Open World vs. Non-Level Scaling

Post » Sat Oct 15, 2011 9:17 pm

I would personally prefer scaling to be related to the enemies, not yourself, ie. a frost troll would be anywhere from lvls 15-30 with the occasional "boss/badass" troll being lvl 40, randomly chosen of course. They could still set dungeon difficulty, while keeping all the enemies of the same kind relatively leveled. Just my 2 cents
User avatar
Etta Hargrave
 
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:27 am

Post » Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:18 pm

Scaling is the death of the world. It's a babysitting tool developers use to prevent poorly parented children from giving up and returning the game to the store. It's a game. Don't fear death, learn from it!
User avatar
Brian Newman
 
Posts: 3466
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:36 pm

Post » Sat Oct 15, 2011 12:15 pm

I prefer range based scaling (encounters scale according to your level but have various minimum and maximum level cap depending of the areas and of the creature's type) for open world because:
- If there is no scaling, you will kinda have to explore each areas in the same order during additional playthroughs due to each area fixed level difficulty.
- If everything scale without restriction, you end up with something like rats level 100.

i actually wouldn't mind a system similar to borderlands where an obviously higher level enemy was nearly unkillable but offered much more exp should you pull of a miracle but at the same time i woul hate to be lvl 100 and still get pwned by a mudcrab
User avatar
joseluis perez
 
Posts: 3507
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:51 am

Post » Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:12 am

Still don't see the connection between an open world and level scaling. You can have an open world and no level scaling. Everything else is boring and artificial to me. Exploring Oblivion's landscape was incredibly boring. The only difference between regions was the type of trees you could see. Level scaling even makes the game much more linear than no level scaling. Sure, you can go wherever you want. But it doesn't matter where you go because everything will be the same and suited for your level. The game automatically adjusts itself so the path you choose is always the right one. It's a very cheap trick to create a pseudo open world that doesn't exist.

I remember how scary it was when I used levitation to fly over the fence in Morrowind to enter the Red Mountain region before I was strong enough for it. That is what exploring is about. I don't want to go everywhere I want with my level 1 character without fear. I want mysterious regions I don't dare to enter in the beginning of the game.

People who say level scaling is needed for a non-linear experience probably cry out loud because they can't buy everything right from the start when they go into a shop? It's so linear, prices should be level scaled as well so a level 1 character needs to pay 10 gold for a horse only while a level 20 character needs to pay 1000 gold. Level scaling is for spoiled brats with a low attention span who want everything immediately.

But if it really works like most people here believe (level ranges with min/max levels, for example 25 minimum, 30 maximum) I will be fine with it. Although I still doubt that will be the case.
User avatar
ANaIs GRelot
 
Posts: 3401
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:19 pm

Post » Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:29 am

I would personally prefer scaling to be related to the enemies, not yourself, ie. a frost troll would be anywhere from lvls 15-30 with the occasional "boss/badass" troll being lvl 40, randomly chosen of course. They could still set dungeon difficulty, while keeping all the enemies of the same kind relatively leveled. Just my 2 cents

this^
User avatar
louise hamilton
 
Posts: 3412
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:16 am

Post » Sat Oct 15, 2011 1:07 pm

Isn't Skyrim supposed to be a mix of scaling and fixed level foes?
User avatar
Haley Merkley
 
Posts: 3356
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:53 pm

Post » Sat Oct 15, 2011 12:18 pm

they should handle it similar to how they handled the deadric artifacts where you knew whether or no your were yet wothy of the wabbajack if there were scaling youd have lvl 12 walking around with goldbrand
User avatar
cosmo valerga
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:21 am

Post » Sat Oct 15, 2011 7:35 pm

I am very much against level scaling. As a low level character, there should be areas that you cannot explore without getting killed! The most challenging, dangerous areas should be suitable only for high level characters who are up for the challenge. When you enter those areas as a low level character and get killed, it gives you something to look forward to once your character has progressed. It adds a sense of accomplishment to clear out an area where you once were to weak to venture.

This issue is very frustrating to me, and I don't agree with BGS's viewpoint that a character should be able to go anywhere right away. There should be areas that are reserved for stronger characters. It adds so much to the RPG experience.
User avatar
Mistress trades Melissa
 
Posts: 3464
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:28 pm

Post » Sat Oct 15, 2011 10:26 pm

I liked what Oblivion did with the open world and to a degree I liked Fallout 3. Skyrim's probably going to be more like Fallout 3 which isn't bad but not good because there will be too many hand placed items thus characters get uber powerful before they are suppose to. It makes sense if the item fits the dungeon but I don't want a random Daedric Longsword to be found at level 1 with eaise like with Morrowind. I fear that Skyrim will have more handplaced items which is bad, I like Random pull.

Level Scaling is good if done right and not too many times like Oblivion. Fallout 3 did scaling right, it was no longer level scaling but more of an item scaling and a slight enemy appearance rate as you increased in level like Reavers appearing at high levels, Giant Radscorpions appearing around level 12, etc. That was done correctly, the only problem was that Fallout 3 didn't really respawn the items in dungeons thus the game ended after a while unlike with Oblivion where you could play forever or until the ABomb got you after 350+ hours if sooner.

If I were designing it I would have some areas off limits at low levels although you can still go there but you'll get killed. It would mostly be leveled scaled to a range like lets say for example the Riverwood area I would probably scale the enemies level 1-8 but an area like the Reach would probably be much higher like 25-35. I would have minimial hand placed items unless they fit the dungeon like if you enter a Dwemner dungeon then expect to find Steam Centurion type enemies and Dwemener equipment. If your in a Bandit dungeon expect to find a lot of Fur/Leather Armor, possibly a rare item too. The Dungeon item setups would be done by random, the one thing I hate is when I enter a dungeon I know what I'm getting. I can't stand that for the life of me, random=good, set items=bad.
User avatar
Esther Fernandez
 
Posts: 3415
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:52 am

Post » Sat Oct 15, 2011 12:17 pm

I am very much against level scaling. As a low level character, there should be areas that you cannot explore without getting killed! The most challenging, dangerous areas should be suitable only for high level characters who are up for the challenge. When you enter those areas as a low level character and get killed, it gives you something to look forward to once your character has progressed. It adds a sense of accomplishment to clear out an area where you once were to weak to venture.

This issue is very frustrating to me, and I don't agree with BGS's viewpoint that a character should be able to go anywhere right away. There should be areas that are reserved for stronger characters. It adds so much to the RPG experience.


Hmm, I'm a bit between opinions.

I'll give you an example with Oblivion mobs. (Level ~1 being rats/wolves etc. Leveling stopping around level 20.)
I'm also assuming you stop leveling around level 20, which isn't accurate to Skyrim, I know.
My perfect scaling:

Level 1:
Rare mobs: level 10+
Uncommon mobs: level 5 - 10
Common mobs: level 1 - 4

Level 5:
Rare mobs: level 15+
Uncommon mobs: level 1 - 2; level 11 - 15
Common mobs: level 3 - 10

Level 10:
Rare mobs: level 20+
Uncommon mobs: level 1 - 2; level 15 - 20
Common mobs: level 3 - 15

Level 15:
Rare mobs: level 20+
Uncommon mobs: level 1 - 2; level 15 - 20
Common mobs: level 3 - 15


Something along these lines. But it's just something I mixed up quickly. And yes I do agree with certain areas being incredibly deadly, but I believe they should be able to be explored quite a bit even when you're low level.
User avatar
Hayley Bristow
 
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:24 am

Post » Sat Oct 15, 2011 4:08 pm

Third option works fine if you ask me. RPGs are about the character making their way up in the world, getting stronger, and naturally certain enemies will become weaker than you and certain enemies start off stronger than you. Plus it gives more of the feel that you're in the world rather than the world revolving around you.
User avatar
Emma Parkinson
 
Posts: 3401
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 5:53 pm

Post » Sat Oct 15, 2011 2:04 pm

@Elficus: That's too linear. There must be some change in this table depending on the area. The centre of Vvardenfel in Morrowind should always be more dangerous than the road from Seyda Nihyn to Balmora.

Thought I read it all, apparently not.
User avatar
Kitana Lucas
 
Posts: 3421
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 1:24 pm

Post » Sat Oct 15, 2011 12:44 pm

I much prefer as little scaling as possible. The scaling is the one reason I still pop in Morrowind from time to time but haven't touched Oblivion in forever. I still get chills when I remember my first time playing Morrowind, picking a lock in one of the tombs near Seyda Neen thinking I was going to find something cool. I did, it was a Greater Bonewalker and it wiped the floor with me. That shock when I swung my shiny new silver long sword, hit it, and it's health bar didn't even move. The bigger shock when it hit back and all but a sliver of my health went away and I realized that I was going to die. Not have a tough fight, not suffer a "forced loss" for story purposes, just get killed by a random monster. It was great! There was no game designer holding my hand, keeping me from danger. It was up to me to decide if I should risk looking in that door or not. It was almost as good a feeling as going back to that same dungeon at level 15 and ramming the Spear of Bitter Mercy down that bonewalker's throat. Because that caution faded as I got stronger. I was a big scary MoFo and it felt good. I might help a villager get back some heirloom from bandits knowing that my reward would only be a few gold, but I also knew that those bandits didn't stand a chance, because I was the baddest dude on Vvardenfel. Oblivion was big, beautiful, and.....boring. I waited for that "I'm in trouble" feeling all through my first playthrough, but it never came. When the whole world is the same level as you are, it doesn't matter what level you are.
User avatar
Marcin Tomkow
 
Posts: 3399
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:31 pm

Previous

Return to V - Skyrim