It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Enemy level scaling(45 posts)(45 posts)
(45 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Posted June 12, 2011
Don't scale the enemies. Just don't.

What could be done instead, and which would also make revisiting earlier areas worthwhile, is to put enemies of different levels in the same areas. Unfortunately, very few games do this. It's usually "clean out area - increase stats - move to next area - lather, rinse, repeat".
Posted June 12, 2011
Reminds me of Dynasty Warriors 3, of all things. Probably later games too, but I haven't tried them.

DW starts you out as a weak hero on foot fighting through crowds of soldiers and their leaders. As you collect bonuses and improve your character, you stop struggling to complete the basic conditions of the map. After many playthroughs, you have so much speed and lethality that you can affect the entire battlefield, keeping alive allied generals who were meant to fail early on.

I'd love to see an RPG where scaling increases the scale of the encounter rather than the stats of each opponent. You're more powerful, so you take on more opponents at once, or you strike for the heart of a formation rather than outer patrols. More dynamic and interesting than fighting the same battles over and over.
Posted June 12, 2011
all hail to scaling rats or other pathetic weak enemies that becomes equally tough as you... :D and in more serious note, enemy scaling is just pathetic...
the game world has to have much stronger enemies than you are..

and u guys saw newest tes skyrim?
yeah i bet they will let you at level 1 to kill a dragon... or at level 5... thats scaling :)
Posted June 12, 2011
avatar
Druidshinobi: I don't mind it in certain games like Fallout where a low level enemy will scale but only to a certain level (mole rats only go from level 1-5) instead of going to level 30 with you.
I think this sort of an approach makes the most sense, but I don't play many RPGs.
Posted June 12, 2011
avatar
Druidshinobi: I don't mind it in certain games like Fallout where a low level enemy will scale but only to a certain level (mole rats only go from level 1-5) instead of going to level 30 with you.
This

I don't mind when they scale within a range 1-5 or 10-16, and I don't mind when certain monsters only appear when you get near that range, but allowing for beginning monsters to scale up to whatever point you're at just seems cheap. And it definitely begs the question as to why they were so easy in the first place.

It also makes for XP farming to be too easy as the beginning creatures are frequently very easy to find, even if they're a bit of a pain to kill.
Posted June 12, 2011
I prefer the very minimalist or non-existent methods like in Gothic.

That said I am fine with ti as long as it is not too obvious and doesn't make the game too easy. Fallout: New Vegas did it well.
Posted June 12, 2011
Scaling upwards to provide challenge is fine, unless it's overdone.

Scaling downwards is retarded. No exceptions.
Posted June 12, 2011
Thank you for your input, everyone! It's insightful reading your opinions on the matter.
Posted June 12, 2011
enemy level scaling means that you can throw away leveling up completely. what is the point of you getting stronger if goddamn bandit also gets stronger.

in rpgs i need to feel like i grow more powerful.

example:
in planescape torment you enter a house full of bandits. you can either fight them or simply sneak around.
there is 12 of them or so and each alone would be a challenge for your character. in big group like that i simply could not beat them.
so sneaking was the option.

twenty hours later i came back there. I slaughtered them all with a grin in my face.

That was extremely rewarding experience for me.

with level scaling that fight would be easier as i would have more equipment therefore i would be able to implement better strategies to beat them.

yet it would still make no sense for 12 random thugs to fight on equal terms a guy who went to hell and back, took on demons and a fallen angel...

level scaling is probably one of the most immersion breaking things in rpgs if done like in vanillia oblivion

if done like kotor games (which had passable level scaling) or better fallout 1 or 2 then it is alright.

you cannot just walk into mordor when you are just level five...
Posted June 12, 2011
avatar
lukaszthegreat: level scaling is probably one of the most immersion breaking things in rpgs if done like in vanillia oblivion
Just after levelling, Especially with the way it's usually handled, "kill monsters, any/all of your stats can go up"
avatar
lukaszthegreat: you cannot just walk into mordor when you are just level five...
Frodo and Sam were probably level 5 or below actual ability-wise....
Posted June 12, 2011
avatar
Orryyrro: Frodo and Sam were probably level 5 or below actual ability-wise....
Nah. They both had end game level equipment, took on orcs, trained their athletics for a long time and got stat boost from overcoming the ring powers...
also if japanese animation can be trusted near death experience of frodo double the xp he already had.

sam was min 10th level while frodo probably hit 13th level.
Posted June 12, 2011
You know, I'd be intrigued by an RPG that had no abstract leveling or stat progression. Character advancement would come from items, equipment, and quest rewards...if it existed at all.

A bonus is that pacifist and stealth characters are viable without having to bend over backwards to give them the experience points or whatever they're not getting from kills.

As for scaling...mmmm, I tend to lean towards no scaling. Especially if it's possible to gimp your character such that you grow weaker than the rest of the world. On the other hand, there needs to be something to indicate whether you can take on a quest or region without relying on reloading saves. Plus there's the philosophical argument for open-world nonlinear RPGs: if in order to survive you have to explore the different areas from easiest to hardest, is the game really nonlinear anymore?
Posted June 12, 2011
avatar
lukaszthegreat: you cannot just walk into mordor when you are just level five...
avatar
Orryyrro: Frodo and Sam were probably level 5 or below actual ability-wise....
But they had the racial feat Power of Friendship
Posted June 12, 2011
I prefer a tamer leveling approach as an ideal. Smaller improvements with levels to maintain a challenge.

That said, when done well it's not a problem at all. Oblivion simply did it badly.
Post edited June 12, 2011 by Taleroth
Posted June 12, 2011
What I didn’t like about Oblivion level scaling was you never encountered certain enemies once you reach higher levels. It was like they all just disappeared. That is just silly.

Personally I like the idea that you don’t know what dangers lay behind the next door or inside the next dungeon. Give the game a since of danger.
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Enemy level scaling(45 posts)(45 posts)
(45 posts)