16 réponses à ce sujet

[Calibisto]

I was wondering how people here think about enemies who's level adjust accordingly to yours. Personally I dislike it. Not enough that I won't buy the game but I always consider it a con.
 
The reason for that lies in my "D&D background". If you're dumb enough to take on a Troll at lvl. 1 you deserved to get smacked.<_< But if you manage your character to higher levels you get a feeling of accomplishment. That feeling gets lost if enemies adjust their difficulty according to your level.
 
From what I understand BioWare is doing this also in Dragon Age, but it should not be noticeable. I'm not burning a game I haven't played yet, but at the moment I'm not too optimistic about it. Guess I just will have wait until I have played the game to see how it turns out.
 
Now that's just my view but I would to know how other people feel about scaling enemies in general. Do you like it, dislike it or couldn't you care less?

[caspertjuhh]

I'd like a game with true levelling, that the enemys stay at the same level. would be refreshing. It would have a pretty fuked up difficluty curve though

[Icinix]

I wish games had a toggle for it. Sometimes scaling is good, and sometimes set areas are good. If I'm getting really deep into a game, I'd rather it didn't have scaling, but something like Mass Effect which I want to flow like a movie, then scaling is perfect.

[WyrinDnjargo]

As with all things, it depends how its handled. Do I want lowly goblins with hundred of hit points - no. But if I fight my way through to the goblin king at level 1 for a one on one battle, but then replay and am at level 3 and he has a shaman sidekick to balance things out, then that's just fun and gameplay isn't it?

[OwenM]

Calibisto wrote...

I was wondering how people here think about enemies who's level adjust accordingly to yours. Personally I dislike it. Not enough that I won't buy the game but I always consider it a con.
 
The reason for that lies in my "D&D background". If you're dumb enough to take on a Troll at lvl. 1 you deserved to get smacked.<_< But if you manage your character to higher levels you get a feeling of accomplishment. That feeling gets lost if enemies adjust their difficulty according to your level.
 
From what I understand BioWare is doing this also in Dragon Age, but it should not be noticeable. I'm not burning a game I haven't played yet, but at the moment I'm not too optimistic about it. Guess I just will have wait until I have played the game to see how it turns out.
 
Now that's just my view but I would to know how other people feel about scaling enemies in general. Do you like it, dislike it or couldn't you care less?

I'm also of the opinion that it can be a very bad thing. It's been done poorly in the past, making weak enemies not more challenging, but merely making them take longer to die. (I'm looking at you, Oblivion! Stupid mountain lions that do no damage, but take 50 hits to kill.)

If you can make it so that certain creatures are varied in level, based on your level, but with limits - and those limits are sensible - then it can go down OK. However, this has its own flaws in execution, primarily that levelling up still has no effect on your ability to beat enemies.

I think that if you're talking something like Mass Effect, as was said above, then it can work really well - it keeps things challenging, allowing for it to be both a shooter where enemies are always at least a bit of a threat (rather than necessarily making there be some stupid progression of the bad guys sending more powerful troops at you as you progress through the level...though that can also be justified, ofc), and an RPG where your abilities change over the course of the game.

Dragon Age needs a bit of leeway, I think - once we see how it works, it'll either be good or bad, but as long as the levelling is only really a minor adjustment to make sure that enemies aren't just time wasted clicking on them to attack/walking out of your way, and not some magic rat-kill-more swtich that flicks up a notch every time you level, it's all good. If it works like some other games, I will be very disappointed, and expect a metric ton of mods released to change it.

[Calibisto]

caspertjuhh wrote...

I'd like a game with true levelling, that the enemys stay at the same level. would be refreshing. It would have a pretty fuked up difficluty curve though

Well I guess that with a free roaming world this might be true. If players can go everywhere from the start you don't want them to run into too powerful enemies.

On the otherhand, if the world opens up gradually fixed level works perfectly. Adjust the enemies level according to expected progress. That way it is possible to guide players towards a certain path without making it forced.
Sure you can go to the ancient ruins, but you do know that it is guarded by an Dragon right? So perhaps you want to explore that goblin village first?

[C. Patrick]

I agree with Calibisto. I'd rather work my way up to meet certain campaign challenges. However, in the beginning of a campaign, I'd rather fight more interesting opponents that scaled down to my level, than fight hordes of rodents and spiders.

[Calibisto]

Icinix wrote...
I wish games had a toggle for it. Sometimes scaling is good, and sometimes set areas are good. If I'm getting really deep into a game, I'd rather it didn't have scaling, but something like Mass Effect which I want to flow like a movie, then scaling is perfect.

Toggling is good. It gives people the choice.

WyrinDnjargo wrote...
As with all things, it depends how its handled. Do I want lowly goblins with hundred of hit points - no. But if I fight my way through to the goblin king at level 1 for a one on one battle, but then replay and am at level 3 and he has a shaman sidekick to balance things out, then that's just fun and gameplay isn't it?

In the above example it would be okay. But most of the time it is more something like this (Example from Mass Effect):
The rescue Liara mission.
Now you have the choice when to save Liara her. It can be one of the first things you do, or one of the last things. If you do it as one of the first missions the Krogan has little powers. It suits nicely with your own experience. Now if you do it later and gain some cool powers the Krogan also has gotten stronger and more powers.
Now the scaling in Mass Effect was okay. I really like ME, but still consider the scaling a con. I mean why would I bother gaining levels?

But that's just me. I can certainly see how other people like the challenge.

OwenM wrote...
I'm also of the opinion that it can be a very bad thing. It's been done poorly in the past, making weak enemies not more challenging, but merely making them take longer to die. (I'm looking at you, Oblivion! Stupid mountain lions that do no damage, but take 50 hits to kill.)

If you can make it so that certain creatures are varied in level, based on your level, but with limits - and those limits are sensible - then it can go down OK. However, this has its own flaws in execution, primarily that levelling up still has no effect on your ability to beat enemies.

I think that if you're talking something like Mass Effect, as was said above, then it can work really well - it keeps things challenging, allowing for it to be both a shooter where enemies are always at least a bit of a threat (rather than necessarily making there be some stupid progression of the bad guys sending more powerful troops at you as you progress through the level...though that can also be justified, ofc), and an RPG where your abilities change over the course of the game.

Dragon Age needs a bit of leeway, I think - once we see how it works, it'll either be good or bad, but as long as the levelling is only really a minor adjustment to make sure that enemies aren't just time wasted clicking on them to attack/walking out of your way, and not some magic rat-kill-more swtich that flicks up a notch every time you level, it's all good. If it works like some other games, I will be very disappointed, and expect a metric ton of mods released to change it.

Oblivion was so bad I never could make myself to finish it. It was when I got into a situation similar to your mountain lion, except with me it were wolves. What was worse I was playing a Bard, and as I got more and more levels combat got increasingly difficult. This was because a Bard wasn't really a combat character so my increased levels did little in combat. There were even faqs on how to play oblivion and gain as little levels as possible.

For Mass effect, well it was okay, but as I said in my above example I would have liked to see it differently.

Now one of the devs (Don't know which one) posted on DA forums that for DA:O the scaling wasn't really noticeable. So I'm curious how DA:O handles it.

Modifié par Calibisto, 30 octobre 2009 - 12:16 .

[Nighteye2]

In many forms I am against it, but I can understand how it can serve a good purpose sometimes. You don't want the game becoming too easy for someone who does every side-quest, nor too hard for people who skip the side-quests. A limited form of scaling could help the game present a consistent challenge level independant of how many side-quests the player completes.

[minamber]

I agree that Oblivion's level scaling was so horrible that it ruined the game.

It is possible, however, to have interesting level scaling. Some areas in BG 2 (the dungeon near the Umar Hills I think) had it, but it didn't change existing creatures, only added new ones of your level.

It kept the fights interesting without becoming tedious, imho.

However, most games that include scaling seem to do it badly.



In DA's case, every creature is supposed to have a level range. They'll adjust to your level but will never go below or above certain limits, so you'll never see a level 20 wolf, or a level 3 dragon.

[OwenM]

One possible option is that, based on your level, enemies multiply. For example, you've got a basic, single skeleton on level one.



Level five, there are two skeletons (whatever is appropriate, ofc). Level ten you get two skeletons and skeleton hero. Or whatever.



BUT. I still dislike this because: why? Why are there more skeletons, or more powerful skeletons? Perhaps skeletons are a bad example, but if you take the Liara mission mentioned above, that is *reasonable*. The Krogan would have been more powerful, because more time has passed. As you've had time to train and improve your skills, so has it. Which is sensible. Perhaps a bandit camp gains more recruits as time goes on. But that means that speed runs are easier. XD



You could always do a montage of training every time you level, but that still feels weird. There just isn't a really good way to have meaningful level scaling (perhaps DAO will do it!) that has been implemented so far. Oblivion was terrible, that much we can all agree on, I think.



@C. Patrick - can't agree with you there. Fighting weakened dragons and demons from the outset would absolutely suck. Sure, the cliche, weak creatures are dull, but I'm of the opinion that your main opponents in most games should be humanoids anyway - things like dragons, on the other hand, should be unique and special, incredibly rare. Even wolves and such in real life are unlikely to attack a person.

Thus, you should mostly fight bandits (at the start, which is why they kind of suck), and not very many at once. As you progress, you fight mercenaries, guards, soldiers, and so on, and in increasing numbers - the ability to take on three or four bandits at once is an indication of supreme skill...



But those are things that don't fit games like DA:O so much as my own projects...so I'll say no more.

[Sornin]

While I see the benefits and drawbacks of either a static or dynamic encounter system, I am in the camp that, in general, prefers a static environment.

A dynamic system has several inherent flaws that I feel are not outweighed by its benefits. Firstly, there is no sense of becoming more powerful. You get new abilities and new equipment, but this just keeps you competitive - that goblin you killed at level 1 will have gained new tricks by level 20, too.

Secondly, there is no choice with respect to making the game easier or harder by choosing when to attempt certain things. In a static system, you can choose to try to slay a dragon at level 5, knowing it is nearly impossible, or wait until level 25 knowing it will be simple by then. You have control over how hard the game is. In a dynamic system, the game decides how hard every encounter will be.

Finally, sometimes when I go back through areas I have conquered earlier I do not want to waste time fending off enemies that have mysteriously quadrupled in strength. I want to plow through, do what I need to do, and leave. When enemies scale, this can be tricky.

From what I have heard, Dragon Age: Origins caps how much enemies scale, which is nice, and things apparently do not respawn, so most of my issues would be at least partially resolved, if not completely. Still, I would rather the game set static level values and let me decide how to progress.

P.S. Another drawback is that sometimes the algorithm is wonky and scales enemies either too little or, perhaps worse, too much, so the challenge is either trivial or extreme. Also, the game needs to guess what sort of gear you have, and if you happen to have had a rough run and are undergeared, you may find killing things the game assumes you can kill very difficult. There is often a large gap in power between a party in good gear and a party in shoddy gear, and at least with a static system the latter one can make up for it by sheer levels, but in a dynamic system levels have little bearing, making gear the deciding factor.

Modifié par Sornin, 01 novembre 2009 - 12:24 .

[GhoXen]

That's certainly the one thing I hated most in Oblivion.. for about 30 minutes before I found a mod that disables it.

[KingSarevok]

Before clicking on this topic my opinion was that scaling is the worst thing to ever happen to an RPG.

But you guys said that Mass Effect utilizes enemy scaling as well? Wow, never noticed that! And I really absolutely loved that game and its balance!

That means scaling can't be that bad, right?  

[RetrOldSchool]

minamber wrote...

I agree that Oblivion's level scaling was so horrible that it ruined the game.
It is possible, however, to have interesting level scaling. Some areas in BG 2 (the dungeon near the Umar Hills I think) had it, but it didn't change existing creatures, only added new ones of your level.
It kept the fights interesting without becoming tedious, imho.
However, most games that include scaling seem to do it badly.

In DA's case, every creature is supposed to have a level range. They'll adjust to your level but will never go below or above certain limits, so you'll never see a level 20 wolf, or a level 3 dragon.

Agreed! Oblivion was a prime example of too obvious scaling! Together with scaled equipment and dungeon resapwns it became a deal breaker for me. I couldn't go on playing. Scaled equipment must be the most idiotic thing ever! Why would every petty thug in Cyrodyl suddenly sport the latest in weapons and armor. I guess they were just so very 1337...

Fallout 3 had scaling but less obvious and raiders never came running with power armor etc.

Most JRPG's don't scale which makes sense but can make back tracking really tedious, i like it when some of them have a timed button press to avoid fights with very low enemies. But i guess the more linear an RPG is the less it needs scaling.

I think ME did it well and I think scaling range is the way to go, along with a moderate scaling of equipment. 

[MrGOH]

I think ME scaling > Oblivion, but part of that is structural - most players don't go back to earlier areas with enemies in ME, so they don't notice the scaling as much as in Oblivion with it's open world.

Edit: Me also managed to have a slight difficulty curve, at least within each hub world. Oblivion just had a flat line, so it never feels like you're taking on tougher enemies.

Modifié par MrGOH, 01 novembre 2009 - 07:56 .