Crit-Path Encounter Scaling - Do you want it?

[Infinitron]

Why would they be screwed if the possibility to turn down difficulty exists?

I expect 'easy' to be relatively easy even for "non-completionists".

 

 

 

It's funny that you say that, because in Pillars of Eternity, turning the difficulty down and scaling the encounters down is basically the same thing.

 

So one of way solving the problem without having to design additional encounters ala BG2 would be to force the easier version of the encounter on people who are under-levelled.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Infinitron

[Valorian]

 

Why would they be screwed if the possibility to turn down difficulty exists?

I expect 'easy' to be relatively easy even for "non-completionists".

 

LOL!

"Are you underleveled? Change difficulty setting!"

       

 

 

 I suppose a specific emptiness doesn't let you figure out how turning down the difficulty makes encounters easier, even if you're "underleveled".

 

 

Why would they be screwed if the possibility to turn down difficulty exists?

I expect 'easy' to be relatively easy even for "non-completionists".

 

 

 

It's funny that you say that, because in Pillars of Eternity, turning the difficulty down and scaling the encounters down is basically the same thing.

 

So one of way solving the problem without having to design additional encounters ala BG2 would be to force the easier version of the encounter on people who are under-levelled.

 

 

Oh, it's not basically the same thing. You working on a site that has "doesn't scale to your level" as its slogan, I had assumed you understand the difference between changing encounters with a difficulty slider and changing encounters with your level.

[Infinitron]

 

Oh, it's not basically the same thing. 

 

 

It's basically the same thing in that the encounters are scaled in the same way; by removing or adding enemies, not by decreasing or increasing the power level of individual enemies. Encounter scaling, not level scaling: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60889-level-scaling-dont-scale-individual-enemies-scale-encounters/

 

I'm saying that Obsidian could leverage their existing difficulty system to scale the critical path, by setting a "maximum difficulty" for critical path encounters depending on the player's level.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Infinitron

[Valorian]

 

 

Oh, it's not basically the same thing. 

 

 

It's basically the same thing in that the encounters are scaled in the same way; by removing or adding enemies, not by decreasing or increasing the power level of individual enemies. Encounter scaling, not level scaling: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60889-level-scaling-dont-scale-individual-enemies-scale-encounters/

 

 

I'm aware of the effects of changing the difficulty in PoE. However, scaling encounters based on your level and scaling enc. based on a difficulty slider is not "basically the same thing". In fact, these are very different things.

[Valorian]

 

 

 I suppose a specific emptiness doesn't let you figure out how turning down the difficulty makes encounters easier, even if you're "underleveled"

 

 

 

 

No sweety, a specific emptiness doesn't let you figure out how changing the difficulty setting is not resolving the issue of being unable to pass a certain encounters at main story line without leveling up on OPTIONAL content.

 

 

I entirely support your desire to be able to ram through the main story on 'easy', regardless of your specific emptiness.

[Helz]

I want this game to be challenging from beginning to end, discounting overpowered builds/gear on normal difficulty.  I want this game to be challenging, even with optimal builds/gear on the hardest difficulty.  I don't really care how Obsidian achieves that, I just wish that they would.

[Valorian]

 

I entirely support your desire to be able to ram through the main story on 'easy', regardless of your specific emptiness.

 

 

We all already know you want everything to be "easy", that's why you are so opposed to any kind of scaling for game to be more challenging.

 

But your ineptness aside, there have to be a way to play a game on any difficulty and the game to maintain the challenge for both completionists and story line only players. Crit-path scaling encounters is the way to do it. 

 

 

The absence of level scaling makes everything easy... you got it. 

 

Your demand to absolutely be able to ram through the critical path on any difficulty level, without ever touching optional content, was duly noted and passed along to the closest waste container. 

[Sensuki]

I'm aware of the effects of changing the difficulty in PoE. However, scaling encounters based on your level and scaling enc. based on a difficulty slider is not "basically the same thing". In fact, these are very different things.

Not if it uses the same encounter scaling system for both, which is what Infinitron is referring to.

 

I would say it's more of an issue for players playing on Hard than anything else. People who play on easy just want to relax and aren't really concerned with challenge. People who play on normal just want the standard game difficulty and People who play on Hard want a challenge. Crit path encounters not taking into account side content should be a feature of normal difficulty and Hard should at least assume that a fair amount of side content has been done IMO.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Sensuki

[Sensuki]

Hard should be Hard. Normal should already be difficult enough for those that aren't good at games.

 

That would be sweet if I wanted to do a "speed run" on hard and crit path encounters were actually challenging. They usually never are.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Sensuki

[Sensuki]

Wrong.

 

In the base game, it may be possible to get to level 8 or something by just doing the crit path content. Let's say you can hit the level cap (12) by doing most of the side content.

 

With the assumption that crit path encounters are not going to be tuned based on completion of side content, the crit path encounters might be at level, or level+1.

 

Side content in the game however will have a static level, so you can attempt that stuff with a huge level discrepancy.

 

A player playing on hard for challenge is going to find the crit path encounters easy compared to the side encounters. 

 

If the crit path encounters were all tuned up a bit to something like Level+2 or Level+3, then they would be up there with the side content, rather than being disappointing overall. Like the side content they will be beatable, but will require better management of resources, efficiency, and tactics.

Enemies with a higher level than the party will be more accurate and have better defenses (and probably more health, depending on the creature type). This gap can be made up with items, spells, potions and smart play.

[Stun]

So you're demanding that the game be designed for completionists, and screw the non-completionists.

No, I'm demanding that a game, who's developer-stated focus is on exploration, bestow significant advantages to those who take the time and effort to explore. As for the Non-completionists, they should get out of it what they put into it.

 

If I decide to meticulously complete every nook and cranny of the 15 level mega-dungeon, and the stronghold, and the faction quest lines, and all the jobs/missions in both cities, I expect to be a LOT more powerful than someone who decided to skip all of it and just raced to the end to finish the game.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Stun

[Infinitron]

If I decide to meticulously complete every nook and cranny of the 15 level mega-dungeon, and the stronghold, and the faction quest lines, and all the jobs/missions in both cities, I expect to be a LOT more powerful than someone who decided to skip all of it and just raced to the end to finish the game.

 

 

OK. Just saying, in low level AD&D, the long-term end result of being a completionist was often being just a single level above a non-completionist. Of course, these games also had relatively few levels compared to modern RPGs, so a single level represented a significant advantage.

 

Generally, I am in favor of mild power curves where you can't become "a LOT more powerful", as I don't like the numbers inflation seen in modern RPGs. I find it hard to take seriously a world where people do 1-8 damage at level 1 and hundreds of points of damage at level 20. I'm not interested in power fantasies.

 

If a "low level" enemy still has ways of f*cking my characters up even after I've done all the sidequests in the world, I find that awesome.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Infinitron

[Sensuki]

Where exactly? You didn't refer to my post at all.

Yes I did, albeit indirectly. You should be able to figure it out on your own.

 

The point of this conversation is for that NOT to happen. And also for players that play only main story line who want to play on higher difficulty to not find the encounters not passable because he/she didn't do optional content. optional content is as the name suggest OPTIONAL.

And you don't need scaling to accomplish it, the crit path encounters just need to be hard for a speed runner and hard(ish) for a completionist. Character Power does not scale exponentially in PE like it does in D&D, so it should be possible to make a pre-determined setting that both can beat without needing to scale at all. If the power curve was larger however, scaling would be needed.

[Stun]

 

If I decide to meticulously complete every nook and cranny of the 15 level mega-dungeon, and the stronghold, and the faction quest lines, and all the jobs/missions in both cities, I expect to be a LOT more powerful than someone who decided to skip all of it and just raced to the end to finish the game.

 

OK. Just saying, in low level AD&D, the long-term end result of being a completionist was often being just a single level above a non-completionist. Of course, these games also had relatively few levels compared to modern RPGs, so a single level represented a significant advantage.

 

Generally, I am in favor of mild power curves where you can't become "a LOT more powerful", as I don't like the numbers inflation seen in modern RPGs. I find it hard to take seriously a world where people do 1-8 damage at level 1 and hundreds of points of damage at level 20. I'm not interested in power fantasies.

 

If a "low level" enemy still has ways of f*cking my characters up even after I've done all the sidequests in the world, I find that awesome.

 

Ok, forget "modern" RPGs. Lets speak strictly in terms of the IE games...and their "curves".

 

Baldur's Gate 1 -- Has a very low level cap. A party who skips the optional stuff will still reach the cap before the end of the game just like a completionist, so there's no curve at all. Although, like all the IE games, Gear makes the man, and that party will be at a disadvantage to one that doesn't skip the optional stuff. However, there's much to be said for how early one chooses to reach that level cap. For a player who busts his ass and does all the optional stuff so that by the time he hits the Cloakwood he can cast 4th and 5th level spells, have 2 attacks per round, backstab for 5x damage etc, he should have that choice and reap those rewards.

 

Icewind Dale 1 -- is not applicable, as it contains virtually no optional content at all. ALL parties of 6 will end the game at precisely the same level. Always.

 

 

Planescape Torment - No level cap. And Level disparities can be truly massive (the Abishais in the hive respawn endlessly and any gluttonous player can choose to advance to whatever level he wants by wiping them out over and over and over before ever meeting Pharod). Kinda useless in this discussion though, since combat (critical path and otherwise) is not designed to challenge players in the first place. But, hey, lets apply your philosophy of "mild power curves are best!", and then lets see how fast such a design would RUIN planescape torment.

 

Lets make it so that there's only a mild power curve between a player who rushes through PS:T, doing only the critical plot, vs. someone who takes his time, talks to everyone, does all the subquests, finds all the companions etc. In order for your preference to be implemented, PS:T would have to either make leveling inconsequential, or else lower all stat checks so that all memory recalls, persuasions, intimidations, etc., can be successfully achieved with stats no higher than 14 or 15. Who the hell wants that? It would Destroy everything that ever made PS:T unique. It would Kill PS:T's replay value. In fact, it would render the point of the game itself moot, since the Nameless one is supposed to scour the planes to find the answers he seeks (ie. he's supposed to be a very eager, even desperate seeker of knowledge).

 

Baldur's Gate 2- HUGE power curve. As it should be. And the game is designed for it, as the Main plot line simply is not as interesting as the world you're given to explore.... and.... lower level combat is not nearly as interesting as higher level combat. And just like with PS:T, anyone who skips all that wonderful optional stuff should be forced to endure the consequences of trying to half-ass his way through one of the greatest games ever made. The alternative is to Turn BG2 into something like Dragon Age, where there's no real rewards for doing side-quests, because perfect balance from beginning to end is the only design decision that matters.

 

Icewind Dale 2 - see Icewind Dale 1. There's virtually no side quests.

 

 

 

Tl;DR.... I believe it should be up to the player to decide how powerful he wants to be in relation to the encounters in this game. Level scaling usually goes against this ideal by forcing unnecessary limitations for the sake of Balance. Contrary to common belief, some of us do not need to be policed in this way. We can decide for ourselves whether we wish to break the game with power or not.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Stun

[Infinitron]

I'm advocating for a system that would avoid the need for level scaling in the first place, so I don't see why you would bring that up.

 

Just a preference. I don't know whether Pillars of Eternity intends to have crazy power disparities between low level and high level. It'd be interesting if Josh could weigh in on this.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Infinitron

[Stun]

I would think that placing a hard level cap in the game would be enough already to control/limit the power disparities we're discussing as well as the need to scale anything.

 

And they can limit it further by Chapter gating (ie. leaving some areas, side quests, other content closed off until you reach a certain point in the critical path). Although again, this is a limitation that isn't all that necessary, but it's much more preferable than nerfing the XP rewards/leveling from exploration for the sake of keeping completionists and minimalists "similar in power"

Edited June 4, 2014 by Stun

[Valorian]

 

I'm aware of the effects of changing the difficulty in PoE. However, scaling encounters based on your level and scaling enc. based on a difficulty slider is not "basically the same thing". In fact, these are very different things.

Not if it uses the same encounter scaling system for both, which is what Infinitron is referring to.

 

I would say it's more of an issue for players playing on Hard than anything else. People who play on easy just want to relax and aren't really concerned with challenge. People who play on normal just want the standard game difficulty and People who play on Hard want a challenge. Crit path encounters not taking into account side content should be a feature of normal difficulty and Hard should at least assume that a fair amount of side content has been done IMO.

 

 I know what he's referring to. I was pointing out the difference between what activates the scaling, not the result.

[Tsuga C]

Level/encounter scaling? Good Lord, one hopes not! Players who spend the time and effort to complete 90%+ of the optional material should find the difficulty of later encounters somewhat reduced because of their more advanced levels and the corresponding enhancement of their abilities (e.g. superior hitpoints and  skills/feats, better gear, more spells, etc.).

[Lephys]

No, I'm demanding that a game, who's developer-stated focus is on exploration, bestow significant advantages to those who take the time and effort to explore.

I'd rather not be forced to take the definition of "advantage" that someone else bestows.

 

Maybe I want to explore everything for funsies, and/or because all that optional content is just plain good, and simultaneously do not want that last boss fight to become significantly easier (for example).

 

I'll not say the scaling shouldn't be an optional thing, but, whatever the basis, I'd rather like it if the story decided I'm going to face a really tough encounter no matter what I do, with certain integral encounters, rather than "Well, the Dark Wizard Blegmar WAS really tough, but, luckily, our heroes found all the +5 equipment in the land, and practiced extra hard with their abilities, so that this world-ending threat amounted to simply a moderately tough challenge."

 

That's what some people don't seem to get. Just because I want to complete more content doesn't mean it's expressly so that nothing will be a match for me anymore.

[Tsuga C]

Just because I want to complete more content doesn't mean it's expressly so that nothing will be a match for me anymore.

Um, experience and leveling go hand in hand with reducing near-impossible opponents to merely difficult ones. It's quite specifically and intentionally one of the perks of having a party at Level 10 instead of at Level 8 when the time comes to confront bad ol' Blegmar.

[Lephys]

^ Quest completion and leveling go hand in hand, too. Doesn't mean I'm completing quests specifically so that I can be a higher level.

 

And the encounters in question are very specific encounters. Not just "there's a big bad thing standing around in the woods. If you become tougher, it won't get any easier."

 

So, yes, the advantage of bettering yourself shows itself in the majority of encounters in the game, via relative "toughness." It really makes less sense for it to show itself in some "Oh, you're level 10 instead of level 8? Well, at this point in the game, Big McBaddy locates you and teleports in with only 4 level-8 henchmen, because that's just statically coded into the game, instead of bringing tougher/better-equipped things to actively come deal with you."

 

Certain encounters are meant to pertain to your party "in the moment." Sure, there are dynamics in the story, but it's still supposed to produce certain effects relative to whatever factors are at-play. If some baddy's supposed to be actively ambushing you from his stronghold of evil, and can teleport in with whatever he deems necessary, why would he just decide that, no matter what, he's going to ambush you with only level 8 minions? "Oh, I don't even care if you become far more capable... I made a New Year's Resolution not to ever change my plans once I make them."

 

If it's a persisting entity, then sure, it doesn't need to change. If it's a dynamic event (a la "These foes specifically planned their presence here, recently, according to your presence here, rather than just standing around in this spot all day and night for weeks on end), then it doesn't even really make sense to statically dictate the values.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

If I decide to meticulously complete every nook and cranny of the 15 level mega-dungeon, and the stronghold, and the faction quest lines, and all the jobs/missions in both cities, I expect to be a LOT more powerful than someone who decided to skip all of it and just raced to the end to finish the game.

 

I suspect what we might see is the game designed around the crit-path to a degree and side quests to have very little effect on experience. It may increase you an additional level or two but that would be it. For example, the mega-dungeon.

 

You won't be able to do the mega-dungeon in one go. So you go back to the crit-path, level up and then go back to do a few more mega-dungeon levels but because there is no kill xp, you may get very little xp overall for those dungeon levels. But you do get loot. You then go back to the crit-path to level up with the main quest xp. Once you get to a sufficient level, you go back to the mega-dungeon. Again, you get very little xp and no xp for kills, but you do get loot. The loot will be the incentive, not the xp.

 

TBH, I think that's terrible but it's what I suspect will happen. It will be Diablo loot scavenge hunt with the side quests. Otherwise it would really unbalance the game to have no level/encounter scaling, one person do the mega-dungeon and most of the quests and someone who doesn't and for both players to end up at the final boss with the same encounter. One player will be more powerful than the other and we all know Josh is all about balance.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Tsuga C]

...and we all know Josh is all about balance.

Obsessive-compulsively so, at times. Providing that PoE levels are similar to D&D levels in terms of overall power, I'd like to see at least a two level difference between otherwise identical parties when Party A does a minimalist, crit-path only campaign and Party B takes advantage of all the quest opportunities available.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Being a low level game, that's probably what we'll see. Perhaps a couple of levels difference between the two parties by the end of the game. It sounds like a lot of quests and exploration to get those additional levels. I just hope it's not tedious.

[Stun]

Maybe I want to explore everything for funsies, and/or because all that optional content is just plain good, and simultaneously do not want that last boss fight to become significantly easier (for example).

Then by all means, find a way to gimp your high level party. Or up the Difficulty setting or something. Maybe Dump your Vorpal Holy Avenger +5 and use the Iron Dagger you found in the tutorial against that boss.

 

Some of us expect tangible results from doing a completionist run. Otherwise, what's the point?