Will PoE have level scaling? (Please no)

[Valorian]

 

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. 

The biggest pile of crap I have ever read. Providing more and more powerful opponents as the game goes is against leveling? What now?! I thought the purpose of a good game is to provide challenge, the bigger as the player grows stronger. But apparently I was mistaked. A good game shoudl apparently throw exactly the same opponent through the entire game for player to feel superior. 

But wait not a few pages ago you claimed that level scaling DOESN'T provide challenge and now it DOES but it's against RPG principals? The f****?

Maybe the anti level scaling group shoul put their claims together and provide a coherent statementthat you know... makes sense?

 

 

Right. 

Before descending further into the depths of your mind, could you please answer a few simple questions? Without channeling Lephys, if possible.

 

How does a lack of level scaling "apparently throw exactly the same opponent through the entire game for player to feel superior"?

Could you point out where did I claim that level scaling doesn't provide challenge?

What do you like about level scaling?

What do you think is the purpose of level scaling?

Stun already addressed your first inquiry.

 

If you're able to intelligently answer these questions, we'll travel forward into the fascinating depths of your mind. 

[Namutree]

I have to admit, the assassin scenario Sharp_one brings up makes sense to me. That said, it still has been bad game design when level scaling has been used so far. So it should be understandable that so many people are not happy with it.

 

[Hassat Hunter]

First 3D games had ****ty graphics but today 3D is a standard. Imagine if people like Stun or Valorian were responsible for making decision on further developing 3D games.

"It didn't work and it doesn't look better than 2D. We don't need that"

And yet we're all thrilled at this game, with 2D handdrawn backgrounds that looks way prettier than modern 3D games give us with all their photo-realism and plastic look (Withcer II I look at you).

 

Odd, ain't it?

[Valorian]

 

But it can also be done by level scaling. So you are saying that giving more powerful opponents is ok unless it's made by level scaling? Ridiculous. It's the outcome that matters not the mechanics. I don't care if my calculator uses simple electronic circuits or state of the art nanotechnology. If it's calculating correctly, I don't wanna know the mechanics.

 

 

I believe this is actually the key to understanding you. You don't care how something is accomplished, as long as you're happy with the outcome? Shallow, but understandable.

Of course, the outcome is not the same if a game is level scaled, compared to enemies' power being set from the start. In the latter you have enemies of different strength in different areas (wow, it actually isn't "throw exactly the same opponent through the entire game for player to feel superior").   And your levels aren't being suppressed by level scaling, ever.

 

 

Right. 

Before descending further into the depths of your mind, could you please answer a few simple questions? Without channeling Lephys, if possible.

 

How does a lack of level scaling "apparently throw exactly the same opponent through the entire game for player to feel superior"?

I didn't say anything like that, so I will not answer something that is not my opinion. You said:

 

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).

Which means that providing a constant (or continuous) level of challenge is bad. And you added that leveling need to provide power and growth. So you want power and growth but not to maintain the constant level of challenge, hence you want "the same opponent" (as in the same level of challenge) through the entire game and not stronger, because only PC can grow stronger. That's what you wrote, if you didn't meant that write it anew.

 

Could you point out where did I claim that level scaling doesn't provide challenge?

I'm sorry I meant plural you, as the "against level scaling" crowd. You guys contradict yourselves claiming exact opposite statements. Stun made several posts claiming that level scaling doesn't provide challenge at all which is bad so level scaling is bad, you claim that it does...which is bad so level scaling is bad.

Made up your minds guys.

 

What do you like about level scaling?

And what do you like about color blue? It's a feature that can be implemented in a game. Like leveling, crafting etc. it can be either good or bad and it can increase or diminish a game.

 

What do you think is the purpose of level scaling?

Already answered that. First post at page 6... this page actually. Bro, do you even lift read?

 

If you're able to intelligently answer these questions, we'll travel forward into the fascinating depths of your mind. 

It's funny how people require of other something they do not provide themselves. In this example intelligent answers and arguments.

 

I have to admit, the assassin scenario Sharp_one brings up makes sense to me. That said, it still has been bad game design when level scaling has been used so far. So it should be understandable that so many people are not happy with it.

And it is understandable. There is a saying: "People like the songs they already know". Asking someone if he wants something new or old most people will go with old because they know it. Many people didn't believed in flying machines, there were thousands of badly done ones that didn't work. Yet today it's as common way of travel as horse carriages years ago.

Just because something doesn't work right away it doesn't mean it should be tossed away. We need to learn on failures and build on the experience. First 3D games had ****ty graphics but today 3D is a standard. Imagine if people like Stun or Valorian were responsible for making decision on further developing 3D games.

"It didn't work and it doesn't look better than 2D. We don't need that"

 

 

 

1) So, then, what was the context of "I thought the purpose of a good game is to provide challenge, the bigger as the player grows stronger. But apparently I was mistaked. A good game shoudl apparently throw exactly the same opponent through the entire game for player to feel superior"?

You were responding to me bashing level scaling. Do you think challenge can only be accomplished with level scaling? So if someone claims that level scaling is.. for people like you, he automatically doesn't want challenge, therefore doesn't want a good game?

 

 

2) There's nothing inherently wrong about providing a constant level of challenge, but not at the expense of levels losing their purpose. Whenever an enemy scales according to your level, the game works against the purpose of levels. I prefer spikes in challenge; some areas and enemies are harder, some are easier (and you don't need L.S. for that, S_o).

 

 

3) We're not a hivemind. When you're replying to my posts, you're responding to me. I said that the goal of level scaling is to cheaply provide a continuous level of challenge. This level of challenge could be easy, could be hard or anything in between.

 

 

4) So you don't know what you like about level scaling? Interesting.

 

 

5) The purpose of level scaling is... ? Come on, you can do it S_o. 

 

 

Curious digression about flying machines and 3D games. Level scaling is the pinnacle of game evolution and smart design, I take it?

[Stun]

So you are saying that giving more powerful opponents is ok unless it's made by level scaling?

Yes. A Game's combat (especially an open world game's combat) should never adjust itself to accommodate the player's character. The OPPOSITE should happen. The player should be forced to adjust and deal with what the world throws at him regardless of his level, otherwise everything is cheapened.

 

 

Ad. 1

No, it doesn't. It can, if done badly,

Level scaling can't be done un-badly. So this comment from you is meaningless.

 

 

 

 

Ad.3

No it doesn't. I never seen a lore that said: "nothing but the heroes can become more powerful with time",

Have you seen lore that says that enemies will only level if the character does? Hmm? Because THAT is what level scaling is all about. It's player-level dependent. There is no way around this. If enemies level up based on anything else, then it's not level scaling.

 

But this isn't what I meant when I said it conflicts with the lore. I was talking about the more silly things, like a game tossing random LICHES at the player because that small pack of Ghouls they put there earlier is no longer a balanced encounter for his high level party. (BG2 did this.) It Spits on the lore. It mocks it. Liches are NOT to be randomized. They are the elite of the elite of undead. They are an epic story in themselves. But BG2 decided that the Lore is unimportant in the face of Balance, so when you're in the sewers under the city, and your party is 16th level or higher, you'll face an un-named random friggin LICH, instead of a pack of ghouls.

 

 

 

Ad.4

All this can be done with level scaling.

Badly. It's a cheap alternative to getting creative and challenging the player in better, more complex ways.

 

 

Ad.5

I remember the times when people said that fantasy movies cannot be good, or comic book adaptations cannot be good. Because all attempts on them where badly done. But then came Peters Jackson LotR and Marvel movies and now we have quite a few those kind of films made every year.

Just because it wasn't done greatly before it doesn't mean it cannot be done good.

Straw man. And you're starting to bore me. Level scaling isn't a new thing. It's been in video games since the Pong days. So no, it's not a matter of just giving developers a few generations of time to turn a turd into gold. A gold plated turd will forever be a turd.

 

 

5) The purpose of level scaling is... ? Come on, you can do it S_o.

To maintain game balance. It serves absolutely no other purpose at all.

 

And of all the ways to maintain game balance, it happens to be the easiest, cheapest, most mindless, and most uncreative way. As gamers, we should demand better from game developers.

Edited May 4, 2014 by Stun

[Valorian]

 

Yes. A Game's combat (especially an open world game's combat) should never adjust itself to accommodate the player's character. The OPPOSITE should happen. The player should be forced to adjust and deal with what the world throws at him regardless of his level, otherwise everything is cheapened.

 

 

 

This is an important point.

 

 

 

I believe this is actually the key to understanding you. You don't care how something is accomplished, as long as you're happy with the outcome? Shallow, but understandable.

 

Of course, the outcome is not the same if a game is level scaled, compared to enemies' power being set from the start. In the latter you have enemies of different strength in different areas (wow, it actually isn't "throw exactly the same opponent through the entire game for player to feel superior").   And your levels aren't being suppressed by level scaling, ever.

This is video games we are talking about, not ending war in Ukraine. I really don't give a rats ass how something is done mechanically in video game. If it works and is ok then I don't care.

 

So you are claiming still, despite numerous examples how to do it made by me and others, that having different strength of opponents in different areas is impossible to do with LS? Fine, that's your problem. Being stubborn is not a crime.

 

1) So, then, what was the context of "I thought the purpose of a good game is to provide challenge, the bigger as the player grows stronger. But apparently I was mistaked. A good game shoudl apparently throw exactly the same opponent through the entire game for player to feel superior"?

You were responding to me bashing level scaling. Do you think challenge can only be accomplished with level scaling? So if someone claims that level scaling is.. for people like you, he automatically doesn't want challenge, therefore doesn't want a good game?

 

 

2) There's nothing inherently wrong about providing a constant level of challenge, but not at the expense of levels losing their purpose. Whenever an enemy scales according to your level, the game works against the purpose of levels. I prefer spikes in challenge; some areas and enemies are harder, some are easier (and you don't need L.S. for that, S_o).

 

 

3) We're not a hivemind. When you're replying to my posts, you're responding to me. I said that the goal of level scaling is to cheaply provide a continuous level of challenge. This level of challenge could be easy, could be hard or anything in between.

 

 

4) So you don't know what you like about level scaling? Interesting.

 

 

5) The purpose of level scaling is... ? Come on, you can do it S_o. 

 

 

Curious digression about flying machines and 3D games. Level scaling is the pinnacle of game evolution and smart design, I take it?

Ad.1

It would be best if you start reading what YOU are writing and then follow up with reading what people WROTE to you.

You claim that providing constant challenge is bad, and then asking where my response to your statement came from? I believe this is actually the key to understanding you.

 

Ad.2

You are right, LS is not required to make some areas harder and some easier. Just like you don't need automatic bread cutter to slice a bread. But if it's available why not to use it?

 

A good RPG can be done without LS, sure. But that's not the point of this topic and discussion.

 

I don't think using LS will go against leveling, I thing exactly opposite. It can make it even more meaningful.

 

Ad.3

Or it could be, you know varying? Which is better than static.

 

Ad.4

And you don't know what you like about color blue. You really have some reading deficiencies you know?

 

Ad.5

...that Valorian doesn't read what people post. That's the whole purpose... and problem.

 

And yes LS is the pinnacle (and pineapple) of game evolution, smart design and the best way to skin a wookie. I recommend it also for sleeping disorders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure if you lie on purpose, suffer from hyperopia or something more severe like cognitive disorders... but your posts are a big messy pile of confusion, shameless lies and awful analogies ("why u liek color blue!?").

 

You reply to my post, quoting a sentence I wrote: There's nothing inherently wrong about providing a constant level of challenge, but not at the expense of levels losing their purpose.

And what's your answer?  S_o: "You claim that providing constant challenge is bad"

 

It surely doesn't seem like you "don't give a rats ass how something is done mechanically in video game", because if that were the case you wouldn't write lengthy posts on the greatness of level scaling. Yes, your arguments were silly, incoherent and meaningless, but it's obvious you're doing your best. 

 

My discussion with you ends here and what I've learned is that you definitely have no clue about the effects of level scaling or the effects of its absence.

 

For a bit of humor, I'll end my post quoting you: "I don't think using LS will go against leveling, I thing exactly opposite. It can make it even more meaningful."

LOL

[Sarex]

I think that a mod should close this thread, this has devolved in to insults and poo throwing.

[bonarbill]

 

I'm not sure if you lie on purpose, suffer from hyperopia or something more severe like cognitive disorders... but your posts are a big messy pile of confusion, shameless lies and awful analogies ("why u liek color blue!?").

 

You reply to my post, quoting a sentence I wrote: There's nothing inherently wrong about providing a constant level of challenge, but not at the expense of levels losing their purpose.

And what's your answer?  S_o: "You claim that providing constant challenge is bad"

You seem to not only have reading deficiency, but also problems with time frame. You wrote this first:

 

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.

And my reply was to this statement which clearly states a constant challenge as bad. I even asked you to clarify if you intent was otherwise. You then wrote IN REPLY that constant challenge is in fact ok. Now you claiming that I replied to your statement BEFORE you wrote it? I'm not sure if you lie on purpose, suffer from hyperopia or something more severe like cognitive disorders... but your posts are a big messy pile of confusion, shameless lies and awful analogies...

 

It surely doesn't seem like you "don't give a rats ass how something is done mechanically in video game", because if that were the case you wouldn't write lengthy posts on the greatness of level scaling. Yes, your arguments were silly, incoherent and meaningless, but it's obvious you're doing your best. 

 

My discussion with you ends here and what I've learned is that you definitely have no clue about the effects of level scaling or the effects of its absence.

Likewise my discussion with you ends here and what I've learned is that you definitely have no clue about the effects and ways of implementation of level scaling.

 

For a bit of humor, I'll end my post quoting you: "This is an important point."

 

 

Really pathetic how a lot of name calling and insulting has been going on the obsidian boards lately.  I swear I'm in RPGcodex.

Edited May 4, 2014 by bonarbill

[W.MacKinnon]

Picks up poo - take that you filthy ape! LOL. Let's get the funny's out of the way.

 

Egads man, this thread is going no where fast. Scaling isn't what I'd prefer, but certain games need it to ensure they are at least playable. I gave a good example earlier with Elderscrolls, with a FPS action type game - a player could easily break the game by abusing poor AI or enemy pathing. If a high level beasty could be farmed due to inability for the monster to go through a door or some such - it'd lead to level boosting that'd turn the game into a grind instead of an exploration game. Why explore when the respawning giant can be killed easily standing outside a doorway it can't exit or some such. Otherwise figure it'd turn into a grindfest like every MMO ever made, not needing content since players have no incentive to go to low level area's (or leave the high level ones) if the loot worthless for their level and the monsters pose no challenge.

 

I think Stun brings up a good point (quite a few posts back) with the idea that game developers don't give enough challenging game play to ensure a fun game without level scaling in some instances. I really think this is a easy to harp about - hard to actually put into practice. Really AI in games is very complicated - but on the other hand is very simple. A game that's a FPS or action hybrid title has a lot more player skill in the equation - leading to the potential boosting I mentioned. This really might not be a problem in a game with lesser scope then an Elderscrolls game. With more clearly defined areas - an experience system not based on defeating enemies at all - I could really see this game rewarding a stealth rpg character more then most previous systems.

 

A lot of the grind in MMO's, exploration games, and what not is due to greater threats giving a larger experience/loot drop mechanic leading to character power creep totally destroying the difficulty without scaling. This game(Pillars) could very well have enemies that are so OP that even at max level they are nigh impossible to beat. Meaning at no point do you feel capable of taking them on conventionally. Or it could be that they are only beatable at high levels, at all others avoidance is the best policy. So those that like a challenge can try to beat them tactically either earlier or when intended and enjoy that gameplay element.

 

Scaling shouldn't be necessary if the developers know the endgame player power levels and planned accordingly. Earlier zones shouldn't be harder then later ones - period.

 

ON the whole people flaming each other - this is a community. Posting a flaming comment without adding anything to the conversation is mean spirited and needs to stop.This isn't a hardcore debate on primetime or some such. It's a community of backers and fans of Obisidian. Treat someone like you want to be treated, otherwise this place will devolve into a hive of scum and villainy - quite like Moss Eisley - because all the cool Han Solo's and Chewies will fly away to Alderan - just saying ;p

[Zwiebelchen]

I guess there actually is a game with pretty reasonable level scaling imho done right.

 

Jagged Alliance 2. While maybe not being perfectly balanced at all times, I think the level scaling in this game (which definitely exists), is masked pretty good and feels immersive. As Jagged Alliance 2 is completely non-linear and could technically be beaten by just straight rushing to the final town with a set of initial mercenaries, it just REQUIRES level scaling.

 

First off, to analyze how the game did it right, we need to check out how the level scaling works.

JA2 has three destinct layers of encounter progression:

1) progression of area ... the more you move towards the southwest of the country, the more soldiers you will encounter. There are more patrols roaming the wilderness around the areas, there's bigger weaponary used by the infantry. There's even tanks around the capital city.

2) progression of story ... the more towns you free, the more special forces you will encounter in your playthrough. Deidranna actively sends out counter-attacking troops to your towns the more you progress, forcing you to hire more and more mercenaries and splitting up teams in order to defend all hotspots.

3) progression of time ... the longer you take, the better armed the soldiers you encounter will be. While at first most soldiers are just armed with pistols and MPs, later enemies will come with automatic weapons and even grenades/rocket launchers.

 

These three mechanics combined make for a highly believable and realistic design. Leveling never feels pointless, as the progression is never directly tied to your levels, but instead tied to mechanics that just make sense lore-wise.

 

If you decide to directly rush towards the capital to just assassinate Deidranna, you will notice that the capital is a lot less defended than if you freed all other towns first. Still, the defenders will have automatic weapons, compared to those in the north-eastern towns that only carry MPs. You will still encounter tanks and occasional grenades and with your weak level troops, it's still painfully hard to kill Deidranna to end the game. But the point is: you still can with exceptional tactics.

 

If you decide to take it slow, build up your forces and free the towns one by one, you will eventually notice the game difficulty to make a huge leap upwards. The reason for that is that playing it too slow will make the time component kick in, which means that you will face more and more soldiers with stronger weapons, whereas your party might still be under-leveled and (due to your slow progression), your income might be too low to hire more experienced mercenaries. However, if you manage to kill those heavily armored foes and get their weapons, you might still make it. It's never unfair because of that.

 

If you decide to build up two teams, you are actually able to free more towns at a faster rate. But this also makes it harder to defend them, as you need time to train the reinforcements defending the towns. The counter-attack troops will still have to be dealt with, but the soldiers will be weaker in equipment once you encounter them.

 

 

These mechanics can be applied perfectly even to semi-linear RPGs. Have there be a mixture of static encounters (it makes no sense for a dragon to be weak at the beginning of the game - the same as it makes no sense for the head of the city guard to suddenly become a demi-god by the end of the game), dynamic events along the road and dungeons scaling over time (again, not bound to character level, but actual time progressed) and event-responses based on what and when you complete quests.

 

 

The De'Arnise Hold is a nice example here. It would just feel right that the trolls grow in numbers the longer you waste time around the city before moving to the keep. However, it just doesn't make sense that rats suddenly become demons just because you're level 10.

[Failion]

There are only two games I can think of that did level scaling HORRIBLY wrong. Oblivion being one of them and the other some hack and slash diablo like game I played.

[Stun]

I guess there actually is a game with pretty reasonable level scaling imho done right.

 

Jagged Alliance 2. While maybe not being perfectly balanced at all times, I think the level scaling in this game (which definitely exists), is masked pretty good and feels immersive. As Jagged Alliance 2 is completely non-linear and could technically be beaten by just straight rushing to the final town with a set of initial mercenaries, it just REQUIRES level scaling.

 

First off, to analyze how the game did it right, we need to check out how the level scaling works.

JA2 has three destinct layers of encounter progression:

1) progression of area ... the more you move towards the southwest of the country, the more soldiers you will encounter. There are more patrols roaming the wilderness around the areas, there's bigger weaponary used by the infantry. There's even tanks around the capital city.

2) progression of story ... the more towns you free, the more special forces you will encounter in your playthrough. Deidranna actively sends out counter-attacking troops to your towns the more you progress, forcing you to hire more and more mercenaries and splitting up teams in order to defend all hotspots.

3) progression of time ... the longer you take, the better armed the soldiers you encounter will be. While at first most soldiers are just armed with pistols and MPs, later enemies will come with automatic weapons and even grenades/rocket launchers.

 

These three mechanics combined make for a highly believable and realistic design. Leveling never feels pointless, as the progression is never directly tied to your levels, but instead tied to mechanics that just make sense lore-wise.

 

If you decide to directly rush towards the capital to just assassinate Deidranna, you will notice that the capital is a lot less defended than if you freed all other towns first. Still, the defenders will have automatic weapons, compared to those in the north-eastern towns that only carry MPs. You will still encounter tanks and occasional grenades and with your weak level troops, it's still painfully hard to kill Deidranna to end the game. But the point is: you still can with exceptional tactics.

 

If you decide to take it slow, build up your forces and free the towns one by one, you will eventually notice the game difficulty to make a huge leap upwards. The reason for that is that playing it too slow will make the time component kick in, which means that you will face more and more soldiers with stronger weapons, whereas your party might still be under-leveled and (due to your slow progression), your income might be too low to hire more experienced mercenaries. However, if you manage to kill those heavily armored foes and get their weapons, you might still make it. It's never unfair because of that.

 

If you decide to build up two teams, you are actually able to free more towns at a faster rate. But this also makes it harder to defend them, as you need time to train the reinforcements defending the towns. The counter-attack troops will still have to be dealt with, but the soldiers will be weaker in equipment once you encounter them.

 

 

These mechanics can be applied perfectly even to semi-linear RPGs. Have there be a mixture of static encounters (it makes no sense for a dragon to be weak at the beginning of the game - the same as it makes no sense for the head of the city guard to suddenly become a demi-god by the end of the game), dynamic events along the road and dungeons scaling over time (again, not bound to character level, but actual time progressed) and event-responses based on what and when you complete quests.

So let me see if I've got this right (I've never played Jagged Alliance, so I'm only going off what you're saying here)

 

1) Encounters get tougher based on geographic locations

2) Encounters get tougher based on time

3) Encounters get tougher based on story

 

And....

 

4) This progression is not actually tied to your leveling.

 

Ok....This. Is. Not. Level. Scaling. At all. Level scaling is when enemies scale according to your level. And that's it. Area scaling, time scaling, and narrative-progression scaling are different mechanics.

 

The De'Arnise Hold is a nice example here. It would just feel right that the trolls grow in numbers the longer you waste time around the city before moving to the keep.

But they don't grow in numbers. They *change* in both size and species, -AND- this change is NOT based on time. It's based on character level. (if you stick around Athkatla when you're 9th level and sleep at an inn for 78 days, and then go do the D'arnise keep, you will get the exact same-leveled encounters as a 9th level character who didn't waste 78 days sleeping before doing that quest.)

 

If you do the D'arnise keep when you're between ~9th-12th level, you will get the standard Trolls. If you go when you're ~13th-17th level, many of those standard trolls are replaced by Giant Trolls, Spectral Trolls and Spirit trolls (By the Way, the existence of those last two cannot be explained by game time or story, as they are UNDEAD, and spirit trolls, specifically, are very *ancient* undead, and the game spawns them into the D'arnise keep despite the fact that there's no Troll Shaman there performing transformation rituals on any of the existing trolls)

Edited May 5, 2014 by Stun

[Stun]

No, that's not what it means. If it was, there'd be no one here opposed to it (who the hell would ever want to play an RPG where all encounters are exactly the same?)

Edited May 5, 2014 by Stun

[Stun]

 

No, that's not what it means. If it was, there'd be no one here opposed to it (who the hell would ever want to play an RPG where all encounters are exactly the same?)

You seems confused. Level scaling is a DYNAMIC change of challenge...

 

...based on the player character's LEVEL.

 

By contrast, if this dynamic change of challenge is based on TIME, then it would be called Time scaling. And if this dynamic change of challenge is based on Area, then it's called Area scaling. And if this dynamic change of challenge is based on the story/narrative/chapter, then that's called narrative progression-based-scaling

 

Listen, I'm not here to barter/negotiate the term "Level Scaling" with someone who wants to grossly broaden its definition so that it can appeal to anyone who loves "challenge!". Level scaling deserves no such SPIN. It is a Lazy crutch mechanic used by developers who lack the creativity or time to properly design encounters in RPGs.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Stun

[Stun]

There are no such terms,

Really? By all means then, explain how Neverwinter Nights handled its encounter difficulty progression. And do so without using any of the above terms. Edited May 5, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

What's hilarious is, the basic game, itself, is "based on your level." Why do 90% of the foes in the Blargle Forest fluctuate around the toughness median of Level 5, and you just so happen to progress to the point where you an actually travel through that forest when your party is approximately level 5?

 

I'm sure your party's level upon reaching that forest was in no way a factor in determining the naturally-occurring enemies there. It's all just a huge coincidence. Thank goodness the encounter-design team never bases anything on level when determining the toughness/challenge an encounter needs to present.

 

Thus, when you suddenly introduce something like level-scaling, you're tainting this pure, pure game world, in which everything is completely random. Suddenly, level is actually used as some sort of basis for the challenges that are presented to the player party! *GASP!*

 

. So hilarious.

 

Also, if I gain 2 levels and my enemies gain 1 level, for example, then obviously they're always going to be exactly as tough as I am. It is simply impossible for something to be strong-er then it would've previously been (but never was because it never actually "existed" in my playthrough's instance of the game world), but still actually less powerful, relative to my party. Clearly that's nonsense.

 

Also, basing an adjustment on anything other than level would be absolutely fine. I mean, you could base it on the number of quests completed. That'd be fine. Because, I mean, you could complete 53 quests and only gain 1 level, or 1 quest and gain 5 levels. The two are clearly unrelated. So, as long you don't base challenge adjustments on level gains -- which are completely unrelated to the passage of time or the amount of tasks/encounters completed prior to the present point in time -- everything's 100% fine.

 

It all makes so much sense now! 8D

[Stun]

How should I know? I didn't designed the game nor I care for this mediocre at best product. However I assume it wasn't done by the ways you just made up two posts ago.

You are mistaken. Neverwinter Nights scales its encounters to the game's chapters. (ie. Chapter/Narrative progression-based encounter scaling. What I mentioned above)

 

Neverwinter Nights' does not scale its encounters to your level, and you can easily verify this by creating a level 1 character and begining the game in chapter 2 or 3, or 4 and you'll immediately see yourself getting destroyed by the game's creatures in every single encounter (ironically, there's no way around this as the game DOES scale both its Loot and NPC companions to your level lol)

 

Instead, Neverwinter Nights' encounters are chapter-scaled. There is a distinct and completely oblivious to your level, difficulty difference between what you face in chapter 1 vs. what you face in chapter 2, or 3, or 4.

 

 

See the difference?

Edited May 6, 2014 by Stun

[Stun]

What's hilarious is, the basic game, itself, is "based on your level." Why do 90% of the foes in the Blargle Forest fluctuate around the toughness median of Level 5, and you just so happen to progress to the point where you an actually travel through that forest when your party is approximately level 5?

 

I'm sure your party's level upon reaching that forest was in no way a factor in determining the naturally-occurring enemies there. It's all just a huge coincidence. Thank goodness the encounter-design team never bases anything on level when determining the toughness/challenge an encounter needs to present.

Er.... Lephys, I'm talking about Neverwinter Nights. The Bioware game. Not... whatever blather you're citing. Edited May 6, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

Er.... Lephys, I'm talking about Neverwinter Nights. The Bioware game. Not... whatever blather you're citing.

I didn't cite anything you said. Nor did I make reference to you, or any specific game that wasn't Neverwinter Nights, at all.

 

I'm quite confused by your confusion.

[Stun]

 

Er.... Lephys, I'm talking about Neverwinter Nights. The Bioware game. Not... whatever blather you're citing.

I didn't cite anything you said. Nor did I make reference to you, or any specific game that wasn't Neverwinter Nights, at all.

 

I'm quite confused by your confusion.

 

"Blargle forest at 5th level?" What exactly was that rant about?

[Lephys]

"Blargle forest at 5th level?" What exactly was that rant about?

I dunno. I distinctly recall that being a simple question. And I think it was about level as a basis for the design of foes and encounters, and the control over the player's interaction with those foes and encounters.

 

What did it seem to be about? o_O

[Stun]

I dunno. I distinctly recall that being a simple question.

Hmm...

 

Alight. I will treat it as a simple question then.

 

 

 

 

What's hilarious is, the basic game, itself, is "based on your level." Why do 90% of the foes in the Blargle Forest fluctuate around the toughness median of Level 5?

They don't.

 

and you just so happen to progress to the point where you an actually travel through that forest when your party is approximately level 5?

Not necessarily.

 

I'm sure your party's level upon reaching that forest was in no way a factor in determining the naturally-occurring enemies there.

It isn't.

 

It's all just a huge coincidence.

Not at all. Edited May 6, 2014 by Stun

[Fatback]

I understand the want to have certain areas contain monsters that are just to hard for a beginning party. I also like to be able to get to the final fight of act three and have it be a challenge even if I do all side quests first.

[Valorian]

What's hilarious is, the basic game, itself, is "based on your level." Why do 90% of the foes in the Blargle Forest fluctuate around the toughness median of Level 5, and you just so happen to progress to the point where you an actually travel through that forest when your party is approximately level 5?

 

I'm sure your party's level upon reaching that forest was in no way a factor in determining the naturally-occurring enemies there. It's all just a huge coincidence. Thank goodness the encounter-design team never bases anything on level when determining the toughness/challenge an encounter needs to present.

 

 

Is this made up game with the Blargle Forest linear perchance? If it is, it kind of makes sense that its developers would know, with surgical precision, that it just so happens that the player would also be around level 5.

 

The beauty of non linear & non level scaled games is that you can stumble on a variety of challenges, some easy, some insurmountable (at that level). There's this important factor called choices and consequences; where to go, what to fight? Level scaling greatly reduces the impact of c&c connected to exploration.

It is also pretty reasonable to not populate the starting area with level 35 monsters. Does that make sense in Lephysland?

Edited May 6, 2014 by Valorian

[Stun]

In NWN there is no SCALING

There is no LEVEL scaling.

 

Instead, encounter difficulty is scaled based on Chapter. I will give you a specific non-boss example, now, since I've actually Played the game. Ok. There are Orcs in chapter 2. And there are Orcs in Chapter 3. The Orcs in chapter 3 are significantly more powerful than the ones in in chapter 2.

 

And, AGAIN, this is regardless of your level. Role up a level 1 character, and begin the game at Chapter 3, and face those Orcs. They will be exactly the same Orcs that a 15th level character faces in chapter 3. But they will be DIFFERENT, powerwise, from the Orcs that either character encounters in chapter 2.

 

Now, back to my question, which you dodged: What am I describing above? What is the term for it?

Edited May 6, 2014 by Stun