Scaling

[Gord]

Because he's greedy and doesn't want to spend a shitload of money to pay the most competent assassins simply to kill a guy who's barely able to defend himself against a bunch of rats?

I think the assassins, or guards, policeman, Lithuanian Hitmen(tm) or whatever is send after you should somehow reflect how dangerous your char is or appears to be.

And a lvl1 fighter is certainly less threatening than a lvl 25 one.
Also I doubt the average Big Bad has read this.

 

[DragoFireheart]

Because he's greedy and doesn't want to spend a shitload of money to pay the most competent assassins simply to kill a guy who's barely able to defend himself against a bunch of rats?

or whatever is send after you should somehow reflect how dangerous your char is or appears to be.

.

So the Big Bad guy will suddenly change his mind because his telepathic link with you tells him you are stronger and you require a tougher assassin to kill you?

Stop, just stop. You make a great argument for why the bag guy may not send his best assassin, but then you insist on shoving that shittyness into the game which contradicts the bad guys character as it assumes he is fucking god and knows your capabilities at every step.

 

[Gord]

He doesn't know, and I never said so. Why should he?

If he would know everything about you, you probably also wouldn't survive the encounter...

But surely he has some information about you? Rumors? Paid informants? Bards singing a song about you? If he would know nothing, why should he send any assassins after you in the first place?

 

[DragoFireheart]

He doesn't know, and I never said so. Why should he?




...or whatever is send after you should somehow reflect how dangerous your char is or appears to be.

Omniscient level scaling. You want progressively better assassins as you kill them? Fine. However, if I make efforts to avoid the first chump, level up, and then ambush him later on, he shouldn't be fucking as hard as the final boss. I got stronger, I should be able to kick his ass!

You know, getting stronger? That thing that RPGs like to do? That thing that is made pointless with level scaling?

 

[Gord]

I'm talking about a few select encounters where level scaling makes sense, imho, not he whole game.

And yes, ideally the "encounter level" of this assassins should be based upon your level (or more precisely the informations the Big Bad has about your strength*) when they were send after you. If you can avoid them, then come back later after leveling up and they are still there, they should be easier.
If there's a logical way for that to happen, which is also consistent with the story, why not?

* if the game allows you to keep a low profile, so you would appear less dangerous, the assassins encounter might be less dangerous, too, because Big Bad doesn't know who he is messing with. Likewise, if you constantly boast about your abilities and about how you killed the 23-headed hydra deep in her poison-filled dungeon, the Big Bad should send much more dangerous assassins. Of course, no game will ever implement something like this.

 

[ever]

@ever, sounds like Might and Magic which is geographical. I remember completing MM7 with a level 20ish party, things got really bad at the last dungeon.

I have not played Might and Magic 7 but yes in IV and V ( World of Xeen ) the situation was similar to what I described. At some point however World of Xeen becomes too easy, but I did not find that bad, just aptly rewarding. The sort of thing I was talking about also exists in Morrowind, Ultima games and Darklands. Aside from the Infinity Engine games these are my favorite computer role playing games and I do not think that is a coincidence.

In your taxonomy geographical sounded like a linear affair with towns only selling a certain level of loot based on the order the player *must* enter them in, and enemies levelling up as the player moves to the *next* area. It sounded a lot like the Final Fantasy games, and the way the character progresses through those games is very different to how he does in, say, Ultima. The very concept of *next* does not exist in what I was trying to describe. This difference is what drove me to type out my response.

I find it odd that you said "last dungeon" did you mean "last dungeon you entered"?

 

[DragoFireheart]

I'm talking about a few select encounters where level scaling makes sense, .

And this is the problem. Level scaling doesn't make any sense, unless you are a game designer who is too lazy to design encounters.

 

[Gord]

Well, there's obviously no reason to try continuing the discussion.

 

[AzraelCC]

Well, whatever the type of RPG, level scaling isn't necessary.

If the RPG is driven by a complex story, then the accomplishment of the main goal (progressing the story) is enough motivation to get to the next step of the story. In this case, since the story basically provides a timeframe for the game, random encounters are frowned upon. See Icewind Dale or the even the Gold Box series. Every phase of the story has a set of monsters of a specific level, and the best games of this type has monster encounters that anticipate what types of skills and builds a player would have so that the encounters can provide challenges for the player.

If the RPG is more of an open world type, then exploration provides the impetus to take on greater challenges. a new area has a set type of monsters that a player discovers, and it is up to the player to decide if he can take the area on or not. Betrayal at Krondor and rogue likes typically use this system.

Level scaling is indeed lazy design, because it just boils down to creating a progression table for monsters and adjusting everything to the level of the player. There is no sense of accomplishment, and no sense of progression, which makes the game boring.

With the issue of grinding, I think that all RPGs should use mechanics that utilize time. Nobody seems to age in any recent RPG, when the reason why a person in real life can't become an uber warrior/mage/thief via sheer training and exploring all the time is that people die. Time as a mechanic is rarely used in RPGs, which is a shame since many options but not enough time makes for great decision-making challenges. DC:SS as mentioned uses food to impose some form of time limit, and you do age in Darklands, but in games like Baldur's gate and even Fallout 2, you not only don't age, you can take your time to do all the side quests. Some autistic completionist may complain of a time limit, but it makes for more interesting gameplay if you actually can't take all side quests, because some of them will resolve as you choose another side quest to do.

 

[someone else]

@ever, sounds like Might and Magic which is geographical. I remember completing MM7 with a level 20ish party, things got really bad at the last dungeon.

I have not played Might and Magic 7 but yes in IV and V ( World of Xeen ) the situation was similar to what I described. At some point however World of Xeen becomes too easy, but I did not find that bad, just aptly rewarding. The sort of thing I was talking about also exists in Morrowind, Ultima games and Darklands. Aside from the Infinity Engine games these are my favorite computer role playing games and I do not think that is a coincidence.

In your taxonomy geographical sounded like a linear affair with towns only selling a certain level of loot based on the order the player *must* enter them in, and enemies levelling up as the player moves to the *next* area. It sounded a lot like the Final Fantasy games, and the way the character progresses through those games is very different to how he does in, say, Ultima. The very concept of *next* does not exist in what I was trying to describe. This difference is what drove me to type out my response.

I find it odd that you said "last dungeon" did you mean "last dungeon you entered"?

The geographical example I gave was exaggerated, the newer Ultimas doesn't have much character progression. Morrowind and Darklands do have level-scaling, but it is limited in Darklands, and in both games you can get easily killed if you wander into wrong areas too early. There is actually quite some grinding in Darklands as you dare not risk going into the wilderness and get an out-of-scope encounter.

I meant the last dungeon, level 20 is under-leveled in MM7 at the end of the game. I didn't train for most of the game.

AzraelCC, sounds like you prefer geograhpical(or zonal)-progress and I'm pretty sure aging only affect character generation in Darklands.

Were there criticism on level-scaling before Morrowind, Oblivion, Wizardry 8 and Homeworld 2? Or do players start focusing on these and start channeling their hate on any type of level-scaling, even those in older games which nobody complained until level-scaling became a hate feature?

@DragoFireheart, yelling shit shit shit, fuck fuck fuck, stupid this, lazy that makes me wonder why anybody will want to discuss anything with you. Gord has been polite in his replies, are you able to do the same or do you want to continue with your obnoxious internet computer game expert act? Did you read his first post where he criticise level-scaling before going nuts over bounty-hunters?

 

[ever]

The geographical example I gave was exaggerated, the newer Ultimas doesn't have much character progression. Morrowind and Darklands do have level-scaling, but it is limited in Darklands, and in both games you can get easily killed if you wander into wrong areas too early. There is actually quite some grinding in Darklands as you dare not risk going into the wilderness and get an out-of-scope encounter.

I meant the last dungeon, level 20 is under-leveled in MM7 at the end of the game. I didn't train for most of the game.

AzraelCC, sounds like you prefer geograhpical(or zonal)-progress and I'm pretty sure aging only affect character generation in Darklands.

I don't think what yoou said to AzraelCC is correct.

Aging most definitely affects your character during the adventure in Darklands. The exact same way it does in character generation - there is a table in the official clue book. I remember encountering a bug where a dragon did not spawn and I wasted 6 years in the wilderness where my already middle aged characters started to suffer penalties. I wouldn't have cared if the Dragon spawned but as it was it just pissed me off.

Sounds like you were playing the game with a fairly young party. In which case you were doing it wrong, because if your guys are experienced to begin with, they begin with some very high quality gear, and there's no need to grind. Although I agree that by design Darklands does allow for some grinding despite the ageing mechanism discouraging such behavior. This is because the game didn't give you much in the ways of gaining more combat skills against low level encounters with meaningful quests, and had infinite bandits in the cities for you to fight.

You're right about Darklands having some amount of scaling on second thoughts. I think it scaled by gear? The game didn't really have the concept of "levels". I remember Raubitter men becoming better armored the better armored I was. Come to think of it maybe it's scaling by time. I have no idea how it works. It wasn't too noticeable at all as I definitely felt after a while that my characters were breezing through quests that were difficult in the past, and were more ready to take on tougher challenges. i.e the game didn't just make the challenge just as difficult as I needed it making the quest types order independent.

I thought Morrowind had no level scaling. It certainly didn't feel like it had level scaling, where does it have scaling?

Edit: Ok thanks for clearing the dungeon thing up. If a game has a "Last Dungeon" and not just "Last Dungeon I happen to enter" then its not really what I was talking about, so you can't point to that and say "yeah this is a bad idea" cause its just not the idea I had in mind.

 

[BLOBERT]

BROS I THINK EVERY GAME SHOULD HAVE THE BIG BAD GUY SEND LEVEL 10101010101011 LEVEL ASSASSINS AFTER THE LEVEL ONE CHARACHTETRR RIGHT AWAY BROS THAT WOULD BE AN AWOESONE GAME YOU DIE RIGHT AWAY EVERY TIME LOLOOLOLLOL

BROS SPACE RANGERS 2 I THOUGHT WAS GREAT IN GAME BALANCE AND OK IN LOGIC BALANCE ACTUALLY I AM PLAQYING IT RIGHT NOW THE LOGIX OF THE HUG INFLATION ISNT SO CLEAR BUT AT LEAST IT IS UN IVERSALLY APPLIED FOR PLATERS AND NPCS SO BETTER THAN MOST ANY OTHER SALING

AS A WANNABE OLDSCHOOL BRO I LIKE AREA SCALING IT ADDS MORE OF A SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT

SCALING IN SOME SENSE IS NECESSARY IF NOT YOU END UP WITH AN ADVENTURE GAME LIKE SAVAGE EMPIRE SEEMED

 

[Krraloth]

I believe a mix of geographical (tied and consistent to the world lore) and CR scaling would be the best.

Let's say your party enters an abandoned cemetery and catacombs to find some shit. It would make sense that undead abominations would have a "power" progression tied to the wolrd lore (are they common? are there renegade/guild necromancer? is it an imbalance of higher powers so the dead walk becuase some Law cracked?) and regardless of the lore they should still have some very dangerous encounters that scale relatively to your CR.
That way if your CR is close to 25 you will have easy as piss zombies and skeletons shambling around because cemeterys have those in the wolrd you're playing in that ARE not scaled to you, hence you will crush them because you're powerful but let's say you loot a sarchophagus where an ignis fatuus is hovering above, you would trigger a chance to spawn a very powerful undead because you disturbed his spirit and shit like this.

The key here is to make encouters that feel natural to the area you are in and no, I don't believe that monsters should be able to counter EVERY skill or ability you have (counterspelling heals I got my eyes on you?) becuase sometimes is just not fitting.

My point is, if it feels natural to the world is better.

About the Big Bad sending the best assassins against you immediatly...
I believe it could be a refreshing change but if you want the player to well...play, you have to provide means to escape that encounter, to survive it using the environment or diplomating the shit out of the situation say you convince somebody to pass for you or some shit.

Ofc if a Big Baddie is sending his best troops EVERY time a fledgeling adventurer sets forth it would have dire consequences for him. The more people he sends to assassinate the more witnessess would survive to tell the tale, no matter how skillful and professional assassins are, THERE will be fuck-ups and unsless the world is crafted by Mickey Mouse (not the Codexer by the similar name)there will be at least one organization or branch or whatever trying to fuck over the Big Baddie, and you don;t want too much pubblicity if you are a Big Baddie.


Edit: LORE not ROLE

 

[Gord]

I thought Morrowind had no level scaling. It certainly didn't feel like it had level scaling, where does it have scaling?

Morrowinds level scaling mechanic is more subtle than e.g. Oblivions, but it's there.
The type of enemy spawning at a spawn-point depends on your level.
So while traveling through the wilds on low levels you might encounter rats or Guars, on higher levels there will be Deadra instead.
I'm not sure though if all spawn-points are leveled or if only certain areas are.
Regardless of your level you will encounter cliff racers. Hundreds of them. Thousands.
How I hate those annoying cliff racers!

 

[ever]

Are cliff racers those pterodactyl things?

I played the game for ~30 hours as one of those negro super fighters, I think they're called Redguard, but that wasn't enough for me to see any Deadra pop up. I remember fighting some mechanical dwarves or something in a dungeon. In any case 30 hours was enough for me to run uninstall.exe. Still, Morrowind is my favorite of The Elder Scrolls games. The game had that wonderful theme that played over and over again, very relaxing experience overall.

 

[DragoFireheart]

@DragoFireheart, yelling shit shit shit, fuck fuck fuck, stupid this, lazy that makes me wonder why anybody will want to discuss anything with you. Gord has been polite in his replies, are you able to do the same or do you want to continue with your obnoxious internet computer game expert act? Did you read his first post where he criticise level-scaling before going nuts over bounty-hunters?

I don't want level scaling of any sort because developers will become lazy and abuse it. I've yet to play a game where level scaling was superior in execution to hand-made encounters. However, I've played many games were level scaling gives the game a feeling of generic, factory packaged processed cheese that tastes like ass. Oblivion is the worse offended and I will not play another game of that degree of level scaling.

It's interesting the while I argue downsides of level scaling, I've yet to see any sort of argument to show why it would be beneficial. I can not think of a scenario where level scaling would be superior to the developer hand-crafting the encounter.

 

[Gord]

In a game where your progression through world and story is linear, there's no need to implement any form of level-scaling.

[advocatus diaboli]However, enemies are still scaled to your level. Only this time by the developers. In the end the difference between the pc choosing the enemies from a leveled list and the devs choosing the enemies from a similar list might be minimal. [/advocatus diaboli]

Now if you have an open-world approach level scaling becomes tempting.
IMHO, Gothic choose the superior approach by hand-placing enemies instead of level scaling them, even if that means that you can not rush through some quests because you will get your ass handed by the enemies you are encountering.

 

[Johannes]

There should be some scaling in order to keep the challenge, otherwise the game is just an excercise of seeing how little grinding you can get away with. Level scaling isn't too good though, it encourages to maximize your power while minimizing your level. Rather tie the enemies progression to time, or a more complex set of variables you can actively effect. So its more a living breathing world than just handcrafted predictable encounters who sit around waiting for you to kill them.

Of course all enemies don't have to scale. Just those that would really seek to gain more martial power, and have the means to do that. Like the main antagonists at least. Smaller players might not gain power but could have their behavior altered based on some check - highwaymen wouldn't try extort you of your money if you have a fearsome enough reputation for example.

Maintaining challenge is much easier, though, when the player doesn't gain too much power during the game.

 

[DragoFireheart]

IMHO, Gothic choose the superior approach by hand-placing enemies instead of level scaling them, even if that means that you can not rush through some quests because you will get your ass handed by the enemies you are encountering.

And I'm ok with that. There is nothing wrong with hand-crafted quests and areas that require the player to come back stronger. Some argue that the player might grind but there are ways to get around that as well. Simply reduce the experience they would get from enemies as they got stronger to the point where grinding would be a waste of time.

 

[ever]

Gothic games look like games I would enjoy muchly and I have added them to my list of games to play. I think I am in for a real treat.

 

[someone else]

Aging most definitely affects your character during the adventure in Darklands.

Maybe. I'll take a screenshot the next time I play Darklands.

Sounds like you were playing the game with a fairly young party. In which case you were doing it wrong, because if your guys are experienced to begin with, they begin with some very high quality gear, and there's no need to grind.

Is there a way to do it right or wrong? Saving for your first chainmail can be fun. Combat skills and equipment are easy to earn, attributes and non-combat skills are harder to increase and that is what I concentrate on during character creation when I'm powergaming.

You're right about Darklands having some amount of scaling on second thoughts. I think it scaled by gear? The game didn't really have the concept of "levels". I remember Raubitter men becoming better armored the better armored I was. Come to think of it maybe it's scaling by time. I have no idea how it works. It wasn't too noticeable at all...

You have the cluebook? So do I and I quote:

As your party gets better, you'll find that you tend to encounter more powerful types. This is because the weaker sorts may learn to avoid you!(trololol explanation for level-scaling) Note, however, that in most cases your improving weapons and skills more than outweigh any improvements the enemy might have. There-fore, it's always to your advantage to use the best, most powerful characters available.

The level-scaling is pretty tame. Thugs go from:
1. club + leather/nothing melee 20
2. club + leather/padded melee 30
3. shortsword + leather/leather melee 40
More are spawned as well.

Quest rewards scale to party fame and city reputation. Your current cash determine expenses. No idea how they determine your CR. I think having a smaller party also affect scaling.

Level-scaling didn't bother me much in Darklands (since player progress faster), although I am disturbed at the number of bad guys that appear later, I'm much more baffled by the fact that I have to pay more if I have more cash.

Cash-scaling, wat next?

 

[ever]

I never noticed the cash scaling. This is because all of my wealth was held in the form of some potion or another my alchemist made ( the one with the highest profit, there was also a profit table I saw somewhere but cannot remember if it was in some FAQ or in the clue book ).

Icewind Dale 2 had cash scaling as well, and it was very noticeable. It was extremely frustrating cause you would save all this money for this great peice of equipment you saw a shopkeeper have only to come back to it and find out you *still* can't afford it. It was quite assinine.

Also of note their trololol explanation has some backing - you can intimidate thugs to make them back off in the cities if you are powerful.

However I think the overall effect of Darklands level scaling is negative. It doesn't seem to add much, as by the time you're done killing Raubitters you don't really go and kill more you start hunting witches or dragons. So it doesn't really do its job of providing extra challenge, other things do that, it's just there to make you ask "funny I swear there weren't usually sixteen bandits before"

There are also a few things that game could improve on in terms of low level quests as well, not to mention quest variation in general.

 

[someone else]

Biggest thing Darklands needs to fix is the broken alchemy and unrestricted potion drinking during combat.

 

[ever]

Alchemy was fine.

Essence O' Grace just needed not to be instant. Or partly instant but the rest as faster regen, like health potions in Diablo Two. Also needed inventory scarcity, so you can't just carry around a million potions.

 

[DragoFireheart]

Biggest thing Darklands needs to fix is the broken alchemy and unrestricted potion drinking during combat.

Simple fix for the potion: create a down period for potion drinking ala Super Stimpacks from the Fallout series. You get one potion in combat, get a potion sickness effect that doesn't wear off until after combat.