Gothic 3 will not ENTIRELY be scaling.

[Crichton]

This is complete idiocy, imo. A RPG without progression loses its quintessential uniqueness and becomes either an adventure game, an action game, or a visual novel (if the game is talk-heavy). Might as well just go for the GTA style of games, then, which I most definitely will not term RPGs.

You'll hit the level cap about half-way through Arcanum if you work through the side-quests. So if progression is a defining feature of RPGs, diablo II must be the finest RPG ever made while Arcanum is only half an RPG, might want to think that through a little more carefully Azarkon.

 

[Mantiis]

I think you guys may be missing the point - how does a game that scales itslef according to your level play? For me it plays shit, I hate it, I hate it so much i want to kill it and mutilate its corpse. Die dammit why won't you die!

Why level in a game if the game is going to level with you? There is an inherent logical flaw in games scaling, the whole point of leveling is to represent your new power/strength/experience but if enemies in the game world level with you have you really gained in power? No effectivly you are as powerful as you were before you leveled with respect to the game world. It is god damned fucking pointless.

 

[Azarkon]

You'll hit the level cap about half-way through Arcanum if you work through the side-quests. So if progression is a defining feature of RPGs, diablo II must be the finest RPG ever made while Arcanum is only half an RPG, might want to think that through a little more carefully Azarkon.

Both Arcanum and Diablo II are RPGs. That you hit the level cap half way through Arcanum is unfortunate, but if Arcanum had no progression to begin with, it wouldn't be a RPG in my book. Period. (Progression does not necessarily mean levels, however)

Course, this is like a battle cry for "Teh definicion of RPG!l11!" but that's only if you make it so. My point is that RPGs have always had progression. Remove it, and you're talking about a different kind of game. Sure, you can do away with all the problems with progression by removing progression altogether, just like you can do away with all the problems with TB combat by doing away with TB altogether. In the end, what you're left with isn't the same kind of game. Call it whatever you want, but a game with progression is nothing like a game without, and as far as I can tell, games with progression are most often called RPGs, and everything that's ever been a RPG has had progression of one form or another. So thats how I term it.

 

[Volourn]

Scaling can work *if* done right. Just like non scaling can work if done right.

As previously mentioned, DMs use 'scaling' all the time in pnp - espicially with random encounters unless youa re the type who throws 20HD skeletons against level 1 characters randomly or decided to normal orcs against epic characters.


LOLOLOLOLOLLIPOP

 

[Mantiis]

Scaling can work *if* done right. Just like non scaling can work if done right.

Name one computer RP game that got scaling right.

 

[Volourn]

Why? No matter which one I named, you'd say false. If you made up your mind; you've made up your mind.

 

[Mantiis]

I am not KC - I am willing to be swayed if an argument is correct. I just can't think of one that got even close.

 

[Volourn]

Fine. Even though I know it won't sway you as this game is pretty much The Hated One tm around here (well, 2nd palce to oblivion, lol, currently :D ).

NWN does it well; because even with scaling monsters can still be 'uber' towards you no matter your level.

One example of this is a bloated dire spider you meet in ch1 where it's pretty challenging (unless you have the right build for it) no matter when you meet it.

There's also a certain undead place where the type of undead you face depends on your level so you might get shadows or even a much stronger undead.

The reason for this is even though the monster scales to your level it's easy to have set where the monster can be made to be 'easy, normal, hard, or imposisble' for the level.

Yeah, yeah. Some will (falsely) brag how the game was easy (unless your SP who says its hard but the game 'cheated' and was 'impossible' for a rogue', lol); but they only do so because they lie and actually died and respawned 100s of times.

There. Now, I await all the 'NWN sucks at everything' people, to come charging in. LOL

 

[Mantiis]

I fuking hate that spider - I died so many times to it and ended up running around like a moron until I had enough room to shoot at it then I ran some more. Playing that game as a low level caster sucks cause it is so hard as opposed to a warrior or rogue (a rogue is quite fun - especially towards the end when u can use scrolls effectively). It was all made up for when I cast 'finger of death' on that half balor-dragon before the end bit and he failed his save. You'd think they would be immune to instant death spells; god knows how I woulda killed him otherwise.

In any case I didn't realise NWN was scaled in parts - so are random monsters chosen in it or just boss monsters to be scaled? What is the purpose of scaling certain monsters and not others?

 

[Volourn]

"I fuking hate that spider - I died so many times to it and ended up running around like a moron until I had enough room to shoot at it then I ran some more. Playing that game as a low level caster sucks cause it is so hard as opposed to a warrior or rogue (a rogue is quite fun - especially towards the end when u can use scrolls effectively). "

One of the two tank henchmen would have been a boon for you. Plus, throw in your familiar and a summon and your mage could do much better. A mage shouldn't be meleeing a dire spider anyways.


" It was all made up for when I cast 'finger of death' on that half balor-dragon before the end bit and he failed his save. You'd think they would be immune to instant death spells; god knows how I woulda killed him otherwise."

Nice job. Actually, most demons or dragons aren't immune to death magic. Of course, they rarely fail their saves. Heh.


"In any case I didn't realise NWN was scaled in parts - so are random monsters chosen in it or just boss monsters to be scaled? What is the purpose of scaling certain monsters and not others?"

IIRC, most enemies in NWN1 are scaled to some except for bosses (htough, I'm sure there's an exemption or two). As for the purpose of picking and choosing; it's likely for baalnce depending on the area and when the player is likely to go where.

An exmaple of this is ch1. You have 4 different areas where the PC could concievably start so imagine if you happened to choose the 'wrong' palce and kept dying... This way you could possibly complete any of the 4 in any order if so you wish. Still, it was balanced that certain areas were 'easier' than others. ie. The jail area is the 'easiest' of the 4 even with the scaling.

I hope I've explained it properly.

They're scaled; but they're skill to certain limits meaning if you are too low or too high the area won't scale all the way. This gaves a range; but not to the point ala Oblivion where you'll be fighting level 20 bandits or level 5 dragons.

 

[Mantiis]

One of the two tank henchmen would have been a boon for you. Plus, throw in your familiar and a summon and your mage could do much better. A mage shouldn't be meleeing a dire spider anyways.

Agreed but each and every allied creature you have with you decreases the amount of XP you got during a combat encounter so I very rarely summoned creatures or had henchmen. I would summon a creature if I knew it would die during the combat but buy me time to finish monsters off.

So yer maybe I am to blame for finding that spider hard but I like XP! :D

 

[Volourn]

LOL I'm just as guilty. I avoid summons if at all posisble. The lost xp isn't that bad considering there's lots of xp to be had.

Heh. But, as they say, the greater the risk the higher the reward. :D


P.S. The bloated dire spider was no picnic even for a tank. I had a dwarf with high con go int ehre, and I needed two tries because the first time I got posioned bad and I could no longer move fast or hit (strength drain).

Second time I kicked butt because I passed all my saves.

 

[Atrokkus]

Both Arcanum and Diablo II are RPGs.

No, not both. Arcanum is a full-fledged RPG, but Diablo is something of a hybrid, and doesn't qualify for the "full RPG" title. That's obvious enough.

Course, this is like a battle cry for "Teh definicion of RPG!l11!" but that's only if you make it so. My point is that RPGs have always had progression. Remove it, and you're talking about a different kind of game.

It depends on the structure of a game: if it's story-driven, then careful progression is necessary (bloodlines, BG2), however if it's more freeform like Fallout or Gothic, then the combat encounters should be allocated randomly (exaggerating a bit) in the gameworld, both seamlessly (gothic) and map-wise (Fallout). Why? Because that's the most realistic approach. Nothing can keep you from going straight to the mutant base in FO1, that's natural. Of course, you may not know where it is, but you can stumble upon it by chance and it by all means must not be scaled to your level, otherwise the game will be dumbfuckingly stupid and easy. Not that all "final" or "key" locations have to be hard, no -- they may be hard dialog-wise, or battle-wise, or both (Enclave in FO2 is a perfect example).

 

[Old Scratch]

Back a short while ago when this was a big topic concerning Oblivion, I defended level scaling. In theory it sounds kind of good, but witnessing it in practice has made me apprehensive. It kinda destroys the goal-oriented gameplay of RPGs and makes it more akin to something like the Sims where you're basically just dicking around the entire time until you get bored and move on. As a result of that system, I didn't even bother finishing Oblivion, even though I did think it was decent.

Oblivion screwed up in that there weren't any adequate replacement objectives outside of leveling. You could amass wealth, but outside of a nice horse there wasn't really anything interesting to buy. As you advanced in levels you could also access ridiculously powerful magical items, but those just made the game too easy. You didn't need a shitload of money to win the game, like in the GTA games. RPG fans have adapted to past examples and become too lazy to be required to form our own goals as motivation to complete a game.

Even something seemingly simple like making bosses scale in G3 sounds potentially destructive. One of the more exciting aspects of those games for me, was having that sense of panic when you wandered into the wrong area and had something too high level go chasing after you, trying to hunt you down, and either escaping or winding up as dinner. Much of it will depend on how you access them though. If there are static creatures guarding an area where a boss is for example, or you have to complete something that requires a certain level in order to access them, then it might be okay as it just means the "boss" will always be challenging without rendering leveling in the game ultimately pointless. However, if you can basically get to them at anytime, like say the cave in G2 with the shadowbeast or whatever the hell it was, then that could potentially screw the entire game up.

 

[zorba]

There's nothing inherently wrong with a little judicious scaling. Oblivion's problem is using it like a sledgehammer on everything.

The first two Gothic's used chapter changes to help with balance, so it's no surprise they need to make some small adjustments without chapters. I think they'll do fine (provided they have the time to finish properly).

Chapters in G1 and G2 were little more than a narrative version of the "Please wait, loading..." screen. Repopulation and area change were based on triggers, just like in any other RPG or adventure game.

Triggers don't require distinct but artificial area containers. An area is no less an area when not wrapped up in a box of technical convenience or restriction. Triggers can be placed on any element in the game world, in the narrative, on progress, a timed event, victory or defeat. Just about anywhere you like.

Therefore, no. The fact that in G3 chapters are not part of the narrative does not justify a complete design overhaul to incorporate monster level scaling.

 

[Awakened_Yeti]

in Space Rangers 2 the NPCs get stronger as they fight with each other and upgrade their ships.. they grow as the game goes along

its certainly not a pure RPG, but they did get many things right in terms of stats/leveling/etc

 

[FrancoTAU]

Wizardy 8 did a pretty good job a level scaling assuming you didn't level up too much in the beginner dungeon. If so, than you had a hell of time sprinting to Arnika to buy some adequate equipment. Besides that, they seemed to have a pretty good min/max level cap on baddies.

 

[Claw]

Chapters in G1 and G2 were little more than a narrative version of the "Please wait, loading..." screen. Repopulation and area change were based on triggers, just like in any other RPG or adventure game.

Loading what? The different chapters don't play in different areas, nor does the content in the world greatly change during a chapter conversion. Are you sure you're not confusing the chapter screens with the actual loading screens present at area borders? Regardless of whether or not triggers require it, the spawning of new creatures and enemies is generally linked to the chapters.

The fact that in G3 chapters are not part of the narrative does not justify a complete design overhaul to incorporate monster level scaling.

I agree. The same Gothic 1 and 2 did with chapters could have been achieved with triggers tied to key events in the main story.
Personally however, I see no reason for either the old or the new model, other than the extremely simple character system which is too easily unbalanced by a couple of levels difference.
I mean, come on. A level in Gothic is more significant than in say, Realms of Arkania, but at the same time you can easily gain far more levels. And that is with limited enemies in Gothic as compared to virtually unlimited enemies - and thus experience - in RoA. That just isn't right.

 

[Caligula]

Why? No matter which one I named, you'd say false. If you made up your mind; you've made up your mind.

And so was Volourn's mind made up.

 

[zorba]

Loading what?

Orcs, mostly.

The different chapters don't play in different areas, nor does the content in the world greatly change during a chapter conversion. Are you sure you're not confusing the chapter screens with the actual loading screens present at area borders?

I am addressing both chapter change and area change in one single post to refute Dhruin's would-be argument. I didn't mean to confuse you, but there... I did.

My point was and is that the application or omission of chapters in the story simply does not justify level scaling. That's just apologetic nonsense. I don't mind that, but let's not call it by a different name than apologetic nonsense.

Regardless of whether or not triggers require it, the spawning of new creatures and enemies is generally linked to the chapters.

Right. Did you really write that after just asking me "Loading what"?

I agree. The same Gothic 1 and 2 did with chapters could have been achieved with triggers tied to key events in the main story.

I'm happy for you that you do. It happened to be my whole-and-sole point, so maybe we should team up and make perfectly good people more aware of what nonsense they happen to be spouting. Oh, I guess we just did.

Personally however, I see no reason for either the old or the new model, other than the extremely simple character system which is too easily unbalanced by a couple of levels difference.

What's your point and what would you like to see?

 

[Azael]

I haven't played Oblivion (and likely won't, in the near future), but if the reports on how scaling is done there are true, that's a really shitty way to implement level scaling. If you should scale certain (absolutely not all) enemies, it needs to be done within set parameters so that areas never get too easy (or too hard) for a given level. Say for example that a cave in an "easy" area is populated with low level bandits at level 2, by level 4 there are slightly tougher bandits there and again at level 6, but there it stops so that if you ignore the cave until you're level 14 you get the same opponents as you would have at level 6. Not a perfect system, but in my mind it's better than a level scaling that means that you have the exact same challenge consistently for the entire game which is just fucking ridiculous. Hopefully, Gothic 3 will have something closer to the first example, which is tolerable, rather than the second which isn't

Of course, a better system would be to have combat be constantly challenging regardless of levels and without any scaling necessary, but I guess that's a pipedream.

 

[zorba]

If you should scale certain (absolutely not all) enemies, it needs to be done within set parameters so that areas never get too easy (or too hard) for a given level.

No, that's not going to work at all for me.

I want my badass mofos whenever I decide to pay them a visit. I want to pay them a visit at level one and die in the process. I want to visit them at level two and die in the process. I want to keep trying and dying until the odds have changed in my favor through training.

Why? Because that's what character development is about. Trying and learning until you got it right. The reward is in control over the situation and the spoils.

You may notice the odd parallel with real life. Ever seen anything but mommy scale to your level?

 

[Azael]

With the system I proposed, you'd still be butchered if you messed with the wrong enemy too early. You'd have set parameters that decide the weakest possible enemy and the strongest possible enemy. So at one side of the spectrum you'd have a young, but still vicious, shadowbeast that will tear a low level character to shreds and the other side you'd have an older, grumpier shadowbeast that still remains a tough challenge for a higher level character. I'm not claiming that it's a perfect system and I'm generally not in favor of scaling, but a completely static world is not without its drawbacks either and scaling encounters like this might not completely suck at least.

 

[Claw]

Right. Did you really write that after just asking me "Loading what"?

Of course I did. I am aware that the spawns are linked to the chapters, but the creatures are not literally spawned the moment a chapter begins, but rather once the player gets close enough to a spawning point. Also, additional instances of known objects hardly constitute new content that requires loading.
The supposed loading screen can be "clicked away" within a fraction of a second. Heck of a loading screen!

What's your point and what would you like to see?

A character system with higher tolerance for level differences and exponential experience growth as limiting factor rather than limited experience in the form of killables. Wildlife and "random" enemies ought to respawn without limit.
Encouraging broader character development over specialization also makes the character development easier to balance.
And if I want to "level" my character so the game becomes significantly easier, why shouldn't I be able to? Allow me to hunt for experience as much as I like, while providing some limit to developing a godlike character. I felt Realms of Arkania did it just fine, for instance.

 

[2FacedJanus]

Scaling sucks no matter how you cut it

This whole scaling business sucks.... yes it makes the game more approachable to bad players.. but it also gives these crapass players not even the slightest push to become better at a game. Games are supposed to be challenging and rewarding.. I like fighting creatures twice my level. Just to see if I can do it and if I fail see if i can do it in another way. And if I make it reap the fat rewards... unlike Oblivibarf where every dungeon give you the armor you're wearing allready...