23 réponses à ce sujet

[mickey111]

I think it's a dumb idea. I shift some numbers around, and then the game shifts the numbers of the people I'm hitting, because "balance". Why do these developers come up with intricate systems for building and equipping your character, and then scale all the enemies to assure the playing field will always be level? I've known about this design trend for a long time now, and I've noticed myself losing lots of interest in leveling and grinding myself to be more powerful just for the sake of it, and now I just neglect to attribute any points until I feel like the game is becoming too challenging. 

 

I think developers try too hard to balance the challenge, and not enough on making interesting and varied encounters to place around the game world. Just as long as the difficulty of encounters is consistent with whatever the games characters/plot/lore would indicate, and they don't put an angry horde of dragons in a location that some quest giver with a pest problem directs me too then it's fair game imo. 

[Fidite Nemini]

Imho it should be a tiered scaling system. Say you have your average clichée bandits. They start at a set level and scale to a set percentage proportional to the player. Would be an adequate adversary in the very early game, only challenging in groups past that and cannon fodder at the late game, because duh, common bandits vs RPG clichée protagonist who keeps getting more powerful.

 

Then we'd have the standard enemies, the designated bad guy mooks who are supposed to be somewhat threatening. They likewise start at a set level (probably initially higher than would be standard level for a player when he reaches the point) and once the player starts levelling higher than them, they likewise scale alongside proportionally with a higher percentage than the bandits, owning to the fact that these are supposed to be mainstay enemies. Whilst not quite dangerous individual against a levelled player, they still retain their threat with numbers comparable to the protagonists and are quite dangerous in larger numbers.

 

Bosses have a high minimum level based on when they are encountered (think DAI dragon locations for example), but scale aggressively at a higher percentage compared to the protagonist, meaning you can't just brute force through them by just grinding levels (simply grinding would make them even harder as they scale higher than you), but instead require careful tactics to defeat them.

[Isichar]

Worked pretty well in D3 RoS's I felt.

 

Though I suppose that's not really a traditional RPG anyways

[mybudgee]

The alternative is... what?

 

Having to face a high-level honed, ice-cold killer at level 2?

 

Then 95% of players would cry about the game being "Uber-difficult" or OMG Dis is hardest RPG EVAR WTF BASED GOD!?!?

 

 

[L. Han]

I always though having your character get progressively weaker to up the challenge seems like a decent idea on paper. It can open up for some narrative based excuse.

 

Do note: on paper. Might not be great in practice.

[mybudgee]

Wait! I got it: Cockyness! Overconfidence!! Huh? Eh?

 

Meh

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Level scaling is a tool designers can use to disincentivise grinding and keep challenge consistent for players.

Unfortunately, it's being overused by development studios who think it's an adequate substitute for encounter design and world design, when it's clearly not. It's the same as designers thinking that HP and Stat Bloat = Difficulty.

[ObserverStatus]

I guess level scaling can be fine when it's done right, but I have to say, it made mages just about unplayable in Skyrim. Amazing how unfun it can be when everything gets more powerful as the game goes on except your spells.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

I always though having your character get progressively weaker to up the challenge seems like a decent idea on paper. It can open up for some narrative based excuse.

 

Do note: on paper. Might not be great in practice.

 

Yes. It's ridiculous. It's like your character ages fast from 20 to 70. It's ludicrous.

[mybudgee]

I guess level scaling can be fine when it's done right, but I have to say, it made mages just about unplayable in Skyrim. Amazing how unfun it can be when everything gets more powerful as the game goes on except your spells.

Tank Follower a.k.a. Priest/healer build?

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

[metatheurgist]

Always liked the old RPGs where you could return to an area that you struggled to get through when you were going up in the world and now you've come back you can handle it with ease. Made it feel like you made progress.
 

The alternative is... what?
 
Having to face a high-level honed, ice-cold killer at level 2?
 
Then 95% of players would cry about the game being "Uber-difficult" or [b]OMG Dis is hardest RPG EVAR WTF BASED GOD!?!?

The other side of that coin is basement rats that can kill an experienced adventurer that's been slaying giants, dragons and demons.

[Lotion Soronarr]

I'd do away with conventional leveling completely.

 

 

 

Shocking, I know...

 

 

 

What does that mean however?

 

No HP increase per level. No stupid boosting of stuff just to feel more powerful. What you would get is skills and feats. The only way to boost your HP would be trough a feat or by dumping attribute points into your CON, and attribute points would be as rare as they are in D&D.

 

That means that your character becomes more efficient and versatile, but not mathematical stronger by nature of pure bigger numbers. He is stronger, but not in such a simplistic ways.

It also means that almost all enemies can be challenging regardless of your level, but almost any enemy can be beaten regardless of your level too.

It's a natural balance.

That bandit with a sword is just as capable of killing you if you aren't careful, even when you are LVL20.

 

The game stops being about "My NUMBERS and bigger than your NUMBERS, now suck my NUMBERS!" and is more tactical.

[bEVEsthda]

Scaling is always a bad thing I think.  (with the understanding that difficulty option is a separate thing).

 

My ideology around this, and RPG-leveling and what to use it for, is pretty clear.

 

There's no point to leveling up a character or a party, if the gameplay is just to remain the same. That's nonsense.

Even if it's exactly how many RPGs do it.

 

In my opinion, Xperience and leveling up should be part of navigating the game world.

So there are these neighborhoods, woods, dungeons or enemies, which are dangerous to visit. You better not do it alone. Get a tough party. Get tougher first.

Unlike in DA:I, it shouldn't be impossible (until you've unlocked something), but it should be inadvisable, with a weak party.

But ultimately it should always be up to the player's decision. When to go where.

 

What I'd also love to see, is having these regions also adapt to the party. So if you're a tough, well armed party, with scalps and things hanging from your belts, you'll be more left alone to go about your business, than an alone little girl.

 

Of course, there have to be some education of the gamers, to adapt to playing such games. Gamers' expectations of how things should work in the game is holding back the evolution of RPGs. It's just like what Mike Laidlaw was talking about in a recent DA:I interview. That gamers collect everything, and do every quest, despite that the game is designed with giving players a greater freedom in mind. Then they complain that it's tedious.

 

It's a compulsion that has been learned from earlier gaming experience. The same reason is often the cause for people failing at playing Elder Scrolls games. The game world provides the environment. What concerns the PC and is the PC's business, is what the player should decide.

 

My opinion is that it's worth it. Trying to educate the gamers to play new generations of RPGs. It's something one shouldn't shy away from. Or we'd go nowhere, and play Dungeon Siege forever.

[mickey111]

The alternative is... what?

 

 

 

 

Dark Souls, divinity: original sin, baldurs gate, morrowind and a bunch more. 

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

FWIW, the Baldur's Gate games had level scaling in a sense. It would send more difficult or numerous enemies in encounters if you were at certain levels. They never messed with enemy stats, just did things like add 4 mummies instead of 3, or upgrade Wolves to Dire Wolves and the like. It was subtle, it never felt obvious or out of place. But it did have them. Doesn't disprove your point (which I mostly agree with), but just something worth noting.

[metatheurgist]

I'd do away with conventional leveling completely.
 
Shocking, I know...
  
What does that mean however?
 
No HP increase per level. No stupid boosting of stuff just to feel more powerful. What you would get is skills and feats. The only way to boost your HP would be trough a feat or by dumping attribute points into your CON, and attribute points would be as rare as they are in D&D.
 
That means that your character becomes more efficient and versatile, but not mathematical stronger by nature of pure bigger numbers. He is stronger, but not in such a simplistic ways.
It also means that almost all enemies can be challenging regardless of your level, but almost any enemy can be beaten regardless of your level too.
It's a natural balance.
That bandit with a sword is just as capable of killing you if you aren't careful, even when you are LVL20.
 
The game stops being about "My NUMBERS and bigger than your NUMBERS, now suck my NUMBERS!" and is more tactical.

That's not shocking at all.

There are many RPGs that follow that philosophy. However, those are not usually about "Heroic Fantasy" more usually they're about "Gritty Realism". There's nothing wrong with either play style, they're just different. I prefer RPGs where a human can (eventually) go toe-to-toe with a dragon and win. That's the bread and butter of fantasy gaming, sourced from fantasy novels where humans can become larger than life.

You don't usually see "realistic mechanics" in RPGs because that's usually covered by action games.

[Raizo]

I've never understood the concept of level scaling in RPGs. What's the point of gaining a level and gaining better stats when your enemies stats go up at the same time as yours do. It's a redundant gameplay feature since you aren't really getting any stronger than the enemies you fight. The status quo always remains the same.

[Lotion Soronarr]

I prefer to stick to more normal enemies and fighting dragons requiring special planing and/or tons of allies.

 

I really DON'T want to go trading blows 1-on-1 with a dragon. That would be extremely stupid.

Sneak upon it while it sleeps and stab it in the heart or slice it's throat? Sure.

Trick into unfavorable terrain? Collapse a cave on it's head? Sure.

Gather an army and swarm it? Sure.

 

But watching your avatar get stomped on, bitten by jaws bigger than him and hit with a force that would squash a truck repeatedly, and him just keeping on truckin' like it's nothing - that just doesn't feel heroic. It feels stupid.

[metatheurgist]

Like I said, no style is better, it's just different. It's cool if you like it more realistic.

[Fidite Nemini]

The alternative is... what?

 

Having to face a high-level horned, ice-cold Ogre at level 3?

 

Then 95% of players would cry about the game being "Uber-difficult" or OMG Dis is hardest RPG EVAR WTF BASED GOD!?!?

 

 

 

 

Been there, done that, got the Archdemon.