what are your guys's opinions on level scaling

i dunno maybe im just a traditionalist jrpg player but when i play games and the enemies scale up to be my level it seems like it defeats the purpose of levelling

I like hardness, to make you spend some time on leveling..but I do not want to spend that time boring myself to death while I level..

I think that there should be some scaling, but not to the extent of Oblivion.

The idea is simple: Scale with the player and then have a cut off.

Rats can scale up to a certain level if they have to and then STOP. They start at level 3. They level with you as you move up to level 6. Then as you progress to level 10... they stay at level 6. Sometimes the only thing that might need scaling is their magic or abilities to keep the player interested but not clogged down. And for those 'harder' areas, they should make it 'harder.' They have a cap for the lowest and highest level. There is no walking into the 'ULTIMATE DUNGEON OF DEATH AND MISERY' at level 10. No sir. Level 50 at the very least, and then upgrade with you if necessary.

It just seems like it has to flow with the player to keep them in the 'flow zone.' If they aren't there, they are not having fun. So the key is a proper balance. One example that comes to mind is Final Fantasy VIII now that I think about it. The enemies leveled with you slightly, but really just gained a few abilities to help deal with you. This also helped you become more powerful by being able to draw more diverse magic out of them. After you surpassed a certain point, they become pathetic whelps and you need to move on.

What makes a 'grind' a true grind where you must sit and level is when enemies provide constant, steady EXP in the same area. So, let the difficulty adjust itself to the player so they may focus on their decisions instead of their primal need to 'level up.'

IMO.

I've never liked enemy level scaling, it takes away any joy you get from levelling up your character(s) by making it pointless. In Oblivion I've been progressing through the game easily with a level 2 character, and I don't see any real point to levelling up any higher. So I'm missing out on all the character building I enjoyed in Morrowind, and probably a lot of collectable equipment.

I like to have the option of being able to go back and level up a few levels if I find an area of the game I'm absolutely stuck on. I also like the opportunity to go against enemies way higher level than I am, for the chance to get relatively massive rewards if I actually manage to take them down.

When I use a scaling system in my own games, there's very few enemies I apply it to. Unwinnable fights (if I'm aiming to make it look realistic), special dungeon monsters, Arena events. That's about it.

A fight you can't win? It might be 'realistic' but it is going to be terrifyingly frustrating. Perhaps before I get into why, could you explain exactly what an 'unwinnable' fight is in your game?

Scaled just high enough so you can't win the fight, without such ridiculously high stats that it's obviously unwinnable.

I tend to create systems that display enemy HP. So the whole "HP never drops" tactic that you would usually deploy for battles you're supposed to lose can be a tad blatant. Considering your viewpoint, though, I guess you could say I'm overcomplicating things.

And just so there's no confusion, I mean story encounters where the party is supposed to be wiped out. Not normal enemies/bosses made frustratingly difficult.

Yeah, that's really what I was getting at... a 'story battle' is alright, but not so much frustratingly difficult ones. Player feedback is undoubtedly necessary so they don't waste items when they don't have to.

IE. The characters talking to one another in the battle when they usually do not communicate, "This is impossible! We can't beat this!" "Hold it together lads!" Etc.

*thumbs up*

you know ff8 was completely and utterly broken entirely right

If you understood the junctioning system alongside knowing how to craft some magic, then it became stupidly easy, yes. I am simply referring to the scaling that game used in terms of the levels, not the systems surrounding it. :)

Although I like a lot of challenge (and in many cases, difficulty) in my games, I generally don't like level scaling as much unless it's used for recurring side things, or for important things meant to test you or etc. It's nice to be able to take some time away to beef your character up so you can just go in and destroy the living hell out of enemies that previously kicked your ass. I would only use level scaling on important things meant to test your skills, or maybe a last boss or something so you don't get a lame pushover last boss. Heh.

in pokemon if i try hard enough eventually i can kill the elite four using just 1 pokemon :smug:

It is irritating. I don't mind if they modify skills a bit but full on stats changing is gay. From a fundamental game design perspective it is actually removing one of the most important parts of making a game 'fun', the rewards. The most important thing in game design is rewarding a player relative to their time investment, which is fucked up if you start scaling enemies.

i dont think there should be any barriers to winning so its just constant winning that would be so fun

And boring..

i like to win losing is boring

It's true, if you lose too often you get frustrated and quit.

And then you come back to it and kick its ass..

so the general consensus is level scaling is gay hmm interesting

What about the scaling used in most every racing game? Mario-Kart, Burnout, etc... how when you just can't seem to lose the competition, but how you rarely end up in last place unless you mess up right near the end. Ridge Racer was infamous for this. These positive feedback loops can really keep things on the razor edge of dangerous while still making it relatively easy for the player to win. Unless of course there is no mode like that, or a 'hard' mode where if you are losing, you are LOSING. And if you are lapping the competition, you get to tea-bag them afterward. A la Gran Turismo.

How do you feel about that?

nobody places racing games.. they aren't platformers or srpg's

I don't like that either. My favourite racing games are the ones where you can actually end up two laps ahead because you're doing ridiculously well for some reason, or end up a lap behind because you accidentally fell of a cliff or something.

As long as there's still a possibility that I can retake the lead, through me suddenly making a perfect run, or the player in front making a massive screw up by accident, then I'll keep racing. I don't need the computer to cheat.

Interesting. But don't you find that in later races when the computer makes zero mistakes that it becomes incredibly frustrating if you do? Playing against human opponents is one thing, but the computer is another. And if you start to lap the competition, it's just not challenging anymore. Fall too far back, and it is frustrating.

I like Burnout's model for this. If you are racing really well, the computer won't be able to pass you immediately, but they are always right on your ass... but if you keep on crashing, catching up takes much longer but you CAN in fact do so. So if you bail right before the finish line, it's pretty well race over. Keeps the tension high, and keeps with the game's model of 'takedowns' when you can destroy the computer that is always on your ass to gain more boost.

It's mostly personal preference, but I believe playing against the computer should be fun and challenging, not frustrating or a breeze... but in human competition is where you truly test your skills.

Just my thoughts.

I don't think the computer should be making zero mistakes, even in the hardest races. The computer opponents should be beatable even if the player screws up a little, just like real live opponents would be. If the player is racing reasonably well then most of the other racers should be right on their ass, without any catch up feature. It's unlikely at the highest levels that the player will be lapping anyone, and if they fall behind too far then... it's a race, it happens. They can restart and try again.

Burnout though I think needs to bend the rules a little because it's not a straight racing game, it's as much about hitting other cars as it is about trying to outrun them. There needs to be cars right next to you all the time or you don't have anyone to smash into. I think that's definitely an example where the catch up feature does improve the gameplay.

Level scaling can turn out good if used correctly. I tend to agree that things should have a cap on how far they level with you. I mean, if you're like level 50, and you go to fight a rat in the beginning area, it shouldn't be level 50 as well. You know what I'm saying?

while i agree level scaling with a cap is good (for example in the beginning area there should be slimes between levels 1 and 5 with 1 more frequent when you are at a low level and 5s more frequent when you are higher level) this would be difficult to implement in games such as oblivion. in oblivion there are really no set 'areas', only a beginning area that you never return to anyways. from there you basically go anywhere you want. they can't really designate areas that you can access from the beginning of the game as higher level just because that would be weird and impede on the concept of being 'free roaming'. i guess i dont know how they did it in morrowind. anyone care to enlighten me?

wasnt any level scaling in morrowind :fu:

I think there's only one instance of level scaling in Morrowind, and that's new creatures appearing in certain locations once you hit level 50 or something.

If you follow the game's main story you should be visiting areas in an order that lets you encounter enemies that roughly increase in level as you do. But you are free to travel anywhere, and there are areas with high level enemies roaming from the start. If you come across them when you're a lower level then you've either got to be clever to take them down, or run the hell away.

Personally I thought that this approach worked great, it was nice to be able to go off exploring places I probably shouldn't be visiting yet, filled with enemies that could annihilate me if they caught me, but also with better treasure and weapons. 'Free roaming' doesn't necessarily mean that you'll live long in the places you roam to.

When i get to a high level, i like to go back to old places I've been just to use the powerful weapons/spells on weak shit, and one-shot them. Then I laugh manically. Scaling takes away all that fun!

And yes, racing games are the fucking worst for this crap. I hate that catch up shit. It's one of the reasons I detest blue shells in modern Mario Karts - skill should always prevail at the end of the day, no matter what. shifting it all over to luck is really irritating.

I quite like BrianOnTheRocks' idea with the rat going from lvl3 -> lvl6, but then stopping. A min and max kinda makes sense to me. Do no games employ this already?

Something's telling me I've seen it in something, but I can't put my finger on it.

This capped scaling, or no scaling is the best. RPG's started with no leveling, and some of those classic RPG's are still the most praised today.

Catch up in racing games sucks. Defeats the purpose. And all other games that try and incorporate "Adaptive Difficulty" have failed.