Level Scaling

[tprime76]

For me, it can be summed up with 1 word (in Wasteland parlance): Scorpitron.

That thing kicked my ass FOREVER whenever I happened to be stupid enough to wander close enough for it to start beating on me. Hell, I was frequently happy when I was able to successfully RUN from it when engaged. Over time, I ended up spending enough points on RPGs and Energy weapons so that I could arm a few of my party members with RPGs and a Laser Weapons. My friend and I were practically crying when we finally destroyed that damned thing. Here is my vote: no level scaling. Region scaling works perfect and adds to the feeling of character growth as you level up.

By the same token on floor leveling, one of the things that I have seen implemented well (don't remember which game) are that, if you wander into an area where you started the game, your chance to encounter VERY low level enemies diminished proportionally to how far your levels were. It is just annoying to go back to an early part of the game and constantly get cave rat encounters every three steps. The storyline logic they used to explain the low encounters in those areas was that you were such a badass that the enemies AVOIDED you.

[Azriel]

For me, it can be summed up with 1 word (in Wasteland parlance): Scorpitron.

That thing kicked my ass FOREVER whenever I happened to be stupid enough to wander close enough for it to start beating on me. Hell, I was frequently happy when I was able to successfully RUN from it when engaged. Over time, I ended up spending enough points on RPGs and Energy weapons so that I could arm a few of my party members with RPGs and a Laser Weapons. My friend and I were practically crying when we finally destroyed that damned thing. Here is my vote: no level scaling. Region scaling works perfect and adds to the feeling of character growth as you level up.

By the same token on floor leveling, one of the things that I have seen implemented well (don't remember which game) are that, if you wander into an area where you started the game, your chance to encounter VERY low level enemies diminished proportionally to how far your levels were. It is just annoying to go back to an early part of the game and constantly get cave rat encounters every three steps. The storyline logic they used to explain the low encounters in those areas was that you were such a badass that the enemies AVOIDED you.

Oh hell NO! Region scaling is the worst invention ever. I have yet to see a game pull it off. Look at bethesda games, bethesda is in love with level scaling, but the fans HATE IT, the boards are filled with people who cannot stand it for a good reason. It sucks, you don't feel like your getting powerful, you just feel like you can do a few more tricks. Go old school, different areas have different level monsters. Yes, going back to the begining level and finding the original enemies weak and pathetic is how it supposed to be. It shows you how freaking strong you have become. I hate world leveling and MANY, MANY, people do too. Again, look at bethesda forums and type in world scaling and see how many people are complaining about it. Sounds good on paper, horrible in real life.

[Fuzi0n]

http://www.gamestm.co.uk/discuss/can-wasteland-2-match-fallout/

you can go anywhere, and do anything, and if you stumble across a bad guy or creature who’s tougher than you… well, tough

[eNTi]

i second the notion.

[DrunkVision]

I agree, level scaling is bad, still there are good old Final Fantasy ideas like at some point of the main story or even big side quest some cataclism occures and in the old area there are more powerful monsters while old ones annihilated and area itself changes and looks differently. Stil IMO it's not level-scaling, it's just a little bit of spice on gameplay.

[Ronin73]

http://www.gamestm.co.uk/discuss/can-wasteland-2-match-fallout/

you can go anywhere, and do anything, and if you stumble across a bad guy or creature who’s tougher than you… well, tough

Was hoping someone would link that article somewhere

While it doesn't flat out confirm that level scaling will not be in Wasteland, you get the impression that's the direction they are leaning towards.

[Jaws4096]

From another post on this topic...

Play Balancing and Sense of Accomplishment

Wasteland was a sandbox game, meaning that that you could go anywhere at any time. However, the game’s difficulty didn’t scale, so if you wandered into an area for which you weren’t prepared, you would die fast and know that you were supposed to come back later. The result was, effectively, a linear sequence of events.

Since Wasteland 2 will be even larger, and presumably even more open-ended, there’s a good chance that the designers are spending a lot of time thinking about how to introduce some sort of play balancing. They want to make sure that players who zip through the main plot aren’t overwhelmed by late-game difficulty, while at the same time ensuring that completionists who grind it out aren’t bored with end-game encounters.

I think some sort of play-balancing is probably necessary, but it should be done with extreme care. One of the things that nearly ruined Oblivion for me was that due to constant balancing, you literally couldn’t find an encounter that was too hard for your character – regardless of your level. There was no sense of accomplishment when you developed your character, because all enemies developed right along with you.

In open games like Wasteland, I think it’s vital to always have areas that are way too hard for your party. Upon finding such an area, you leave, grind it out for a while in easier environs, and come back to smite the formerly un-smitable. Remember how satisfying it was to return to the Guardian Citadel in Wasteland, armed to the teeth and ready to take out the unholy saints? That’s a feeling I miss.

Getting that sense of accomplishment doesn’t mean throwing play-balancing out the window. One way to have your cake and eat it, too is to have dynamic leveling of enemies. For example, an easy, early game area might have enemies that are second level, or two levels lower than your party, whichever is higher. This way, if you find that area later than the designers planned, you will still have a pretty easy time, without being totally bored. On the other end of the spectrum, you could have an area with tenth level enemies, or two levels above your party, whichever is higher. If wander into this area way too early, you’ll be smashed. If you wait until later, you’ll still have a nice challenge.

This dynamic leveling should be combined with some kind of level-locking, meaning that once you visit an area, the enemies there stay at the level you first found them. This allows players to experience the satisfaction of demolishing baddies that they formerly couldn’t even scratch. It also keeps the dynamic level balancing described above comfortably behind the scenes – it would look pretty silly if every time you returned to an area, it was populated by totally different enemies.

Placing Enemies in a Believable Context

When enemies in an area are scaled up or down to match a desired level of difficulty, it’s very important that their appearance and equipment make sense given their adjusted capabilities. In other words, I shouldn’t encounter a rat that can bite through power armor or a common thug with a rocket launcher.

Players use visual and other context clues to evaluate the strength of enemies. If a level two wolf looks and behaves like a level 20 wolf, it can be very frustrating. It’s important that designers don’t just boost the stats of existing enemies when they require higher difficulty – they need to replace these enemies with more difficult varieties, and help develop a rich visual context for players to use in anticipating the challenges they face. All the better if that context fits into the local story and environment.

Other Game Difficulty Issues

If players are allowed to choose a difficulty level, there should be a reward for choosing the more difficult ones. For example, the game could provide an XP bonus per kill to players choosing a higher difficulty level.

[Hasenklein]

Level scalling is cancer of current RPGs. If i see some brute with gun which look like death itself i know i shouldn't try to shoot him. If i go somewhere off main road i should know that it isn't safe or predictable.

Well put.

This dynamic leveling should be combined with some kind of level-locking, meaning that once you visit an area, the enemies there stay at the level you first found them. This allows players to experience the satisfaction of demolishing baddies that they formerly couldn’t even scratch. It also keeps the dynamic level balancing described above comfortably behind the scenes – it would look pretty silly if every time you returned to an area, it was populated by totally different enemies.

The point is that scaling simply offsets or discredits the player's achievements, leveling his characters. To me, however, leveling characters is an integral part of an RPG. Consequently, introducing the scaling into an RPG makes no sense to me.

To me, it seems that the same result could be achieved while maintaining a higher degree of predictability by to scaling down the experience given for killing a certain monsters, either depending on the relative level of the characters or the number this specific enemy that was killed.

Wasteland was a sandbox game, meaning that that you could go anywhere at any time. However, the game’s difficulty didn’t scale, so if you wandered into an area for which you weren’t prepared, you would die fast and know that you were supposed to come back later. The result was, effectively, a linear sequence of events.

I do not fully agree. First, you couldn't go anywhere at any time since the appearance of certain location was triggered by certain events. Second, the player has to do one thing after the other, which will always lead to a linear sequence of events. Your point is not whether it's linear or not. Your point is to what degree the direction can be determined by the player and to what degree it is determined by the devs. I think that the player should not have full discretion about this direction, because to me, that'd indicate a lack of a major plot.

The alternative is that the appearance of new players and therefore enemies is triggered by certain events. That would mean that the locations are fully given in space, while they are not fully given in time.

If players are allowed to choose a difficulty level, there should be a reward for choosing the more difficult ones. For example, the game could provide an XP bonus per kill to players choosing a higher difficulty level.

I'm undecided on this issue. On the hand I believe that players shouldn't be punished for choosing a lower difficulty by being excluded from access to certain contents. On the other hand I agree that there should be some kind of "reward".

If anything, however, the player should get less EXP, simply to force him to make better decisions, rather than partly offsetting the higher difficulty by "brute" EXP.

[paultakeda]

If players are allowed to choose a difficulty level, there should be a reward for choosing the more difficult ones. For example, the game could provide an XP bonus per kill to players choosing a higher difficulty level.

I'm undecided on this issue. On the hand I believe that players shouldn't be punished for choosing a lower difficulty by being excluded from access to certain contents. On the other hand I agree that there should be some kind of "reward".

If anything, however, the player should get less EXP, simply to force him to make better decisions, rather than partly offsetting the higher difficulty by "brute" EXP.

I'm decidedly against difficulty levels but if they exist the reward is in playing on hard. A game remains difficult because enemies are tougher and you can't level up any faster than on normal. If you get more XP then you level up faster, making your party stronger, and therefore... well.. now the game is just on normal with higher numbers. Yawn.

Note that difficulty levels in twitch games make sense and can provide bigger rewards since the player's own reflexes are being rated. For an RPG, more XP for harder enemies is, as I said, pointless.

[Woolfe]

Before I begin, I don't think Level scaling is appropriate for WL2.

BUT.

I don't think the concept of level scaling to some degree is bad. I think the implementations we have seen of it are bad (looking at you Oblivion), but the core concept is sound.

That being the game adjusts itself in some way to provide a challenge no matter the power of your party.

For me, players who grind up the levels are exploiting a flaw to a degree. Making it easier for themselves later on. The only person being punished is them, because they are no longer experiencing the difficulty the game was meant to be at.

But I have played games where after completely exploring an area(as I tend to do, because I LIKE exploring) I come out of it ahead of the game, so the next area is not as challenging. This may only be a matter of a few levels difference. Now this seems like bad design, as in they should assume people will explore the entire level, and to a degree that is right. But not all games are designed as exploration games. Some games are around getting from point A to be point B, everything else is just there to delay/confuse you. But then if someone manages to get to point B really quickly because they are good, should they be punished because they didn't get into as many random encounters as the guy who couldn't work out some tricky puzzle?

So if you are designing a game you have a problem, do you design it so that the player can only compete on the next level if they have explored the entirety of the level before, or do you design it so that the player who completes the minimum amount necessary can compete?
If you go the Explore everything, then the Minimum guy gets killed on the next level, if you go Mimimum effort, then the explore everything guy has an easy ride on the level after(which compounds each level).
The obvious answer is to take the middle ground. But that is not the perfect answer, as it means minimum is still struggling, and Explore is still ahead.
Now game design could account for this in other ways. EXP provision etc, but there is only so much you can do before it becomes equally silly.
But a simple method is to adjust the challenge that is coming, so either by making the individual bad guys stronger, or by adding larger numbers. So thus you are Level scaling.
Oblivion was very very bad for this. In an open world environ where you can pretty much go everywhere, the choice of scaling system was poor at best. (Bloody stupid and pathetic considering the experience of the company IMO)

In an open world environ, I would expect a combination of level scaling, based on the area/region, with EXP provision so that you don't gain as much for killing weaker enemies, and finally I would really want in game actions.
Ie If you spend 3 months game time slaughtering Mutant Bunnies, then what has been going on in the world. Making the game world grow in response to your threat is the ideal method to me. So whilst you were getting busy with the bunnies, the Town of "ImGunnaFuckyourshitup" has finished conquering their neighbour "Cryingoutforahero" and has now enslaved the population and is forcing them to work the fields, etc opening up more of its own people for soldiering duties.

[happy04]

I don't mind some moderate level scaling as long as it only applies to re spawns, not initial placement of mobs.

I only say this because I hate getting the pokemon effect in games, where if you come back to an area you are faced with tons of stuipidly easy fights that were once hella tough. Make the mobs when you return worth killing, not a huge challenge. Just to avoid that pokemon effect.

[paultakeda]

I don't mind some moderate level scaling as long as it only applies to re spawns, not initial placement of mobs.

I only say this because I hate getting the pokemon effect in games, where if you come back to an area you are faced with tons of stuipidly easy fights that were once hella tough. Make the mobs when you return worth killing, not a huge challenge. Just to avoid that pokemon effect.

And yet if a town has a bunch of low level punks why level scale? The point of coming back to that town is the same as when Clark Kent went back to the diner at the end of Superman II: to be a dick. I want to be a dick, let me be a dick.

[Gazz]

"But but bur... If there's no scaling it means you're forced to follow a linear path or progression, You aren't free to explore the game's world".
Well, that's bullshit.
All you need is a world that isn't entirely built around the idea of progressing linearly through it.
You need a world where there's plenty of areas and safe paths where you can travel/explore pretty much at any level, and then, the more you leave the safe paths, the more dangerous it becomes.

A lot depends on how combat works.
If you move into a high level area but your only option for combat is a High Noon shootout, all that matters is gear and numbers.

If you have ways to sneak around, ambush, pin, set traps, or otherwise fight smarter than the opposition then you should be allowed to progress through the high level content.
If none of that is possible then you have a simple shooter where level scaling can indeed be desirable...


Level scaling doesn't have to be dumb, though. A level 50 beggar in full plate armour and wielding a flaming war scythe of doom? Uhh, nope.
Rubber banding the NPC levels can help with the balancing of specific encounters while allowing a little progression while staying in the same area.
Some thugs may be carrying the odd pistol. If you come back a few levels later, some of them may now have a SMG but you'll never find them all carrying freaking rocket launchers and miniguns.

Some level scaling can keep the player on his toes.
Dumb 1:1 level scaling is for the birds.

[asafe]

It's much harder for developers to design (good) game without level scaling. Reasons are many but in a nutshell, they (devs) need to predict every "state" of your PC and make (almost always, which is sad) combat challenging or meaningful in some sense.

In ideal gameworld, we all would like to have every single NPC unique in some way, but that is hard to do with limited resources (but not impossible). For the sake of game development and time spent on designing, I think some kind of level scaling should be in place. I know that most of us are traumatized by Bethesda level scaling system (among other things), and for a reason, but level scaling algorithm has its usefulness if applied in the right way. What that way is, that's different question, but point of my post is just to remind you not to discard level scaling as something by default evil. It could be usefull tool if used correctly and it could free some resources to be used in some more important areas of game development.

And that's exactly why you have region-scaling. Different-leveled enemies (or types of enemies) exist in different portions of the map/world. If you're dumb enough to wander into the endzone part of the map at low level, then be ready to face the consequences.

But, at the same time, you should also benefit from it. I remember one replay of Fallout 2 where I sneaked down to San Francisco early on in the game, running away from encounters whenever they occured. I then looted a bunch of hi-tech gear from 'Frisco and steam-rolled New Reno. Sure, it broke the difficult of the game, but it was a ton of fun.

The point is, the enemies didn't level-scale - i simply wasn't ready to take on that particular region.

Yep I agree! no level scaling but I did pretty much something similar to the above when playing.
I always like to find a way to get better gear and I really like to explore, sometimes I do it early on.
I remember I had to fight and use mad tactics just to stay alive but the exp and loot was epic! it was very satisfying.
I do hope Wasteland 2 can retain that option. (of course not every are would be suitable for it and some randomness would ensure there won't be this guide on how to make yourself powerful early on).

[crossfirex]

Level scalling is cancer of current RPGs. If i see some brute with gun which look like death itself i know i shouldn't try to shoot him. If i go somewhere off main road i should know that it isn't safe or predictable.

Honestly, in real life... going off the road in a wasteland setting is probably smarter. Because who's gonna stick to the road? All those nasty robbers and bandits you want to avoid, that's who. Because they all know that the merchants and travelers with nice gear are coming down that road.

And I agree, level scaling is a deadly death for any RPG, on accounts to strategy. For instance, you wanna take something 10 levels higher than you as a challenge, but you can't. And that's for sure a game killer.

[Phanox]

I'm against level scaling. It ruins any sort of progression of your character and balances the world oddly. A rat could be a threat to a new character, but should be stomped after a few levels. However, some sort of balancing actions could be taken, like if the character has reached X level, then add two more rats, or some minor stuff like that. But keep the rat a rat and not suddenly a killer-rabbit tier rat.

I think Fallout 2 did it well. It had a vague main path, balanced to character progression, but you were free to go do your own stuff. Some stuff could be done right off the bat, but you might just end up meeting aliens and meet an early death unless you fled.

Just because your party is the center of the players attention doesn't mean the game world should revolve around the party.

[kibble-n-bullets]

I think level scaling is indicative of tunnel vision in design. I'm through defending it.

From a design point stat boosting is dangled in front of the player like a juicy carrot because it works. But later on without looking back or taking time to appreciate the macro picture your player finds no challenge in some things. The trick is not to add more flour to your pancake mix because you added too much milk, but not to screw it all up in the first place.

[Kjaamor]

No level scaling.

Yes region scaling.

Yes shallow power curve.

Done.

[EagleJon]

I made a forums account just to add to this topic and reiterate what many have already said:

Please no level scaling.

You can allow for some exploits without breaking the game, too. Heck, one of the first things that I always did was get Covenant out of jail. Then again, he was in jail. He didn't have any good gear, just good stats. I usually got Christina, too, and while her SMG was good at low level, it couldn't save a party that was completely unprepared.

Some of the exploit problems can be solved simply by limiting ammo. Who cares if you got a rocket or a laser pistol early on? you only had a small amount of ammo until later in the game, so if you wasted what you had on a couple of townies, then too bad.

Honestly, the original Wasteland did this amazingly well. This is part of the reason that it's still fun to play. Exploit all you want, you can't take on the guardians until you've been playing for a while. Yes, you can get some decent armor, weapons and characters easily, but a couple of rad suits and a rocket won't save your party (nor will that lvl 6 climbing skill or lvl 6 perception). Money couldn't solve all of your problems, either, because you couldn't buy other automatic weapons until you got to the black market and killed the guys that jump you (or talked your way in... but I never tried that).

[dorkboy]

i don't think level-scaling -in and of itself- can really adress the issue of fair/hard/grind.

the only thing it really fixes (" ") is the opportunity to finish the main storyline at "level 3" - while simultaneously doing all sorts of weird stuff to the sense of character progression. (a trade-off i personally don't care for all that much...)

and even heavily level-scaled games get complaints of either being too hard/unfair, or too easy - depending on whether a particular build/class/play style falls permanently behind or ahead of the scaling-/difficulty-curve..
also, there's always a way to beat the house or figuring out exactly how the game/combat works, in which case the game can't really offer the same -kind- of challenge as before, regardless of scaling (though fights might take longer and involve more hitpoints..).

i don't claim to be an überhardcore ultragamer, as i don't play primarily for the sake of constant, superduperhard challenge. that being said, the fights i enjoyed the most in FO2 were the early ones, where ammo and stimpacks were limited resources.
on higher levels, in most games, [vital resource here] tends to become so abundant that it effectively insulates you against whatever difficulty the game has to offer.. (unless you, like me, suck at most games haha )

i hope inxile manage to create/balance a system where ammo/water/healing/money is somewhat scarce even at very high levels. that, to me, seems like a worthwhile approach to the whole difficulty/balancing issue..

as for grinding; like level-scaling, the best kind is when you don't notice it's happening.
if the enemies/tasks are varied, and the storyline/game world provides a good reason why you should go kill this particular group of bandits, then it probably wont feel quite as much like grinding even if the results are the same; loot collected/experience gained..