Leveling up in Pillars 2

[JerekKruger]

I'm not saying they should get powerful at the same rate as the player but they should have min-max levels and scale around that. If a bandit have no reason to be more powerful his level range should be much smaller than some NPC who is more ambitious.

 

If there's a good in game justification for it (for example increased bandit activity leads to traders hiring guards so bandits have to up their game) then that's fine, but there's really no reason they should scale in line with the player. It's not like every bandit started there career at the same time the player starts their adventure: some will already be veteran bandits who have reached the pinnacle of their trade whilst others will be new blood. As the game progresses some of those veterans are likely to die or retire and be replaced by rookies, whilst other rookies will become more skilled. Overall unless there's some obvious outside pressure, one would expect the average quality of a bandit to remain fairly static.

[Quillon]

btw they already said there'll be optional level scaling & they prolly have decided how they are gonna do it

 

There is just certain appeal to level scaling(to me) in a game where you have freedom to go where ever. f.i. in Witcher 3, if I ignored an area where there are drowners and when I get back 20 levels later there shouldn't be the same drowners; there should be evolved drowners, that should have different looks, attacks, tactics etc

 

I guess the philosophy behind that "evolve" game which I have only seen in videos, could be applied to RPGs to some extend. 

[JerekKruger]

I should note I'm not fundamentally against level scaling. As said above, if there's good in game justification for it that's great, and if that justification just so happens to coincide with the player's progression even better. Also it makes sense for some enemies e.g. bosses. Finally, even when it doesn't make sense from a lore perspective, so long as it isn't jarring (hello daedric armoured bandits in Oblivion) I can accept it from a game play perspective, although I'd always prefer alternative methods for dealing with the problem of outleveling content..

[dragubaba]

I never viewed being overleveled a major problem for characters that do every content available. It's logical. When you've enacted what ammounts to a small-scale genocide by your own hand (+2000 beings killed) it is safe to say that character has become extremely efficient at ending others lives. Game mechanic-wise it is a slight downer but I play these games mostly for roleplaying purposes. I can see the grief for those that don't though.

[rheingold]

The big problem with leveling in POE was the mid game expansion. Not saying that the game was perfect before white march but it made it far worse. Level scaling is not the answer, it's like throwing a band aid on the black knight in "the holy grail". - "it's just a flesh wound, here have a plaster". One of the reasons that I'm so dead set against mid game expansions, and hope that Deadfire doesn't go that way. It's basically impossible to balance a game under those circumstances. I personally thought the expansions were fantastic, but adding so many new areas, quests and magic items in the middle of the game means that balance goes completely out the window.

[rjshae]

The big problem with leveling in POE was the mid game expansion. Not saying that the game was perfect before white march but it made it far worse. Level scaling is not the answer, it's like throwing a band aid on the black knight in "the holy grail". - "it's just a flesh wound, here have a plaster". One of the reasons that I'm so dead set against mid game expansions, and hope that Deadfire doesn't go that way. It's basically impossible to balance a game under those circumstances. I personally thought the expansions were fantastic, but adding so many new areas, quests and magic items in the middle of the game means that balance goes completely out the window.

 

If they want to do a mid-game expansion, the developers could always insert a level jump at the appropriate point, accompanied by a " time passes, events occur" cut scene. I.e. split the original game into two parts.

[smjjames]

 

The big problem with leveling in POE was the mid game expansion. Not saying that the game was perfect before white march but it made it far worse. Level scaling is not the answer, it's like throwing a band aid on the black knight in "the holy grail". - "it's just a flesh wound, here have a plaster". One of the reasons that I'm so dead set against mid game expansions, and hope that Deadfire doesn't go that way. It's basically impossible to balance a game under those circumstances. I personally thought the expansions were fantastic, but adding so many new areas, quests and magic items in the middle of the game means that balance goes completely out the window.

 

If they want to do a mid-game expansion, the developers could always insert a level jump at the appropriate point, accompanied by a " time passes, events occur" cut scene. I.e. split the original game into two parts.

 

 

Wouldn't that still screw up the rest of the regular game balance wise?

[JerekKruger]

Wouldn't that still screw up the rest of the regular game balance wise?

 

I think what rjshae means is having a time jump between, say, acts I and II, which is accompanied by enough experience to level two or three times as well as a narration explaining that the player has been doing other things. Then, when the expansions are added this is replaced with that content.

[Wormerine]

I'm not saying they should get powerful at the same rate as the player but they should have min-max levels and scale around that. If a bandit have no reason to be more powerful his level range should be much smaller than some NPC who is more ambitious.

 

Or we can look at as an organization, If there is a bandit leader with lieutenants etc. they should get more powerful as player gain levels, as in they should have better organization, more men, more patrols,  better AI(if its possible) etc not just individual scaling.

But that is exactly what PoE did! They had soft scaling. Areas and bosses had a min-max level and would scale according to you. If you came before min level you would be underpowered, while if you came much later you would be overpowered. The problem is that the bigger RPG is the more difficult it is to balance it. After all later areas theoretically can be visited with a variety of levels. So either min-max level should be very wide, or you just have to accept that you will be either underpowered or overpowered depending on your level.

 

I think there is a good idea with enemies learning as well, but it will only work in a game which supports it with its mechanics and story. In a traditional RPG it makes little sense as usually you are the active party acting against static environment. Thaos has no reason to become more powerful than he is. He is old, experience and has other things on his mind. To have opponents who would level up with you, they would have to mirror your story/growth as well. And in order for it to work, the system would need to be more interesting than it is. Bumping up stats is boring. I liked how in Xcom long war enemies would evolve and learn new perks. But I can't see it working in realtime RPG. What I am saying is: it's a neat idea but for a different genre.

[JerekKruger]

But that is exactly what PoE did! They had soft scaling. Areas and bosses had a min-max level and would scale according to you.

 

Are you sure about that. I am fairly certain that it's not the case. There was selectable hard scaling yes, but I don't think there was soft scaling.

[Guest Blutwurstritter]

Please don't introduce scaling enemies. It is absolutely destroying immersion and a sense of a believable world if your enemies are always as tough as you. Swarms of Bandits that are a match to a group of adventures that just defeated an ancient evil in a dungeon ? Please not.

 

I think another problem is that you kinda have all sorts of tools very early on. A sense of progression is achieved by opening up new options on higher levels that are not accessible earlier on in my opinion. In PoE i would say after lvl 5 or something like that you already have all options, only the numbers increase as the game continues. I personally find that rather boring. This is also the reason why the early few levels are usually the most satisfying since you get actually new options for your characters.  

 

I also like the idea of fixed experience that is bound to the main path of the story since it would ensure that critical/boss fights remain challenging and won't become a cake walk. Rewards can be given in other forms than experience, after all its a role playing game and not some experience grinder. Game designers really could show some inventiveness there.

[Terminator]

I made a review of PoE recently after I finished it for the first time (http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/92610-my-late-review-of-poe/). In it, I mentioned that PoE1 v3.05 had, personally, two major issues to be fixed: 1 - Encounter design and the limiting nature of combat mode, 2 - The leveling up system.

 

Other obvious suggestions would be:

- Dynamic level scalling, where the number of monsters in every encounter throughout the game always scale with your level, 

- Just forget about the 20 level cap stretch goal and slow down the level gaining. 

What? Lol level 20 no thanks.

"

One another reason I refuse to buy expansions White March 1 and 2. They give more exp, loot etc. and then people complain it is so freaking EASY on Hard challenge level. I am in Act 3 playing on Hard and my party is level 9 as they should be and not some freaking level 14. When you start act 3 if your party is level 9 then you are not underleveled (well certainly not on Hard, but have not tried Nightmare will maybe try Nightmare later in the Autumn) unless you are not good playing this game. I have done everything in Elmshore with level 9 party on Hard difficulty and it was no problem and felt nice slightly challenging and not some boring walk in the park challenge.

"

Today I did play it and  it is done I don't want right now to do review, but I was level 12 when I did win. Lol you can win with level 12 and don't need level 20 on Hard.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Terminator

[JerekKruger]

It's not all that surprising that you can beat Pillars on level 12: that was the original level cap for the game. If you couldn't beat it on level 12 then it would have been impossible to beat it at all till the White March I came out; and if you didn't choose to scale the Act III content up then it's not surprising that it's easy.

 

As for a level 20 cap: that's for Deadfire, not Pillars. Not only will Deadfire be balanced around this new cap, the whole levelling system will be changed in Deadfire.

 

Does that mean a level 20 cap is a good thing? Not necessarily, but to dismiss it based on Pillars is silly.

[Terminator]

Well if Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire is for level 1-20 then I don't want it faster level up from Pillars of Eternity. Pillars of Eternity II should be a long game and slightly better graphics.

 

What I mean:

The time to get to level 12 is Pillars of Eternity 1  withouts White March 1 or 2 the same time it should be in in Pillars of Eterenity II to get to level 12. I don't want faster level up.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Terminator

[rjshae]

I think level scaling would work better if there is an in-game justification for it. For example, those bandits suddenly grew tougher because a new criminal alliance took over that is supplying better weapons and more training.