An Erudite Discussion of Level Scaling

[janior]

To hell with level scaling, it's just developer laziness. You need to feel a sense of progression in RPG's, isn't that half the reason why we play them?

 

[Severian Silk]

Homeworld 2 had level scaling. And it was awful.

 

[Anthedon]

Are there any games that implemented level scaling in a good way (if that can be done)?

 

[DraQ]

@OP
No and go play in the traffic.

 

[Kea]

If you're going to have level scaling then it's better to not even have levels in the first place imo. Just go the Zelda route or something where all the character upgrades are new weapons and armor, but don't waste my time by trying to fool me that the level ups I'm getting are actually progressing my character in any meaningful way.

This gets to the heart of the issue - if your encounters are broken by the PCs having even a few more levels than expected, then either your encounter design or your progression system or both are poorly thought out, and level scaling will only exchange one set of issues for another. Making levels more important than party composition, character build, tactics and how you manage your resources is bad no matter what else you do. It either encourages players to grind past difficult encounters rather than rethink their strategy, or (if levels are scaled) makes fighting enemies completely unrewarding.

Character progression can still be meaningful and satisfying if out-leveling an encounter doesn't completely invalidate it. In a game with a decent concept of limited resources, weaker enemies can still be interesting to fight, ex: I can wipe this encounter in a single turn if I use my strongest spells, but casting it here means one less use to spare for the really dangerous enemies. Then again, if I don't kill all of these enemies in a single turn they can still do a chunk of damage to me and drain my healing. In that case I have to weigh using up my offensive resources against the risk of using up healing resources. Or, some enemies can just be dangerous to some extent at all levels - maybe they have instant death attacks or some other ways of mitigating the HP and defensive advantage of higher levels and better equipment. The player has more options to work with than he's perhaps expected to have for that encounter, and certainly stands a better chance of coming away victorious, but there's always incentive to play smart.

I think it's a mistake for more levels to give you a significant turn order advantage in TB RPGs - if every turn is important, allowing the PCs to alpha strike otherwise dangerous encounters tends to make them not so dangerous after all.

 

[Wayward Son]

I prefer area-scaling. If you make it somehow tied into the story/lore/world logically, it can work very well.
An example of this system is one I am formulating for a game I've been trying to make for a while now, but always failing in some way, usually something along the lines of laziness.
Anyway, the system would work like this:
You start in the Capital of the Empire, in the Heartlands region. There are seven regions total, the Heartlands, the North Coast, the Tenin (which is similar to a plainlands.), the Eastern Swamplands, the Northern Islands, the Desert and the Mountain Kingdoms, in order of when you're supposed to encounter them. If you follow the storyline as it is given to you, you will most likely go in this order. However, if you go out of the storyline and wander randomly, say you're at the level range the North Coast is meant to be tackled st, but you go to the Tenin, you will encounter creatures that are not necessarily full party wipes, but will probably drain all your resources in order to beat and you will be warned that "strange beasts" live in the Tenin while you're in the North Coast. This way, it's tied into the game world and there is a reason for this difference in difficulty, while keeping the freedom for the player to go there. So, if you backtrack through the North Coast at levels meant for the Tenin, which just might happen, depending on one's route through the story, you will have an easy time of it, as that area is rather civilized. As such, the player can feel a sense of progression, while not roflstomping everything in sight by the endgame, unless they grind to ungodly levels. The swamplands, desert and mountains will be made to be challenging for even high level parties, so low level parties will get roflstomped there. Also, for story reasons, the Mountain Kingdoms will be locked off until later on in the game, unless you know the hidden shortcut for that part.

 

[huckc]

The only level scaling should actually make sense and be logical, thus very rare.

Couple scenarios where this could apply (not always):

1. A bounty hunter going after should scale somewhat due to your reputation. A weaker one won't bother and you should get better loot from the stronger one.
2. If for some reason someone knows you're going to attack him well in advance then he might hire more/better henchman to protect him depending on your strength.

Otherwise it really ruins the fun of looking forward to getting strong enough to win after getting your ass beat.

 

[Beautiful Clown Painting]

Level-scaling could be done by quantity rather than by quality. The PC slays 3 goblins around goblin county, they begin to patrol to catch the goblin killer, you kill more of them, they send the goblin army to terminate you.
Just like in real life: when you have a lunatic on a killing spree, they deploy the army to find him, and when it's done, send the SWAT teams to terminate him.

 

[Kalasanty11]

Are there any games that implemented level scaling in a good way (if that can be done)?

I don't mind it in roguelike Tales of Maj'Eyal. Initial areas (or dungeons) are not scaled, but later ones are. They usually have "minimal level". For example, if you enter "min. level 30" dungeon on level 19 of your hero, you will encounter level 30+ monsters, but if you enter it on level 40 you will encounter 40+ level enemies.
Here is the example of one of the bosses. As you see, not only HP and mana are scaled, but also his talents. Not to mention, that higher level versions of enemies (not only bosses) will have more talents at their disposal. Some of the talents have extra effects on higher levels, so the fight won't always be the same.

 

[J1M]

Level scaling is shit and centered around a gross over-estimation of designer capability. It is difficult to craft a balanced and interesting combat system that features leveling. Thinking that it would be possible for the average game designer, or even a good one, to craft a system that creates interesting challenges at scaled levels is nothing short of laughable arrogance or outright contempt for players.

I'd much rather see contrivances like "now that you've entered the desert, your fire spells are subject to 99% resistance by desert monsters" which force the player to obtain new "ice spells" to explore and progress. Not restricting player power improvements to a single axis postpones the problems created by player power gains.

The same approach can work for defenses as well. For example, ice monsters that do extra damage until you piece together a set of fur-lined armor. Armor that offers no power improvement in other environments.

 

[Hyperion]

Level scaling is part of the problem, the other part is 90% of games are 'press X to win,' where level scaling boils down to 'Instead of hitting X once to win, you have to hit X at least THREE times to win.' Balance the fucking games around the highest difficulty and work your way down, don't balance it around the window lickers, and then just up the stats by 50 / 75 / 100% on higher difficulties, goddamnit. I know improved AI, more skills, and deadlier enemy formations requires some semblance of talent with encounter design but at least let us know you TRIED.

Scaling wouldn't be so much of an issue if the game always put the pedal to the metal, but it's generally just put in enough so you have to keep one eye open with the other on porn, netflix, or both.

I love Souls games which are known for their 'skill-based' gameplay, and are supposed to be the anti-level scaling (all those self-imposed SL1, no rolling, no parrying shield-only challenges etc. etc. etc.), but man even they're guilty of this shit to the extreme. NG+ and on in 1 and 3 is absolutely dismal. I know DS2 gets a lot of hate from the AutismSpeaks crowd, but if you can't at least admit them heading in the right direction for Journey 2+, you're just being headstrong.

 

[Ashenai]

Are there any games that implemented level scaling in a good way (if that can be done)?

I liked Wizardry 8's take on it. Every zone has a level "band" about 5 levels wide. So the starting zone might be level 1-5, a zone later on could be 8-13, and an endgame zone could be 20-25. The game tries to populate the zone with enemies that match your level, as long as you're within the level band; if you're not, tough. So whatever your level is, there will be zones that give you "fair" encounters, zones that'll kick your ass, and zones that no longer provide a challenge.

There are two more things Wizardry 8 does right with level scaling: first is that it doesn't scale individual enemies, so you don't get level 18 bandits in magical full plate. Higher level encounters mean different monsters, or larger groups. Secondly, it doesn't artificially restrict you by tying your attack rating to your level, like a lot of modern games do to ensure you can't effectively punch above your weight. You can beat higher-level enemies with good tactics, positioning, and preparation, and if you do, you get awesome loot.

Divinity: Original Sin got this last element wrong, by the way. There's no level scaling in that game, which is great, except your hit chance and damage are artificially crippled when going up against higher-level enemies. This system is very strict, too: you can usually kill enemies maybe 2 levels above you, no more. This fucks up the whole open-world conceit, because it doesn't matter how open the world is: you're level 7, so you should go west from the city, because that's where the level 7 mobs are. When you clear out that area, you'll have gained two levels and can go north, to the Dungeon of the Level 9 Mobs (it really is that restrictively designed.) HERE are the level maps for D:OS, it's a good example of how not to design a game with no level scaling. It feels arbitrary and restrictive, which is a shame because the game otherwise does its best to let you do whatever crazy shit you come up with.

 

[Coma White]

What's wrong with dying?

No really, what's the problem with being punished for making a mistake? That's world reactivity at its most basic, and reactivity is really what roleplaying -- not just playing pretend but REAL roleplaying -- is all about. It's dynamic. It's exciting. It's a quest to slay the resident Black Dragon turning into a flight for your life through his swampy lair -- the prize for surviving the session changing from a pile of gold to just keeping your head on your shoulders (and maybe some XP for your daring escape). Or perhaps even sacrificing your own life to save the lives of your friends. A straightforward dungeon crawl has become a legendary moment of sacrifice.

For me, level scaling itself isn't the issue. It's just a symptom of a much larger problem I have with modern design. The world shouldn't hold the player's hand; the player should hold the world by its throat.

 

[deuxhero]

Only time level scaling ever works is in post release content if the developer doesn't want to inherently balance everything around the assumption the PC is a walking omen of death and make the DLC exclusive for walking omens of death in the process.

 

[Prime Junta]

Fuck level scaling in all its form and shapes. Ive grown to detest it even as a concept.

Encounter scaling can be fine if its limited and within a reasonable range.

Encounter scaling is a form of level scaling

 

[Lhynn]

Encounter scaling is a form of level scaling

No, it isnt. Because enemies arent scaling to your level, you are just finding different enemies. Finding goblins at level 15 can usually be seen as a waste of time, rather see a small amount of encounter scaling where i dont find goblins quite as often and find more challenging enemies.

Limited of course, never find very powerful creatures like beholders or dragons. But yes some lesser creatures that nonetheless can mean resource expenditure and a fun fight.

 

[Prime Junta]

...

gud thread

If "level scaling" is understood in the narrow sense, as simply bloating numbers to match your numbers, then yeah it is generally bad and lazy as all it does is cancel out most of your power progression. You could get to the same place but more interestingly just by making the numbers spread smaller to start with, i.e. replace the scrub to demigod power curve with a scrub to competent human power curve.

If it is used in the broader sense to include possibilities like replacing weaker enemies with tougher ones, increasing mob size, or giving the enemies better gear, it's not quite as bad since there's more variety in the challenges and you may also get different rewards. That can work pretty well; Baldur's Gate 2 is a fairly uncontroversial example. It's still fundamentally the same thing and has the same basic problem: scaling the challenge to match your level will neutralise some or all of the power curve and thereby reduce the sense of progression you get from it -- which is the whole point of having a power curve in the first place.

Personally, I have a preference for games which don't do it in either form. Gothic 2 is a pretty good example: it's nonlinear and open and scary as fuck if you go into an area early. It has several cool advantages which any form of level scaling tends to dilute or remove:

* Genuine sense of peril
* Organic progression in gameplay tactics: from careful exploration, stealth, and running away, to finding ways of weakening them and picking them off one by one, to facing them head-on, to visiting holy vengeance on them
* Proper sense of reward -- one of my most memorable gaming moments ever was getting that one sword from the top of a pyramid in the middle of a dangerous area in G2 really early

Combine this with world reactivity, some of which may replace easier enemies with tougher ones either systemically or through scripted plot points, and you can make something genuinely neat.

 

[Lhynn]

Gothic 2 world is basically a single big level, so that approach works for it.
But in games like morrowind or baldurs gate encounter scaling makes a lot more sense.

 

[octavius]

I think Disciples of Steel has a pretty good system. It's area scaled, combined with good encounter design. Also, something I think its important in games with no level scaling; it's possible to flee from the combat screen, so it can be played Iron Man. But I wish there were some in-game hints about what to expect in various areas. Some of the early quest dungeons are located in areas where you risk facing Stone Giants, Earth Elementals and Living Trees, which even high level fighters can't defeat.

Which reminds me...Oblivion using Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul does a good job in that regard, making the world more area scaled, and with posters in the Imperial City warning travelers of dangerous areas.

 

[DraQ]

Unless the scaled threat is specifically prepared to counter the PC level scaling is misguided and incompetent attempt to cancel out another, usually misguided and incompetent mechanics - character advancement.

Badly designed (which is nearly universally the case) level advancement mechanics creates unmanageable power and survivability curve that completely obliterates any semantics behind game's mechanics (if the damage dealt by the same type of weapon - say 2h sword - can go from single to triple digits over the course of character's career as they advance in levels and replace/upgrade their gear, then the damage numbers can no longer mean anything) and gives the devs a run for their money in terms of trying to balance thier game's challenges.

• Stupid solution to this problem is dynamically scaling those challenges with PC's power.
• Basic and most obvious solution is simply not having advancement mechanics - which is pointless anyway if it forces you to implement mechanics specifically to cancel it out - twice the effort but nonce the outcome isn't exactly efficient.
• Smarter solution is better advancement mechanics - horizontal development, abilities allowing you to do more rather than just variables that go up, all sorts of asymptotic or otherwise bounded growth, separating ability to handle different sorts of challenges etc. If your power curve doesn't resemble a 1:1 scale model of a fucking space elevator then at any given moment a big part of it is going to be reasonable for the PC.

Anyway, even with somewhat fucked up mechanics you don't need level scaling. In an open world game you can well have many different zones of varying levels of danger. Player is no longer confined to predetermined linear path so if you give them some way to foresee and thus avoid stuff that will likely TPK them before they even draw their weapons they will handle themselves - or die trying.

Which is why the OP is a faggot.
QED

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Games like Deus Ex "solved" level scaling by not making player characters have huge power curves just based on stats. There is a somewhat predictable amount of power increase based on equipment the game gives out (some of it optional for boosts) and then the player's own augs and skills supplement that and often give more options in the level rather than act as direct power increases. I always preferred that kind of levelling because then the threats didn't need super mud crabs and random bandits wearing daedric armour to provide player challenge. I assume that's one of the games you had in mind when you discussed Horizontal character development, Draq.

 

[Prime Junta]

It is worth noting though that DX is relatively small and relatively linear. It would be a lot harder to pull that off in a more open game.

 

[DraQ]

Games like Deus Ex "solved" level scaling by not making player characters have huge power curves just based on stats. There is a somewhat predictable amount of power increase based on equipment the game gives out (some of it optional for boosts) and then the player's own augs and skills supplement that and often give more options in the level rather than act as direct power increases. I always preferred that kind of levelling because then the threats didn't need super mud crabs and random bandits wearing daedric armour to provide player challenge. I assume that's one of the games you had in mind when you discussed Horizontal character development, Draq.

Yes, I guess DX is an example here although its skills and some augs are badly balanced.

Overall it's better if power comes from being able to do more things and combine them in more ways for greater effect and when it's multivariate than if it comes from simple linear scales.

It's also nice if you can design around removing limitations barring character from perfection than adding power to a baseline - for example a hypothetical perfect marksman can hit exact spot he wants (as long as it's physically hittable) regardless of factors like movement and so on. A less than perfect marksman can't.

It is worth noting though that DX is relatively small and relatively linear. It would be a lot harder to pull that off in a more open game.

No, because even during endgame an NSF n00b could still easily have you 1hk'd on realistic.
Lack of stupidly inflating numbers really does make things both better and easier to implement and control.

 

[Prime Junta]

It is worth noting though that DX is relatively small and relatively linear. It would be a lot harder to pull that off in a more open game.

No, because even during endgame an NSF n00b could still easily have you 1hk'd on realistic.
Lack of stupidly inflating numbers really does make things both better and easier to implement and control.

So, in your opinion the scope and linearity/openness of a game has no impact on the difficulty of balancing it with character development?

'k

 

[DraQ]

It is worth noting though that DX is relatively small and relatively linear. It would be a lot harder to pull that off in a more open game.

No, because even during endgame an NSF n00b could still easily have you 1hk'd on realistic.
Lack of stupidly inflating numbers really does make things both better and easier to implement and control.

So, in your opinion the scope and linearity/openness of a game has no impact on the difficulty of balancing it with character development?

'k

An impact of scope and linearity of a game on difficulty of balancing it decreases dramatically as it's leveling system becomes less obnoxious and better rooted in game's fiction.


What difference would it make to DX balancing if DX was a wide open sandbox?