Level Scaling

[Woolfe]

I've said this before. I would like an element of it.

A small amount of growth (not sure how quick it was to level up) lets say an initially level 1 area can still over a challenge up to level 5. However after that it no longer grows.

It means that you can have 3 or 4 Level 1- 5 areas, so that when you play again you can do them in different order etc.

Also

I would like to see real world changes. Lets say there is a town called "Nodefences" early on in the game, you visit it, and have no issues there, you convince them to be friendly blah blah blah.

You leave and make enemies of the Guardians. You come back to "Nodefences" only to find they have joined the Guardians willingly. Suddenly the local guards are not just packing rusty old rifles, they have nice new carbines, and Guardian labeled armour.

Same guards, just different kit.

[brooksy]

For the love of all that is holy, no level scaling. I can't stand a game that has the exact same challenge no matter how deadly I've become. If someone wants to grind for days to become some godly killing machine that steamrolls the rest of the game, then that is the game they prefer -don't spoonfeed gamers.

[Stingray]

Level scaling is the single worst thing to ever make its way into RPG games. Worse than the death of turn-based combat, even.

[Burzmali]

Level scaling is the single worst thing to ever make its way into RPG games. Worse than the death of turn-based combat, even.

Learn your history, Rogue, one of the first CRPGs, was level scaled (monster level = (depth + player level) / 2). Somebody needs to get a class action lawsuit going against Bethesda so y'all can get the help you need. Go spend a few hours playing Darklands, see how a proper level scaling system works, and just don't buy Bethesda. It's worked for me.

[Hell Razor]

Level scaling isn't completely evil, though it is often implemented very poorly and usually a game is worse for it.

Bethesda really pushes for open exploration in its games. They want players to be able to wander the wilderness and go to any town, any dungeon, any time. The sheer number of forts, towns, hideouts, camps, etc., as well as the number of miscellaneous quests that may take you to them or past them, is way more than an old-school RPG like Wasteland or Fallout had.

While I wouldn't say level scaling is completely impossible, I understand the challenge here. In WL, it was fine knowing that there were a few places, I could probably count on one hand, that weren't a good idea or at least weren't completely explorable until I'd reached a certain level. In an RPG that is 100 times as dense with locations and quests, it could get really frustrating after the 20th time you entered somewhere only to realize it was above your level.

No level scaling means 1 of 2 things (or both) - you are either [loosely] enforcing a linear path of viable exploration, or you are forcing the player to grind skills in order to go where they want to go. Bethesda's take on it is to minimize both grinding and linearity, which means you pretty much have to have level scaling.

However, I think traditional computer RPGs were enjoyable partly because of the loose linearity and the grinding. The obvious answer is that there is a balance to strike here. The flow of the game can be controlled not only through scripted plot progression or prerequisite items and passwords, but also by using tougher enemies in certain areas to scare the player off into another direction.

Similarly, one thing I enjoyed in older RPGs was trying to find efficient and clever ways to practice and gain skill. Roaming around taking on random encounters, or finding a good place to repeatedly use a certain skill, was enjoyable as long as it didn't become overwhelming and cumbersome.

Finally, another reason level scaling is used is because of the various paths and abilities offered to the solo player character. RPGs are generally solo-PC these days, but offer a wide range of skills to focus on. If your character focuses primarily on engineering and lockpicking, or whatever, the random encounter on the road with a group of bandits could be much different than for a chacter who has focused on armor and weapons skills.

So with the right balance of exploration opportunity, loose lineraity, and some amount of grinding required now and then, hopefully it's possible to eliminate or minimize the use of the level-scaling crutch. But in the end, I think the main thing to remember is that this will be a party-based RPG, with 4 - 7 chacters at any time. You can have your stealthy lockpick and alarm disarm thief, you can have your engineer with all his tech skills, and you can still pack 2 PC slots and 3 NPC slots with every rifle and pistol and SMG and energy weapon skill you'll ever need.

[Keaton]

Great post, Hell Razor!

@ qstoffe:
You misunderstood me, seems we define the term level scaling slightly different. For me it's still level scaling if the mobs are getting stronger in later stages of a linear game. Because even there they are only getting stronger because of you leveling up. They need to pose a threat or the game gets boring. And in fact there is not much of a difference between that and a game like Oblivion, only that there the mobs spawn randomly and the game isn't linear, so level scaling becomes much more obvious and a much bigger immersion breaker.

In an open world game without a timer or other reason for the player to move forward, invariably player A will attempt to continue the main plot and player B will dick around with Fedex quests for 50 hours the first time you give them a chance.

Agreed, that's the core of the problem and the reason they implement player level centered level scaling.

You're making a game, how do you make a game player A can still win without forcing them to do hours of retrieving cats for quests that they aren't interested in, and how do you the game a challenge for player B without forcibly capping the amount of XP/resources they can get early on?

By using area scaling, making some areas more dangerous than others. And maybe by using player centered level scaling for the quests (I know, Boo!). Or by using handplaced mobs (with fixed level) instead of regenerating spawn points. Then the player can't grind that much and is forced to continue with the story because there just isn't anything else to do anymore (sidequests in high level areas are locked anyway because you won't get there or at least the designers have to make sure you would have a hard time surviving there). And if you make the level of your party members less important for combat difficulty (maybe by concentrating on a fun and tactical combat system ... without dragging out every smaller encounter ... difficult task) so the system is quite forgiving and gives the player some leeway then it might be completely unnecessary to implement heavy level grinding or player centered level scaling.

[Azriel]

Level scaling is horrible and just not worth the frustration. Just go old school with areas of high level monsters in areas you don't want the character to go until they reach a certain level. Also, for the love of everything, don't level scale the loot/treasure. It's COOL to find high level gear when exploring, or a ton of money early on. I hate skyrim because after I fight a horde of enemies in the castle of death, and take the big bad, I lockpick the master lock in the treasure room and find.... 7 gold. 0_o.

[jiujitsu]

I second that.

The scaling (and respawning) for me is the main Problem about all the Bethesda games (not just F3 and New Vegas). A game that did this very well (allthough not really "fair") was Gothic 2. When I am stupid enough to fight a black troll early on, I get totally ripped apart. To come back later and fight back is one of THE motivations of a good RPG for me.

Hahahahaha! I have NEVER 'fought' the black troll. Just use a shrink scroll on him and all you have to do is spit on him and he dies. Beating up humans that are high level is much harder.

[Stingray]

Level scaling is the single worst thing to ever make its way into RPG games. Worse than the death of turn-based combat, even.

Learn your history, Rogue, one of the first CRPGs, was level scaled (monster level = (depth + player level) / 2). Somebody needs to get a class action lawsuit going against Bethesda so y'all can get the help you need. Go spend a few hours playing Darklands, see how a proper level scaling system works, and just don't buy Bethesda. It's worked for me.

I played Rogue on UNIX systems in the mid-80s. But did you just seriously call it an an RPG? Guess there's a first time for everything.

[Dingus]

+1 I want to feel powerful as I level

[rossrjensen]

I'm sure this was never in the plans, but I agree. Level scaling is the worst modern RPG trend. Completely ruined Oblivion for me. Better, but still annoying in Skyrim and Fallout 3. Also irritable in DA: O. No level scaling! It defeats the point of gaining levels and becoming more powerful.

[rossrjensen]

Level scaling isn't completely evil, though it is often implemented very poorly and usually a game is worse for it.

Bethesda really pushes for open exploration in its games. They want players to be able to wander the wilderness and go to any town, any dungeon, any time. The sheer number of forts, towns, hideouts, camps, etc., as well as the number of miscellaneous quests that may take you to them or past them, is way more than an old-school RPG like Wasteland or Fallout had.

Well, for what it's worth, I much preferred exploring the world in New Vegas (where there either was no scaling or it was unnoticeable) over Fallout 3.

[laszlolaszlo]

I'm shamelessly bumping this thread. Levelscaling is just bad.

[Arumaxx89]

Level scaling is an abomination. There are better ways to balance a role-playing game

[Azriel]

Level scaling is horrible, It is one of the things I can't stand about bethesda games. So no, no to level scaling.

[lithos]

Can't stand level scaling, either. Was the biggest flaw in Oblivion and Skyrim. All it does is flatten the learning and reward curve, and you may finish the game, but feel like you went nowhere.

[Ekaros]

Level scaling isn't completely evil, though it is often implemented very poorly and usually a game is worse for it.

Bethesda really pushes for open exploration in its games. They want players to be able to wander the wilderness and go to any town, any dungeon, any time. The sheer number of forts, towns, hideouts, camps, etc., as well as the number of miscellaneous quests that may take you to them or past them, is way more than an old-school RPG like Wasteland or Fallout had.

Well, for what it's worth, I much preferred exploring the world in New Vegas (where there either was no scaling or it was unnoticeable) over Fallout 3.

I hated New Vegas expansions when I was at levels 30-50, specialy the Old World Blues where enemies could take crazy amount damage... So there certainly was something wrong there too.

[Snerf]

Add one more vote to the anti-scaling crowd in 99% of situations.

Having a few areas where certain boss or lieutenant type enemies get stronger in an open world game isn't too bad alone, but wide-spread level scaling is a no-no and one of Bethesda's major design flaws IMO.

[Azriel]

Level scaling isn't completely evil, though it is often implemented very poorly and usually a game is worse for it.

Bethesda really pushes for open exploration in its games. They want players to be able to wander the wilderness and go to any town, any dungeon, any time. The sheer number of forts, towns, hideouts, camps, etc., as well as the number of miscellaneous quests that may take you to them or past them, is way more than an old-school RPG like Wasteland or Fallout had.

Well, for what it's worth, I much preferred exploring the world in New Vegas (where there either was no scaling or it was unnoticeable) over Fallout 3.

I hated New Vegas expansions when I was at levels 30-50, specialy the Old World Blues where enemies could take crazy amount damage... So there certainly was something wrong there too.

Ah, that reminded me on skyrim where if you had destruction magic, the DM would level would cap at 30 or something, but the enemies would keep getting stronger. So that flame thrower spell that was powerful at the beginning was literally getting weaker and weaker as you leveled up because the world/monsters leveled with you. I finally reached a point where I was literally dowsing monsters for a full minute with my flamethrower spell and the enemies health never went down. It was mind boggling, I don't think bethesda ever fixed which really screwed over destruction mages. Level scaling just doesn't work.

[Mandemon]

Level scaling isn't completely evil, though it is often implemented very poorly and usually a game is worse for it.

Bethesda really pushes for open exploration in its games. They want players to be able to wander the wilderness and go to any town, any dungeon, any time. The sheer number of forts, towns, hideouts, camps, etc., as well as the number of miscellaneous quests that may take you to them or past them, is way more than an old-school RPG like Wasteland or Fallout had.

Well, for what it's worth, I much preferred exploring the world in New Vegas (where there either was no scaling or it was unnoticeable) over Fallout 3.

I hated New Vegas expansions when I was at levels 30-50, specialy the Old World Blues where enemies could take crazy amount damage... So there certainly was something wrong there too.

Yeah, Old World Blues had screwed up level scaling. I remember my frustration when those damn lobomites could take several hits from Anti-Materiel rifle, despite wearing worse equipment than the Fiends.

Still, area-level scaling sounds good. It keeps challenges to area, yet allows you later to return and kill everything in your path. Set certain level cap to certain enemies, so that Raiders in area 1(unless in game events change things) are levle capped to, let's say level 5. So when you first explore there, you meet challenging enemies.

Later when you return on level 9001 wearing Power Armor and backing enough firepower to start World War IV, you can pretty much just glare at the lvl 5 Raiders and they die.