28 réponses à ce sujet

[IntoTheDarkness]

IMHO Minimal level scaling in BG series is what makes battles so fun in terms of replaybility.

You can choose when to challenge the opponent and also there always are a sense of uncertainty, whereas in level scaled fights your change of winning is somewhat fixed and you can expect the strength of you enemy to be roughly the same throughout the game, which i think takes out the thrill and excitement of each fight.

I just heard of DA3 today and don't know if it's already confirmed but hopefully we don't see another Dragonage-oblivion mixed style level scaling like in DA2. it was awful to say at least.

[Battlebloodmage]

I hope the scaling is more even in the next game. There's no point in gaining level if the opponents get stronger than you the more you level. In DA2, the lower my levels, the stronger I am.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Level scaling has it's place, but there should always be quests/enemies/areas that are just too hard to conquer until a certain level.

DA:O did it very well. Skyrim & Oblivion suck because of it.

[Wulfram]

I recently played Divinity 2, and I liked what it did instead of level scaling.

XP rewards were heavily scaled based on your level, so you got loads of XP if you were taking on a challenge ahead of you, and tiny amounts if you were beating up on enemies who were a lot weaker.

The consequence is that in the long run you'll end up at the same sort of level and thus avoid the issue where the game is either too easy for people who like to do all the side quests or too difficult for people who focus on the main quest. But on the way you can still encounter occasions where there's a tough area so that you might need to go away and level up before tackling it, or where you're now powerful enough to win easily.

[Giltspur]

For the most part, I like level scaling.  I think I'd like this:

Enemies that are always your level. (Most enemies.)
Enemies that are always above your level. (Special cases.)
Enemies that are always x levels below you.  (Dogs, rats, ferrets, dragonflies. These things are beneath you.)
Enemies that are a high level or two levels above you.  (Say, for example a hidden Lich in an inn.  At a low level, he's impossible.  But he's also optional.  And you can return once you're more powerful and stand a chance against him.)
Enemies that are at your level until you are a sufficiently high level and they are x levels below you.  (Those bandits you used to fear no longer challenge because you're a beast now.)

That way you get the bonuses of level scaling:
1) Approach content in the order you'd like.
2) Have the game remain challenging desplite leveling (or overleveling from side quests, for example).

But get the feeling of progression and increasing strength from leveling against enemies that you feel you should feel stronger than at some advanced stage of the game.

[Maria Caliban]

IIRC, Neverwinter Night had level scaling based on area, so while the creatures adjusted their level in response to the party's, the area itself had a hard minimum and maximum level.

If DA:I is going to be a larger, more open game, part of the fun is coming upon challenges or becoming more powerful than the local riff-raff. No bandits in full deadric armor, please.

[Sidney]

Level scaling creates such an awful feel when you've gotten to like level 10 and the back alley bandits are as tough as you. Really not much can be done because otherwise the game might play too much like IWD did if you replayed using the same characters.

The problem is more about how leveling is implemented and the fact that you level up a lot and leveling causing such massive increases in power. If leveling was more subtle and you don't go from helpless weakling to demi-god it'd be ok.

[Wulfram]

One thing I'd say is that even if you've got level scaling, you should still make sure there's still a sense of progression. Enemies that might be turned into Bosses at the start of the game should not still be top level enemies at the end.  Regular bandits should after a while be easily killed "critters", with their more skilled being regular enemies.

An example of this done right would be Ogres in DA:O.

Modifié par Wulfram, 31 octobre 2012 - 03:37 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Why does level scaling even need to be necessary? Why not have a mook always be a mook, regardless of level? Why not have totally, über-powerful beings be über-powerful?

When did this change happen that every dungeon needs to be totally linear, or that every enemy in a dungeon needs to be defeatable the first (or perhaps only) time the player encounters them?

If I choose to go to dungeon X as a level 5 character and I come across a Lich who is level 30, why does the game need to accommodate this? Why not just have a way to avoid the part of the dungeon where the Lich is? Why not have a way to engage the Lich that doesn't involve combat? Why not tell the player "you may not want to journey here, or you will get your Taint handed to you?"

Level scaling is, in my opinion, lazy developing. It pushes an all-combat approach to situations and it is afraid of ever telling the player no. It nerfs enemies that should be terrifying to every player, and empowers the most mundane of enemies to the point of ridiculousness.


Every dungeon (or quest area, if you'd prefer) should not be created equal. It's not encouraging a 'non-linear type of gameplay' it's only seeking to point out that your hero can do the impossible on a minute-by-minute basis and that killing things is the best solution to everything, period.

[Wulfram]

Level scaling isn't necessary, but it does serve a valuable purpose.

The final boss of the game should be a total walkover for completionists, nor should they be totally impossible for people who don't want to screw around with sidequests when the fate of the world is on the line.


There are other ways to handle this. XP scaling, like I mentioned in an earlier post. Reducing the amount of XP from sidequests to limit the end game power disparity. Not having such a dramatic power gradient, so that enemies who are a bunch of levels lower may still pose a threat.

I'd also say it's hard to write coherent RPG plots for character who can no longer be challenged by regular human opponents. Conjuring up armies of dragons as foes because they're the only things capable of challenging the PC does little for the integrity of the game world. So some type of implicit level scaling is almost necessary, even if it's not an explicit game rule - if the late game Denerim guards were as tough as Bann Vaughan's, then the question would be why the Warden and party didn't simply conquer by themselves?

[MillKill]

I think level-scaling is necessary for the main quest. Due to the existence of of side-quests, there is a significant level range players could be at during any given section of the main quest. Level-scaling here is appropriate.

I don't feel that side content should be scaled. Let players tackle it when it is difficult, easy, or just right. It's optional, so you don't need to worry about players not being able to complete it to progress with the game. The sense of progression you get from defeating enemies that were too tough before is desireable in an rpg.

Modifié par MillKill, 31 octobre 2012 - 05:38 .

[Wozearly]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Why does level scaling even need to be necessary? Why not have a mook always be a mook, regardless of level? Why not have totally, über-powerful beings be über-powerful?

When did this change happen that every dungeon needs to be totally linear, or that every enemy in a dungeon needs to be defeatable the first (or perhaps only) time the player encounters them?

If I choose to go to dungeon X as a level 5 character and I come across a Lich who is level 30, why does the game need to accommodate this? Why not just have a way to avoid the part of the dungeon where the Lich is? Why not have a way to engage the Lich that doesn't involve combat? Why not tell the player "you may not want to journey here, or you will get your Taint handed to you?"

Level scaling is, in my opinion, lazy developing. It pushes an all-combat approach to situations and it is afraid of ever telling the player no. It nerfs enemies that should be terrifying to every player, and empowers the most mundane of enemies to the point of ridiculousness.


Every dungeon (or quest area, if you'd prefer) should not be created equal. It's not encouraging a 'non-linear type of gameplay' it's only seeking to point out that your hero can do the impossible on a minute-by-minute basis and that killing things is the best solution to everything, period.

I agree with your grumbles, but not your solution.

Removing level scaling completely risks pushing a very linear and determined path for the player if different levels are 'set' to certain level requirements or difficulty, much in the way that MMOs do. This means you're required to do (x) number of quests / kills at low levels to be able to handle a subsequent path, which wouldn't work well with Bioware's traditional "you can choose what order you do things in" approach.

It also means that side quests would need to have low (or no) XP rewards, to avoid completionists being able to cakewalk later levels and/or people skipping side quests having an absolute horror of a time the further they go into the game.

I'm also not entirely convinced about how people would react in practice to non-critical enemies being dropped in that are intentionally above their level to the point of not being able to deal with them via combat except through returning to that area, presumably only for that specific purpose, later in the game. If the idea is to have certain enemies that are incredibly lethal, and encourage non-combative responses to them, that could also be done via level scaling without necessarily making them impossible to defeat in combat. In a way, the actual problem is that character death / injury is very light in the DA series, so there's very little risk attached to engaging enemies above your level except for the fact that you might need a reload or have to burn through some health / injury consumables (not normally considered a huge cost).

I agree that not all areas should be created equal - the fact that Orzammar's scaling in DA:O was set at a higher base level than other areas meant that the Deep Roads tended to feel more dangerous than the random encounters, which made a lot of sense. Equally, I agree that the more dangerous enemies should continue to be dangerous irrespective of the level you walk in at...in both cases, I feel that level scaling is a better way to implement this than fixed levels.

On the "killing things is the best solution" angle, my view is that's partly because the non-combat resolutions have historically led to the same conclusion, but often with lower rewards in terms of XP or items. My preference would be to handle it similarly to the "good way / evil way" approach, which grants the player broadly comparable but different rewards for successfully resolving the situation through different means. 

[Emzamination]

They already said there would be no level scaling.

[Fast Jimmy]

quote]Emzamination wrote...

They already said there would be no level scaling.[/quote]

They have actually said the exact opposite. There was level scaling in DA:O and DA2 and developers such as Allan have said they are considering ways to handle leek scaling in a way that doesn't punish players who aren't completionists, but still rewards those who want to do every side quest. 

So, in the words of Grandma's Boy... you're dumb. 



Also, in light of those who say that the game would be forced to become linear without level scaling, I say only that evey dungeon does not need to be fully explored the first time they are visited, nor every location be populate with the same level enemy. In the original Ultima games, dungeons became progressively more difficult the lower you journeyed in them, with enemies and content appropriate for low level characters, and harder content for more skilled ones. A game like Ultima 3: Exodus involved lots of exploration, with leveling up[ being part of the territory and not knowing when to say "I'm not strong enough for this yet" was a death sentence. 

Point being... dungeon X does not need to be geared towards level 5 players, Dungeon Y does not need to be geared towards level 10, etc. Every dungeon could, theoretically, be designed for all levels... But lower level players would need to avoid high level dangers, possibly returning to them later when they felt they were better prepared for them. 

[Emzamination]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

They already said there would be no level scaling.

They have actually said the exact opposite. There was level scaling in DA:O and DA2 and developers such as Allan have said they are considering ways to handle leek scaling in a way that doesn't punish players who aren't completionists, but still rewards those who want to do every side quest. 

So, in the words of Grandma's Boy... you're dumb. 

Hmph, well I never... <_<

Modifié par Emzamination, 31 octobre 2012 - 08:50 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Hmph, well I never...

Meant only with the most playful of intentions, mind you. If you've recognize the quote (or seen the movie) you might recognize that the person who says it is wrong, and the person he called dumb was right.

Also, it segues me into being able to say "High Score? What does that mean? Is that bad? Did I break it?"

If anyone who plays video games hasn't seen Grandma's Boy, you need to do so as soon as possible.

[Wozearly]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Also, in light of those who say that the game would be forced to become linear without level scaling, I say only that evey dungeon does not need to be fully explored the first time they are visited, nor every location be populate with the same level enemy.

...dungeon X does not need to be geared towards level 5 players, Dungeon Y does not need to be geared towards level 10, etc. Every dungeon could, theoretically, be designed for all levels... But lower level players would need to avoid high level dangers, possibly returning to them later when they felt they were better prepared for them. 

Fair play, that's another way to handle it - one that has, in the right context, worked well in the past.

Not sure it sidesteps the other main concerns I flagged in my last post. For clarity;

1) It risks creates more of a grinding feel to the game. MMOs are a good example, as there are certain areas you cannot go if your level is too low (even if you can go to everywhere around them), and if you attempt dungeons (or similar) when your character's level or gear is below expectations, you'll normally find a point when you can't progress further midway through.

From experience, this tends to annoy players far more than it adds any value (except where its a legitimate means to prevent people rushing to the endgame and causing balance problems). Also, the majority of players don't seem to go back to complete the missing content in a completionist fashion, unless the reward is particularly good, in which case they'll grumble and rant that they couldn't get it at the time.

Unless there's a legitimate and interesting reason to return to the area you had to partially abandon before, it may suffer from being seen as a different variation on the re-used environments issue with DA2. If you have to cut your way back through the same enemies as on your first time around (ie, a grind and a time sink) or run back through the empty zones (another time sink), it'll annoy a lot of people.

2) If there is no scaling, its difficult to balance completionists with non-completionists. As a natural consequence of players being able to explore more of the world and gain valuable loot / xp as a reward, you'll end up with a situation where two players can reach the same point in the game's narrative with vastly different levels of strength. If the game is balanced for non-completionists, completionists will find the endgame stages a cakewalk. If its balanced for completionists, non-completionists will grumble that they're being forced to grind sidequests. If its balanced in the middle, it doesn't necessarily suit either side.

The alternative is to offer rewards that are different to loot or xp for returning and dealing with the more difficult enemies / areas, but I'm not sure what that would be or whether it would work for players. Would people gladly go back and kill / persuade that previously impossible foe just because it was necessary for an achievement?

3) It more naturally fits an open world game. Yes, okay, this is a new point - I cheated, so sue me. But I think its valid. In a world where you can easily go wherever you please and have multiple options available to you at any given time, hitting unexpected barriers to progression in one place isn't a problem. Its actually desirable, as it pushes you to spend more time exploring the world.

You can also play around with giving players a different approach to risk, precisely because they have multiple options. Is it worth taking on that powerful foe? No, probably best to avoid him and carry on with your life. And its fine, because with relatively few exceptions this won't prevent you from progressing your character's story. Its harder to see how this would work naturally into Bioware's current model, where there are very few encounters you can circumvent and the game is designed on this basis.


TL;DR - I still completely agree with your criticisms of how level scaling in its current form causes restrictions and encourages certain behaviour. I just think this is better resolved by other means than wiping out level scaling entirely.

[Fishy]

Dark soul really did the 'scaling' very good.  You grew more powerful, but even a level 1 mob was never a push over. You always had to  be prudent.

In skyrim by the end I was so overpowered I could 1 shot a Legendary Dragon. In Awakening I was so overpowered.... I started to believe I might be the Maker itself.

What ****** me off often it's how in game such has awakening no one really recognize how powerful you truly are. Because you're never more powerful than  the story. Know what I mean ? A common hoodlum  won't recognize that big mighty hammer of doom with the full  plate forged into the blood of Lucifer.. and you're like a walking behemoth that can 1 Shot a god .. But than the common bandit just ain't.. impressed. Everyone could beat you in a cutscene. That how rpg with strong narrative roll. That what I call limitation .

In awakening I was only ever beaten by a cutscene. Dark soul was the very first game that managed to pull scaling perfectly.

Modifié par Suprez30, 01 novembre 2012 - 12:44 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Wozearly wrote...

1) I agree that grinding is a bad thing. However... demonstrating how your character has become stronger is a good thing. If you were terrified to face an enemy or enter a location at one time because it would spell certain death, despite the most refined of tactics, but are able to hold your own later, does that not give a greater sense of accomplishment than having bandits stay at the relative same level as you? I realize that grinding only to return later is a big bummer, but think of it in another light...

...side quests. Side quests, currently, are quests given to you that aren't on the main plot, but which there is no real reason to not go and complete roughly the time when you get them. But what if, instead, the quest system was set up to include areas you have already been, but deal with the tougher areas you wouldn't have been able to tackle the first time around? Then this would be optional content which could only be tackled at later, higher levels.

If you went to Dungeon X first, you would possibly be able to do the main quests surrounding said dungeon, but you may have to do it by avoiding combat, using non-combat skills to solve solutions or even (GASP!) settle for non-optimal plot outcomes!!! Then, afterwards, you could go to Dungeon Y. Here, you would be a higher level and be able to handle more of the difficult content (but possibly still have a few things you would not be able to tackle). Then, you go to Dungeon Z, where you are sufficiently powerful enough to do not just the main quest, but all optional content as well for that Dungeon. In addition, you might even have the option of going back to Dungeons X and Y and take care of those areas/content you could not handle previously.

Then, next playthrough, you start out in Dungeon Z and are faced with the same limitations you saw in Dungeon X the first time... point being, you can still take a non-linear approach to the story, where any dungeon is optional at any time, but you know that the first dungeon you visit will not allow you to do every side quest/see all optional content. No grinding required, just shifting the expectation that you would be able to do everything all at once. Only by completing the story/quests in other dungeons would you be powerful enough to clear an entire dungeon all at once.

2) This is always true, regardless of if there is scaling or not. DA2 scaled too much, making enemies either A) equally as powerful as you are or MORE powerful, since the scaling was based on if you used an optimal build - using SUB optimal builds resulted in the enemies becoming more powerful than you every level, rather than the opposite.

The main plot does not need to be the hardest part of the game. In fact, many times optional content is much more difficult just by default. The Archdemon was a Big Bad... but it really wasn't all THAT much more difficult than the High Dragon or Flemeth (both optional pieces of content). If you add in the fact that you would have reinforcements from your armies in the AD fight, it makes it arguably easier.

Point being - the main plot does not need to be the most insanely difficult part of the game, especially if the result is enemies becoming more powerful than the PC. I suggested a way once to award XP based on how badly your team was getting beat in an attempt to avoid level scaling, but it was questioned and challenged more than embraced. Such is life, I suppose.

3) DA3 will not be an open world game. It is a game with a more open world... but honestly, after the cardboard box that was Kirkwall, Super Mario Brothers is an open-world game. I doubt there will be a focus on many random encounters, battles outside of dungeon-like areas or many opportunities to "grind" XP from fights outside of the quests in question. I don't think DA3 will let you stroll up to the Big Bad's Castle after the Walkthrough segment is done or anything. If, instead, you are referencing a more non-linear game design, like we saw in DA:O, then refer to my suggestions in point 1, as I think they could really be useful in A) introducing side quests/ optional content in a logical manner and gating certain areas of the game off just by default, but at the same time making the player feel like they are advancing at later levels.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Wulfram wrote...

I recently played Divinity 2, and I liked what it did instead of level scaling.

XP rewards were heavily scaled based on your level, so you got loads of XP if you were taking on a challenge ahead of you, and tiny amounts if you were beating up on enemies who were a lot weaker.

The consequence is that in the long run you'll end up at the same sort of level and thus avoid the issue where the game is either too easy for people who like to do all the side quests or too difficult for people who focus on the main quest. But on the way you can still encounter occasions where there's a tough area so that you might need to go away and level up before tackling it, or where you're now powerful enough to win easily.

Great game and yes - does "scaling" very well.

For games in general I just don't understand where the problem lies in having areas or quests which are too tough until you are more powerful. Yes freedom of choice is needed and fun, so having some areas scale make sense. But not everywhere should scale - certain places should be reserved for those more powerful.

I despise how Skyrim and Oblivion "handled" the problem. In fact I despise both those games full stop, what a dull-fest.

[Sanunes]

Level scaling is almost a must, but if its anything like what Oblivion has done (I haven't played enough Skyrim to see if its still as frustrating) I probably will get frustrated and stop playing. There are many different ways to accomplish level scaling with changing out enemies, making enemies "tougher and stronger" to demonstrate gear increases, reducing experience if the area is too low in level, adding in creatures that boost the power of enemies around you, and there are probably more that I can't even begin to think of. The only kind of scaling I don't want is adding a lot more creatures to the combat to make it into Horde mode, that is one thing I detest in single player games is when they make areas "tough" by making into an endless grind.

[Bernhardtbr]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Level scaling has it's place, but there should always be quests/enemies/areas that are just too hard to conquer until a certain level.

DA:O did it very well. Skyrim & Oblivion suck because of it.

Morrowind was even worse. With leveling cheese you could swat Golden Saints as if they were flies eventually, it was the most powerful enemy and simply didn´t scale.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Bernhardtbr wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Level scaling has it's place, but there should always be quests/enemies/areas that are just too hard to conquer until a certain level.

DA:O did it very well. Skyrim & Oblivion suck because of it.

Morrowind was even worse. With leveling cheese you could swat Golden Saints as if they were flies eventually, it was the most powerful enemy and simply didn´t scale.

I both agree and disagree - you are indeed dead right, in time you became well overpowered and it was pretty laughable. However, Morrowind as a game kind of allowed for that progrssion to feel so natural, and so right, that it kind of fit. I felt like I had gone from prisoner, to worker, to warrior, to warrior-mage-theif, to legend, to demi-god - it didn't feel out of place for some reason. Yes it killed the challenge and there should have been some bosses and areas which leveled, but I still much preffered it to Oblivion & Skyrim. Challnge is pointless if it's a dull and tiresome challenge which waters down the game.