Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Linkamus

Will PoE have level scaling? (Please no)

Recommended Posts

Level scaling is one the few issues where I happily agree with Stun and other grognards. :)
 
The worst offender, at least in my experience, is not Obvilion, but Final Fantasy 8. To my knowledge, FF8 is the only game in the series which had level scaling -- and boy did they mess it up royally. Apart from everything else that's been already said against level scaling, Final Fantasy also has a hard cap on character health and single attack damage: 9999, or 4 digits. But the same cap does not apply to enemies: they can have health in the 6 digits and damage in the 5 digits (which insta-kills any character without protective buffs).
 
So if you leveled up, at a certain point -- different for each character -- you stopped gaining more health and doing more damage with your more powerful attacks. But the enemies kept getting stronger and stronger, so the punishment for leveling wasn't on a mostly psychological level, it was on a statistical, measurable level. Your relative power became less as you leveled past about 85-90. So much so, that on my first playthrough, where I ignorantly grinded up to near max level (99), I was unable to finish the game. The hard cap on health made the final battles unwinnable.
 
Then I learned about the whole level scaling bull****, and that induced one of darkest nerdrages of my entire computer gaming hobby. HOW COULD THEY? I WANT TO SPILL GAME DESIGNER BLOOD.
 
I started a second playthrough, to prove my new-founded theory that the game is easier to finish on low levels. During the first PT, I found a random encounter enemy on Cactuar Island (a Final Fantasy staple, a hidden island with special enemies) which gave only 1 XP but 200 AP, the latter is required to level up your abilities (XP/level-up gave you higher base attributes). I grinded for a while to max out the abilities I wanted, and then proceeded to steamroll/cakewalk/ROFLstomp the end-game bosses on level 34. Theory proven, game discarded forever (which is a shame, bcause FF8 had the best minigame ever, Triple Triad with changing house rules for different regions).
 
In my memory, this story stands as an eternal monument to the utter stupidity of level scaling.

Edited by Endrosz
  • Like 3

The Seven Blunders/Roots of Violence: Wealth without work. Pleasure without conscience. Knowledge without character. Commerce without morality. Science without humanity. Worship without sacrifice. Politics without principle. (Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi)

 

Let's Play the Pools Saga (SSI Gold Box Classics)

Pillows of Enamored Warfare -- The Zen of Nodding

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Why do I keep pressing Quote instead of Edit?)

Edited by Endrosz

The Seven Blunders/Roots of Violence: Wealth without work. Pleasure without conscience. Knowledge without character. Commerce without morality. Science without humanity. Worship without sacrifice. Politics without principle. (Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi)

 

Let's Play the Pools Saga (SSI Gold Box Classics)

Pillows of Enamored Warfare -- The Zen of Nodding

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dragon age 2 is a pretty serious offender as well, as it not only has a blatant 1:1 level scaling, but also has symmetrical level scaling which the Character stat screen proudly flaunts via your armor, attack, and defense scores, all of which have values that automatically go down every time you level up, as if the game is telling you "hey there buddy, you just leveled up, and so has every single creature in the world, so you better look around for better gear to keep up, or else you're gonna get your ass kicked by the bajillion waves of street thugs we've parachuted in for you to fight!"

Edited by Stun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example:

I was hooked on TOR ( :() for quite a while, doing endgame, gathering gear.

Then recently, they introduced level scaled events, areas and whole flashpoints.

 

And then the realisation sunk in... what the hell am I doing this for? What BS is this?

And it was so lame I broke MMO-addiction and left the game...

 

So 'awesome' is level-scaling...


^

 

 

I agree that that is such a stupid idiotic pathetic garbage hateful retarded scumbag evil satanic nazi like term ever created. At least top 5.

 

TSLRCM Official Forum || TSLRCM Moddb || My other KOTOR2 mods || TSLRCM (English version) on Steam || [M4-78EP on Steam

Formerly known as BattleWookiee/BattleCookiee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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?

I didn't dodged your question I answered it. This is a static design, there is no scaling. Every enemy is hand placed and have a set level, stats, spells etc. You seem to not grasp what SCALING is. 

 

Your statement is false. The basic orcs have a set stats regarding of chapter they appear in. There are of course orc champions, cheftains, shamans and so on which are tougher, but they all have a set level, stats etc. regarding of chapter. 

Neither NWN wiki nor game files support your claim. There is only one blueprint for generic orc.

 

http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Orc_(creature)

 

I assure you the wiki is wrong. NWN has a tool set, and all this wiki link is doing is displaying the standard Orc template from the tool set.

 

Play the OC. And show me ANY Orc in Chapter 3 that only has 4 hit points (for example). They all have about 5x-10x that much.

 

And you can't call it static when the same creatures appear in 2 separate game chapters but have drastically different stats.

Edited by Stun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all it's not the same creature. Chapter 2 is placed in Luskan and Chapter 3 in Neverwinter if memory serves. So you physically cannot meet the same creature in different chapters.

Yeah, your memory is defective. Chapter 2 is Port Last and its surrounding areas, of which Luskan is only a small part. And chapter 3 is Beorunna's Well and its surrounding areas.

 

And we don't need to be talking about the exact same creature, since NWN does not have level scaling. We merely need to show that a specific type of monster (in this case, Orcs) are in 2 separate chapters, and that they differ in power based on the chapter.

 

 

The same creature is an orc sitting by the lake north of the town. If you encounter him in chapter 2 and he is level 5, but if you don't go to the lake in chapter 2 but instead in chapter 4 and he is level 10, then he was level SCALED based on the chapter.

We really don't need to focus on one individual Orc when chapter 2 has whole CAVES full of them, and Chapter 3 has a network of Orc TRIBES, remember?

 

 

 

Second I checked NWN wiki, official forums and so on.

 

 

NOWHERE I saw anything backing your claim. Either show me a proof or stop with this nonsense. I have a clear statement on NWN wiki that there is only one basic orc blueprint.

Of course there's only one basic orc Blue Print. Blue Prints in the Aurora Toolset are just that: blue prints. it is then up to the developer/modder to adjust all creatures' stats as he places them his campaign. As it stands, Bioware does that multiple times, with orcs, Trolls, Dragons, Ogres And even Humans. (go ahead, look up the HUMAN blueprint in the NWN tool set, then come back and tell us all that you've seen the Wiki, and visited the official site and have confirmed that ALL humans in NWN are 1st level and have 6 hit points, because that's their Blueprint, and anyone who disagrees with your Googling needs to prove otherwise. LOL)

Edited by Stun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So? Beyond the point. Still two different areas. Still ch2 quests are ch2 quests and ch2 areas are ch2 areas.

Exactly. But I cited 2 different chapters, too. And the same creatures (orcs) change drastically in power from one chapter to the other.

 

This is not level scaling,(as we both admit), And its not static, since they don't remain the same.... so it must be.... That's RIGHT! Chapter/Story based scaling!

 

So? Beyond the point. They still are hand placed not SCALED at all

Well you're half right. They are hand placed. But hand placement in a game with a tool-set and generic blue prints sees devs/modders adjusting the difficulty/levels of their hand placed creatures based on where (or when) they place them within the game. In NWN case, Bioware decided to adjust Orcs so that their difficulty fits with the chapters. Thus generic orcs in chapter 3 are more powerful than generic orcs in chapter 2.

 

This is still encounter scaling, just not level scaling. It's a scaling based on chapter advancement, instead of being some banal automatic thing that checks the player's level and then adjusts the enemy <gag>

 

 

 

 

Of course there's only one basic orc Blue Print. Blue Prints in the Aurora Tool are just that: blue prints. it is then up to the developer/modder to adjust that creature's stats as he places it in his campaign. As it stands, Bioware does that multiple times, with orcs, Trolls, Dragons, Ogres And even Humans. (go ahead, look up the HUMAN blueprint in the NWN tool set, then come back and tell us all that you've played the game, and visited the official site and have confirmed that ALL humans in NWN are 1st level and have 6 hitpoints.

 

Go ahead. do it. LOL

 

I will not download and install game to back up YOUR claim.

 

You don't need to download or install anything. Did you not just pull up the Orc Blue print from the Wiki? Do the same with HUMAN. and then ponder your ridiculous claim that these Blueprints represent exactly what you see in the game, without any power adjustments. Edited by Stun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, it's still static, it's still hand placed. It's still the same creatures in the same spots with the same level EVERY ****ing time. There is no scaling.

Nope, since we're not dealing with a LEVEL scaling system, we do not need to use the same exact instance of a creature. We may, if we're discussing chapter/story based encounter scaling, compare different instances of the same type of creature (ie: Orcs), and then compare the difference in their power when they spawn in chapter 2, vs. when they spawn in chapter 3.

 

 

 

At which point the scaling takes place?

The scaling takes place as the game goes from one chapter to the next.

 

 

 

And at which point there is such creature as human as your opponent?

Hmm... well there's the humans (both named and un-named) in chapter 1, like the ones in the prisons, and the blood sailors. And the mercenaries that get sent after you whenever you recover any of the waterdavian creatures. There's the Humans (both named and un-named) in chapter 2, although some of the bandits in Luskan don't count since they're lycanthropic. (ie. wererats) Then chapter 3's got a ton. There's 2 military outposts of humans in chapter 3. There are human mercenaries in chapter 3. Chapter 4, IIRC has humans from Luskan that are in Maugrim's/Aribeth's army.

 

And again, the power difference between these humans is massive, and all based on which chapter you face them.

Edited by Stun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope we cannot do that. Unless we encounter different creature or different set of creatures or different level creatures IN THE SAME SPOT based on some change (PC level, time, chapter etc.) then we cannot speak about scaling.

Same Spot? Says who?

 

The enemy/race ITSELF can scale based on when you encounter it. (and that applies to actual LEVEL scaling as well. Take Oblivion for example. You're straight out of the prologue and you encounter bandits in a cave way down south when you're level one. Those bandits will be scaled to your level. Then later, you're way up north, and you're 30th level, and you encounter bandits again..... Those bandits will suddenly be 30th level, just like you.

 

Question: Does one have to be in the same spot, facing the exact same bandits, in order to see, with his own two eyes this glaringly obvious example of a game employing grotesque level scaling? No, one does NOT. Yet, this example is ALL one needs to determine and confirm that enemies in Oblivion grotesquely Level scale.

 

You can't just pick and choose the definitions you like, Mr. Sharp_One. We all know what Level scaling is. We all know what *scaling* means. You're not going to convince anyone that Drastic uniform changes in enemy power from one chapter of a game to the next isn't "scaling". No matter how much you try and spin things.

 

Scaling is like porn. Everyone knows it when they see it. We don't need to split hairs with the definitions.

 

 

 

The scaling takes place as the game goes from one chapter to the next.

Now you are blatantly lying.

Do I encounter different level of monsters if I go to the area x in chapter 2 and different level of monsters if I go to the exact same area in chapter 3? (hint: NO!)

 

Why does it have to be the same area? I never claimed that NWN zone/area scales. Did I.

 

 

 

I specifically asked about creature labed "human" as the opponent.

And...? Unless you're going to argue that HUMAN prisoners aren't actually human, you're not making any point whatsoever. You're just arguing for argument sakes. The Toolset sees all humans as... 'creature type: human', no matter what title you give them. This is manifested in spells/weapons that do extra damage to humans, Armors and devices only equitable by Humans etc. Edited by Stun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scaling doesn't occur unless there is some change and a factor that forces this changes.

For the 1236th time:

 

Change: Generic Orcs have 10hp and do 2-12 damage at one point in the game. Then, at another point in the game, Generic Orcs have 40hp and do 2-20 damage.

Factor forcing the change: Game chapters.

Bonus Observation: devs decide to do the exact same thing with Trolls, Ogres, and assorted other common monsters.

Edited by Stun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's me adding more fuel to the fire: :fdevil:  :devil:  :fdevil:

Sharp_one: That's not at all true for NWN2: Storm of Zehir, which have plenty of random encounters. Also, in a few places in the OC, you have invisible spawn triggers that actually dish out various baddies - orcs, for instance, with a little random loot on them - and some players farm these places to level up quicker.

 

And yes, do carry on...

Edited by IndiraLightfoot

*** "The words of someone who feels ever more the ent among saplings when playing CRPGs" ***

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sound advice, so I took it to heart:

Since I've played the NWN1 series to bits and modded that game as well, I can tell you that there were indeed rare occasions of level-scaling and spawned generic monsters in that series as well. One was removed, but it was glaringly obvious early on:

If you imported your characters from NWN you got a larger, level-dependent quantity of skeletal devourers in the Temple of the Winds, which were a true pain in the ass (I remember that vividly).

 

Now, please carry on as before...


*** "The words of someone who feels ever more the ent among saplings when playing CRPGs" ***

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you guys just **** already?


"Take your child murderin' god and shove his him up his own ass."-Volorun

 

"...the vote of a black redhead disabled homosexual transsexual Jew should probably be worth the same as at least a hundred white heterosexual Christians."-Rostere

 

"i can think of many women i would gladly sleep with, but not a single one that i would want as a girlfriend/wife... neither real nor fictional."-teknoman2

 

"I'm all for killing dogs in film." - algroth

 

"Iselmyr is the one who did GOMAD... Aloth is lactose intolerant" -ShadySands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the first, second and last page and the same combatants are at it still, but appear to have moved on to arguing about the argumentation rather than the topic at hand so forgive me if I just drop my thoughts instead of partaking in the current discussion.

 

Oblivion soured me and a lot of folks on level scaling I think, and made many think that Oblivion's way of doing it is what level scaling is. Meeting random bandits in the game's best armour who stick you up for a 100 coins epitomized the concept for me.

 

I have since learned that this is not generally the case; Skyrim, to take an example close at hand, makes a couple of important improvements in the form of minimum levels for zones and by saving the level you are when you first enter a zone. Both are levelled at the general complaint of never running into dangerous enemies, and the lack of a feeling of increased power you can get when going back to zone you were too weak for the first time. I also believe they skipped giving random bandits quite so high end equipment. I'd say the game doesn't entirely succeed in making good use of level scaling, but it's certainly an improvement over Oblivion.

 

As mentioned on the first page of the thread, there are also games where you don't really notice the level scaling, like BG2, which I think made good use of it - in combination with the really difficult, optional, non-scaled encounters (provided you didn't cheese them) with loot to match. BG2 would have been a worse game without the level scaling, since there was so much optional content that the difficulty could easily have gone out of whack.

 

So, yeah. I think in a game with a lot of optional content that boosts the party's power, some amount of level scaling is likely unavoidable for an optimal play experience.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Level scaling greatly reduces the impact of c&c connected to exploration.

I would agree that level scaling everything just because you bump into it at whatever level does this. Saying the merest existence of level scaling in any capacity or with any precision does this is like saying "seasoning ruins food." 7 cups of seasoning ruins food, or the wrong seasoning on the wrong food ruins food. But, obviously, seasoning, in general, is neither inherently bad nor inherently good for food.

 

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

And why is that, exactly? I know, I just wanna hear you say it. When I say things, it's apparently nonsense, or my point can in no way be derived from my words. So, please tell me what it is that causes a problem with the Level 1 starting adventurer facing off against an area populated by level 35 monsters.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Level scaling greatly reduces the impact of c&c connected to exploration.

I would agree that level scaling everything just because you bump into it at whatever level does this. Saying the merest existence of level scaling in any capacity or with any precision does this is like saying "seasoning ruins food." 7 cups of seasoning ruins food, or the wrong seasoning on the wrong food ruins food. But, obviously, seasoning, in general, is neither inherently bad nor inherently good for food.

 

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

And why is that, exactly? I know, I just wanna hear you say it. When I say things, it's apparently nonsense, or my point can in no way be derived from my words. So, please tell me what it is that causes a problem with the Level 1 starting adventurer facing off against an area populated by level 35 monsters.

 

 

The mere existence of level scaling in any capacity reduces the impact of c&c connected to exploration wherever it's present, correct. Your analogy with food and seasoning is a Lephysm and, of course, nonsensical.

 

Populating the starting area with level 35 monsters would most likely prevent the player from progressing further. The obvious solution is not (the merest existence of) level scaling, but a reasonable placement of combat encounters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mere existence of level scaling in any capacity reduces the impact of c&c connected to exploration wherever it's present, correct. Your analogy with food and seasoning is a Lephysm and, of course, nonsensical.

Fair enough. Please help me to understand here, then. So that I can become cleanses from my Lephysness: What about it was nonsensical? Is it false that the particular "implementation" of seasoning in any given instance of food is what dictates the goodness or badness of the result? Or does that have nothing to do with level-scaling because it cannot be used to any particular degree, and can only be used one way? Or something completely different? I'd like to know how I can make sense in the future.

 

Populating the starting area with level 35 monsters would most likely prevent the player from progressing further. The obvious solution is not (the merest existence of) level scaling, but a reasonable placement of combat encounters.

And what, specifically, would constitute a "reasonable placement of combat encounters"? What would make the encounters more reasonable?


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The mere existence of level scaling in any capacity reduces the impact of c&c connected to exploration wherever it's present, correct. Your analogy with food and seasoning is a Lephysm and, of course, nonsensical.

Fair enough. Please help me to understand here, then. So that I can become cleanses from my Lephysness: What about it was nonsensical? Is it false that the particular "implementation" of seasoning in any given instance of food is what dictates the goodness or badness of the result? Or does that have nothing to do with level-scaling because it cannot be used to any particular degree, and can only be used one way? Or something completely different? I'd like to know how I can make sense in the future.

 

Populating the starting area with level 35 monsters would most likely prevent the player from progressing further. The obvious solution is not (the merest existence of) level scaling, but a reasonable placement of combat encounters.

And what, specifically, would constitute a "reasonable placement of combat encounters"? What would make the encounters more reasonable?

 

 

That was a bad analogy because food seasoning, like you cleverly pointed out, is not inherently bad for food, while level scaling is inherently bad for a game.

 

It would be reasonable to place encounters so that it is possible to finish the game on different difficulty levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a bad analogy because food seasoning, like you cleverly pointed out, is not inherently bad for food, while level scaling is inherently bad for a game.

That's not telling me why/how. It's just claiming it's true. Could you explain how level scaling is inherently bad, no matter the particular use?

 

It would be reasonable to place encounters so that it is possible to finish the game on different difficulty levels.

And what about the encounters, relative to the player party, would make it possible to finish the game on different difficulty levels, and therefore reasonable?


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That was a bad analogy because food seasoning, like you cleverly pointed out, is not inherently bad for food, while level scaling is inherently bad for a game.

That's not telling me why/how. It's just claiming it's true. Could you explain how level scaling is inherently bad, no matter the particular use?

 

It would be reasonable to place encounters so that it is possible to finish the game on different difficulty levels.

And what about the encounters, relative to the player party, would make it possible to finish the game on different difficulty levels, and therefore reasonable?

 

 

The mere existence of level scaling in any capacity reduces the impact of c&c connected to exploration wherever it's present, correct.

 

Depends on how hard they want the game to be. Placing low level encounters in the very first area would be reasonable. Difficult, high level, monsters would also be fine there among the newbie enemies, if it's possible to avoid them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as level scaling i am ok with it if it is reined in. Like lets say an orge we would normally find at lvl 4, i am ok with him being scaled up to lvl 8 and thats it if we came back at lvl 12. Or if we didnt go to a place at the beginning and would normally find a kobold or 2, now after 12 lvls we go there and encounter packs of them like 6 or 8.

To put it bluntly i am okay with level scaling as long as their is a cap that they scale to and not just to continue to scale indefinitly to our level.

Edited by redneckdevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on how hard they want the game to be. Placing low level encounters in the very first area would be reasonable. Difficult, high level, monsters would also be fine there among the newbie enemies, if it's possible to avoid them.

Yes, good good. And why are the low level encounters reasonable, while having only high-level encounters in the first area of the game (at least some of which you must face and can't avoid) unreasonable? What is the difference, and why is it good?


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Depends on how hard they want the game to be. Placing low level encounters in the very first area would be reasonable. Difficult, high level, monsters would also be fine there among the newbie enemies, if it's possible to avoid them.

Yes, good good. And why are the low level encounters reasonable, while having only high-level encounters in the first area of the game (at least some of which you must face and can't avoid) unreasonable? What is the difference, and why is it good?

 

 

I suppose because it would be odd to put an unavoidable and insurmountable barrier, intentionally preventing the player from ever seeing the rest of the game? 

 

Will there be many more questions? I'm happy to solve your peculiar enquiries, but I hope it's at least helping you understand that games can work just fine (or even better!) without level scaling, yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...