155 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

The bad design is making the change without doing what is necessary to make it work.

And "fixing" encounter design wouldn't really work either. If you had a more natural set up with encounters from all over the level range side by side, that would be incredibly frustrating and incredibly jarring with the story because you'd constantly have to put on hold quests for no reason except that you needed to grind more.

Woah, woah, woah, woah...

Did it ever occur to you that there should be enemies the player shouldn't be able to beat? You see this all the time in Pen and Paper games - if the DM puts a Black Dragon in front of your Level 4 party, you don't grimace at the DM and say "man, now we need to go outside and kill goblins to twenty sessions..." You deal with it without resorting to combat. Or you don't "deal with it" at all. This idea of running through a game and wiping out enemies in a perfect, sequential order is the sort of mindless gaming that level-scaling encourages.

The whole premise of removing level scaling is to present challenges to the player that require extra effort or thought to overcome instead of having the challenge scale to be beatable by anyone who shows up. Do you sneak past the dragon? Try and bargain with it? Put on some type of distraction or charade to get what you need? Focus on the goal of the dungeon... if it is to get trinket A that is on the other side of the dungeon from the dragon, then you don't bother it. And you pray your DM isn't sadistic enough to wake it up and have it chase your party across God's green earth.

This "all combat, all the time" approach to video game RPGs is what reduces most of them down to boring snooze fests these days. And level scaling directly plays right into that hand of combat-centric design.

Getting the world to work properly and believably without level scaling needs the game mechanics to change so the protagonist and party don't increase in power massively during play. But, while I'd like to see that, the sense of progression and the steady reward of improved loot is an important part of the attraction of RPGs, so that's not a change that can be made lightly either.

Design choices can't be assessed alone, or as if they were part of some ideal game where everything is exactly as you would wish it, they have to be assessed as part of the game they're in. And removing level scaling did nothing good for DAI and plenty bad.

It was never in it, for the record. They designed the game completely, from the ground up with the new engine, to have zero level scaling. So it was never "removed" in the first place.

The fact that the game wasn't run through its paces is clear on a number of fronts, ranging from story points to bugs. The poor balancing of combat (not to mention its overall neutering when it comes to character build options) is another testament to that.

[Terodil]

[...] You deal with it without resorting to combat. Or you don't "deal with it" at all. [...] Do you sneak past the dragon? Try and bargain with it? Put on some type of distraction or charade to get what you need? Focus on the goal of the dungeon... if it is to get trinket A that is on the other side of the dungeon from the dragon, then you don't bother it.

Oh how I would have loved that for DA:I, too: non-combat gameplay. I miss diplomacy/bluff/threaten/seduction so much I can't even say, and other skills as well. The way they ditched all that for that dull, repetitive combat is truly disheartening.

(Although, that said, non-combat gameplay would probably not be crowned with success in your scenario either. I'd love to see that level 4 bard bluff the Black Dragon into giving up her hoard. )

I will say though that I thoroughly dislike leaving stuff undone in areas, so I'd not be quite so fond of completely insurmountable quests / encounters. Blame my perfectionism =/

[Wulfram]

@Fast Jimmy

 

I think you're missing the point.  I'm talking about this game.  Dragon Age: Inquisition.  Which, for better or worse, is a combat focused game.  A combat focused game with a party that, according to both previously established events and plain logic, are supposed to be right at the top of the Thedosian food chain.

 

It certainly is possible to make a game that works well without level scaling.  But that's not this game, and it says nothing about Level scaling's place in this game.

 

Though even in the new game you describe, level scaling could be beneficial.  If you want the Black Dragon to be a challenge best dealt with by diplomacy or cunning, then you can make him an Elite Boss or a Super Duper Elite Boss or whatever and you'll achieve that.  Leaving in the nonsensical grinding mechanic to allow the player to turn into an unstoppable death machine only works against your intent of encouraging non-combat solutions.

[Fast Jimmy]

@Fast Jimmy

I think you're missing the point. I'm talking about this game. Dragon Age: Inquisition. Which, for better or worse, is a combat focused game. A combat focused game with a party that, according to both previously established events and plain logic, are supposed to be right at the top of the Thedosian food chain.

It certainly is possible to make a game that works well without level scaling. But that's not this game, and it says nothing about Level scaling's place in this game.

Though even in the new game you describe, level scaling could be beneficial. If you want the Black Dragon to be a challenge best dealt with by diplomacy or cunning, then you can make him an Elite Boss or a Super Duper Elite Boss or whatever and you'll achieve that. Leaving in the nonsensical grinding mechanic to allow the player to turn into an unstoppable death machine only works against your intent of encouraging non-combat solutions.

Well, that's why I'd ditch grinding XP as an option as well.

And level scaling doesn't fix the Dire Rat problem mentioned in this thread. Instead it just makes the Dire Rat as strong as a dragon (just like bandits are as strong as dragons in DA2).

Level scaling is a development crutch which encourages shallow design. That's why including it will forever mean the series will be a combat focused, bare-bones experience. It's weakening the elements the rest of the game sits on.

[Wulfram]

But Bandits aren't as strong as Dragons in DA2. Bandits are mostly "critter" rank, whereas Dragons are "bosses" or "elite bosses". In a level scaled world, power is represented by rank, not level*. Level is in effect only a mark of how far the player has progressed in the game. One could argue that it's odd that a level 18 Rat might defeat a level 5 Dragon, but it's also irrelevant because the two will never meet. If the level 18 Rat meets the Dragon, the Dragon will also be level 18 and will have the Rat for a rather meagre breakfast if it so wishes

As for "shallow design", the "shallow design" came first. Scrapping level scaling alone does nothing to address it, as DAI rather proves - it just makes the same game a bit worse.

* Actually Rank shows power relative to the PC. Since DA games do have the player advance in power, if not so ludicrously as the level system implies, this means that late game ranks represent higher power levels than earlier ones. Thus the first Ogre one meets in DAO is a Boss, but subsequent ones are Lieutenants and in the assault on Denerim IIRC you will meet Ogres that are just regular enemies

[Realmzmaster]

The problem I have with level scaling is that no game that I have played has ever implemented it properly. The enemies simply have more hitpoints. The enemy's tactics or strategy does not change at the higher level.

 

My party was in a beginning area at level one in one game and faced a group of level one wolves. The game required the party to come back to the area at level 15 and the party was facing level 15 wolves. What happened did the wolves join a physical fitness club and beef up? 

 

The only challenge was the wolves were now hitpoint sponges nothing else had changed. So the encounter was simply tedious not challenging. The party was still able to faceroll the enemy because tactics and strategy had not changed.

The same with the other enemies.  It still boils down to how well the encounter is designed.Good encounter design can be done with or without level scaling. 

[Fast Jimmy]

But Bandits aren't as strong as Dragons in DA2. Bandits are mostly "critter" rank, whereas Dragons are "bosses" or "elite bosses". In a level scaled world, power is represented by rank, not level*. Level is in effect only a mark of how far the player has progressed in the game. One could argue that it's odd that a level 18 Rat might defeat a level 5 Dragon, but it's also irrelevant because the two will never meet. If the level 18 Rat meets the Dragon, the Dragon will also be level 18 and will have the Rat for a rather meagre breakfast if it so wishes

In Act 1 of DA2, you can fight pretty powerful (in lore) creatures, including a dragon in the Deep Roads. By Act 3, the amount of strength and damage it takes to kill a level-scaled bandit surpasses what could easily have killed that Act 1 dragon. Hence, bandits are stronger than dragons. It happens anytime poor encounter design is done.

As for "shallow design", the "shallow design" came first. Scrapping level scaling alone does nothing to address it, as DAI rather proves - it just makes the same game a bit worse.

I'd argue it doesn't make the game worse, just covers up bad design less effectively. Which is a good thing - bad design should be apparent... mostly so it doesn't make it out the door in the first place.

You are advocating a band-aid when surgery is the real answer.

* Actually Rank shows power relative to the PC. Since DA games do have the player advance in power, if not so ludicrously as the level system implies, this means that late game ranks represent higher power levels than earlier ones. Thus the first Ogre one meets in DAO is a Boss, but subsequent ones are Lieutenants and in the assault on Denerim IIRC you will meet Ogres that are just regular enemies

Irrelevant. You can (and do) have mook, liuetenant and boss level enemies in non-scaled games as well. This isn't an argument for level-scaling, merely a tool in enemy design.

[Realmzmaster]

There is also two ways to look at progression. Some of the posters look at progression as gaining more skills and better equipment to meet challenging foes. Other posters look at progression as coming back after becoming stronger and stomping a mudhole in enemies that beat the party before or made them retreat. at a particular level.

 

With level scaling the second way cannot happen because on coming back the enemy is still at the level of the party. So level scaling benefits the first way but punishes those who like to play the second way.

[Fast Jimmy]

The problem I have with level scaling is that no game that I have played has ever implemented it properly. The enemies simply have more hitpoints. The enemy's tactics or strategy does not change at the higher level.

My party was in a beginning area at level one in one game and faced a group of level one wolves. The game required the party to come back to the area at level 15 and the party was facing level 15 wolves. What happened did the wolves join a physical fitness club and beef up?

The only challenge was the wolves were now hitpoint sponges nothing else had changed. So the encounter was simply tedious not challenging. The party was still able to faceroll the enemy because tactics and strategy had not changed.
The same with the other enemies. It still boils down to how well the encounter is designed.Good encounter design can be done with or without level scaling.

Agreed. This is also seen on Difficulty settings - enemies are given exponential HP bloats or damage immunities and do more damage, not actually made more difficult. You just need to apply the same tactic to bring them done while juggling healing longer.

This comes down to developers not knowing their own mechanics, in my opinion. Every developer thinks they must design their own system for every game they make... ultimately, this results in very few original systems, but also ones that aren't very well tested, vetted or balanced. It's an unfinished product and rarely does much new that brings anything to be table.

Say what you will about RPGs that used D&D as their base, they do have a LOT of legwork already taken care of for them. Mountains of essays have been written and produced talking about encounter balance or class building or combat optimization. In video game design, the mechanics are being tweaked and changed almost to the last minute it goes out the door, making developers likely uncertain about broken mechanics or unbalanced encounters until the gamers get the product in their hands.

I'm not saying the DA series should adopt D&D mechanics... but if they applied similar mechanics and rules between games, they would be reaching a point of mastery in developing with it, rather than making the same mistakes in new systems over and over again.

[DomeWing333]

There is also two ways to look at progression. Some of the posters look at progression as gaining more skills and better equipment to meet challenging foes. Other posters look at progression as coming back after becoming stronger and stomping a mudhole in enemies that beat the party before or made them retreat. at a particular level.

 

With level scaling the second way cannot happen because on coming back the enemy is still at the level of the party. So level scaling benefits the first way but punishes those who like to play the second way.

This is why I'd propose only upward scaling (so you still have the trope of meeting a powerful enemy, getting stomped and then vowing to come back when you're stronger) and only on Hard or Nightmare (so that players who are seeking an experience when they can just use EXP to overpower their foes can have that). Alternatively, enemy scaling could be implemented as a menu option the same way Friendly Fire is implemented.

[Terodil]

I think we need to separate two issues here:

1. Challenge by level in general:
This covers the question how higher-level encounters can be made more challenging without resorting to simple hp/damage bloating.

2. Maintaining challenge for the same enemies, but at higher levels.
This covers the question how Dire Rats should behave differently when you throw cheese at them once you've levelled a few times.

Ad 1:
I agree, D&D mechanics can show a way. Class levels for enemies are a good start. I would, however, argue that giving enemies save-or-die abilities like in D&D is not a good way to make games more fun, *especially* if abilities are as limited as they currently are in DA:I. In D&D, with dozens of spell slots available to casters, you can easily say that it's your own fault for not casting Death Ward if you die to a failed save on Wail of the Banshee. In DA:I, with just about 6 or 7 spell slots effectively available, such mechanics would be ridiculous. We'd somehow need to find a middle ground.

Ad 2:
Maybe I haven't understood what you mean by "upward scaling", but I still maintain that it would be catastrophic to game consistency and continuity if the same type of enemies in the same location magically gains 5 levels in your absence. I would propose the idea of 'snapshotting' the level instead, i.e. when you enter a specific area for the first time, the level of enemies is matched to your level at the time of entry and stays that way for the remainder of the game. This would solve the issue of outlevelling zones entirely, and it would at least partially safeguard continuity and consistency.

[Wulfram]

In Act 1 of DA2, you can fight pretty powerful (in lore) creatures, including a dragon in the Deep Roads. By Act 3, the amount of strength and damage it takes to kill a level-scaled bandit surpasses what could easily have killed that Act 1 dragon. Hence, bandits are stronger than dragons. It happens anytime poor encounter design is done.

The bandits aren't more powerful than that dragon, because level scaling means that level doesn't matter. Only rank matters. The bandits are critters, the dragon is a Boss, therefore if they ever fight the dragon eats them.

All the level does is make the numbers get bigger, but the numbers don't matter except relatively. What matters is that when the player fights the bandit and when they fight the Dragon, they get the appropriate level of challenge, and level scaling achieves that. It even insures that if the Dragon and the Bandit fight each other there's an appropriate level of challenge, since in such a situation they'll both be the same level.

It's only problematic in a theoretical but impossible situation. Whereas the level system in DA:I is problematic in practice.
 

I'd argue it doesn't make the game worse, just covers up bad design less effectively. Which is a good thing - bad design should be apparent... mostly so it doesn't make it out the door in the first place.

You are advocating a band-aid when surgery is the real answer.

I'm saying you shouldn't rip the harmlessly beneficial band-aid off and let the patient bleed if you're not willing to do the surgery. And Bioware obviously weren't.

[DomeWing333]

Ad 2:
Maybe I haven't understood what you mean by "upward scaling", but I still maintain that it would be catastrophic to game consistency and continuity if the same type of enemies in the same location magically gains 5 levels in your absence. I would propose the idea of 'snapshotting' the level instead, i.e. when you enter a specific area for the first time, the level of enemies is matched to your level at the time of entry and stays that way for the remainder of the game. This would solve the issue of outlevelling zones entirely, and it would at least partially safeguard continuity and consistency.

By upward scaling, I mean that enemies still have minimum levels, but no maximum levels. For a level 15 player, the Hissing Wastes would still have level 19 enemies but the Storm Coast will enemies will be scaled to level 15 to maintain challenge in that area.

 

The problem with snapshotting is that it doesn't solve the problem of outleveling zones in a game like Inquisition where players are allowed (and in some instances, encouraged) to regularly travel in between areas. For instance, the game starts us off at the Hinterlands but then tells us that there's a party member waiting for us at the Storm Coast. So we go to the Storm Coast to pick up the party member, maybe look around for a little bit, and then go back to the Hinterlands to continue exploring. Well now the Storm Coast has been "snapshotted" at a low level and when we return there after doing the Hinterlands, there's no longer anything there of value for us.

 

Some people also like questing in multiple areas at the same time because they get bored of the scenery in one place and want to check out another one. Hell, the devs themselves were actually telling fans to get out of the Hinterlands because they didn't want them to get burned out looking at the same region's scenery over and over again.

 

It's a problem that's unavoidable when you give players the freedom to go anywhere and do anything. Different people are going to want to do different things and there's no way to account for the resulting level discrepancy aside from scaling.

[Fast Jimmy]

The bandits aren't more powerful than that dragon, because level scaling means that level doesn't matter. Only rank matters. The bandits are critters, the dragon is a Boss, therefore if they ever fight the dragon eats them.

All the level does is make the numbers get bigger, but the numbers don't matter except relatively. What matters is that when the player fights the bandit and when they fight the Dragon, they get the appropriate level of challenge, and level scaling achieves that. It even insures that if the Dragon and the Bandit fight each other there's an appropriate level of challenge, since in such a situation they'll both be the same level.

It's only problematic in a theoretical but impossible situation. Whereas the level system in DA:I is problematic in practice.

It's more than a theoretical problem because it makes levels not matter. One of the few metrics the player can measure their progress by is made totally invalid. That's a huge problem. You're comparing a fight between a DA2 dragon and a bandit as a problem when that's not the problem at all. It's right back to the dire rat - a player could have killed the dragon easily in Act 1 with the right build but may have made some bad leveling choices and is struggling against a bandit in Act 3. The player looks at their third Reload screen and thinks "man, I've killed dragons easier than this bandit."

That's a big, practical problem. And it's a problem of encounter design, just like DA:I suffers.

I'm saying you shouldn't rip the harmlessly beneficial band-aid off and let the patient bleed if you're not willing to do the surgery. And Bioware obviously weren't.

You aren't ripping off anything - DA:I never had level scaling. It is a totally unapplied feature. Never existed. It did in previous DA games, but so did attribute allocation or party tactics more complicated than "Ability On/Off."

The patient is bleeding on the table. Your suggestion is to put a band-aid on when it needs surgery. A band-aid won't fix the problem and will be a new addition regardless.

[Terodil]

Edit: Got outpaced by Fast Jimmy (... heh), this was a reply @DomeWing

... or we could simply put a tooltip on every zone stating its recommended level range. Like IRL, if you *can* go somewhere it does not mean it's recommended or even advisable. TBH I would find that far more acceptable than the crutch of having every rat across the world of Thedas yell "DING!!" every time your party levels. You are still free to to take your newbie adventuring party into the heart of the enemy forces, get your nose punched in and accrue lots of experience and valuable items, so it's still an open world, but just like IRL it will have consequences, e.g. that you will find fighting the subservient mooks much easier than the elite bodyguard of the Big Bad. Which is quite logical.

[Wulfram]

Levels shouldn't matter. Levels are stupid. From an in universe point of view, anyway - they serve the gameplay purpose of allowing difficulty to steadily increase during the game.
 

Edit: Got outpaced by Fast Jimmy (... heh), this was a reply @DomeWing

... or we could simply put a tooltip on every zone stating its recommended level range. Like IRL, if you *can* go somewhere it does not mean it's recommended or even advisable. TBH I would find that far more acceptable than the crutch of having every rat across the world of Thedas yell "DING!!" every time your party levels. You are still free to forage into the heart of the enemy forces, get your nose punched in and accrue lots of experience and valuable items, so it's still an open world, but just like IRL it will have consequences, e.g. that you will find fighting the subservient mooks much easier than the elite bodyguard of the Big Bad. Which is quite logical.

But it's not like IRL because it's all based on a nonsensical level system. If it's too difficult for Cassandra, Varric, Solas and Vivienne to fight these guys at the start of the game, it should still be too difficult to fight them at the end, because these people are all top level bad-asses from the very start.

If we were dealing with total noob characters levelling would make slightly more sense, but the power differential between start and end is still ridiculous.

[DomeWing333]

In Act 1 of DA2, you can fight pretty powerful (in lore) creatures, including a dragon in the Deep Roads. By Act 3, the amount of strength and damage it takes to kill a level-scaled bandit surpasses what could easily have killed that Act 1 dragon. Hence, bandits are stronger than dragons. It happens anytime poor encounter design is done.

If the problem you have with the DA encounter system is the phenomenon of meeting what is meant to be a low-ranked enemy late game and having it be stronger than a boss-ranked enemy early game, it goes far beyond levels. You can take the concept of levels entirely out of the game and still be faced with this problem because the general rule for RPG/video game enemy encounters is that enemies get stronger as the game progresses.

The only solution I can think for this is to have the party only encounter weak, low-ranked enemies like bandits and rats early game, only medium-strength mid-ranked enemies like knights and darkspawn mid game, and only strong high-ranked enemies like giants and bears late game. However, this greatly constrains the storytelling. If the types of enemies the protagonist is allowed to fight at a given stage in the game is restricted, then a single enemy faction like the Red Templars or the Venatori that spans the whole game couldn't work.

 

Edit: Got outpaced by Fast Jimmy (... heh), this was a reply @DomeWing

... or we could simply put a tooltip on every zone stating its recommended level range. Like IRL, if you *can* go somewhere it does not mean it's recommended or even advisable. TBH I would find that far more acceptable than the crutch of having every rat across the world of Thedas yell "DING!!" every time your party levels. You are still free to to take your newbie adventuring party into the heart of the enemy forces, get your nose punched in and accrue lots of experience and valuable items, so it's still an open world, but just like IRL it will have consequences, e.g. that you will find fighting the subservient mooks much easier than the elite bodyguard of the Big Bad. Which is quite logical.

Tacking on specific level ranges to a zone would work, but then it really seems like the dev is telling you where you should take your party first, second, and last, which it seems like the devs were trying to shy away from ever since Origins.

[Terodil]

Levels shouldn't matter. Levels are stupid. From an in universe point of view, anyway - they serve the gameplay purpose of allowing difficulty to steadily increase during the game. [...] If it's too difficult for Cassandra, Varric, Solas and Vivienne to fight these guys at the start of the game, it should still be too difficult to fight them at the end, because these people are all top level bad-asses from the very start.

Then we should rename this thread to: "Having levels was a horrible design choice." And I doubt that would have more supporters than the current topic.

[Terodil]

The only solution I can think for this is to have the party only encounter weak, low-ranked enemies like bandits and rats early game, only medium-strength mid-ranked enemies like knights and darkspawn mid game, and only strong high-ranked enemies like giants and bears late game. However, this greatly constrains the storytelling. If the types of enemies the protagonist is allowed to fight at a given stage in the game is restricted, then a single enemy faction like the Red Templars or the Venatori that spans the whole game couldn't work.

Nah that doesn't work. How do you explain the large-scale presence of Giants in the backyard of the Inquisition, e.g. the Hinterlands?

Seriously though I'm still having difficulty grasping the concept of what you are fighting for. If your neonyte hero encounters 10 rats at the start of the game and barely survives fighting one pack of 5, then moves on to grander things, including killing several dragons, giants, and faction bosses, why should fighting the remaining pack of 5 rats on a visit home bring him close to the brink of death again?

I get that it's about challenge, but... is believability / consistency really so low on your value scale that you'd throw them out of the window altogether? Or did I miss something?

[Monster20862]

Not knowing how to spell is a horrible life choice.

[DomeWing333]

Nah that doesn't work. How do you explain the large-scale presence of Giants in the backyard of the Inquisition, e.g. the Hinterlands?

Seriously though I'm still having difficulty grasping the concept of what you are fighting for. If your neonyte hero encounters 10 rats at the start of the game and barely survives fighting one pack of 5, then moves on to grander things, including killing several dragons, giants, and faction bosses, why should fighting the remaining pack of 5 rats on a visit home bring him close to the brink of death again?

I get that it's about challenge, but... is believability / consistency really so low on your value scale that you'd throw them out of the window altogether? Or did I miss something?

I'd say that given the others issues with believability and consistency that DA games have always had in their progression and encounter designs, level scaling shouldn't be that much of a sticking point seeing how much it would enhance the gameplay experience. When you already have regular wolves in one area being many times stronger than demon-possessed wolves in another area, poison spiders that are many times more deadly than time magic-using mages, and seasoned mercenary captains being one-shotted by Venatori...maybe it isn't so crazy that the bandit party you neglected got stronger while you were away.

[Terodil]

One thing being a horrible mess is no good reason to make a horrible mess of another thing that, so far, is no horrible mess yet. =(

[DomeWing333]

Well maybe it's not a horrible mess for you, but I've had my high level party walk into a brand new area and immediately lose interest in it because I can wipe the floor with everything in exchange for a rusty sword and some tinfoil armor. Not exactly the kind of experience I wanted out of my "Nightmare" playthrough.

[Fast Jimmy]

I think we need to separate two issues here
Ad 1:
I agree, D&D mechanics can show a way. Class levels for enemies are a good start. I would, however, argue that giving enemies save-or-die abilities like in D&D is not a good way to make games more fun, *especially* if abilities are as limited as they currently are in DA:I. In D&D, with dozens of spell slots available to casters, you can easily say that it's your own fault for not casting Death Ward if you die to a failed save on Wail of the Banshee. In DA:I, with just about 6 or 7 spell slots effectively available, such mechanics would be ridiculous. We'd somehow need to find a middle ground.

The consolification seven ability limits aside, I wouldn't advocate or want DA using the D&D system. The huge amount of spells revolving around Save or Suck and the ways those are nerfed through a host of methods is definitely not one of its strong points.

Even using the Dragon Age PnP game developed by Ronin would be a great idea to use as a system of consistency. I haven't played it, but talked to others who speak to how it works within the DA lore fairly well and allows a good amount of flexibility. Just as an example. It then allows a common set of rules and mechanics that could work as the framework for future games, instead of the developers constantly chasing their tales in inventing a new system every game, as seems to be the case with the DA series.

I do like the idea you mentioned of giving enemies classes, especially if they varied between unit sets or even was randomized. Fighting five bandits is one thing. Fighting two reaver bandits, two assassin bandits and a Knight Enchanter bandit is an entirely different one. In addition, this would allow the use of the same units throughout the game with higher levels and give them access to more skills, passives and tactics instead of just boosting their HP.

[Fast Jimmy]

Well maybe it's not a horrible mess for you, but I've had my high level party walk into a brand new area and immediately lose interest in it because I can wipe the floor with everything in exchange for a rusty sword and some tinfoil armor. Not exactly the kind of experience I wanted out of my "Nightmare" playthrough.

Again, the idea of areas having a static range of critters is silly. The spread should be organic - enemirs don't pair up with similarly difficult counterparts to settle an area. The very concept is pure nonsense.

There should be creatures in the world. They should be just as strong as they are, regardless of what level the player is or even what level the player is supposed to be.