Party level versus enemy level during late/end game

[Wormerine]

Except that if you want static challenge, then there's no point in level scaling when you can just remove player power progression altogether. There's really no point in having one mechanic in the game just so you can negate its effects with another.

 

I have been wondering about if for a while. Lvling system seems like a thing devs put in RPGs, but i am not always sure what role it’s supposed to fill. Getting stronger than enemies as you lvl up isn’t the only thing levelling does. It allows for gradual introduction of complexity (instead of dumping 10 spell levels you gradually feed them to the player giving him time to explore them couple at a time) and it allows for gradual definition of your character.

 

I do wonder how game like pillars would play if numeric grow would be minimised - your accuracy, health, damage is determined via attributes and that’s it. You raise stats by equipment only, and with levels you get access to passives and skills but not much else. That way you could keep your enemies static. With more skills and passives, sure you would get much better, but mostly by use of said skills, which should be way more satisfying that doing way too good rolls in combat log. Use lvling to add tactical depth, rather than plain power. On top of that you can deal with flat numbers, rather than % making whole system more transparent.

 

I think, i might like that.

[Ninjamestari]

 

Except that if you want static challenge, then there's no point in level scaling when you can just remove player power progression altogether. There's really no point in having one mechanic in the game just so you can negate its effects with another.

I have been wondering about if for a while. Lvling system seems like a thing devs put in RPGs, but i am not always sure what role it’s supposed to fill. Getting stronger than enemies as you lvl up isn’t the only thing levelling does. It allows for gradual introduction of complexity (instead of dumping 10 spell levels you gradually feed them to the player giving him time to explore them couple at a time) and it allows for gradual definition of your character.

 

I do wonder how game like pillars would play if numeric grow would be minimised - your accuracy, health, damage is determined via attributes and that’s it. You raise stats by equipment only, and with levels you get access to passives and skills but not much else. That way you could keep your enemies static. With more skills and passives, sure you would get much better, but mostly by use of said skills, which should be way more satisfying that doing way too good rolls in combat log. Use lvling to add tactical depth, rather than plain power. On top of that you can deal with flat numbers, rather than % making whole system more transparent.

 

I think, i might like that.

 

 

It's an interesting concept I'd like to see explored as well, the only problem is that game companies want to have leveling because it's a feature they've listed under the 'engaging' column in their budget meetings. For example, an mmorpg might work loads better if there was only a minimal stat progression or no stat progression at all, and you simply learn new skills and abilities when you 'level up'. In fact, I wouldn't even call it a level-up, I'd have some sort of free xp system where you use xp directly to buy your new abilities. That would solve the level-gap problem where people can't play with their friends if the're not on comparable levels. Obviously the game would need some sort of new driving force instead of continuously upgraded gear, but the idea itself is something I like.

 

In a system where power increases via leveling however, a low level monster becoming ridiculously easy to beat is not a 'problem' it is a feature of the whole idea of leveling, and if that is not desirable, I'd much rather see no statistical power progression at all.

 

EDIT: I'm not sure if I'd want Pillars to take this approach. On one hand, I think it would be a powerful immersion enhancer, but on the other hand I kinda like getting more powerful as well. One thing is for sure, *if* they chose that approach, I would definitely be willing to adapt, if for nothing else than to see how it plays out.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Ninjamestari

[Tigranes]

Sven: I totally agree. And I appreciate games that go however limited the length they can to include some of this in their games. THe thing is, again, those two mechanics work together. If the troll is easily beatable by anyone, then you might never even stop to discover the interesting things you can do to lure it away or whatnot. Even within the realm of combat, there are countless examples of how players never discover how hafl the spells work if there is not enough challenge. You can play POE without ever learning how reflex/fortitude/etc works, how to set up different kinds of attacks, etc., and just spam attacks without understanding what is going on. I think without meaningful challenge, there is no sense of thrill and creativity, and you are reduced to rote repetition.

 

Ideally, the troll wouldn't just be "more HP, more attack". At the least, it would have, say, an attack pattern that players learn to avoid. Or maybe you have some semblance of ecological design, so that you know you can summon/lure deer to the spot to make the trolls wander off. So on.

[cokane]

I want to offer a hearty "amen!" to much of what Tigranes has said in the thread. He's made a more eloquent case than I could have why stuff like Skyrim type level scaling would be terrible in PoE games. Just take some early encounters in PoE, such as having to hold off on Raedric or the temple below Defiance Bay. This may not be "story" in a narrow sense of the word, but the fact that the player has to play around these challenges by first tackling easier quests is good for creating an immersive play experience.

 

That being said, the only options are not zero level scaling and one to one level scaling. Even as far back as Baldur's Gate 2, there was some monster scaling based on your level. A number of the early quest areas added more monsters if you did them at a higher level, for example the Firkraag quest. This is because the designers thought you might run through a bunch of the main plot before tackling every single little sidequest. This scaling doesn't level up the monsters, it just added more of them.

 

Similarly, Pillars itself added a scaling option after the White March expansions. In my experience it works without breaking game immersion. Though I wouldn't say they're ideal options, just a workable middle ground.

 

 

All this being said, folks are too stuck on the idea of over-leveling itself as being the key issue with why the second half of the game is easy. Frankly, I think an experienced player could easily beat PoE on PotD while mostly sticking to the main quest, say skipping Cad Nua dungeon entirely. You might have to camp more often, but I still think few fights would pose a thoughtful challenge.

 

Frankly, once you hit about level 8, the difficulty really ramps down, especially if you're using 3 more or spellcasters. The problem is that the player has too many skills and buffs but with too few opportunities where they really need to use them all. The spells-per-fight really helps making a formula that burns down all but the bigger fights.

 

In a recent playthrough I was really struck by Galvino's workshop in the White March and how the combat in there is fun, challenging, and unlike much of the rest of the game. One of the key reasons is that the rote tactics you use to stomp most mobs doesn't work as well there, and you have to invent new ones.

Edited January 10, 2018 by cokane

[Wormerine]

I am just really irritated that when we say "enemy scaling" Bethesda RPGs are constantly brought up from the opposition. I never asked for Bethesda scaling. You could use Bethesda RPGs and use them as an argument to not use open world design, put writing and voiceacting in your game, don't create action/RPGs hybrid etc. etc. Scaling in those game really really does't work.

[Ninjamestari]

I am just really irritated that when we say "enemy scaling" Bethesda RPGs are constantly brought up from the opposition. I never asked for Bethesda scaling. You could use Bethesda RPGs and use them as an argument to not use open world design, put writing and voiceacting in your game, don't create action/RPGs hybrid etc. etc. Scaling in those game really really does't work.

 

Hah! You definitely could use Bethesda titles as an argument for not making games in the first place xD

[Tigranes]

Oblivion scaling is just used as an example because it's the easiest way to understand what a full-blown level scaled system looks like. Same goes for Gothic as its opposite. I get that we're also talking about many different solutions, including challenge rating style 'scaling' in D&D.

[Mygaffer]

Call me weird, but when i specifically try to complete every single possible sidequest in a zone, i kinda want to end up overleveled.

I like it.

 

Except that's not really what happens in this game. You end up so overlevelled that nearly all fights become trivial aside from a few boss encounters. Surely you don't have to end up overleveled for the second half of the entire game, right?

 

Also people seem to think there is only one kind of scaling, the Oblivion type of scaling where everything is always your level no matter what. In fact there are many ways to do scaling that still allows for a sense of progression while also providing more challenge. Like the hard difficulty, it does not change the level or stats of the monsters, it simply changes how many there are. You can also get scaling that keeps monsters and enemies within a certain level range. So depending on player level you might run into Xaurips which are level 1 all the way through level 5, but never higher than 5, or Elder Wolves that ranged in level from 8 to 14. That way you still get a challenge but you aren't running into level 20 rats.

 

Besides that there are many other solutions for this and in fact I'm fairly certain some will be implemented in Deadfire because they've said that it will be much less linear with players able to do certain quests in different orders, which means at different levels, which means some sort of scaling will be going on for sure.

 

It's interesting to see how many people didn't have a problem with feeling over-leveled or who actually like feeling over-leveled. For me even PotD and high level scaling leaves me unchallenged late into act 2/early in act 3, but I realize not everyone puts as much emphasis on the combat portion of the game as I do.

 

In all thank you to those who made responses here.