When enemy levels are scaled to your own, it takes away the satisfactions of devleloping your cahracters which should be the major part of any RPG.
Non-scaled enemies provide much replayability on top of unpredictabiliteis in each battle, but it also makes a game more difficult and linear for some players(casual gamers who dislike overwhelming challenges).
So here's what Bioware can do to accomodate both sides' needs. Scale the strength of enemies, but do so using the number of enemy spawn. Or better yet, set the number of enemies(without regards to player's level) and give an option to turn on level scaling which will tone down their number to fit the level of players, so those who seek challenges can have their fun without scaring casual gamers away.
DA:O used a limited level scaling compared to DA2 and we know how it was still ridiculus. Enemy darkspawns at the beginning spawned with cheap irons and street thugs in later chapters came with dragonbone armors, every single one of them. It ruined the immersion and I expected DA2 to be different, only later to know that DA2 took it further and now your high dragon is equally strong as a bandit group. You must'nt continue this crow mute madness.
No level scaling: replace it with an increment of enemy numbers
Débuté par
IntoTheDarkness
, nov. 10 2012 03:04
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 10 novembre 2012 - 03:35
Archyyy
-
- Members
- 120 messages
Level scaling is very bad, true. Takes away challenge and the feeling of progression. They should either increase the amount of enemies as you suggested or just take level scaling away. If level scaling is taken away there needs to be some indication as to what area or enemy is beyond your skill and what isnt but thats fine and shouldnt be hard to do.
Also without level scaling skilled players can take on tougher enemies at lower levels and receive better rewards. Scaring away casuals shouldnt come before making a better game. With this theyre scaring away the more "hardcore" players.
Also without level scaling skilled players can take on tougher enemies at lower levels and receive better rewards. Scaring away casuals shouldnt come before making a better game. With this theyre scaring away the more "hardcore" players.
Modifié par Archyyy, 10 novembre 2012 - 03:36 .
#3
Posté 10 novembre 2012 - 03:39
Maria Caliban
-
- Members
- 26 094 messages
IntoTheDarkness wrote...
DA:O used a limited level scaling compared to DA2 and we know how it was still ridiculus. Enemy darkspawns at the beginning spawned with cheap irons and street thugs in later chapters came with dragonbone armors, every single one of them. It ruined the immersion and I expected DA2 to be different, only later to know that DA2 took it further and now your high dragon is equally strong as a bandit group. You must'nt continue this crow mute madness.
I heard very few complaints about level scaling in DA:O. I'm going to guess that for the majority of players, it wasn't a problem and didn't take away from their feeling of satisfaction or 'immersion.'
#4
Posté 10 novembre 2012 - 03:58
GipsyDangeresque
-
- Members
- 565 messages
I'm curious about the advantages/tradeoffs to Area-based scaling compared to Player Character-based scaling.
Fallout: New Vegas cleverly placed lower and upper caps on how far any individual creature could scale to the PC, causing lower level enemies to scale for a while but fall behind quickly, while powerful enemies would never come down below a certain point.
Origins employed that to some extent with each of the various army recruitment storylines having a lower and upper cap.
All I know is that I can agree with anyone's complaint that Dragon Age 2's scaling felt... wrong even if I can't identify a solution. Weapons and armor felt like they became outclassed by new replacements far too quickly. Something about the star rankings and the degradation of stat values World of Warcraft-style just felt off-putting to me.
Fallout: New Vegas cleverly placed lower and upper caps on how far any individual creature could scale to the PC, causing lower level enemies to scale for a while but fall behind quickly, while powerful enemies would never come down below a certain point.
Origins employed that to some extent with each of the various army recruitment storylines having a lower and upper cap.
All I know is that I can agree with anyone's complaint that Dragon Age 2's scaling felt... wrong even if I can't identify a solution. Weapons and armor felt like they became outclassed by new replacements far too quickly. Something about the star rankings and the degradation of stat values World of Warcraft-style just felt off-putting to me.
Modifié par Atemeus, 10 novembre 2012 - 03:59 .
#5
Posté 10 novembre 2012 - 10:02
philippe willaume
-
- Members
- 1 465 messages
The difficulty with scaling is that it depends as much upon the scaling of the opposition than it depend upon the equipment and character development.
So with equipment, potions and build, you can get ahead of the curve just as you would if there was no scaling mechanism.
the number of enemies is a good difficulty scaling when the system is does not level equipment and damages and the ability to hit are performance related.
i.e. all humans have a wounding factor of 15-20, Two handed sword has a damage base of 25 or a 7.92*57 has damage base of 10, and the actual damage inflicted depend upon how successful your attack compared to their defence has been.
Having 3 opponent is much more challenging that 1 because every attack is potentially lethal and can potentially hit.
now if your are using level, equipment efficiency has to go up with level, as well as damage factor or hit point and defense
So a fixed low level goon is exponentially less of a meaningful threat as the level and equipment difference increases
Hence increasing the number of enemy only increases the length of the fight not really the difficulty.
that being said a mix of level scaling depending or enemy type and numbers could take care of difficulty and level scaling.
the trick is to keep the low level being a meaningfull threat and increasing gear is one way of doing that
phil
So with equipment, potions and build, you can get ahead of the curve just as you would if there was no scaling mechanism.
the number of enemies is a good difficulty scaling when the system is does not level equipment and damages and the ability to hit are performance related.
i.e. all humans have a wounding factor of 15-20, Two handed sword has a damage base of 25 or a 7.92*57 has damage base of 10, and the actual damage inflicted depend upon how successful your attack compared to their defence has been.
Having 3 opponent is much more challenging that 1 because every attack is potentially lethal and can potentially hit.
now if your are using level, equipment efficiency has to go up with level, as well as damage factor or hit point and defense
So a fixed low level goon is exponentially less of a meaningful threat as the level and equipment difference increases
Hence increasing the number of enemy only increases the length of the fight not really the difficulty.
that being said a mix of level scaling depending or enemy type and numbers could take care of difficulty and level scaling.
the trick is to keep the low level being a meaningfull threat and increasing gear is one way of doing that
phil
#6
Posté 10 novembre 2012 - 01:02
Fast Jimmy
-
- Members
- 17 939 messages
I'm more of the mindset of a more organic dungeon design rather than level scaling at all.
Does it really make sense that enemies should be greatly more powerful, numerous, or loaded up on hit points just because you ran into them a few days, weeks, months or even years (in the case of DA2) later? You could theoretically make the case in DA:O, with the Blight corrupting the land and more devastating creatures like Blight bears/wolves coming out of the woodwork. But for your average game experience? It just doesn't make sense.
It also doesn't make sense that every enemy of a certain level all lives right next to each other, while all low level enemies live in their own respective dungeon. Do lions, sharks, giant golden eagles, giant squids and polar bears all live right next to each other, while antelope, carp and moles all love in another? No, because the huge, deadly predators would outcompete each other, while no one was taking advantage of the areas with more resources/prey and less competition.
For instance, an area surrounded by low-level moons would be a great place for an Arcane Horror/Pride Demon to dwell, as it would give them solidarity (imagine the laboratory in the Hrecilian Ruins as an example of the type of creature I am talking about). They would have no reason to be dwelling in an area like the Deep Roads, where Darkspawn would roam in large numbers. Similarly, a High Dragon would not be near any other creatures if it could help it, as it can fly far to eat prey and it wants to protect its offspring.
Point being - any dungeon should logically be a mix of really low level, mid level and a few extremely high level enemies. The difference? The designers should not expect the player to walk into any dungeon, at any time, and be able to slay EVERY enemy. The player should be going into the dungeon for a set reason and be able to handle all of the low level, possibly struggle against the mid-level, and then have the high level enemies be completely optional, but with high rewards.
Of course, this would require non-combat ways to solve problems, such as a speeds skill, stealth mechanics/gameplay/skills, use of magic outside of combat or other means seen in games in the past. This would spice up the game, as the player would know (or they would find it quickly, the hard way) that certain challenges are WAY beyond their ability to handle through combat and that it might be wiser to try and take a different route.
This would leave the primary objective path fairly open, but would increase the challenges of avoiding the more dangerous enemies. In addition, it would give a real sense of accomplishment later, when the player could go back and try and tackle hard challenges they were woefully incapable of handling before.
DA:O did this to some degree (althought it definitely used level scaling), where enemies like Flemeth, the High Dragon, the Revenants that had those sealed scrolls and enemies like Gaxkang were open to being tackled either the first time the option appeared, or later on in the game when the player felt up to it. These were all beatable the first time (with some tactics and patience) so they aren't perfect examples, but if DA:O had not had ANY level scaling, they would have been high, high levels that a low or mid level player would have had no chance with.
This would make for a much more interesting world to me, as I would be walking around, fearing the possibility of stumbling on an area/creature I would have NO business tackling, instead of running in heartiest anywhere, never afraid of getting in combat. I would feel accomplished not only taking down these fear-inspiring enemies later, but in using some of my less-used non-combat skills in ways that would save my hide.
And, all round, be a lot more fun.
Does it really make sense that enemies should be greatly more powerful, numerous, or loaded up on hit points just because you ran into them a few days, weeks, months or even years (in the case of DA2) later? You could theoretically make the case in DA:O, with the Blight corrupting the land and more devastating creatures like Blight bears/wolves coming out of the woodwork. But for your average game experience? It just doesn't make sense.
It also doesn't make sense that every enemy of a certain level all lives right next to each other, while all low level enemies live in their own respective dungeon. Do lions, sharks, giant golden eagles, giant squids and polar bears all live right next to each other, while antelope, carp and moles all love in another? No, because the huge, deadly predators would outcompete each other, while no one was taking advantage of the areas with more resources/prey and less competition.
For instance, an area surrounded by low-level moons would be a great place for an Arcane Horror/Pride Demon to dwell, as it would give them solidarity (imagine the laboratory in the Hrecilian Ruins as an example of the type of creature I am talking about). They would have no reason to be dwelling in an area like the Deep Roads, where Darkspawn would roam in large numbers. Similarly, a High Dragon would not be near any other creatures if it could help it, as it can fly far to eat prey and it wants to protect its offspring.
Point being - any dungeon should logically be a mix of really low level, mid level and a few extremely high level enemies. The difference? The designers should not expect the player to walk into any dungeon, at any time, and be able to slay EVERY enemy. The player should be going into the dungeon for a set reason and be able to handle all of the low level, possibly struggle against the mid-level, and then have the high level enemies be completely optional, but with high rewards.
Of course, this would require non-combat ways to solve problems, such as a speeds skill, stealth mechanics/gameplay/skills, use of magic outside of combat or other means seen in games in the past. This would spice up the game, as the player would know (or they would find it quickly, the hard way) that certain challenges are WAY beyond their ability to handle through combat and that it might be wiser to try and take a different route.
This would leave the primary objective path fairly open, but would increase the challenges of avoiding the more dangerous enemies. In addition, it would give a real sense of accomplishment later, when the player could go back and try and tackle hard challenges they were woefully incapable of handling before.
DA:O did this to some degree (althought it definitely used level scaling), where enemies like Flemeth, the High Dragon, the Revenants that had those sealed scrolls and enemies like Gaxkang were open to being tackled either the first time the option appeared, or later on in the game when the player felt up to it. These were all beatable the first time (with some tactics and patience) so they aren't perfect examples, but if DA:O had not had ANY level scaling, they would have been high, high levels that a low or mid level player would have had no chance with.
This would make for a much more interesting world to me, as I would be walking around, fearing the possibility of stumbling on an area/creature I would have NO business tackling, instead of running in heartiest anywhere, never afraid of getting in combat. I would feel accomplished not only taking down these fear-inspiring enemies later, but in using some of my less-used non-combat skills in ways that would save my hide.
And, all round, be a lot more fun.
#7
Posté 10 novembre 2012 - 06:47
Imp of the Perverse
-
- Members
- 1 662 messages
Increasing mob counts is fine, though possibly limited by console performance. I'd prefer visually distinct tiers for enemies - so the wimpy bandits you fight at level 2 are replaced by more powerful bandits later on, but the more powerful bandits also look more powerful (more muscular, better armor, better weaons), so it still feels like you've gained in strength even though the fights are just as tough.
#8
Posté 10 novembre 2012 - 07:24
hexaligned
-
- Members
- 3 166 messages
Imp of the Perverse wrote...
Increasing mob counts is fine, though possibly limited by console performance. I'd prefer visually distinct tiers for enemies - so the wimpy bandits you fight at level 2 are replaced by more powerful bandits later on, but the more powerful bandits also look more powerful (more muscular, better armor, better weaons), so it still feels like you've gained in strength even though the fights are just as tough.
This. If you increase enemy numbers, something else has to give. I'd rather have a few scaling enemies with some more complex level layouts/ more resource intensive AI algorythms.
#9
Posté 10 novembre 2012 - 07:45
PsychoBlonde
-
- Members
- 5 130 messages
Maria Caliban wrote...
I heard very few complaints about level scaling in DA:O. I'm going to guess that for the majority of players, it wasn't a problem and didn't take away from their feeling of satisfaction or 'immersion.'
Yeah, and I'm wondering how this idea would work with the inevitable High Dragon fight.
And how in heck would you scale the Arishok duel in this fashion?
#10
Posté 28 juin 2013 - 09:05
Stahl33
-
- Members
- 60 messages
I hated the scaling in DA2...
I think you should start with relatively high health, and then have the gains each level that might give you perhaps 2 or 3 times more health or mana or whatever at the end of the game. This would mean that early in the game it would take you 15 game seconds to take down 1 Hurlock, or mercenary, and at the end of the game it would take 5 seconds at the end of the game for the same enemy. This means that you could have a little scaling of the enemies (to a certain degree only), but then you could just add more enemies when you get to a higher level... (that is when mages are more important with AoE, and it makes them less effective at lower levels, which is the way it should be with mages... the old glass cannon).
Also you can just have different monsters or enemies... You might walk into a den of really hard guys when you are level 1, and manage to get away before they cream you... or you might just get your head handed back to you on a platter before you escaped.
More abilities at higher levels means that you will be able to do more things, and that makes it interesting in of itself... You don't need large gains in the base statistics..
I think you should start with relatively high health, and then have the gains each level that might give you perhaps 2 or 3 times more health or mana or whatever at the end of the game. This would mean that early in the game it would take you 15 game seconds to take down 1 Hurlock, or mercenary, and at the end of the game it would take 5 seconds at the end of the game for the same enemy. This means that you could have a little scaling of the enemies (to a certain degree only), but then you could just add more enemies when you get to a higher level... (that is when mages are more important with AoE, and it makes them less effective at lower levels, which is the way it should be with mages... the old glass cannon).
Also you can just have different monsters or enemies... You might walk into a den of really hard guys when you are level 1, and manage to get away before they cream you... or you might just get your head handed back to you on a platter before you escaped.
More abilities at higher levels means that you will be able to do more things, and that makes it interesting in of itself... You don't need large gains in the base statistics..
#11
Posté 28 juin 2013 - 09:42
Wolfva2
-
- Members
- 1 937 messages
I've never been a fan of level scaling. By the end of the game, you're a powerhouse of destruction; a veritable master of combat. You have the best armor, the best weapons. Yet, the same type of street thugs that caused you problems in the beginning of the game give you problems now? Why? Where did THEY get their training? Their experiences? And where the HECK are they getting all that rare armor and weapons from?!?
#12
Posté 28 juin 2013 - 09:44
DatOneFanboy
-
- Members
- 713 messages
depends on how the combat is gonna end up, i play Mass effect games on Nightmare difficulty but I always play Dragon age like a casual cause combat feels shallow
#13
Posté 28 juin 2013 - 09:45
Plaintiff
-
- Members
- 6 998 messages
Considering they survived for so long in a world that contains the PC, it only makes sense they'd be tougher.Wolfva2 wrote...
I've never been a fan of level scaling. By the end of the game, you're a powerhouse of destruction; a veritable master of combat. You have the best armor, the best weapons. Yet, the same type of street thugs that caused you problems in the beginning of the game give you problems now? Why? Where did THEY get their training? Their experiences? And where the HECK are they getting all that rare armor and weapons from?!?
#14
Posté 28 juin 2013 - 10:21
Conduit0
-
- Members
- 1 903 messages
I'll take even bad level scaling over the linear progression and endless grinding that comes with games that have set enemy levels.
#15
Posté 28 juin 2013 - 10:32
Mykel54
-
- Members
- 1 180 messages
I think level scaling is a consequence of cattering to the lowest common denominator among gamers, which also happens to be the majority, mind you. These people want to finish the game quickly to try another game, or they are unexperienced and likely to be frustrated if they get killed even once. There are people who play DA and skip the cinematics (sad but true), because they want to get over to the action.
Level scaling makes it easy for these players to jump in and finish the game as if it was on autoplay. You can set tactics on DA2, play on normal, and then game pretty much plays out without you having to do anything. This is the kind of player that no longer wants a mental challenge from the game, but instead wants to relax and let the game go on, as if watching a film.
The concept that there are enemies the player cannot beat yet, and must do other things first, is pretty much agaisnt a casual attitude to gaming.
Level scaling makes it easy for these players to jump in and finish the game as if it was on autoplay. You can set tactics on DA2, play on normal, and then game pretty much plays out without you having to do anything. This is the kind of player that no longer wants a mental challenge from the game, but instead wants to relax and let the game go on, as if watching a film.
The concept that there are enemies the player cannot beat yet, and must do other things first, is pretty much agaisnt a casual attitude to gaming.
#16
Posté 28 juin 2013 - 11:32
Stahl33
-
- Members
- 60 messages
I guess there needs to be difficulty settings.
But if you start with a high health and base stats, it might make the difference between levels less severe, and therefore level scaling can also be more subtle, and not necessary all the time.
An example would be to start with a health of 300, and end up with a health of 600 end game. Make the damage difference over the levels less of a massive upgrade, and then the things you fight also don't need to have huge differences in scaling. The big thing about levelling is the extra skills really... A poorly played level 10, could effectively be beaten by a well played level 1... Just my thoughts on it really.... Well maybe a poorly played level 5 could be beaten by a well played level 1, but you get the idea.
But if you start with a high health and base stats, it might make the difference between levels less severe, and therefore level scaling can also be more subtle, and not necessary all the time.
An example would be to start with a health of 300, and end up with a health of 600 end game. Make the damage difference over the levels less of a massive upgrade, and then the things you fight also don't need to have huge differences in scaling. The big thing about levelling is the extra skills really... A poorly played level 10, could effectively be beaten by a well played level 1... Just my thoughts on it really.... Well maybe a poorly played level 5 could be beaten by a well played level 1, but you get the idea.
Modifié par Stahl33, 28 juin 2013 - 11:34 .
#17
Posté 28 juin 2013 - 11:51
Barrendall
-
- Members
- 517 messages
The level-scaling in DAO was pretty minor compared to other games. If they follow that guideline I would be ok with it. On the other hand if they follow Oblivion's example I would be really disappointed. Their level scaling was over the top.
Modifié par Barrendall111, 28 juin 2013 - 11:53 .
#18
Posté 28 juin 2013 - 12:03
Navasha
-
- Members
- 3 724 messages
Level scaling is pretty much a necessity if you at all want any kind of openness and player choice in choosing where your character is headed.
To take away level scaling requires that the game be made into a linear path with NO deviation whatsoever. No thanks. Level scaling can be done well and it can be done poorly.
I will take well done scaling over a forced linear progression every time.
To take away level scaling requires that the game be made into a linear path with NO deviation whatsoever. No thanks. Level scaling can be done well and it can be done poorly.
I will take well done scaling over a forced linear progression every time.
#19
Posté 28 juin 2013 - 12:33
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
No HP inflation = no need for redicolous scaling approaches.
The bigger the "power"* difference between levels, the stupider things get. Always.
* power as number inflation. Bigger NUMBERS. Because NUMBERS. A very shallow portrayl of power IMHO
The bigger the "power"* difference between levels, the stupider things get. Always.
* power as number inflation. Bigger NUMBERS. Because NUMBERS. A very shallow portrayl of power IMHO
#20
Posté 28 juin 2013 - 12:36
Amycus89
-
- Members
- 290 messages
That they ALL are tougher, and that there wasn't any that strong at lv 1, doesn't make any sense though. Unless of course we assume that the whole universe our character lives in was just created as soon as we started to take control of him... Needless to say though, that doesn't make any sense. There must have been enemies born and raised before the protagonist's time. Or did they just conveniently die out as soon as the protagonist was born, leaving only the still inexperienced bandits?Plaintiff wrote...
Considering they survived for so long in a world that contains the PC, it only makes sense they'd be tougher.Wolfva2 wrote...
I've never been a fan of level scaling. By the end of the game, you're a powerhouse of destruction; a veritable master of combat. You have the best armor, the best weapons. Yet, the same type of street thugs that caused you problems in the beginning of the game give you problems now? Why? Where did THEY get their training? Their experiences? And where the HECK are they getting all that rare armor and weapons from?!?
I have yet to fins any system of level scaling in a game that I have liked, only some that are slightly less annoying than others. So as far as I am conserned, they can remove the levelscaling completely.
#21
Posté 28 juin 2013 - 12:39
Plaintiff
-
- Members
- 6 998 messages
Well, why is the protagonist only level 1 when he's generally been alive for at least twenty years by the time the game starts?Amycus89 wrote...
That they ALL are tougher, and that there wasn't any that strong at lv 1, doesn't make any sense though. Unless of course we assume that the whole universe our character lives in was just created as soon as we started to take control of him... Needless to say though, that doesn't make any sense. There must have been enemies born and raised before the protagonist's time. Or did they just conveniently die out as soon as the protagonist was born, leaving only the still inexperienced bandits?Plaintiff wrote...
Considering they survived for so long in a world that contains the PC, it only makes sense they'd be tougher.Wolfva2 wrote...
I've never been a fan of level scaling. By the end of the game, you're a powerhouse of destruction; a veritable master of combat. You have the best armor, the best weapons. Yet, the same type of street thugs that caused you problems in the beginning of the game give you problems now? Why? Where did THEY get their training? Their experiences? And where the HECK are they getting all that rare armor and weapons from?!?
I have yet to fins any system of level scaling in a game that I have liked, only some that are slightly less annoying than others. So as far as I am conserned, they can remove the levelscaling completely.
#22
Posté 28 juin 2013 - 12:41
Chaos Lord Malek
-
- Members
- 735 messages
NO. And no level scaling. Its a worst thing ever made in RPG. When you get better - you get better, and have enemies catching up to you, leveling the field. The same way it should be harder to beat certain challenges early on.
#23
Posté 28 juin 2013 - 12:46
Wulfram
-
- Members
- 18 950 messages
You don't need level scaling to avoid strictly linear progression. Instead, you can
1. Keep the power disparity between levels under control. There's no reason a few levels should have as huge an impact as games make them nowadays, particularly in terms of number inflation. Particularly since most of the progression is simply an illusion when level scaling takes it away again.
2. Scale XP rewards according to the relative level of the player and the content. If you do this aggressively you can stop the player from ever falling very far behind or ahead the curve.
(You could also maintain a strict control of levelling by removing XP for sidequests and combat and only issuing it out for main quest stuff. But I suspect people would resist that.)
1. Keep the power disparity between levels under control. There's no reason a few levels should have as huge an impact as games make them nowadays, particularly in terms of number inflation. Particularly since most of the progression is simply an illusion when level scaling takes it away again.
2. Scale XP rewards according to the relative level of the player and the content. If you do this aggressively you can stop the player from ever falling very far behind or ahead the curve.
(You could also maintain a strict control of levelling by removing XP for sidequests and combat and only issuing it out for main quest stuff. But I suspect people would resist that.)
Modifié par Wulfram, 28 juin 2013 - 12:52 .
#24
Posté 28 juin 2013 - 12:48
Navasha
-
- Members
- 3 724 messages
Amycus89 wrote...
I have yet to fins any system of level scaling in a game that I have liked, only some that are slightly less annoying than others. So as far as I am conserned, they can remove the levelscaling completely.
Would you also be willing to accept the necessary consequences of removing level scaling?
As in... an arrow to throat would still kill even the most skilled combatant.
If you are going to remove level scaling then you also have to make the player extremely vulnerable. Levels in games are supposed to characterize and increase in experience and combat proficiency. They help generate a system of mechanics that can gloss over the fact that even the most skilled person can still die just as easily as an unskilled one.
An experienced person is supposed to see the warning signs and know how to react to the incoming fireball, thus avoiding the damage. However, a street urchin and a seasoned soldier both die equally well if actually caught unaware in the blast. When they come up with a system that achieves that level of control between the player and the avatar then they can drop the idea of level-scaling.
#25
Posté 28 juin 2013 - 12:52
Wulfram
-
- Members
- 18 950 messages
Navasha, I believe the proposal is to remove the automatic level scaling of enemies - that makes them increase in power to match the players progression - rather than abolishing levels entirely.
