An Erudite Discussion of Level Scaling

[Prime Junta]

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

 

[DraQ]

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

No, what concrete problems would you expect?

 

[Prime Junta]

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

No, what concrete problems would you expect?

Think about it for a moment. It's so painfully obvious that I honestly can't understand that you don't see it yourself.

 

[DraQ]

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

No, what concrete problems would you expect?

Think about it for a moment. It's so painfully obvious that I honestly can't understand that you don't see it yourself.

Since you're adopting dAb. line of defence, I need to know if you intend to flee in butthurt as well before indulging you any further.

 

[Prime Junta]

Since you're adopting dAb. line of defence, I need to know if you intend to flee in butthurt as well before indulging you any further.

Okay fine, I assume you're being serious and not just contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. Big assumption, I know.

Assume difficulty is "enjoyable" if a challenge's level is player's level +/- 2. Below, it's dull. Above, it's frustrating. Assume a scale from 1-10 in both challenges and levels.

In game 1, the designer has split the game into three areas. Area 1 has challenges from level 1 to 3, area 2 has challenges from 3 to 7, and area 3 has challenges from level 6 to 10. The player has to complete, say, 75% of the challenges in each area before being able to move on to the next.

In game 2, all the challenges are in one area and the player can visit them in any order.

How could it not be more difficult to balance game 2 than game 1?

N.b.: I'm not saying that it would be impossible. I am saying it would be more difficult. In practice, most games that attempt type 2 end up with either cack-handed level scaling or erring on the side of caution and having completionist players outlevel the content, thereby making the game boring past that point. If done well -- like in Gothic 2 or FONV for example -- the second design can be immensely enjoyable.

 

[DraQ]

Assume difficulty is "enjoyable" if a challenge's level is player's level +/- 2. Below, it's dull. Above, it's frustrating.

Now *THAT*'s a big assumption. I wouldn't even assume levels, especially given that I asked you about rather concrete example that doesn't have them - how would transforming Deus Ex into a wide-open free roaming game upset its balance?
You can assume (since it seems to be your hobby ) a more balanced skill system, with more useful skills and some utility in raising skills to master.

Now adressing the rest of your point - range of levels that are challenging but possible depends on a lot of factors, both power curve and horizontality of the character development system affect it a lot.

Besides, an open world game shouldn't be a uniform mishmash of challenges. You can gate stuff, you can have islands of difficulty.
The important thing to notice is that when being the right level or above is the main determinant of whether player can tackle a challenge, your design is shit and too vertical.
If you need to periodically reward player, don't do it by ++ing their HP and DPS. Do it by giving them more tools to add to their toolbelt.

 

[SwiftCrack]

All I can add is that FF8 is exemplary of level scaling done wrong.

Some bosses become hour long damage sponges after lvl 80 lmao

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I think Deus Ex / DXHR are actually somewhat well suited to handling the challenges of a longer and more open game, in a way that a similar character progression curve may not if it was a turn based, combat heavy game. The game has real time stealth and action, and the variety of paths mean that you can provide back door solutions to extremely difficult fights in a way that is more difficult to pull off in a Final Fantasy game. Player skill can compensate for a lot of difficulty and alternate paths provide less resistance if the primary path you're normally taking fails on you (e.g. combat focussed character can still do some stealthing, sneaky character can still pack in a rocket launcher for a surprise attack).

Extrapolating to an open world and a 50 hour experience instead of 20 hours, you could have a few extra "horizontal" skills, a few extra combat upgrades, and character progression that was moderately slower. One issue would be that itemisaiton would need a major change to its structure, instead of assuming that the player is hording multitools and lockpicks from early, easy quests (in the linear game), you would likely need to move to some vendors and such. Late game difficulty would not just be tougher encounters, more difficult stealth arenas, it would be attritional, with longer time periods between restocks of your fun toys.

 

[Average Manatee]

Deus Ex doesn't have levels and I'm quite confident you can beat the game with entirely no augs and no training. It would work quite well as an open world game, with augs allowing you to take new paths or do more dangerous things.

Assume difficulty is "enjoyable" if a challenge's level is player's level +/- 2. Below, it's dull. Above, it's frustrating. Assume a scale from 1-10 in both challenges and levels.

Any game that does this in the first place is pretty shit. If you have to level scale because the entire difference between potential builds is worth less than an hour or two of level grinding in an open world game then you might as well just scrap your RPG elements all together.

 

[Beastro]

Someone say Erudite?!?

 

[Prime Junta]

Assume difficulty is "enjoyable" if a challenge's level is player's level +/- 2. Below, it's dull. Above, it's frustrating.

Now *THAT*'s a big assumption. I wouldn't even assume levels, especially given that I asked you about rather concrete example that doesn't have them - how would transforming Deus Ex into a wide-open free roaming game upset its balance?

Fine, assume a power curve from 1 to 10 in floating point, for both challenges and character power. It doesn't affect the argument in any way.

You can assume (since it seems to be your hobby ) a more balanced skill system, with more useful skills and some utility in raising skills to master.

Done. And?

Now adressing the rest of your point - range of levels that are challenging but possible depends on a lot of factors, both power curve and horizontality of the character development system affect it a lot.

Absolutely.

Besides, an open world game shouldn't be a uniform mishmash of challenges. You can gate stuff, you can have islands of difficulty.

I.e., bring it back towards a more linear model... because it's harder to balance.

The important thing to notice is that when being the right level or above is the main determinant of whether player can tackle a challenge, your design is shit and too vertical.
If you need to periodically reward player, don't do it by ++ing their HP and DPS. Do it by giving them more tools to add to their toolbelt.

I agree entirely.

The fact remains that if a game has a power curve, it will be easier to balance the more linear it is. A completely on-rails corridor shooter is the easiest of all. A completely wide-open sandbox game is the hardest.

I still don't see what's the least bit controversial about this observation.

 

[Prime Junta]

Deus Ex doesn't have levels and I'm quite confident you can beat the game with entirely no augs and no training. It would work quite well as an open world game, with augs allowing you to take new paths or do more dangerous things.

All that means is that some people can become really good at playing it. Cf. Noober's Revenge.