1-6 - while the second hub lv7-10. With the hardest optional content being designed for lv12 pcs.

On an aside here, with Obsidian freeing the player from experience gain due to killing an opponent. We might actually get to see the pc gain strength due to less tangible reasons. Like adventuring for that +5 sword or a lost library filled with forgotten grimores(purely loot based side content), or mystical sites that grant additional or unleash latent soul energy in the people who pilgrimage there. (actual level ups or optional bonus perks - bear with) This is one of the cooler things Josh mentioned rules wise for Pillars. How will that type of system effect leveling/pc power scaling? It's likely going to allow a much stronger reign on the developers side of the pc's strength for a given encounter. Basically making linear the players level progress despite side content/quests.

 

For instance without level scaling in Skyrim, a player could break the game by exploiting a weakness in the enemy AI of a much stronger enemy (Like it can't fit through a door, or won't cross an invisible threshold - insert other exploit here) from a difficult zone to boost level. From let's say lv1 to lv20. Making the game less fun - and let's be honest. It'd ruin the gameplay if it was in fact intended to be not have level scaled area's. A video game isn't quite the same as a pen and paper game, it's hard to see where level scaling might ruin or in fact not ruin a game.

[Ffordesoon]

@W. MacKinnon:

 

I know, I know. This was, unequivocally, my bad. It has to do with another argument we had a while back that shouldn't have gotten under my skin as much as it did, just so you know. I'm sorry to derail the thread with that, and I'm sorry I got passive-aggressive in the first place. It was wrong of me to act the way I acted. I am also sincerely glad if my crappy behavior entertained you. That wasn't the intention, but if it made you laugh, that's great. We could all use more laughs, you know?

 

Now I'm just hoping this doesn't go like the typical internet argument. Believe me, I am not invested in "winning," nor do I consider my obvious loss by default a win. It was a failure on my part, and I'm praying that I can make it right.

[Lephys]

@Leyphs - That was a good point about differing strengths of town guards. Usually a large town would have better experienced guards - due to a higher rate of crime, just more crime going on, also would be more of them. I usually keep the lv3-4 and throw in a Lv5-8 watch lieutenant. On comparisons to army miltias - regular or otherwise. They should be treated different then town guards as they are different forces. One could reasonably expect a higher level of npc in elite platoons or experienced legions.

Thanks for the intelligent, polite response. Yeah, the guards would be different entities, entirely, not scaled versions of the same entities. That was the point I was making. It was an excellent example of what to not scale.

 

I'm not sure who posted that Aragon should be considered a town guard - if taken as his intended role in the story, he'd be best considered a Player character(At worst a party member to Frodo's troupe). Heck he's the origin of the two weapon ranger trope.

You've kinda touched on the point with this. It was a comment I made, basically saying "Someone of the skill level of Aragorn would not be a town guard in a small village," because Hiro had suggested the feasibility of every single civilized settlement, regardless of size or stature, simply having various numbers of the exact same guard clones, with no need for variance in their skill/quality/toughness whatsoever.

 

On level scaling in Pillars, I don't think it'll really be needed. Why? Mostly due to the low character level of the game. Lv1 through 12. I think it's reasonable to expect the final "main" boss to be a challenge to a lv10-12 party.

I don't think it'll be strictly needed, so we're pretty much in agreement. I'm merely making the argument for its potential use (which isn't just Skyrim-or-nothing, as many in this thread have been suggesting.) Honestly, though, the fewer levels there are in the entire range, the larger the impact of each level-up on a given critical path/story encounter. If there were 40 levels in the game, and you could have 1-3 levels of variance before facing a particular situation, it would be a lot less likely to be a big deal. Yet, with only 12 levels. The difference between level 10 and level 11 (times 6, for your whole party) is a pretty big one. Thus, I really don't think it's in any way overboard or crazy to consider making a slight adjustment to just one big baddie (it's not like he gains 6-people worth of level up... he's just one entity.)

 

The thing about scaling is, scaling is scaling: You're either adjusting an encounter based on the player characters' capabilities (because of some potential variance in the order in which you complete content), or you're not. Just because you're scaling based on level does not mean you must scale the enemy's level. That boss doesn't have to gain a level, necessarily, to be adjusted. Between tweaks to his HP/spell "ammo"/Accuracy, etc., and possible "encounter scaling" -- the addition of some minions and such, you can very precisely tweak the challenge for someone who's, say, Level 12 at the end of the game instead of Level 10 (really close to level 11 but didn't quite get there, so it's not really "two whole levels" worth of variance, but it functionally is).

 

That's all I'm observing. I hope that makes sense.

 

I easily see how it can ruin a game. But, I'm absolutely certain it can potentially be used in a precise enough fashion to not ruin anything. Now, not knowing the specifics of the entirety of PoE's design and narrative path, I couldn't tell you whether or not its non-ruining use in PoE is necessary or not. However, I can see how it could be potentially useful in key spots, if not necessary in a very mild capacity. That's up to the devs, though, and I trust them to make good choices with that.

 

That's what brought this up in the first place (there have been prior threads on this since the Kickstarter). The devs have stated several times that there might be a tiny bit of it in the game, if it's appropriate, and this was met with outrage and cries of "there's no such thing as 'just a little' scaling!" and such. I don't quite understand that hysteria, and I've just been trying to point out how scaling can be used in a minimal, intelligent fashion, instead of just dumped onto the canvas via bucket, to actual beneficial effect.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

You've kinda touched on the point with this. It was a comment I made, basically saying "Someone of the skill level of Aragorn would not be a town guard in a small village," because Hiro had suggested the feasibility of every single civilized settlement, regardless of size or stature, simply having various numbers of the exact same guard clones, with no need for variance in their skill/quality/toughness whatsoever.

 

I knew you couldn't resist. That's not what I said. Stop making stuff up and telling lies. This is why I will always correct you with you posting this nonsense, because you either, take what people like me say out of context, or just plain make stuff up, and then trying to point out that person is wrong. eg. strawman tactics. It's a tactic you use all the time.

 

I never said Aragorn was a town guard in a small village. I never even brought Aragorn up. That was you who brought Aragorn up and you were wrong then. And I never said they had to be the "exact same guard clones, with no need for variance in their skill/quality/toughness whatsoever". Those are your words, not mine. I even said a town and city can have different level guards, level 2 guards in a town and level 3 guards in a city. Here is the quote for you considering you have a problem with reading and comprehension.

 

Also, I wouldn't call a guard in a town at level 2 and a guard in a city at level 3 as level scaling if those guards remain at that level throughout the game. As I said before, guards can be level 2 or 3 in D&D terms. Guards should not be level 12.

 

Also, I agree with W.MacKinnon that you can have lieutenants, captains, commanders and all sorts of different ranks at different levels in the town/city guard. Those are different types and ranks of guards and not the same as your normal guard. A normal guard should not be level 12 because you are level 12. Anybody with an ounce of common sense and intelligence would know that was what I was talking about in relation to normal guards.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Namutree]

The game will definitely have level scaling, but I wish it didn't.

From my experience level scaling either ruins the game (Oblivion), or doesn't matter very much (BG2). I can't see how level scaling ever really improves a game it's used in, but maybe I've just been traumatized by Oblivion.

 

Still very excited for PoE though, as I'm sure that Obsidian will scale in moderation.

[Amentep]

The obvious answer is to have every NPC, monster, etc. receive experience on their own experience table for every 24 hours that progress in game for the player. Every time they "level up" they gain class levels in their NPC class (up HP, up skills, whatever).

 

The Guard stands at his post +10xp

The Guard talks about that arrow he took to the knee to passerby +10xp

The Guard kills a bandit trying to escape the city +200xp

The Guard walks around the town +10xp

 

The Farmer hoes his land +30 xp

The Farmer runs away from xvarts +10xp

The Farmer plows through a bee hive and his mule dies of stings +10xp -100gp

The Farmer eats supper +10xp

 

The Harlot entertains guests for 8 hours +100xp

The Harlot entertains guests for 8 hours +100xp

The Harlot entertains guests for 8 hours +100xp

The Harlot entertains guests for 8 hours +100xp

 

The Dragon eats a cow +10xp

The Dragon eats 5 goblins +50xp

The Dragon eats an adventuring party +500xp

The Dragon counts his gold +100xp

 

The Sphinx eats a cow +10xp

The Sphinx eats 5 goblins +50xp

The Sphinx poses a really nice riddle +100xp

The Sphinx eats the adventuring party that can't answer the really nice riddle +500xp

 

etc.

 

Can't imagine there wouldn't be some lag computing all of that, though...

Edited May 1, 2014 by Amentep

[Lephys]

^

 

Or, you know... you could just represent the passage of time with the amount of time-consuming significant effort the player is making. I mean, if you just jog around in a town all day, time would "freeze." It's like reading a book, and stopping on a page to eat a donut. The story doesn't just keep going without you, simply because you're "not doing anything."

 

But, yeah, you travel to a cave and actually deal with something there, time passes everywhere else, and things change accordingly. You arrive at the next town, things are different now in the previous town. Etc.

 

Many games have done this in the past, and it works pretty well. It's an abstraction, sure, but there's almost never anything that's hurt much at all by this system. At the very worst, you spend several days just traipsing through the woods, exploring and whatnot, and the rest of the world doesn't really act like quite that much time has passed, in terms of how things have changed.

 

It's hard to do a game story like this, though, and time passage, because it's a specific story you're telling, but it's dynamically based on the player's choices in many parts. You never want to tell the story of "and then the player took way too long because he's a meticulous explorer, and all the events just came to pass without him, and the world ended without the heroic party being even anywhere CLOSE to influencing anything at any key times, and they had to start all the way over."

[rjshae]

The game will definitely have level scaling, but I wish it didn't. From my experience level scaling either ruins the game (Oblivion), or doesn't matter very much (BG2). I can't see how level scaling ever really improves a game it's used in, but maybe I've just been traumatized by Oblivion. Still very excited for PoE though, as I'm sure that Obsidian will scale in moderation.

 

Level scaling is clearly a solution to the problem of player characters increasing in capability much faster than they ever would in real life. It's a fake simulation for a fake progression capability that was built to feed player ego. Asking the designers to fix it is just asking them to heal a symptom, rather than the cause. My $.02 worth...

[Lephys]

Level scaling is clearly a solution to the problem of player characters increasing in capability much faster than they ever would in real life. It's a fake simulation for a fake progression capability that was built to feed player ego. Asking the designers to fix it is just asking them to heal a symptom, rather than the cause. My $.02 worth...

Sometimes.

 

Sometimes it's a treatment for the side effects of already-present abstraction that stem from stretching a single narrative out into a multiverse of possible advancement factors.

 

If you can help guy A kill guy B, or vice versa, then which guy remaining alive is the way the world should be, and which is the "adjustment"?

 

No one can answer that, but somehow they can answer "Which is the way the world should be: That you encounter this tougher version of EvilPlotRelatedWizard, or this slightly less-tough version of EvilPlotRelatedWizard, based on your choices?"

 

I just don't understand it.

 

What if you were an Elf, and the story, from the get-go, has some Elven faction secretly tailing you, whom you run into when you reach some particular town. But, if you were a DWARF, something entirely different goes on. How is that not adjusting content based on your sheer character attributes?

 

An enemy can be a completely different foe, based solely on who you are and what you've done, but heaven forbid it be a different instance of the same foe.

[Namutree]

 

The game will definitely have level scaling, but I wish it didn't. From my experience level scaling either ruins the game (Oblivion), or doesn't matter very much (BG2). I can't see how level scaling ever really improves a game it's used in, but maybe I've just been traumatized by Oblivion. Still very excited for PoE though, as I'm sure that Obsidian will scale in moderation.

 

Level scaling is clearly a solution to the problem of player characters increasing in capability much faster than they ever would in real life. It's a fake simulation for a fake progression capability that was built to feed player ego. Asking the designers to fix it is just asking them to heal a symptom, rather than the cause. My $.02 worth...

 

Keep in mind that real life does not level scale or give xp for quests. As a game there is nothing wrong with leveling as a reward for quests. Maybe Im old fashioned, but I dont see getting powerfull in a short amount of time a problem.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

[Stun]

Keep in mind that real life does not level scale or give xp for quests. As a game there is nothing wrong with leveling as a reward for quests. Maybe Im old fashioned, but I dont see getting powerfull in a short amount of time a problem.

Real life does give XP for "quests". A lawyer straight out of law school will become a better lawyer only by taking on cases and seeing them through (ie. gaining experience.) The only difference between this and how a video game does things is that a video game typically uses a point system to make the process a little less abstract.

 

I do agree with your last point. I, too, don't see a problem with getting powerful in a short amount of time as long as the game makes it difficult to do so. And this is WHY level scaling sucks. In a game without level scaling, someone who wants to get powerful early, can choose to venture out to an area known to have high level beasts not designed for him to defeat early on. And those fights will be super tough, verging on impossible. But if he DOES manage to defeat them, the EXP rewards tend to be suitably massive, thus he gains levels quickly.

 

But this scenario will not happen in a level scaled game, since with level scaling, those beasts will be adjusted according to his level in order to maintain "balance", and of course, so will the XP rewards.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Stun

[TheTeaMustFlow]

I'd quite like the idea of some increased difficulty that became in effect level scaling, as long as it was justified within the plot, and not simply based on arbitrarily increasing enemy stats. For example, say if within the story there is some kind of deteriorating situation or tension building up (as there normally is), such as nations coming closer and closer to war, some kind of dangerous magical phenomenon becoming more widespread, or even just the crime rate in a city district going up. As a consequence of this, as one gets further into the game (or even just dependent on level, as long as it didn't appear to just be based on the PC's xp totals), some encounters are strengthened. At the start of the game, everything's more or less calm, so that guard post's manned by a few lazy unskilled militiamen, and the cave's only got a few wolves inside. Halfway through, things have gotten worse, so the guard post has been reinforced by some real soldiers, and the wolves have been chased off by the demonic rabbits coming from that gateway to hell that's opened up. Then by the endgame, everything's gone pear-shaped, meaning that the guard post has been overrun by powerful necromancers, while the demon rabbits have been breeding and one of them's eaten enough souls to become a mighty Doom Hare.

 

I remember that New Vegas had something like this (with the NCR and Legion sending in their veteran troops in preparation for the looming battle and to make your life harder), and it worked quite well, justifying the increased encounter difficulty and adding to the feeling that "a storm is brewing".

[Valorian]

 

For me "level scaling" does not mean changing opponents lvl based on PC level. It just means that that the opponents change their level. It can be tied to PC lvl by simple or complicate formula, but it can be tied to anything else like: time, story progression, overall power of PC party etc. It can be done right or it can be done wrong. There is nothing wrong with level scaling in and on itself

 

 

Warping enemies' levels around your character's level or your party's power can't be done right, range or no range.

 

Before you get too excited and immediately point out that you also mentioned time and story progression... I know. If someone feels like their game absolutely needs some sort of scaling (it doesn't), the best way to do it would be to tie the power of chosen and specific encounters with something other than PC level. For instance, they could bind scaling to the number of times the player uses the rest button (time progression) and like difficulty levels in PoE, scaling should be done by "replacing weaker enemies with more powerful types or increasing how many are present in encounters." That is, if they really want to scale something at all.

[Namutree]

I feel that a part of the argument has to do with what people consider level scaling. When I complain about level scaling I am only talking about the game world changing because my team leveled up. I feel like the game is cheating me out of my reward for gathering xp. If enemies got stronger for any other reason it wouldn't bother me; at least not by default. 

[Valorian]

 

Warping enemies' levels around your character's level or your party's power can't be done right, range or no range.

 

And that's because? You guys throw that statement like it's truth revealed, but no one gave a strict answer why it cannot be done. All you guys do is tossing examples how it was done badly.

 

 

It was explained more than a hundred times by dozens of Obsidian forumites. So you don't even have to google for an answer.

Level scaling is in conflict, or disharmony if you will, with the very purpose of levels. Levels are meant to provide power and growth to the character, but this progression will be suppressed wherever level scaling is present.

Distorting creatures based on PC level is a cheap and easy way to provide a continuous level of challenge (or continuous lack of challenge, depending on the difficulty setting). 

 

The reason why it was always done badly is because the concept is bad. And sad. 

[Ashen Rohk]

Oblivion is a terrible example of level scaling, but I really loved the fact that it's predecessor's lack of scaling made you gear/level up for going into Red Mountain.

 

I found DA:O and to a lesser extent the latest X-Com game to have widly messed up difficulty curves. In the former, I faceroll a dragon but then can't take on 4 werewolves? X-Com's difficulty is random.

 

I'm kind of against you being able to go anywhere at once. Keep set levels and let me have my ass kicked if I try to go to the end straight away.

[Stun]

 

It was explained more than a hundred times by dozens of Obsidian forumites. So you don't even have to google for an answer.

Level scaling is in conflict, or disharmony if you will, with the very purpose of levels. Levels are meant to provide power and growth to the character, but this progression will be suppressed wherever level scaling is present.

Distorting creatures based on PC level is a cheap and easy way to provide a continuous level of challenge (or continuous lack of challenge, depending on the difficulty setting). 

 

The reason why it was always done badly is because the concept is bad. And sad.

Providing more and more powerful opponents as the game goes is against leveling?

 

Straw man. He said level scaling goes against the point of leveling. Providing more, and powerful opponents as the game progresses is NOT, in and of itself level scaling, Since that can be done without adjusting encounters based on the player character's level. It can be done based on the story's progression. Or it can be done based on area progression (see: Obsidian's description of the 15 level mega dungeon)

 

What now?!

Now we quit with the silly attempts to justify Level scaling by broadening its definition so that it encompasses everything that can be done to make encounters perpetually "challenging". Edited May 4, 2014 by Stun

[Stun]

 

Warping enemies' levels around your character's level or your party's power can't be done right, range or no range.

 

And that's because?

 

 

1) Because it diminishes that essential feeling of accomplishment that is supposed to come with leveling.

2) Because it diminishes that essential feeling of risk that is at the center of exploration

3) Because it conflicts with a believeable game world's lore.

4) Because at its core, it is nothing more than a cheap alternative to a) increasing a game world's beastiary; b) increasing an enemy's tactical intelligence c) challenging the player in more creative ways

5) Because the evidence speaks for itself. Because Every game that has employed level scaling has been criticized because of it.... Because even developers have become self conscious of its existance and have gone to great lengths to vastly limit, disguise and HIDE their use of it.

6) Because even its staunch supporters can't point to a game that's done it right. The best they can do is show us a game that used it so sparingly and subtly that the question of whether it was done right can't even be answered.

Edited May 4, 2014 by Stun