Crit-Path Encounter Scaling - Do you want it?

[Blarghagh]

I don't know, possibly? It was just an example. It's not set in stone. Maybe only some encounters get this change. Maybe only some enemies in an encounter get changed because of it. However, if you force a player who had used a party build geared towards a lot of magic damage to change tactics, you've already made the game more challenging for that player and possibly made munchkin builds less viable, meaning you'll need to use more variable strategies which is more challenging. This means experienced players get more challenge while less experienced players, or players who do less optional content, do not get gimped because of it.

 

Obviously there are issues to solve as to how to implement something like this, but it seems to be fairly non-intrusive way to scale the challenge to the level of the player.

 

I'm not convinced it's neccesary myself. But it's still an idea that could work.

Edited June 10, 2014 by TrueNeutral

[Stun]

I don't know, possibly? It was just an example. It's not set in stone. Maybe only some encounters get this change. Maybe only some enemies in an encounter get changed because of it. However, if you force a player who had used a party build geared towards a lot of magic damage to change tactics, you've already made the game more challenging for that player and possibly made munchkin builds less viable, meaning you'll need to use more variable strategies which is more challenging. This means experienced players get more challenge while less experienced players, or players who do less optional content, do not get gimped because of it.

 

Obviously there are issues to solve as to how to implement something like this, but it seems to be fairly non-intrusive way to scale the challenge to the level of the player.

 

I'm not convinced it's neccesary myself. But it's still an idea that could work.

It's not even a remote consideration on the part of the developers of this game. Josh has said that they're not even designing this game to require a full party. So why bring it up? Edited June 10, 2014 by Stun

[Blarghagh]

Well, I'd think solo players (or small party) wouldn't as easily break this barrier, so they should be unaffected unless they're really good. And if they are really good, I'd think they'd enjoy the extra challenge. In my opinion, the point of scaling is to keep the game challenging when a player becomes too powerful for the encounters to avoid it becoming boring. I would say the boundary should be pretty high.

 

Like I said, I'm not 100% convinced this is even neccesary. The higher difficulty settings made BG2 plenty difficult for me, personally. I just find the discussion interesting and think this may present an interesting solution with interesting gameplay possibilities. Even if not fitting PoE (which it might be) it's an interesting idea to keep in mind for game design in general.

[Stun]

Well, I'd think solo players (or small party) wouldn't as easily break this barrier, so they should be unaffected unless they're really good.

Or unless PoE uses a shared EXP system, in which case it'd be just like the IE games: They'd become more powerful, more quickly than a full party.

 

 

And if they are really good, I'd think they'd enjoy the extra challenge. In my opinion, the point of scaling is to keep the game challenging when a player becomes too powerful for the encounters to avoid it becoming boring. I would say the boundary should be pretty high.

You're stating an opinion. I, personally, find it Boring (not to mention replay-killing) when I bust my ass, do every quest, find every item, meticulously design my characters to excel so as to become powerful enough to dominate the enemies in this game, only to discover that all my work was hopelessly in vain, because the game has decided that power acquisition is not a reward, but a punishment - that the tougher you are, the tougher everything else will automatically become. And That's a terrible design in an open world game with a focus on exploration.

 

Consequently, I think to myself, what's the point? Might as well skip everything and just do the main quest line... less headache.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Stun

[Blarghagh]

I can see it from your point of view as well. I think earlier in this thread, or maybe another thread about scaling, I stated that perhaps some players would consider scaling of any kind to be more a punishment than anything else. That's why I'm not saying PoE should use this, but it could be a possible solution if the end game proves too easy. Personally, I don't want another end-game like KotOR II, where waves of enemies fell before me to the point that I was bored just clicking buttons. It went from power fantasy to immersion breaking boredom.

 

Ideally, things like this would be controlled by the difficulty. Someone playing on easy mode would never encounter this, normal mode would encounter it moderately, and hard mode would encounter it to the full extent. After all, playing hard mode implies desire to face challenge. Maybe it could even be toggled off.

 

Anyway, the thread is about crit-path encounters, so I would think it would apply mostly to the main quest anyway. And like I said, the boundary should be pretty high. I don't think the point is to make encounters impossible - just more challenging and engaging than just letting your characters wade in and slaughter everyone without a second thought.

 

EDIT: As for open world, I would think it's more interesting for an open world where you're the hero to evolve based on your actions. If your enemies have been defeated by your techniques, it would make sense they would try to adapt to it. Again, just my opinion.

Edited June 10, 2014 by TrueNeutral
changing to accomodate edits by post I'm replying to

[Namutree]

Namutree, on 09 Jun 2014 - 2:06 PM, said:

I agree that the final battle should be able to be beaten doing only the crit-path. I just think it should be harder by a reasonable margin. If I had to guess... I'd say 30% harder. Also, while its true that encounter scaling and level scaling aren't the same; they have a similar effect. I get higher level, but make no progress. As for gamers who only play for story; play an interactive story game like Heavy Rain instead. This is not a visual novel game; it's an rpg. Rpgs are about doing quests and leveling up to become stronger. If you choose to ignore this feature you should be punished. Not all games are for everyone. I haven't gotten a proper rpg in a long time, and I don't want the mechanics to be downplayed so some one who doesn't like the gameplay can ignore most of it without consequence.

 

 

If you look only for leveling and becoming stronger go play Diablo. This is RPG not H&S. Not all game s are for everyone. 

Not doing optional content does not mean that the player do not enjoy gameplay

 

 

I agree that the final battle should be able to be beaten doing only the crit-path. I just think it should be harder by a reasonable margin. If I had to guess... I'd say 30% harder. Also, while its true that encounter scaling and level scaling aren't the same; they have a similar effect. I get higher level, but make no progress. As for gamers who only play for story; play an interactive story game like Heavy Rain instead. This is not a visual novel game; it's an rpg. Rpgs are about doing quests and leveling up to become stronger. If you choose to ignore this feature you should be punished. Not all games are for everyone. I haven't gotten a proper rpg in a long time, and I don't want the mechanics to be downplayed so some one who doesn't like the gameplay can ignore most of it without consequence.

 

 

If you look only for leveling and becoming stronger go play Diablo. This is RPG not H&S. Not all game s are for everyone. 

Not doing optional content does not mean that the player do not enjoy gameplay 

In other words, there's no real difference. In both instances the party's LEVEL determines what they see on the battlefield.

Yeah, that's called level scaling. And that was precisely what we were discussing before you decided to come in and try to correct our use of very plain and obvious gaming terms.

For me Level scaling is about adjusting the opponents level, encounter scaling is changing the type, equipment or number of opponents in encounter etc.

 

 

And one question to the "I want to become stronger as I gain levels" crowd. Why in Witcher 2 when the player was vulnerable at the beginning but could slice through opponents later on was a flaw?

Apparently getting stronger during the story as Geralt got more levels apparently was an issue and needed to be fixed to provide more challenge later on?

 

I'd rather not play Diablo. I prefer a more tactical approach to combat and I like a good amount of choice in my class/race selection. Not to mention I don't really enjoy the story of the Diablo series. You're right when you say that not doing optional content does not mean you do not enjoy the gameplay. I rarely do everything in the games I play, but when you want to nullify the rewards for optional content via scaling; you're contradicting the core of the mechanics.

[Lephys]

No. You're changing the context. I was giving an abstract and how it is as a concept. And it's usually poorly handled in games when it's implemented.

It's usually poorly handled in games... by using it to present a continuous, consistent challenge across the board. If the core of it was that, then how could it be handled poorly by merely being used as its core mandates? 

 

You also said 'exact' not sameness or any other words that you want to use now. Exact and Sameness are not the same and aren't synonymous when I look them up in a Thesaurus, but I can understand how someone would come to the conclusion that both words are similar when they're not.

I get it. I used the word "exact" when you didn't. I shouldn't have done that, apparently, even though I wasn't claiming to quote you, or attributing the word "exact" to your argument. I'm sorry for whatever wrongdoing I have committed.

 

Also your example had nothing in regards to sameness. eg.  "a Level 5 Human Bandit and a Level 5 Ice Troll aren't going to provide the exact same challenge."   Firstly you're talking about two different opponents that are not the same. Therefore it's not consistent.

Welcome to PointVille.

 

A troll and bandit may have different ways to kill them. eg. Fire needed to kill the troll whereas the bandit doesn't need fire. The only thing that is the same is their level, everything else is different. And it's obvious they are not the 'exact' same thing and will not be the same challenge.

Precisely. Why are you arguing against me by pointing out literally the exact same thing I expressed in the first place?

 

How can level-scaling be used for consistency if even making the levels of all entities in the entire game uniform still doesn't provide consistency?

 

Again, this is why the way in which this form of adjustment gets handled poorly is specifically by trying to use it to do just that (a la Oblivion).

 

It:

 

A) is arbitrary, because everything in the world definitely doesn't have any reason to be of a different level than it would've been under other circumstances, and

 

B) Doesn't even really accomplish the goal, because different foes still possess oodles of other variable factors that result in inconsistent combat encounter challenge.

 

I don't get what point you're trying to make by butting heads with my words, then repeating the same thing I stated. I'm confused.

[Lephys]

I, personally, find it Boring (not to mention replay-killing) when I bust my ass, do every quest, find every item, meticulously design my characters to excel so as to become powerful enough to dominate the enemies in this game, only to discover that all my work was hopelessly in vain, because the game has decided that power acquisition is not a reward, but a punishment - that the tougher you are, the tougher everything else will automatically become. And That's a terrible design in an open world game with a focus on exploration.

Agreed, but that's a very narrow view of scaling. Sure, it's often used heavy-handedly like that. However, as I've pointed out before, the game already establishes a relationship between the toughness of enemies and the toughness of your party. At the beginning of the game, you're not fighting Balrogs and Dragons. You're presented with weaker combat challenges, conveniently, because your party is Level 1 and has pretty basic gear (if you even have a party... you usually just start with one person). Then, later on, as you understandably level up and acquire new stuff, you face tougher foes as you go.

 

Thus, the game presenting you with appropriate challenges is clearly fine, in and of itself. The devil is in the details.

 

Scaling could be used to merely make a tweak here and there. There's a difference between a given encounter becoming easier, signifying the relative power/skill you've gained, and it becoming a cakewalk simply because there's been a planetary alignment of factors. That's not really intentional, it's just part of the chance that goes with having such a variety of encounter factors thrown at a party that has such a variety of different build options.

 

Seeing that you've got 3 Mages in your party, for example, and giving the enemy group 2 higher-level Mages (so that they get more magic defensive spells at their disposal) is just a tweak to take the combat from "HAHA I SPELL ALL YOU TO DEATH IN AN INSTANT!" to "Oh, this isn't a cakewalk simply because magic." Doesn't mean all your efforts were for nothing. Does two entities going from level 6 to level 7 account for that extra level and new equipment your entire party has gained? Methinks not.

 

There's a ridiculous amount of room between "this encounter is completely static" and "this encounter matches me 1:1." Whether it's simply bumping levels, or adjusting other stuff really depends on what's going on.

 

Also, for the record, a level rating doesn't really mean anything outside of context. It's just a rating to compare relative power/toughness between entities in an RPG. If you're level 3, and you see that something's level 6, you can expect it to be tough. So, the fact that you're scaling something's level is pretty moot, really, because all you're doing is adjusting that creature, such that it would be assigned a higher level rating.

 

But, again, to be clear, I'm not really a fan of simply adjusting pre-existing entities that were definitely just standing around in the world, guarding something.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

It's usually poorly handled in games... by using it to present a continuous, consistent challenge across the board. If the core of it was that, then how could it be handled poorly by merely being used as its core mandates?  

 

No. You're now forming an argument around your incorrect viewpoint. You've taken an abstract or concept and twisting it to your specific example and then further twisting it around again. All you're doing is arguing for arguing sake now.

 

 

I get it. I used the word "exact" when you didn't. I shouldn't have done that, apparently, even though I wasn't claiming to quote you, or attributing the word "exact" to your argument. I'm sorry for whatever wrongdoing I have committed. 

 

LMAO.

 

Hang on. You quoted me, you used the word 'exact' and now you're claiming, "I wasn't claiming to quote you, or attributing the word "exact" to your argument".  I never used the word or anything in relation to it. It was you who did and then proceeded in true Lephys form to argue against it. Seriously. How desperate can you go by now claiming you didn't quote me when you did and now claiming you're not attributing words in your post to mine.

 

 

Welcome to PointVille.

 

Obviously you're not there yet.

 

 

 

<a whole load of rubbish>

 

 

Refer to the picture above. Maybe one day you might end up at PointVille.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Lephys]

No. You're now forming an argument around your incorrect viewpoint. You've taken an abstract or concept and twisting it to your specific example and then further twisting it around again. All you're doing is arguing for arguing sake now.

That's not the case, but I'm sorry that you feel that way.

 

 

LMAO.

 

Hang on. You quoted me, you used the word 'exact' and now you're claiming, "I wasn't claiming to quote you, or attributing the word "exact" to your argument".

I wasn't claiming you used the word "exact." I wasn't quoting you with that word. My apologies for the lack of specificity there.

 

Also, I appreciate the amount of time and effort you put into that visual aid. It still doesn't help me, however. Pointville isn't even listed anywhere in that image. Does The Point reside within pointville? Also, is North at the top of that image, or on a different axis? Altitudes would be beneficial, as well. I could appear to be mere inches from Pointville (once I actually find it on that map), but actually be 10,000 feet above-or-below it.

 

Thanks in advance.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Lephys

[Hiro Protagonist II]

That's not the case, but I'm sorry that you feel that way.

 

That's what you're doing. And no need to be sorry.

 

 

I wasn't claiming you used the word "exact." I wasn't quoting you with that word. My apologies for the lack of specificity there.

 

No you weren't claiming I used the word 'exact' because I never did. In true Lephys form you give and then argue against an example of your own making. It must be nice to give and argue against examples with yourself. I wouldn't know.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Lephys]

Even if you don't feel it's necessary, I'm still sorry. And, I must further apologize, but I honestly do not comprehend, at all, any of what you're saying here. Apparently I've been arguing with myself?

 

Obviously we are on different pages here, so I'll not press the matter further. I bid you adieu.

[Karkarov]

Well I am glad TrueNuetral and Sharp One get it at least.

 

Scaling can be done very effectively and work well, if effort is made to implement it the right way.

 

Meanwhile Stun hate to bust it to you but again, this is still a non issue as they confirmed a long long time ago the "crit path" of the game definitely scales.  The optional areas however do not.  So there will be plenty of places you can go faceroll to your hearts content since that seems to be what you consider "fun".

 

I agree that the final battle should be able to be beaten doing only the crit-path. I just think it should be harder by a reasonable margin. If I had to guess... I'd say 30% harder. Also, while its true that encounter scaling and level scaling aren't the same; they have a similar effect. I get higher level, but make no progress. As for gamers who only play for story; play an interactive story game like Heavy Rain instead. This is not a visual novel game; it's an rpg. Rpgs are about doing quests and leveling up to become stronger. If you choose to ignore this feature you should be punished. Not all games are for everyone. I haven't gotten a proper rpg in a long time, and I don't want the mechanics to be downplayed so some one who doesn't like the gameplay can ignore most of it without consequence.

 

This is the most full of crap thing I have read all day.  ROLE playing game man, ROLE.  There are tons of people who play RPG's for the story, in fact I would be willing to bet there is markedly more of them than you and your munchkin ilk who would be better off in Diablo whether you want to play it or not. 

 

Meanwhile as I said before if there is not enough content to prepare you to reasonably beat the main story without it being a bend over and take it/pray to get lucky scenario then the Dev's failed at game design 101.  Optional content is not optional if you have to do it or beating the game is near impossible, and 30% harder is a freaking lot harder.  What you and Stun don't seem to "get" is that scaling is less for people who play crit path only as it is easy to design under the concept that all required content will be played and all optional skipped.  Scaling is for you people who want to twink everything so you can get to the last boss and he isn't a total joke and a let down.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Karkarov

[Valorian]

It all boils down to the fact that (many/most?) players today seek instant gratification and have also developed an immunity to logical re/actions.

 

They expect the world to be connected to their level with an umbilical cord. If this cord ever gets detached for a moment, a temper tantrum ensues. This encounter is too hard?   I quit! Too easy?   I quit!

 

Fortunately, they have a variety of tools at their disposal to alleviate 'too hard' and 'too easy' syndromes. A few simple solutions:

 

Too easy?

 

Adjust the difficulty.

Roleplay like you actually care about defeating the BIG BAD in a timely manner and don't rest every time you kill a bunch of rats.

Roleplay an asocial person and have less than 5 people traveling with you.

Limit the number of times you're allowed to reload.

 

Too hard?

 

Adjust the difficulty.

Try a different path.

Explore.

Some of you will probably need to use the cheat console. But don't worry, nobody will scold you for it, it's a single player game.

 

***

 

 

Also. "But then it isn't optional!"

I prefer to call it side content. Ignoring ALL of it is not necessarily an option (because perhaps you also need to practice your combat skills somewhere other than the crit-path), but it is detached from the main story. It's entirely possible that your character cares more about a particular side story than the whole critical plot.

 

Side content injects life into a game, that's why I rarely choose to ignore it. I just want it to be non-linear.

 

[Stun]

Scaling can be done very effectively and work well, if effort is made to implement it the right way.

LOL "Can" and "If". We've never heard that before from you dreaming arm-chair developers.

 

Name ONE game that's ever done scaling well. Just one. Theory crafting is nice and all but at some point, your side needs to PROVE those fantastical game design theories you so eagerly try to shove down our throats whenever the topic comes up. Because my side has dozens and dozens and dozens of actually existing games we can cite that Prove that such theories always die horribly in application and implementation. Even the greatest game ever made, BG2, couldn't get it right. As minimal and subtle as its encounter scaling was, it was still wrong enough to spit all over the lore whenever it occurred.

 

 

 

Meanwhile Stun hate to bust it to you but again, this is still a non issue as they confirmed a long long time ago the "crit path" of the game definitely scales.

Begging your pardon...? They haven't confirmed any such thing. All we've gotten from Josh on the subject is "maybe" and "possibly" and other non-definitive language. Edited June 11, 2014 by Stun

[Silent Winter]

Random thought:

Having enemy attack-damage/HP bloat as a way of level-scaling does indeed burst the 'I've gained in power' bubble,

but defeating a lich instead of a skeleton actually 'strokes' that bubble,

 

so if scaling is to be in, I'd prefer the encounter-scaling 'different enemy makeup' style (and no, I don't mean enemies wearing rouge   )

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Random thought:

 

Having enemy attack-damage/HP bloat as a way of level-scaling does indeed burst the 'I've gained in power' bubble,

but defeating a lich instead of a skeleton actually 'strokes' that bubble,

 

so if scaling is to be in, I'd prefer the encounter-scaling 'different enemy makeup' style (and no, I don't mean enemies wearing rouge   )

 

BG2 did that already. I recently did a play through of BG2 and did the bare minimum crit-path to Spellhold. After I came out from the Underdark, I went back and did all the side quests. The Temple Ruins were filled with Liches. It got ridiculous when nearly every encounter in the Temple Ruins on your way to the Shadow Dragon is a party of liches. Not only was it easy to counter them due to having come across them earlier on the crit-path, the xp rewards were quite high. If anything, it broke immersion the first time because it didn't make any sense to have that many liches in one dungeon.

 

As it turned out the levelling was better due to doing this later with the better xp rewards, and arguably game breaking by exploiting it for those higher encounter xp rewards. I know I'll be doing this again because it was a great way to level up. A great example how you can exploit use encounter scaling. Working as intended.

 

Will there be better rewards for higher level parties on the crit-path than those who do the bare minimum in PoE? Be good to see.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Stun]

^Another BG2 example of the nonsensical occurs in the critical path. In spellhold. The main "boss" (story wise) in spellhold is Dace. Dace is a vampire. FYI, In the Undead heirarchy, Lich > Vampire. Always.

 

But, because Bioware decided it would be a good idea to scale things for the purposes of "challenge", one can come to Spellhold at a high level and find himself encountering a random Lich and his minions in the hallway just before Dace, instead of what the story dictates is supposed to be there (lesser undead, like skeleton warriors, ghasts and mummies). This not only renders the story illogical, but it also renders the game world unbelievable. (why is a dungeon's hallway TRASH mob encounter a Lich, while its main boss is a vampire?)

 

 

Scaling ruins a game's integrity even when it succeeds in "challenging" players. It's a devil's deal. There's not a single game that it doesn't taint in some way the moment it occurs.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Stun

[Kore]

I would want it only on the hardest difficulty option. I can play BG on insane mode standing on my head just by playing the encounters I know I can do. Even if I try to play against enemies that I'm unsure of some are way too hard and some are still too easy. If I'm playing on insane mode I want every fight to be just on the edge of my ability so that it's a real challenge. Level scaling works perfectly for that.

 

Other than that I'm not too keen on it, but wouldn't mind it for some crit path encounters. No one wants to be stuck on Brynnlaw at level 8, not having realised that they have to fight Irenicus soon.

[Ark Evensong]

There's already Difficulty Scaling, right? Different encounters based on difficulty, not just number/level bloat. Couldn't that system be used to scale critical path encounters? If you're a certain distance from the expected level, grab the encounter set from one difficulty higher or lower.

 

Heck, if you want some versimillipede, scale it depending on reputation instead of level, weighted to location perhaps. More reputation (Either "good" or "bad", doesn't matter. It doesn't cancel out anyway.) pretty much means more completed side quests, right? = More XP + Loot = More Powerful Party. 

 

Okay, reputation based is probably tricky/time consuming to get right. There'd also need to be crit-path encounters for "Easy Minus" and "Hard Plus". And maybe the jump between difficulties is too big? I dunno, but I figure it's less likely to screw everything up than most other versions I've seen.

[Stun]

I wouldn't consider encounter adjustments based on your reputation as Scaling, as it would constitute reactive, story-based choice and consequence.

 

Lets say you p*ss off a faction once, so they send an assassin after you. Cool. Then lets say you piss them off again, in a much more grandiose fashion, so they decide to declare open war, and send a batallion after you. That's super cool.

 

But that's totally different than a situation where the game world omnisciently detects that your party is level 10, instead of level 6 and thus magically transforms the Ghouls in the mega-dungeon into Super-ghouls just for your own personal challenge-sake.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Stun

[Karkarov]

LOL "Can" and "If". We've never heard that before from you dreaming arm-chair developers.

Name ONE game that's ever done scaling well. Just one. Theory crafting is nice and all but at some point, your side needs to PROVE those fantastical game design theories you so eagerly try to shove down our throats whenever the topic comes up. Because my side has dozens and dozens and dozens of actually existing games we can cite that Prove that such theories always die horribly in application and implementation. Even the greatest game ever made, BG2, couldn't get it right. As minimal and subtle as its encounter scaling was, it was still wrong enough to spit all over the lore whenever it occurred.

I don't know there was this game I played a long time ago called D&D that seemed to handle scaling really well when the person running the game knew what they were doing.  Computer wise BG2 was "okay" at it until you got near level cap then it went off the rails.  It would have been fine if they had simply toned it down slightly for high levels.

 

Meanwhile Stun I would appreciate it if someone who understands so little about the games he claims to master didn't fling insults.  Example "lich always greater than vampire".  Since when?  Lich and Vampire are at their core just ability/racial templates.  You can be a level 20 fighter/20 mage Vampire.  You can be a level 15 mage Lich.  Of the two which would you consider the more dangerous opponent?

 

But that's totally different than a situation where the game world omnisciently detects that your party is level 10, instead of level 6 and thus magically transforms the Ghouls in the mega-dungeon into Super-ghouls just for your own personal challenge-sake.

Thanks again for admitting you don't even understand the basic concept of what people are saying.  You still don't get the difference between two very simple things.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Karkarov

[Stun]

 

LOL "Can" and "If". We've never heard that before from you dreaming arm-chair developers.

 

Name ONE game that's ever done scaling well. Just one. Theory crafting is nice and all but at some point, your side needs to PROVE those fantastical game design theories you so eagerly try to shove down our throats whenever the topic comes up. Because my side has dozens and dozens and dozens of actually existing games we can cite that Prove that such theories always die horribly in application and implementation. Even the greatest game ever made, BG2, couldn't get it right. As minimal and subtle as its encounter scaling was, it was still wrong enough to spit all over the lore whenever it occurred.

I don't know there was this game I played a long time ago called D&D that seemed to handle scaling really well when the person running the game knew what they were doing.

 

Not applicable. A D&D session is a linear experience by design. Moreover, any DM who knows what he's doing is going to Prepare and populate the specific adventure with encounters before the session begins. This means that whatever encounters the players face have already been created and specifically designed before any levels have been gained. Thus, scaling has not occurred. The only DM's who decide, on the fly, to "add extra monsters" or "up the level of the end boss" because it turned out that the players "gained too many levels", or because they were "having too easy of a time with the current encounters" is a BAD DM by definition. He failed to design a challenging experience from the get-go. A *good* DM will never level/encounter scale because his own intelligent in-combat control of any monster/encounter should always suffice.

 

 

Meanwhile Stun I would appreciate it if someone who understands so little about the games he claims to master didn't fling insults.  Example "lich always greater than vampire".  Since when?

Since 2nd edition D&D....the ruleset the governs BG2. The game I was citing. Feel free to dust off your old Monster manuals and dispute me on this. Liches are Higher level monsters. They're better spell casters. They're more intelligent. They have better immunities. They're higher up on the Cleric Turn-Undead Tables. And if you want to get more technical, they can't even be physically defeated until you destroy their phylacteries. In D&D Lore, some Liches become GODS. Ever heard of Vlaakith, or Vecna?

 

Again, the need to Level scale caused Bioware to spit on the lore.

 

 

By the way, have you found that Developer quote yet that confirms that crit-path encounter scaling is definitely in, as you say? or have you decided to shamelessly plead the fifth on that false claim now that someone called you out?

Edited June 11, 2014 by Stun

[Ark Evensong]

I wouldn't consider encounter adjustments based on your reputation as Scaling, as it would constitute reactive, story-based choice and consequence.

 

Lets say you p*ss off a faction once, so they send an assassin after you. Cool. Then lets say you piss them off again, in a much more grandiose fashion, so they decide to declare open war, and send a batallion after you. That's super cool.

 

But that's totally different than a situation where the game world omnisciently detects that your party is level 10, instead of level 6 and thus magically transforms the Ghouls in the mega-dungeon into Super-ghouls just for your own personal challenge-sake.

 

Yes, reactive, story based choice and consequence is cool. I hope there's a bunch. But if that's what I meant, I wouldn't consider it Scaling either.

 

I am talking about the ghouls in Naughty Joe's sub-basement. (Not in the Mega Dungeon, because that's off the critical path, and thus not really applicable in this topic.) The expected level for this encounter is Level 6.

Without scaling, on Easy difficulty, you'd face 2 Frenzied Ghouls(L6). On Normal, 4 Rotting Ghouls(L6), and on Hard, 2 Rotting Ghouls(L6) and 2 Frenzied Ghouls(L6).

 

You're playing on Normal difficulty, and did a couple of sidequests, so yeah, you're level 6. You face 4 Rotting Ghouls(L6). It's the "Normal" encounter, and it was a fair fight.

 

You're playing on Normal difficulty, but you've been putting off the quest to clear out Naughty Joe's sub-basement. It reeks down there, you see. So you did a whole bunch of sidequests first. Even visited the next town over. But you're here now, and you're Level 8.You face 2 Rotting Ghouls(L6), and 2 Frenzied Ghouls(L6). It's the "Hard" encounter, but it wasn't so tough. Your biggest worry is getting that stench out of your clothes.

 

You're playing on Normal difficulty, but you've pretty much made a bee-line for Naughty Joe's since you heard the name. You probably thought he was the other kind of naughty. You're Level 3, and you face 2 Frenzied Ghouls(L6). It's the "Easy" encounter, but you're glad you made it out alive. You vow to only visit the reputable brothels from now on.

 

Limit it to 1 difficulty jump. No "Easy" encounters while playing on "Hard", or vice versa. I guess if you're playing on "Hard", there'd have to be a "Hard+" encounter set, as well an "Snoozefest" one if you play on "Easy". But if you keep this kind of scaling to the Critical Path encounters only, that may not be too much work.

 

 

And despite the messed up font sizes, using reputation instead of Level to scale encounters was more of a side note. Count all of your reputation points, both good and bad, faction or location doesn't matter. (Except maybe it does. Weigh it more or less, depending on your desired fudge factor.) This is your renown, or whatever you'd like to call it. How well known are you in the world? (With no judgement regarding which way you lean. Leave that to the Reactive Choice&Consequence encounters. This is the automagical encounter scaling part.)

 

Set Expected Renown values for the Critical Path Encounters, and if you deviate beyond a certain limit, you get the Difficulty +/-1 version instead, just like above.

 

It'll be tough to map Reputation to Renown and then that to Predicted Party Power, and is quite likely more trouble than it's worth.

 

But I like the idea. It can extend beyond the level cap, it's more believable / natural than just reading off your Level, and you'd be able to game the system a little, and keep a low profile, or make a big splash, and have easy-to-implement consequences. It can also break horribly, so I'm not so sure about it all.

[Yonjuro]

But, because Bioware decided it would be a good idea to scale things for the purposes of "challenge",

....

Scaling ruins a game's integrity even when it succeeds in "challenging" players. It's a devil's deal. There's not a single game that it doesn't taint in some way the moment it occurs.

 

 

 Now that I think of it, level scaling is probably why BG2 is easier with smaller parties. By giving more XP to the PC in each encounter (due to the smaller party), the levels accelerate because each encounter then gives more XP due to the harder enemies. It's (probably) an unintended consequence of the level scaling.

 

 I know it feels like a super linear increase with a solo character even though, due to quest XP, you get less than 6X of the XP.

 

 If I weren't too lazy .. uhh, I mean busy, I would dump out the numbers and plot the level progression with and without scaling to see how much of an effect it has.