Improved Level Scaling

Post » Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:04 am

I want it Morrowind style. Period.


Why, so you can feel like a god at level 20 with no challenging opponents left to fight? That's the whole reason why Bethesda switched to the level-scaling in Oblivion. They just went too far in the opposite direction. I thought overall they did a pretty good job of it in Fallout 3, and it sounds like a lot of the mechanisms in that game will be used in Skyrim as well.
User avatar
Charlotte Buckley
 
Posts: 3532
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:29 am

Post » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:06 am

Why, so you can feel like a god at level 20 with no challenging opponents left to fight? That's the whole reason why Bethesda switched to the level-scaling in Oblivion. They just went too far in the opposite direction. I thought overall they did a pretty good job of it in Fallout 3, and it sounds like a lot of the mechanisms in that game will be used in Skyrim as well.


Well, to be fair, in Mournhold and Solsthiem, Level 20 got their faces smashed in pretty hard.


One thing I really like about Morrowind though, is how they effectively tell the player "you're paddling up Sh**creek" without locking the player out. Notice how the closer you get to Red Mountain, the environment starts to become increasingly more hostile and foreboding. Then you have the Ghostfence, a marvel of world design. It doesn't lock the player out of the area within, but, just in it's architecture and derrived function, you can basically see bright-yellow warning signs up and down the Fence saying "Beware of Dog[Ashkin]".

They had pretty respectable scaling the closer you got to the Ghostfence, to reinforce the danger, but at the same time, and here's where scaling comes off as a real necessity, the first Temple Quest has you venture within the ghostfence, to a pilgramage site, so the team had to account for that. Now how many people would have ever explored the Temple content, if they got their face melted by an Ascended Sleeper right at the gate? At the same time, when you're level 20, you do, indeed, see that Ascended sleeper, and it makes sense that he's there, because he scaled, and spawned within the context you're given in game. (For anyone who didn't, early, the game will spawn an Ash Zombie, quite an imposing foe at level 5, and certainly not something you want to fight early without adjusting the difficulty down)
User avatar
saharen beauty
 
Posts: 3456
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:54 am

Post » Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:29 am

I do hope you recognize the difference between "Difficult" and a "Difficulty Curve", some of the easiest games have exceptional difficulty curves, some of the hardest, lack a curve at all. It's about pacing and accessibility. And like any good art, the more accessible a game is, the more it can be appreciated. A game like Armored Core: For Answer, has a Difficulty curve that hits vertical "Cliffs" that throws the majority of players off, while a game like Mass Effect 2, has a comparatively smooth difficulty curve, that keeps the player engaged.


Maybe some people would call me a hardcoe RPG player (which I'm not...at least I don't play that many RPGs and not that often) if I say that, but personally I think that an open world RPG should have a 'reversed difficulty curve' compared to a linear game. You start as a level 1 rookie and you are thrown into a dangerous world full of dangerous monsters. It only makes sense if you get killed easily. And it is the main motivation to become more skilled, find better equipment and solve quests (for a reward or to simply gain experience).

The stronger you become, the easier it should be to survive. That is the only way it makes sense, even though some people might find the game unaccessible. 'Accessible' is a terrible word in my opinion anyway as it usually means dumbing down the gameplay to make sure that even the most idiotic player can play the game without getting frustrated.

Of course it should make sense where which kind of enemy spawns. It doesn't make sense to have giants directly outside of a city gate, but somewhere in a remote region high up in the mountains it does make sense. You don't need level scaling if you make sure the player is able to notice how dangerous a location is. If you are low level stick close to settlements or main roads, solve some easy quests and fight some weak enemies to level up. Once you become stronger you can slowly start to explore the more remote regions of the world. There could also be rumors, people talking about various regions so the player gets an idea what to expect without actually visiting the region if he is smart enough to listen.
User avatar
Mel E
 
Posts: 3354
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:23 pm

Post » Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:54 am

Why, so you can feel like a god at level 20 with no challenging opponents left to fight? That's the whole reason why Bethesda switched to the level-scaling in Oblivion. They just went too far in the opposite direction. I thought overall they did a pretty good job of it in Fallout 3, and it sounds like a lot of the mechanisms in that game will be used in Skyrim as well.

=> "This has nothing to do with level scaling or not, it has just to do with lack of content for a level that was easily reachable."

Ignoring counter-arguments that show the fallacy of your reasoning won't make them any less relevant.


@Phitt
:goodjob:
I agree with every single point in your post, you said it better than I could !
User avatar
Mrs. Patton
 
Posts: 3418
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:00 am

Post » Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:19 am

*snip*


Only dungeons lock, not areas. Also, it doesn't lock a certain type of enemy to a certain level all over the world, just in that dungeon. I'm a little iffy on the level locking in some instances such as if people purposely go to each dungeon just to lock them to their lowest level in their bracket, but it will still make the game challenging overall. I don't think locking will cause any issues since they are in a bracket, I think it will be just fine.

Btw, I'll explain how the level-scaling system works.

Okay, so say your level 5 and you go into this one eerie looking dungeon. You will kind've get a hint that this is a harder dungeon when the enemies near it are higher level (which was confirmed as one of the way you will know that a place might be too hard is when the enemies near it are hard) but you manage to get inside. You won't see it but in reality the dungeon is a 10-18 dungeon. Now when you go into this dungeon, all the enemies inside are scaled to level 10. Your basically dead if you continue in, you can't beat them. Now if you had come in for the first time and your level 14, the enemies would be scaled to level 14, allowing for a challenge instead of without level scaling, the dungeon would have a set level (say level 10) and it would be easy. This is what level scaling allows for when done like it is meant to (which it seems they have perfected the system in Skyrim after taking the system to the max in Oblivion and testing it out in FO3 as well and now tweaked it some more in Skyrim) it's supposed to keep the game from ever being easy, allowing for a stable amount of difficulty as to be fun but doesn't remove enemies that far out level you in the game and gives you the danger of being killed if you stumble upon these enemies. Now say your level 20 when you enter that dungeon for the first time, the enemies will be scaled up to 18 to give you the most challenge possible out of the enemies in that particular dungeon but not negating your feeling of accomplishment and your power that you gained from leveling because you are still higher level then them instead of them being the same level at all times.

This is what level-scaling does and it is a great system in the current capacity in Skyrim and I'm looking forward to it when I play. Also, I want to clarify, level-scaling =/= adding creatures in the game after you reach a certain level. All creatures are already in the game in Skyrim, their strength may be leveled in dungeons as illustrated above, but they won't add in new creatures as you level, that's not a feature of level-scaling, that was just a feature unique to Oblivion.

Why, so you can feel like a god at level 20 with no challenging opponents left to fight? That's the whole reason why Bethesda switched to the level-scaling in Oblivion. They just went too far in the opposite direction. I thought overall they did a pretty good job of it in Fallout 3, and it sounds like a lot of the mechanisms in that game will be used in Skyrim as well.


This, Morrowind was too easy. In an attempt to fix it they accidentally went too far over, it was an experiment and it was a success in the manner that it allowed them to realize that it was flawed and moved on to improve it in FO3 and now even more so in Skyrim.
User avatar
Heather beauchamp
 
Posts: 3456
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:05 pm

Post » Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:43 am

I did read, I just disagree.

Morrowind had little high-level, difficult content, while also having a quite easy and fast leveling, which caused the whole lot of "Morrowind is too easy" problems, which is, again, a completely separate isseu from level scaling.
Same for Nerhim, you again just point that an easy game is a boring one, and that fighting become more interesting when you have to do something else than spamming the weak attack button. That's pretty much a given, but, again, it's absolutely nothing to do with level scaling.

I share your opinion on the good things of a static world, which is not surprising, but as for your reason to prefer level scaling, let's just say you just draw the total opposite conclusions than me. Lack of surprise and feeling of progression are precisely the two worst problems with level scaling, so seeing you giving them as example of why you want it is... weird. Loot inflation is also far from a plus, so not really something I would give credit to level scaling, on the contrary.

Same for FO3, though it was certainly a MUCH better situation than Oblivion, it was still horrible with its level scaling, which became very "in your face" and annoying after reaching 15th level or so.

For me, the best way to keep challenge while not having level scaling would just to add more realism in the game. Becoming more powerful while still not being the usual god walking on Earth, not because things scale up and follow you (again, what's the point of putting a leveling system if it's to nullify the idea ?), but simply by making levels less powerful, and keeping fighting inherently dangerous, even against lower level foes - after all, even a battle-hardened soldier doesn't beat regularly ten people alone in a fight, and can be killed just by one greenhorn if he's not careful.
Becoming some steel wall able to take fifty hits from a battleaxe in the head always felt rather ridiculous to me :P


But becoming very strong and crushing weakling is one of the joys of leveling up, one of the tangible aspects.Plus I want a smooth progression. Level scaling provides a really easy way to do that, I like the hook of getting better and better stuff. Of new stronger enimies types appearing when I getting strong, I like getting that feel I use to get when playing linear rpgs, that were scaled by default. What open world rpg do you think had a good system btw?
User avatar
Sista Sila
 
Posts: 3381
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:25 pm

Post » Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:04 am

Maybe some people would call me a hardcoe RPG player (which I'm not...at least I don't play that many RPGs and not that often) if I say that, but personally I think that an open world RPG should have a 'reversed difficulty curve' compared to a linear game. You start as a level 1 rookie and you are thrown into a dangerous world full of dangerous monsters. It only makes sense if you get killed easily. And it is the main motivation to become more skilled, find better equipment and solve quests (for a reward or to simply gain experience).

The stronger you become, the easier it should be to survive. That is the only way it makes sense, even though some people might find the game unaccessible. 'Accessible' is a terrible word in my opinion anyway as it usually means dumbing down the gameplay to make sure that even the most idiotic player can play the game without getting frustrated.




You say that, as if scaling and a waning difficulty curve are mutally exclusive, they are not. In fact, that happens in every RPG already, including Oblivion and Fallout3. The difference is, Scaling keeps "Older" areas more viable and exciting, later.

Accessibility does not mean Dumbing down, and only the ignorant draw that conclusion. Accessibility simply means the game does not arbitrarily punish players because the developer failed to communicate things properly. The perfect game is accessible, yet deep, and the two can coexist perfectly fine, an example of this happening, is Sins of a Solar Empire.

That's not to say that some developers aren't ignorant in that fact. Often, they do "Dumb down" under the label of "Accessibility" or "Streamlining", but that's a case-by-case scenario. If we, as consumers, don't learn that, then developers will just keep making the mistake of delivering either inapproachable, or watered down games.

Of course it should make sense where which kind of enemy spawns. It doesn't make sense to have giants directly outside of a city gate, but somewhere in a remote region high up in the mountains it does make sense. You don't need level scaling if you make sure the player is able to notice how dangerous a location is. If you are low level stick close to settlements or main roads, solve some easy quests and fight some weak enemies to level up. Once you become stronger you can slowly start to explore the more remote regions of the world. There could also be rumors, people talking about various regions so the player gets an idea what to expect without actually visiting the region if he is smart enough to listen.


Again, that works, to an extent. But after a while, you come to these small pockets of interest, separated by long stretches of uninteresting, and nonthreatening area. Proper scaling keeps logical, static areas of high-densityHigh-low-moderate threat, while introducing low-density Moderate and High threat to the previous low and moderate threat areas. Why does it have to be leveled, and not static/random? Again, you can't predict where a player is going, or how he is going to play, so you create what the designers define as a level-appropriate challenge, rather than just plopping the strongest enemy in the game down for no particular reason.
User avatar
Lily
 
Posts: 3357
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:32 am

Post » Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:01 pm

Well, to be fair, in Mournhold and Solsthiem, Level 20 got their faces smashed in pretty hard.


One thing I really like about Morrowind though, is how they effectively tell the player "you're paddling up Sh**creek" without locking the player out. Notice how the closer you get to Red Mountain, the environment starts to become increasingly more hostile and foreboding. Then you have the Ghostfence, a marvel of world design. It doesn't lock the player out of the area within, but, just in it's architecture and derrived function, you can basically see bright-yellow warning signs up and down the Fence saying "Beware of Dog[Ashkin]".
...

Tribunal is the start of the end. They [censored] up difficulty curve in Morrowind because they didn't limit PC in any way. For level 20 and 50 players, they released those expansions. In Tribunal, there were Goblins with 500 hp and 100 armor. This should have been a temporary solution but then they turned it into automatic in Oblivion. Wrong x 1000. :banghead: Good thing is we have a soft level cap in Skyrim.

Leveled lists which was present in both Morrowind and Oblivion and level scaling mechanics of Oblivion and even the new scaling mechanic Sleign explained in above post are all different things. I think for the sake of better discussion we have to show these differences.

Morrowind didn't have any scaling where Oblivion added scaling mechanics to health, damage and min max levels for NPCs. Both had unique content appropriate for different levels through leveled lists.

I made a point in the other thread, scaling vs. uniques. This is the dilemma. The value of a unique content deteriorates when it is put against a scaled item/creature/NPC. Even having only one "scaled" content piece will trigger this. Therefore even tiny amount of scaling is enough to ruin rest of the game...

I want to write so many things but I think keeping my posts tidy would be better.


PS. I have leveled lists of Oblivion and Morrowind opened right now. I can see the differences.
User avatar
evelina c
 
Posts: 3377
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:28 pm

Post » Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:13 pm

I speak spanish, sorry for any mistake :)

Think of it this way... a dragon will always be able to bite someone in the face and kill him, either you're a slave, or a mighty warrior or a mage. I think that your agility and ofensive power is what defines if a creature is a problem to the character. It depens on your experience to let that happen. If you're a warrior then you'll be able to use your shield to defend yourself for a while (because you're very strong) and stab the dragon a cuple of times and do critical damage (cuz you REALLY know how to use a sword). If you're a mage you shot ice balls to it while dodging it's attacks, IF you can dodge them. If you're an archer, you should be able to shot it in the eye or in the heart and do critical damage. Of course, run like hell if you missed the shot xP

If the dragon bites you, whatever you are, you should die, or at least end up with wounds that won't let you even walk.

I think level scaling should be stablished by diferent creatures, and not by an invisible number hidden behind them, so not every dragon will be able to bite you like a t-rex.

If a rat is level 1, then rats should be capped to a max of level 5 maybe. If Cyborg Super Mutant Rats are level 30, they should stay on level 30, with a max cap of 40 maybe.
If a Baby Dragon is level 40, a Legendary Dragon should be lvl 60.

Level scalling should work by areas and types of creatures. It wouldn't be nice to be level 100 and find dragons inside small caves, neither level 90 rats :/

Well, this won't be happening maybe, but it seems like no game dev ever has seen it this way =/
User avatar
Emma Copeland
 
Posts: 3383
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 12:37 am

Post » Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:18 am

I'm fine with the locking only being in dungeons. Anyways, I think in Skyrim Bethesda can make things perfect because they have tried other possiblities in older games and learned from that. I doubt they will make something I don't like in this field.
User avatar
Miguel
 
Posts: 3364
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:32 am

Post » Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:57 pm

Morrowind didn't have any scaling where Oblivion added scaling mechanics to health, damage and min max levels for NPCs. Both had unique content appropriate for different levels through leveled lists.


That's a very important distinction to draw. While they're actually still Scaling, Morrowind just scaled the world, Oblivion scaled the enemies, and the entire world. Neither were perfect, but I think it's pretty unanimous that specifically enemy scaling, is very bad indeed.

Fallout 3 scales the world, but quite a bit more aggressively than Morrowind, I think they scale the enemies a bit too, but not as aggressively as Oblivion. Unfortunately, you'd think in the middle, Fallout 3 found the sweet spot, but that's not the case.

I think my biggest fear in Skyrim right now, is the Dragons are Scaled, as sort of the "Minotaur Lord" of Skyrim.
User avatar
Brooke Turner
 
Posts: 3319
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:13 am

Post » Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:46 am

But becoming very strong and crushing weakling is one of the joys of leveling up, one of the tangible aspects.Plus I want a smooth progression. Level scaling provides a really easy way to do that, I like the hook of getting better and better stuff. Of new stronger enimies types appearing when I getting strong, I like getting that feel I use to get when playing linear rpgs, that were scaled by default.

This doesn't really make any sense. The very concept of level scaling is to increase the power of the foe when you level, so if you want to become very strong the LAST thing you should want is level scaling...
I also don't see the link between a smooth progression and level scaling.
Finally, your point about linear RPG is something I told before : level scaling is actually for linear games, not open-ended (despite the common argument being the opposite).
What open world rpg do you think had a good system btw?

Fallout. The two first ones, obviously not the third.
No level scaling at all, nobody felt it was needed, which tends to prove that it's not required at all and all the "it's needed for X" just show how little the person has actually bothered to think it through.
User avatar
Laura Shipley
 
Posts: 3564
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:47 am

Post » Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:05 am

Something I'm surprised nobody has even mentioned in all of this is Radiant Story and how that will come into play.
Radiant story is supposedly the games way of keeping track of your level,skills,perks along with what dungeons you have been in and what quests you have completed.
I remember Todd saying if 'the game' (referring to Radiant Story) has seen you havent battled a Dragon yet it will try to steer you into an area or place that has a Dragon.

What I'm wondering is if you are level 30 for example the game will detect this and auto steer you to a Dungeon that has creatures that range from level 25-35.
If it does then if you do backtrack to an old dungeon there wont be a quest tied to it and the enemies there will remain locked at whatever level you happened to be at when you entered it the first time.
If you are level 30 and get a new quest then Radiant Story knows this so it randomly generates a Dungeon with the quest tied to that Dungeon and puts enemies there within a specific range for your level 30 player.
I wonder how Radiant Story will play into all of this besides just randomizing which Dungeon you go to next. Does it detect your level and then place creatures in the next dungeon according to that or are all the creatures in place already and it just picks which dungeons are best for a level 30 character and sends you off to it?

So many questions.
User avatar
sam westover
 
Posts: 3420
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:00 pm

Post » Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:13 am


Well, this won't be happening maybe, but it seems like no game dev ever has seen it this way =/


And this never did happen. People still have this misconception that Oblivion had level 20 rats. It didn't, they never went any higher than level 1. Every creature in the game had a maximum level that they were never able to pass, and most were confined to just a single level. If you happened to go into a dungeon at a higher level than their max though, you might end up with another creature altogether that matched your own level and provided you with more of a challenge. Take for example Skeletons. The basic Skeleton was only a level 1 creature, it never went beyond that. If however you entered a dungeon at level 6, then instead of the base Skeleton appearing, you'd see a Skeleton Guardian. At level 10, those would be replaced by the Skeleton Hero, followed by the Skeleton Guardian at level 15. At no time did any of those creatures ever scale themselves, they were just replaced by tougher versions of the same basic creature type. For rats, there was no tougher version. A rat is a rat and is always a very weak creature no matter what level the player is at.
User avatar
Devin Sluis
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:22 am

Post » Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:48 pm

This doesn't really make any sense. The very concept of level scaling is to increase the power of the foe when you level, so if you want to become very strong the LAST thing you should want is level scaling...
I also don't see the link between a smooth progression and level scaling.
Finally, your point about linear RPG is something I told before : level scaling is actually for linear games, not open-ended (despite the common argument being the opposite).

Fallout. The two first ones, obviously not the third.
No level scaling at all, nobody felt it was needed, which tends to prove that it's not required at all and all the "it's needed for X" just show how little the person has actually bothered to think it through.

But Fallout 3 did give me that feeling, it did everything I just said. And I think scaling is good for both, I like the feeling that linear rpgs have transferred to the open world. You said nobody felt it was needed for the Fallout 1&2, games evolve, I have not play those games so I can not comment though if I would have like it that way. I have just found that level scaling done in FO3(and what Frans mod did for OB) has given me the best experience compared to less scaled games. Like MW,Risen,Gothic 3,FNV and Two Worlds 2(which I think may be the only one that did not have scaling, the others did).

I am looking for that linear progression feel I use to get back when I played those types of rpg, your not it seems, fair enough. Also I want a lot of freedom, FNV felt like there were roadblock pushing you in a certain direction, it did not feel natural wereas FO3 did have harder areas but it felt more natural.
User avatar
Riky Carrasco
 
Posts: 3429
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:17 am

Post » Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:30 am

Gah, I must be typing in black font because everyone against level-scaling and saying it keeps from having enemies that can kill you, must have not seen my long explanation above :pinch:

Level-scaling is required in some form if you don't want an easy game, simple as that. Skyrim's system seems to be perfect, it allows for enemies that are far higher level than you and can tear you apart and also keep the lower level dungeons from being too easy by scaling up their level to the max of the range. They may still be lower level than you and you can kill them but they won't be level 1s versus a level 8, they will be level (let's say) 5 instead, still ready for you to trash but won't be simple one shots like if they were level 1. I would think that those that advocate for no level-scaling because it "makes the game more difficult" would advocate for Skyrim's system that keeps the game from ever being easy (or too easy depending on what level you are and what dungeon you walk into such as if your level 40 and walk into a level 5-10 dungeon, they are going to be level 10, so easy for your level but it's to be expected) while still allowing you to get slaughtered by enemies far higher level than you.
User avatar
Spencey!
 
Posts: 3221
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:18 am

Post » Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:36 am

Gah, I must be typing in black font because everyone against level-scaling and saying it keeps from having enemies that can kill you, must have not seen my long explanation above :pinch:

Level-scaling is required in some form if you don't want an easy game, simple as that. Skyrim's system seems to be perfect, it allows for enemies that are far higher level than you and can tear you apart and also keep the lower level dungeons from being too easy by scaling up their level to the max of the range. They may still be lower level than you and you can kill them but they won't be level 1s versus a level 8, they will be level (let's say) 5 instead, still ready for you to trash but won't be simple one shots like if they were level 1. I would think that those that advocate for no level-scaling because it "makes the game more difficult" would advocate for Skyrim's system that keeps the game from ever being easy (or too easy depending on what level you are and what dungeon you walk into such as if your level 40 and walk into a level 5-10 dungeon, they are going to be level 10, so easy for your level but it's to be expected) while still allowing you to get slaughtered by enemies far higher level than you.


It's complicated. Though giving level ranges is a compromise, I'd rather the world be static (Fallout1-2, New Vegas) than the same enemy becoming arbitrarily, and unreasonably stronger. I'd rather see the new, stronger enemies written into the system to appear along with the normal spawns.

Fallout. The two first ones, obviously not the third.
No level scaling at all, nobody felt it was needed, which tends to prove that it's not required at all and all the "it's needed for X" just show how little the person has actually bothered to think it through.


You say that as if Fallout 1 and 2 had large install bases. It never occurred that a natural bias from the game's target demographic is responsible for that?

Furthermore that's actually kind of, a lie. I couldn't count the times late-game traveling near V13 that I thought "This is boring, I wish something interesting would pop out to keep things less tedious". Now, was it actually needed? That's a matter of debate, but it definitely could have made things better, and kept it more fresh.
User avatar
Rob
 
Posts: 3448
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:26 am

Post » Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:06 pm

They may still be lower level than you and you can kill them but they won't be level 1s versus a level 8, they will be level (let's say) 5 instead, still ready for you to trash but won't be simple one shots like if they were level 1.


One thing you neglected to mention about the Fallout 3 system, and I'm guessing it will be in Skyrim as well, is that each spawn point also has a level option, along with the general area. An individual spawn point can be set from Easy, which would create a weaker creature 50% below the player's level, to Hard, which will spawn a creature up to 200% above the player's level. So if you were at level 5 entering a level 1 dungeon, you could come across a Hard creature that would be at level 10, or an Easy creature that's level 3. This adds alot of variety to each dungeon as to what kinds of creatures you'll have to face there. There's also a Medium setting, one that is completely based on the player's level, and a Tough level.
User avatar
Jhenna lee Lizama
 
Posts: 3344
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 5:39 am

Post » Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:39 am

This doesn't really make any sense. The very concept of level scaling is to increase the power of the foe when you level, so if you want to become very strong the LAST thing you should want is level scaling...
I also don't see the link between a smooth progression and level scaling.
Finally, your point about linear RPG is something I told before : level scaling is actually for linear games, not open-ended (despite the common argument being the opposite).
...

You think level scaling, Kefka thinks leveled lists. The difference, people!!! Oblivion introduced level scaling.
User avatar
Jeff Tingler
 
Posts: 3609
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:55 pm

Post » Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:12 pm

You think level scaling, Kefka thinks leveled lists. The difference, people!!! Oblivion introduced level scaling.

Read my long post about level scaling I mean both. Its on the first page.

@Sliegn, I don't see how scaling is required if you don't want an easy game. You can easily have a hard game with out scaling, scaling just smooths out the difficulty, which is what I like, so there are less boring easy fights and less hard frustrating fights.
User avatar
lisa nuttall
 
Posts: 3277
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:33 pm

Post » Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:46 am

But Fallout 3 did give me that feeling, it did everything I just said.

Fallout 3 was annoying because of level scaling.
People may not notice that you encounter very weak creatures when crossing previous regions, then just 200 m later you encounter constantly ultra-high creatures, but I'm not blessed with the ability of not seeing it at a very in-your-face level scaling, nor to not be annoyed that it's pointless to make me ten times stronger if it's to have five times stronger enemies - just make me twice stronger to begin with and leave it at that.
I am looking for that linear progression feel I use to get back when I played those types of rpg, your not it seems, fair enough. Also I want a lot of freedom, FNV felt like there were roadblock pushing you in a certain direction, it did not feel natural wereas FO3 did have harder areas but it felt more natural.

NW may have been more linear than FO3, but it felt much more natural, because these obstacles had a logic reason to be here and could be dealt logically, while FO3 had very obviously a world that changed based on my character level.

Fighting-oriented people may have a compulsive desire to have constantly some dangerous foe to fight, even if it makes no sense, but I'm an immersion-based person who like to play what the root of a RPG is : to feel like if I "AM" the character, and as such the more believable the world, the better.
User avatar
alyssa ALYSSA
 
Posts: 3382
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:36 pm

Post » Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:38 am

So from what I've gathered the Enemies always leveling with you like they did in Oblivion is gone which is a good thing.
I'm not so certain 'Locking' all enemies at a certain level when your first visit a place is a good idea either since it punishes the players who like to explore.

I pop in Skyrim on 11/11/11 and take off exploring area after area after area.
Well that's great except for now when I revisit those areas later on at a higher level all the enemies are 'Locked' at their lowest levels.
The challenge is gone.

I understand that it will work like Fallout 3 where certain enemies will have a level range.
For example a Rats level range might be Level 1-5 and Skeletons range may start at Level 5 and be capped at 10.
The problem is if you visit a certain area as Level 1 that has Rats and Skeletons then all the Rats will always be Level 1 and all the Skeletons will be Level 5 in that area for the rest of the game.

All of that is to say this: Why not just have enemies scale along with you but still be capped at certain levels?

For example if you enter above said area with rats and skeletons at level 1 then the rats are level 1 and skeletons start at level 5.
If you re-enter that same area at level 5 then the rats are now level 5 and the skeletons are still level 5.
If you re-enter that same area at level 8 then the rats remain at level 5 but now the skeletons are also level 8.
If you re-enter that same area at level 12 then the rats are level 5(capped) and the skeletons are level 10(capped).

I think level scaling can be a good thing if its handled correctly (not all enemies scale no matter what for the entire game).
I also think locking enemies at a certain level for the entire game from when you first visit that area is just as bad though.

Enemies should have level ranges dependent on what they are and scale along with you the player until they reach their capped level.

Discuss


This smells too much like Oblivion's level scaling for my likeing..
User avatar
Pants
 
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 4:34 am

Post » Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:48 am

Fallout 3 was annoying because of level scaling.
People may not notice that you encounter very weak creatures when crossing previous regions, then just 200 m later you encounter constantly ultra-high creatures, but I'm not blessed with the ability of not seeing it at a very in-your-face level scaling, nor to not be annoyed that it's pointless to make me ten times stronger if it's to have five times stronger enemies - just make me twice stronger to begin with and leave it at that.

NW may have been more linear than FO3, but it felt much more natural, because these obstacles had a logic reason to be here and could be dealt logically, while FO3 had very obviously a world that changed based on my character level.

Fighting-oriented people may have a compulsive desire to have constantly some dangerous foe to fight, even if it makes no sense, but I'm an immersion-based person who like to play what the root of a RPG is : to feel like if I "AM" the character, and as such the more believable the world, the better.

So what type of game you like playing is different than mine. The game with range based scaling(FO3 and Frans OB) gave me the what I wanted far more than the other games I mentioned. Perhaps there is a way to do this with out scaling, but I have no exp with, and have not seen it done in any of the open world rpg I have played, so I will countine to support level range based scaling. Makes the game more fun for me.
User avatar
Tai Scott
 
Posts: 3446
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:58 pm

Post » Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:34 am

Read my long post about level scaling I mean both. Its on the first page.

@Sliegn, I don't see how scaling is required if you don't want an easy game. You can easily have a hard game with out scaling, scaling just smooths out the difficulty, which is what I like, so there are less boring easy fights and less hard frustrating fights.

I don't think you should call leveled lists as level scaling. Level scaling came into view with Oblivion, the very first time in history. And it is a very broken mechanic. What you want can be provided with thoughtful leveled lists which would give you the fights according to your level. What I don't like and you think as one with leveled lists and Sleign is talking about are level scaling.

When did level scaling become synonymous with leveled lists? Please someone inform me, I wasn't around before Oblivion came out? There is no hint of "scaling" word before Oblivion came out, I used google. :user:

Oblivion and Morrowind both use leveled lists extensively. It is only Oblivion which added level scaling to the equation. What I hear about Skyrim is "locks", leveled lists with locks.

Level scaling is a scaling mechanism. It scales something unique according to your level and it becomes no longer unique. Leveled lists is a spawn switcher, not a scaler.
Here is a leveled list from Morrowind:
http://i.imgur.com/lfTUX.png

You want content appropriate to your level, you get it from this. Notice how there is unique content for every level listed.

From Oblivion
http://i.imgur.com/spcLA.png

They are the same. You may notice the "calculate from all levels" check box. That means, in Morrowind example, if you are level 9, you don't get a skeleton archer. If it was checked, there will be a chance from all list below PC's level.

Despite the examples, most lists in Morrowind had it checked while in Oblivion majority of lists don't have it checked. So you may notice things disappearing from the world all of a sudden in Oblivion. Morrowind using that option will spawn all its content more randomly creating a more dynamic world compared to Oblivion. These are design choices though, not level scaling related. (maybe indirectly.)

What is the difference then?

It is when something unique have their health or melee damage multiplied with your level, so its stats scaled with you. Level scaling.

Oblivion and Morrowind uses very different methods for their high level content. What Oblivion does is using leveled lists to spawn content but also have the option to scale them along the player.
http://i.imgur.com/qnUOp.png

You see the "PC level offset" option. It was an addition. It scales that ogre according to your level. Max 0 means infinite. This is a broken mechanic. Because Oblivion is using it on only a tiny amount of content and most of the quest related content. It is still enough to bring down the whole system. The philosophy of not limiting player is causing this abomination of a solution. But finally, they came up with a system to limit PC, sacrificing attributes in the process and adding a level soft cap.

I'm not against high level unique content appearing late in the game. This was in Morrowind too, Morrowind also placed high level content where it was appropriate which only makes sense. I am only against content starting as a goblin, and as I level further, that goblin becomes more and more powerful because it has a "multiply with pc level" option in its editor. Or an NPC has a "level range" option selected as 2 to 99 so it follows me exactly. There should be NPCs like us, adventurers but they need to be more dynamic than a broken scaling mechanism.

Never scale your content. Always create new unique content.

I want you and Akka to realize the difference between leveled lists usage and level scaling. This is causing lots of heat because two person are talking about entirely different things. I'm going to bicker until you and everyone else drop using level scaling when referring to leveled lists. :P
User avatar
brian adkins
 
Posts: 3452
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:51 am

Post » Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:35 am

People may not notice that you encounter very weak creatures when crossing previous regions, then just 200 m later you encounter constantly ultra-high creatures,


Except that didn't happen. The locking was managed by encounter zones and they were only used in interiors and affected the entire area, not in the Wasteland at all. And since the interiors for the most part didn't respawn, then you'd only be encountering the creatures in it just once. Except for a few small areas, like Super Duper Mart, the Wasteland had no encounter zones attached to it anywhere. And the few encounter zones there were only dealt with respawning. So everything you ran into there was just luck of the draw, exactly the way it worked in Oblivion. If you're going to spout something as canon, at least get your facts straight. It certainly sounds like you don't even know how all of this stuff works frankly, you're simply arguing for the sake of it. You've certainly lost all credibility with me by that statement.
User avatar
BlackaneseB
 
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to V - Skyrim