[AshleyG]

Hey
I want to know people opinion on level scalling system in rpg's:
Today rpg have that system where enemies level depend on yours.
Except for Gothic's and hopefully Risen2. Enemies level depend on the location and the chapter you're in or what quest you are doing.

Here is why I think the usual rpg system they use ("to make the game challenging" grrrr idiots ) make my stinking sense tingle :

One of the main points of doing side quests in rpg's is having a stronger character and having better gear for later quests, but in most rpg's with that idiotic system, the game gets harder as you level up and side quests just makes it harder! How dumb is that. And those rpgs don't have much specialisation (that role playing thing) it's just "casual action" and "making the game challenging". Why are those games rpg's? It's such a waste. If I want action etc I'll play Gears of war once more.

I'm interested in knowing what you think? I believe most of you agree with me, but if their are other opinions, I'd like to hear them.

[foobar]

Levelscaling is very important to modern games as it makes them accessible. We cannot expect gamers to actually build up their character to be able to progress in the story, that takes time and no one wants that. Some people argue that it is the developer's job to provide meaningful and interesting options to build up your character (e.g. intersting and rich sidequests). To these daydreamers I say that firstly, it is much too costly to do so. The budget must be spent elsewhere (console optimisation and such)! And secondly, no one wants to play sidequests! They're boring and distract from the main story. And we have to spend quite a lot of money to hide its unimaginativeness with “action”. We cannot afford to give the player a rest, lest he realises how many plot-holes we produced.

Always keep them on the edge, that's the new motto. The game has to start with a good dozen explosions or it gets thrown away immediately by the main audience. Then the pope get assassinated, the nuclear missile codes are stolen, the Ebola virus gets loose, terrorists have hit the secret government chemical weapons depot, the CIA has gone rogue and a zombie apocalypse takes place. Bigger, faster, flashier and more epic. So what loosers and whiners want to take a break, have a calmer section in the game and let the experience sink in, process what has been seen? And build up their character? Bah! Levelscaling is the ultimate action tool, you can always keep firing the next spectacle at the user and he will always be ready.

Note: This post may contain a pinch of irony.

[Zocky]

For me, it's simple. Less they use it, the better. I may tolerate it to some degree (skyrim was KINDA ok), but when it goes as extreme as oblivion, i refuse to play it. Simple as that.

I still remember When in g2, i would try to kill Silvio very early in the game. And i did it eventually, but hit, get knocked down, hit again, get knocked down again...and i played like that for like half an hour...but i won! :P

[Drakenreiter]

Levelscaling is very important to modern games as it makes them accessible. We cannot expect gamers to actually build up their character to be able to progress in the story, that takes time and no one wants that. Some people argue that it is the developer's job to provide meaningful and interesting options to build up your character (e.g. intersting and rich sidequests). To these daydreamers I say that firstly, it is much too costly to do so. The budget must be spent elsewhere (console optimisation and such)! And secondly, no one wants to play sidequests! They're boring and distract from the main story. And we have to spend quite a lot of money to hide its unimaginativeness with “action”. We cannot afford to give the player a rest, lest he realises how many plot-holes we produced.

Always keep them on the edge, that's the new motto. The game has to start with a good dozen explosions or it gets thrown away immediately by the main audience. Then the pope get assassinated, the nuclear missile codes are stolen, the Ebola virus gets loose, terrorists have hit the secret government chemical weapons depot, the CIA has gone rogue and a zombie apocalypse takes place. Bigger, faster, flashier and more epic. So what loosers and whiners want to take a break, have a calmer section in the game and let the experience sink in, process what has been seen? And build up their character? Bah! Levelscaling is the ultimate action tool, you can always keep firing the next spectacle at the user and he will always be ready.

Note: This post may contain a pinch of irony.

Good one!

As for my opinion about level-scaling? It fucking sucks in a game like the ones from PB or Bethesda. That's one of the many reasons why Bethesda's games are worse than PB's. Bethesda can't balance for shit so they take the lazy way, that of level-scaling. The most obvious result is Oblivion, which is absolutely horrible in every possible and impossible way, but the gameplay part is just mindblowingly idiotic, mostly because of the extremes to which level-scaling was used in that abomination. Skyrim is a lot better in that regard, but it's still quite badly balanced because of that stupid mechanic that still exists in it too.

[AshleyG]

Oblivion was big and pretty and had horses and a few interesting quests, but to play it was horrible. What kind of rpg is that? Skyrim is much better.

I loled at foobar second part of post, the first part didn't make me laugh, it kind of made me angry coz' it's true. But I guess it's better ta laugh about it.

Drakenreiter actually is right when he says it's the lazy way. Everyone thinks it's for casual gamers etc, but in most games it is so terribly done it just can't be that reason. It takes time and effort to balance an open world correctly (but it can be done!), and I bet they just find that complicated, and judge it's not worth it (spending time on game world size or graphics brings more money than what is spend, balancing the game just makes gamers who already bought the game because of the graphs or hype or whatever HAPPIER).
Happy gamers is not measurable or convertible in cash, so why spend time and money?

[glumetzul]

There is nothing more rewarding in a game that finally being able to kick that big bad guy because I just leveled up, pumped up my strength a bit to be able to wield some great weapon.

Having enemies as easy to defeat at the beginning as they are at the end is bad. Having enemies getting harder and harder to defeat as I level up is horrible. It just takes away one of my motivations to progress in the game. I also don't really enjoy the Arcania/Witcher way of simply unlocking whole new sets of more difficult enemies as I progress.

Always loved and always will love the open end & not much of scaling from PB. In G1 I could always go and meet the friendly green faces in the orc land and this way I knew just how weak I was. And as I progressed I could explore the world more and more. At first the forrest, then some of the caves, then the orc land and so on.

[Nisarg]

You have no idea how much time and money it takes to introduce new enemies in the world after the main quest has progressed a bit. I bet PB required half a million Euros just to come up with the idea of having seekers appear throughout Khorinis (Newworld) in Gothic 2, Chapter 3.

[Maladiq]

The beauty of the PB games was that you encountered impossible enemies from the beginning. I remember encountering a snapper at level 0 in Gothic 1. Or wargs in Gothic 2 at lower than level 5. It was always nice to see how much you progressed by defeating enemies and unlocking areas.

[Zocky]

Hah when i saw snapper for the first time, i shat my pants.

[Talek]

I do agree and somewhat disagree with the general opinion on level-scaling. I loved the way enemies were panned out in Gothic, with all the fixed levels, fixed experience, fixed hit points, etc. But then again, I loved the approach in Skyrim - make some strong enemies scale only after a certain point (if at all), make others scale whatnot. I believe the way they conveyed the system was an example of the perfect balance - while you know you are getting super strong, you can still encounter enemies that could tear you apart (and draugrs' levelling up pretty much showed this). Of course, it was not perfect per se (it could have been fine-tuned) but I adored the whole approach which merged the mainstream ideology with more or less the classic RPG system. I think if autoscaling was merged with what people here are in favor, we could have an ideal gaming experience.

[Nisarg]

Level scaling is just not 'organic', you know. You cannot explain, for instance, why that crab which gave you a hard time in the beginning is still giving you a hard time when your attributes are 10 times more now, and your equipment is such that you shouldn't even feel it when the crab attacks you. It's much more natural if some enemy one-shots you in the beginning, and later on, being more powerful and with better equipment, you treat it as no more than a moderate challenge.

[AshleyG]

Level scaling is just not 'organic', you know. You cannot explain, for instance, why that crab which gave you a hard time in the beginning is still giving you a hard time when your attributes are 10 times more now, and your equipment is such that you shouldn't even feel it when the crab attacks you. It's much more natural if some enemy one-shots you in the beginning, and later on, being more powerful and with better equipment, you treat it as no more than a moderate challenge.

Oh and there's that! Good point. usually games with the more scalling don't try being realistic anyway. Or fun.
It really destroys the immersion and is plain anoying. Even if the story is great I can't stop thinking "damnit I beat it with a stick and now I have a magic giant axe that can tear a dragon apart that rat is giving me a hard time!" (maybe a little exagerated (depends on the game!!!) but you get the point)

[Talek]

This is why I am saying that the system in Skyrim was imperfect: things such as these can be adjusted. I have several examples in mind which could potentially prove to be decent if implemented, but I am too lazy to post all of them. Some simple examples are variable level fixations for enemies (enemies give XP, depending on the chapter/act, but their strength alters only slightly), selective scaling (make certain enemies not scale or scale VERY little or very late/early into the game, while making others scale normally (draugr evolutionary stage in various ruins is a perfect example of this), etc

[glumetzul]

I do agree and somewhat disagree with the general opinion on level-scaling. I loved the way enemies were panned out in Gothic, with all the fixed levels, fixed experience, fixed hit points, etc. But then again, I loved the approach in Skyrim - make some strong enemies scale only after a certain point (if at all), make others scale whatnot. I believe the way they conveyed the system was an example of the perfect balance - while you know you are getting super strong, you can still encounter enemies that could tear you apart (and draugrs' levelling up pretty much showed this). Of course, it was not perfect per se (it could have been fine-tuned) but I adored the whole approach which merged the mainstream ideology with more or less the classic RPG system. I think if autoscaling was merged with what people here are in favor, we could have an ideal gaming experience.

I didn't like this in Skyrim. That's because I started doing ok against bandits for example, and while I progressed it started getting harder to defeat them instead of the other way around. So as at the end of the game I had all the reasons for frustration.

But that's the interesting between quality and quantity. Skyrim has hundreds or maybe thousands of quests. And they are all accessible from the start because making the world develop with the progress of the story would be too expensive. And since there are all available from the start, there are no easy quests and hard quests. So how can they still be a challenge later on? Well, let's just make the enemies tougher for no apparent reason.

That makes me appreciate even more the PB way of actually working on interconnected quests (except for G3) and the famous chapters instead of bitching about lack of things I find not that important like swimming.

[Nisarg]

'Level scaling' would be all right if done in an organic way. Bethesda wasted the opportunity in Oblivion. They had the perfect scenario to implement it in Cyrodiil, though not in the Daedric realm. In the beginning, it would still be somewhat early days of the Daedric invasion, so you mostly encountered animals in the wilds, and only a few portals in the wilds.

But as you levelled up, they could increase the number of gates, and make more and more Daedra spawn in the wilds. Start off with weaker ones, and then stronger ones. It would even add a sense of urgency to the main quest, as you literally saw the invasion happening. But of course, it would have to end with the main quest, which would create a problem with maintaining the portals.

And they did make more stronger Daedra appear as the player levelled up, but the Daedra were only there near and inside the portals and didn't spread all over the wilderness. So of course they had to make the crabs and wolves and bandits level up with the player. They could have made it so much more engaging if only they had thought of it.

That makes me appreciate even more the PB way of actually working on interconnected quests (except for G3) and the famous chapters instead of bitching about lack of things I find not that important like swimming.

The only reason I wail about stuff in PB games is because I value them much more than Bethesda and co. This is the only reason why I even talk about Risen 2, it's not like I'm going to play it or something - I'm rather sure that in the next four or five years of my life, I shan't be able to play anything newer than 2004 - but IMHO, there are some problems I see in Risen 2 without even playing it, and I hope that they're fixed before release or, at worst, not repeated in whatever next game PB develop.

I agree with you on swimming, in that if PB provide us much larger land based gameplay, I wouldn't consider swimming very important either. But stuff like smash-spacebar-or-be-forced-to-reload which cannot be avoided? Or distant stuff looking much worse than nearby stuff?

[foobar]

'Level scaling' would be all right if done in an organic way.

I disagree. Level scaling is IMHO always a bad idea. No matter how you implement it, in the end it comes down to punishing the player for building up his character. Instead of being rewarded for proper character building by having easier fights (since the character is now better), the player has to wade through a tar pit. He struggles to reach a goal, yet gains little or no ground towards it.

Bethesda wasted the opportunity in Oblivion. They had the perfect scenario to implement it in Cyrodiil, though not in the Daedric realm. In the beginning, it would still be somewhat early days of the Daedric invasion, so you mostly encountered animals in the wilds, and only a few portals in the wilds.

Which basically means that first level players would finish the main quest without a lot of trouble whereas high level characters would have to face a long and tedious horde of spawning Daedra and Oblivion gates.

[Nisarg]

Ah, yes, do make it impossible to solve the main quest at a low level. The Daedra inside the Oblivion gates should be fixed to a suitably high level right from the beginning. But it is only possible if you do not pander excessively to the hypothetical very-short-attention-span-console-player. And change the scenario at Kvatch a bit, so that you don't enter the gate alone, but are accompanied by several people to help you survive in there.

The problem with Oblivion's level scaling as I see it is that the same enemies would somehow become much much more powerful later on than they were before. The game did have a slightly more organic approach inside the Oblivion gates, because it would spawn visibly smaller or weaker monsters if the player was low level. But even so, those monsters were level scaled if they weren't changed. At higher levels you would see the same monsters every time you went into an Oblivion gate, but they would be more powerful than before. This is the problem, the problem isn't that stunted scamps were replaced by larger scamps after you gained a certain level.

Level scaling would be okay if any given monster wouldn't arbitrarily grow more powerful later on, but was replaced either by more powerful monsters, or became more numerous. In a game divided into chapters, the developers could spawn new monsters on chapter change, and either spawn more powerful monsters or more numerous monsters. They could also have some arbitrary checks preventing a chapter change if the player hadn't reached a sufficient level yet.

But such an approach wouldn't work in a game like Oblivion, where the main quest only serves as a distraction which happens to begin the game, so, they would have to come up with alternate methods to ramp up the difficulty.

[Mage Master]

I don't think level scaling should ever be put ina a single player PRG, it just makes the whole thing retarded. As some of you have pointed out, it breaks the immersion. Nothing much really to add to that.
I think that in multi-player games it will be kinna fun, and I'm talking specifically about co-op with friends and voice chat. Guild Wars 2 looks like it is going it in a very nice way, but that's an MMO and you are supposed to be an "everyday soldier" so it would make sense that you can't one-shot stuff.

[Dino]

I never really liked autoscaling.

[rotator]

Level scaling in Skyrim can go horribly wrong, as it takes your overall level and scale the opponents to that. Say, you're a wizard and you've maxed all your Destruction skills at level 50. You can't go any further, so at the next 10 levels you spend your points on lockpicking and such, however enemies are still rising their attacking power, and at the end of the day the "level 60" bandit will smash you in no time.

As Mr. Rüve has told earlier, Piranha Bytes games has some kind of level scaling, too, but it is done in a more subtle way. Just like a lot of other things in life, this one hurts only when it's made by a bunch of amateurs.