Scaling in RPGs (...Dragon Age)

[abharsair]

Why does everyone automatically assume that level scaling equals: PC level = monster level? Why not always have a certain key encounter/boss be 5 levels higher than you? or 10? or 5 lower?

I guess it depends on one's personal preference. If I know there's a boss waiting for me and I put the effort into training like crazy to be ready when I encounter it, then I want to be able to crush it and have my invested time pay off rather than be always 5 levels weaker no matter what I do.

Well, that's my point of view anyway. Non-level scaling is great for linear games and level scaling (done right) is great for non-linear games.

I don't think "non-level scaling" and "non-linear games" are mutually exclusive. If monsters and loot are carefully placed, some areas are potentially lethal at earlier levels, unless the player plays smart and is very careful. However, "beating" those areas which are designed for a couple of levels above your own is fun (at least for me) because of the challenge it creates and the high-level rewards it holds. Having an open and non-linear world only means that you should be able to go everywhere, but it doesn't mean you should be able to prance all over it without being ripped to pieces.

Personally I have the impression that "level-scaling" is used because it is easier and requires much less careful planing. It could also be related to the whole "casual gamer" thing and the frustration level at the beginning if you run into something you shouldn't run into.

 

[fatBastard()]

I guess it depends on one's personal preference. If I know there's a boss waiting for me and I put the effort into training like crazy to be ready when I encounter it, then I want to be able to crush it and have my invested time pay off rather than be always 5 levels weaker no matter what I do.

Indeed, but often the increase in abilities and/or spells is far more important than your level or your hitpoints. If you attempt to take on one the incredibly tough Ancient Liches in Baldur's Gate 2 before you are able to cast several spells that lower magic immunity and/or remove its' immunity to physical damage you will not be able to so much as make a tear in its' cloak, let alone defeat it. Even with a high level character you will still most likely die instantly if you fail your saving throw against the meteor storm it unleashes at the beginning of the battle, so a few levels more or less makes no real difference in that regard. Of course the Ancient Liches are all optional so you can just skip them if you don't feel like taking them on.

Another example could be a game like Shin Megami Tensei: Digital Devil Saga (a PS2 JRPG) which is without level scaling since it is linear and doesn't need it. After 15-20 hours of play time I came to a boss that could not be defeated because I hadn't chosen to develop a specific ability/spell. Tough luck mate, start over from scratch or backtrack trying to grind several levels in order to develop the needed skills (which of course takes longer and longer the higher level you are). I'm sorry, but that is not my idea of fun and the game went back on the shelf. A level scaled encounter I would have been able to overcome but not this one.

I don't think "non-level scaling" and "non-linear games" are mutually exclusive. If monsters and loot are carefully placed, some areas are potentially lethal at earlier levels, unless the player plays smart and is very careful. However, "beating" those areas which are designed for a couple of levels above your own is fun (at least for me) because of the challenge it creates and the high-level rewards it holds. Having an open and non-linear world only means that you should be able to go everywhere, but it doesn't mean you should be able to prance all over it without being ripped to pieces.

If done carefully and not very often (like in BG2) then it is a great idea to place difficult encounters, but the "high-level rewards" you mention is also often what causes the problems. If you're meant to go through areas A, B, and C with an optional high level area D and you go through A and then manages to take on area D, then area B will most likely be a cake-walk because you're now so well equipped and levelled that there is no challenge whatsoever in area B.

Remember the infamous Glass Armour trick in Morrowind? With a little patience and a bit of points in the pick pocket skill you could go straight to a particular place that you could reach by Strider transport and steal a complete set of Glass Armour which is the best light weight armour in the game.

Personally I have the impression that "level-scaling" is used because it is easier and requires much less careful planing. It could also be related to the whole "casual gamer" thing and the frustration level at the beginning if you run into something you shouldn't run into.

The frustration level I can most certainly agree with and there is no doubt in my mind that the non-level scaled nature of the Gothic games as well as the strange control mechanism were very important reasons why the Gothic games didn't become the commercial successes that they deserved. Only hardcore RPG players wouldn't be put off by the first 5-10 hours of the games.

I still don't agree with the whole "easier" argument, though. If you want to avoid high initial frustration levels and high late boredom levels in your players then you HAVE to use some kind of level scaling if you want to give the player access to all areas from the beginning ... IMO

 

[Prime Junta]

I have mixed feelings about high-level rewards. On the one hand, they have the capability to totally whack the game balance; on the other, I get a huge kick out of finding them.

IMO the best solution is to place them randomly but logically. I.e., you can't pull off the Morrowind-style cheats and get a Daedric wakizashi and glass armor just because you looked it up on the Net, but there is a possibility of stumbling upon/hunting down something that will drastically improve your survival odds (for a period anyway).

Classic NetHack does this really well, IMO -- there are ways to get wishes and artifact weapons even very early in the game, but they're not guaranteed, you have to work for them, and the results are only good enough to make things easier for you without making you completely invulnerable or so tough things are boring. And it's difficult enough that wishes alone will (almost) never get you quite everything you want, even when you've found a Wand of Wishing, holy water, and scrolls of recharging.

And yes, IMO level scaling is an ingredient that often needs to go into the pot. It just has to be used delicately enough that you'll never notice it's there. Running into a brick wall of difficulty because you were unlucky or unable to properly min-max your character is a game-killer. Conversely, ending up with a character that swats dragons like flies (Gothic 2 much?) is almost as bad. There aren't all that many solutions for this dilemma:

* Get rid of character development choices altogether, and drip-feed your character with upgrades at predesigned points. This is how most shooters work, and it works well enough -- but it's a pretty big trade-off.
* Make a world with a range of areas predesigned for different power levels, keeping the tougher ones optional. This can work too, as the ancient liches in BG2 or the Death God's Vault in MotB show -- but the consequence is that the main quest becomes ridiculously easy for powergamers. Another pretty big trade-off IMO.
* Level-scale. The trade-off is that if you're ham-handed about it, you end up with Oblivion -- IMO the game that made level-scaling such a curse word. OTOH if it's done well, you can maintain challenge within a reasonable bracket, and your players will never even notice.

And that's about it, really. Personally, I believe that a combination of 2 and 3 works best, but, again, it has to be done well -- just like any other game design technique, for that matter.

 

[Tan]

And yes, IMO level scaling is an ingredient that often needs to go into the pot. It just has to be used delicately enough that you'll never notice it's there.

What's the point of something that nobody will ever notice? :/ Then better get rid of it altogether, no?

Anyway, one of the most beautiful things of open exploration is the risk vs reward aspect of it. And no, I don't need an intrusive safety net, in the form of level scaling, to soften the risk or the reward. I'm sorry for those who can't enjoy a game without being able to go everywhere and anywhere HERE & NOW and succeed.
Also, it's perfectly ok to have an easy time in some areas after you had a very hard time in some other areas pursuing power.

 

[fatBastard()]

What's the point of something that nobody will ever notice? :/ Then better get rid of it altogether, no?

Because if it isn't there you WILL notice it. I've always said that the best special effect in Terminator 2 wasn't the Robert Patrick walking through the prison bars or the shattering of the frozen body or all the other eye popping and very well done effects. No, the best special effect in T2 was the the crane that you DIDN'T see lower Arnold and his bike into the drain aqueducts in the motorcycle chase.

Anyway, one of the most beautiful things of open exploration is the risk vs reward aspect of it. And no, I don't need an intrusive safety net, in the form of level scaling, to soften the risk or the reward. I'm sorry for those who can't enjoy a game without being able to go everywhere and anywhere HERE & NOW and succeed.
Also, it's perfectly ok to have an easy time in some areas after you had a very hard time in some other areas pursuing power.

I think this falls under the "one man's garbage is another man's treasure" category. Every point you mention here in a positive light, I would mention in a negative light, so we just clearly disagree on this point.

 

[Prime Junta]

What's the point of something that nobody will ever notice? :/ Then better get rid of it altogether, no?

People would notice if it wasn't there. They'd either be running into blank walls of difficulty, or swatting dragons like flies. That's why.

Anyway, one of the most beautiful things of open exploration is the risk vs reward aspect of it.

I agree.

And no, I don't need an intrusive safety net, in the form of level scaling, to soften the risk or the reward.

Me neither. That's why level-scaling has to be done with care. If it's done heavy-handedly, like in Oblivion, it does become an intrusive safety net.

I'm sorry for those who can't enjoy a game without being able to go everywhere and anywhere HERE & NOW and succeed.

Indeed.

Also, it's perfectly ok to have an easy time in some areas after you had a very hard time in some other areas pursuing power.

I'm entirely in agreement.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, so I'll try again.

In cRPG's that have a lot of optional content with rewards (good), and lots of character customization options (good), players will necessarily end up with characters of different strengths. This means that if the main quest is not level-scaled, it will be either too hard (even impossibly hard), or ridiculously easy.

Worse, it will be harder on more casual people (who don't bother with optional content and aren't able or willing to exploit the character development system) than on more hardcore players who do all the optional content and find out ways to make tougher characters.

That means that neither the casuals nor the hardcore will enjoy the game as much as the merely average.

Level scaling can solve this problem, by balancing the main quest to the player's level. If done in an obvious and heavy-handed way (à la Oblivion), it will ruin the experience for everyone but the casuals; if done well, it will greatly enhance the experience for both the casuals and the hardcore.

In particular, if done well, *nobody will notice.* The hard, optional areas will still be hard; they will still give you a (temporary) boost when attacking mid-level areas. The only upshot is that different types of players will encounter a mix of difficulties that lets the get through the game without running into brick walls (in the main quest anyway), nor coasting through without an effort.

 

[Guest]

In cRPG's that have a lot of optional content with rewards (good), and lots of character customization options (good), players will necessarily end up with characters of different strengths. This means that if the main quest is not level-scaled, it will be either too hard (even impossibly hard), or ridiculously easy.

Worse, it will be harder on more casual people (who don't bother with optional content and aren't able or willing to exploit the character development system) than on more hardcore players who do all the optional content and find out ways to make tougher characters.

That means that neither the casuals nor the hardcore will enjoy the game as much as the merely average.

Level scaling can solve this problem, by balancing the main quest to the player's level. If done in an obvious and heavy-handed way (à la Oblivion), it will ruin the experience for everyone but the casuals; if done well, it will greatly enhance the experience for both the casuals and the hardcore.

In particular, if done well, *nobody will notice.* The hard, optional areas will still be hard; they will still give you a (temporary) boost when attacking mid-level areas. The only upshot is that different types of players will encounter a mix of difficulties that lets the get through the game without running into brick walls (in the main quest anyway), nor coasting through without an effort.

This is exactly the way I see it, too.
Couldn't have put it better myself - not that that's something unusual

 

[Prime Junta]

There's another approach that works, too -- dynamic scaling. Max Payne did it. The idea is that if the game notices that you're dying repeatedly, it dials down the difficulty a notch; OTOH if it notices that you're coasting without taking much damage at all, it jacks it up a bit.

However, I think that in practice this is only feasible for "corridor" games -- with even reasonably open worlds, it would destroy the challenge of exploration, and end up in Oblivion territory again.

 

[Tan]

Because if it isn't there you WILL notice it.

I WANT to notice that.


Prime Junta, it's about careful balancing of side quest combat content vs critical path combat content. Including loot. Even "casual" players can enjoy, combat wise, a well balanced game without any scaling whatsoever; which will also please the more "hardcore" players.

 

[azraelck]

In cRPG's that have a lot of optional content with rewards (good), and lots of character customization options (good), players will necessarily end up with characters of different strengths. This means that if the main quest is not level-scaled, it will be either too hard (even impossibly hard), or ridiculously easy.

If the main quest is properly designed, taking into account each character class' strengths and weaknesses, and given options that a character of lesser ability can use to complete it, then level scaling is completely unneeded.

I have a game that you can beat without fighting a single battle. You don't need combat skills to win, or magic skills. You do need logical thinking (on the player's part) and a fair bit of creativity. It's nice to be able to freeze a portcullis solid then shatter it, or incinerate a door, as opposed to pigeon-holing the character into killing whoever has the keys.

The more I think on this, the more I realize that level scaling has never been done well in anything I've played. Furthermore, most games have failed on the front of actually being, well, role playing games. In a PnP game, you can use creativity to discover unorthodox methods of getting through a challenge. The designer should always allow for more options for completion, the more they allow for greater customization.

If the design of the main quest is such that you HAVE to have x ability or y spell or else, then you're not trying to make a open-world game, just a linear game with a lot of backtracking. Even quest items need to have multiple methods of obtaining them.

The only way I now see level scaling as a usable element is in extremely rigid, linear games; where the player plays the same character every time. There, level scaling can help avoid late-game grinding by ensuring a steady level of challenge... which still stagnates the game. But then, when you get to that point in creating such a rigid game, you're almost better off writing a book instead.

 

[Prime Junta]

Prime Junta, it's about careful balancing of side quest combat content vs critical path combat content. Including loot. Even "casual" players can enjoy, combat wise, a well balanced game without any scaling whatsoever; which will also please the more "hardcore" players.

Can you give me an example of an open-world game with plenty of optional content and character customization options that actually accomplished this?

 

[Prime Junta]

If the main quest is properly designed, taking into account each character class' strengths and weaknesses, and given options that a character of lesser ability can use to complete it, then level scaling is completely unneeded.

I'll ask you the same question as above. Can you give an example of a game that actually accomplishes this? It's very easy to say so, but it's much tougher to do in practice.

Moreover, doesn't the idea of having an easy backdoor in the main quest -- "options that a character of lesser ability can use to complete it" -- sound just a bit... silly? If that's not an intrusive safety net, I don't know what is!

The only way I now see level scaling as a usable element is in extremely rigid, linear games; where the player plays the same character every time. There, level scaling can help avoid late-game grinding by ensuring a steady level of challenge... which still stagnates the game. But then, when you get to that point in creating such a rigid game, you're almost better off writing a book instead.

Actually, I think it's exactly the opposite, for the reasons I listed above. In a rigid, linear game you have plenty of other ways to control how strong your character becomes; in fact, the designer is pretty much in charge of leveling the character, little tweaks aside. IOW, there's no need for level scaling in this situation, because the designer always knows at what level the player will be in any given area.

 

[GothicGothicness]

Why not allow other creatures to fight and level up as well, I always woundered why there are so many creatures in the world and almost all of them are enemies to the player but they don't appear to fight any other creatures, I would like to see an RPG where for example the monsters fight and level up. Not only would it give a unique gaming experiance each time, it would also solve the level scaling problems.

 

[Guest]

I would like to see an RPG where for example the monsters fight and level up. Not only would it give a unique gaming experiance each time, it would also solve the level scaling problems.

... and introduce a metric fuckton of new ones.

 

[Prime Junta]

Why not allow other creatures to fight and level up as well, I always woundered why there are so many creatures in the world and almost all of them are enemies to the player but they don't appear to fight any other creatures, I would like to see an RPG where for example the monsters fight and level up. Not only would it give a unique gaming experiance each time, it would also solve the level scaling problems.

Maybe I'm a bit dumb here, but... how? From where I'm at, it would make the problem worse, or do nothing to it. Could you elaborate on the system you have in mind? Are you thinking of an entire simulated ecology, Dwarf Fortress style, or just having pre-placed monsters fight and kill each other and thereby level up?

If the latter, how do you intend to handle repopulation? Otherwise they'd just kill each other off until you only had one extremely tough monster left, right?.

Finally, what bearing would this have on the player's strength? I.e., how would this help calibrate the difficulty of the game to the player?

And finally finally, would this make for a fun game?

 

[GothicGothicness]

Definately more like a complete ecology system. Not just everyone attack everyone. So it would mean like new creatures could be born also.... and others would die. IMHO it would make for a much more intressing world than the generic predifined ( or randomly generated ) worlds we have in all RPG's now.

This would calibrate the difficulty and add a new aspect, because as time pass by ( and the player become more powerful ) other humans / creatures would also level up and become more powerful.

When you have a quest this quest might come by naturally, say that there is a crazy wild boar which kills everything in its way, this wild boar would keep leveling, and as people heard about it they would make a quest for the player, the next play through this wild boar might die early game.

The creatures would also have a much more advance intellect like if the big bad boar tries to attack the little small weak gremlin, he would try to escape or get help.... To prevent the "just one powerful creature" in the entire world you could add certain behaviors like certain creatures like to stay around their home area, and would only attack in case someone came into their cave / home / threaten their kids etc.

Futher more most creatures would not kill or attack, just for the sake of killing or attacking.... they would have some purpose for doing so.. be it hunger, or that you are trying to steal there treasure. I also don't see a problem with having competing quests that could be completed by other adventurers if the player failed / or didn't accept the quest.

It might not work for every game, but I would definetely love to see it in a game.

I will edit to eleborate more later.

 

[Prime Junta]

Definately more like a complete ecology system. Not just everyone attack everyone. So it would mean like new creatures could be born also.... and others would die. IMHO it would make for a much more intressing world than the generic predifined ( or randomly generated ) worlds we have in all RPG's now.

This would calibrate the difficulty and add a new aspect, because as time pass by ( and the player become more powerful ) other humans / creatures would also level up and become more powerful.

Except that if it really was a simulated ecology, this would only happen if it started out in disequilibrium. If it's in an equilibrium state, the most powerful ones die out at the same rate as less powerful ones level up to replace them, and so all through the chain. Conversely, if it's not in an equilibrium state, the most likely outcome is a mass extinction followed by a situation where the world is very sparsely populated by very few, very powerful critters, until, over time, a new equilibrium slowly emerges.

The former is (from the POV of challenge) the same as a world populated by hand-placed monsters that don't level up. The latter is highly unpredictable and doesn't scale at all to the player's level.

Am I missing something here?

When you have a quest this quest might come by naturally, say that there is a crazy wild boar which kills everything in its way, this wild boar would keep leveling, and as people heard about it they would make a quest for the player, the next play through this wild boar might die early game.

This is how Dwarf Fortress works. The world even persists when your hero dies, and you can roll up a new character to take a stab at that nasty wild boar of yours.

The creatures would also have a much more advance intellect like if the big bad boar tries to attack the little small weak gremlin, he would try to escape or get help.... To prevent the "just one powerful creature" in the entire world you could add certain behaviors like certain creatures like to stay around their home area, and would only attack in case someone came into their cave / home / threaten their kids etc.

Yup, all done in Dwarf Fortress.

Futher more most creatures would not kill or attack, just for the sake of killing or attacking.... they would have some purpose for doing so.. be it hunger, or that you are trying to steal there treasure. I also don't see a problem with having competing quests that could be completed by other adventurers if the player failed / or didn't accept the quest.

All of that too.

It might not work for every game, but I would definetely love to see it in a game.

Looks like Dwarf Fortress is your game, then. I'm a big fan, too, but it's definitely not the *only* type of game I'd like -- the emergent quests are rather simple, and there's no story or plot to it.

However, DF's system has bugger all to do with scaling to the player's difficulty; the world as freshly created is exactly as challenging as a world you've played in for very, very long. That is, *very* challenging; Sir Diealot is a good name for a hero there.

(Pocket worlds excepted; those are so small that killing a single major beastie might throw the whole thing out of balance.)

 

[GothicGothicness]

I do not strictly speaking consider dwarf forttress as an RPG although I love what they are doing with it.

I am not saying that it has to be a complete system without any restrictions in place. The main point is that instead of making the monsters scale automatically to the players level, they would also progress over time. Like for example, in the beginning the forests has 4 different kinds of creatures, which would engage in different kinds of fighthing..... and it would have a variety of different outcomes, one might be that each area was populated by a few powerful creatures from one race which would not attack each other. Another outcome might be that it would be populated by a lot of low level creatures of the same race.

If the player visits this area in the beginning, the creatures would not have had time to fight much or multiply etc, so he would meet with a lesser challange. However as time passed, either the creatures would have multiplied much ( so he would meet with a lot of them ) or it might be a few powerful creatures which had eaten all others. It would create almost limitless and unpredictable possiblities upon visiting this forest on each playthrough.

I also see nothing preventing to combine it with certain areas with very dangerous monsters who do not follow this rules, or certain "beginner" areas which does not follow it neither.

 

[Prime Junta]

How would this be functionally different from... level scaling? You know, other than that you'd bind the leveling to game time rather than player progression. More to the point, how would it be better? To me, it sounds *worse* -- if, for whatever reason, you spend a lot of time putzing around without leveling up, you'll suddenly find the environment has inexplicably gotten a lot more dangerous, which makes you *unable* to level up.

On the face of it, this mechanic would make the game harder for less skilled players (because, being less skilled, it'll take them longer to level up, which means they'd face the monsters when they had had more time to level up), and easier for skilled players (because, being more skilled, they'll level up faster, and therefore face the monsters earlier, before they had leveled up).

IOW, it looks like it makes the problem *worse,* not better.

 

[GothicGothicness]

Really?? the problem I had with level scaling was that it made the game boring and generic and especially too easy! In Oblivion you could just complete the murder super duper dangerous quest on level 1 making it appear ( not so dangerous at all ). In the above example I made a suggestion which would make an area unpredictable and more interessing. If the same area had level scaling you would know ( no matter when you get there) that you would meet a certain type of creatures of a certain level everytime. Nothing in the system prevents a creature from starting out powerful in the beginning ( of course this could also be the case for level scaling, like creatures are level 10 from the start and only begin to scale after the player reach level 11 ), but it would still create a very generic world, you would know each time you go to an area, okay now I will meet the level 11 ogres since I am level 11, and I know how to defeat a level 11 ogre since I did it so many times, so now I will do the same thing again and again.

While in my system you might meet a bunch of level 5 ogres ( you would need to deal with a huge amount instead of a few powerful ones ) or you might just meet one very powerful ogre ( which had no other creatures around him to defeat , thus he could not get more powerful (unless some creatures crossed his path by mistake ) and you could come back later to fight him.

As far as the slow player, yes he might meet more creatures ( or more powerful ones ) which also give him the possiblity to level more. I know that a very slow player might meet with the problem that he is "level 1" and he could find nothing to kill, but this could be prevented in many ways. It might require a different tactics, like running after "young" creatures while avoiding the powerful ones. But I also think it is realstic. Why should the world stand still ? like in most RPG's you can always go to the nearest city and sleep for one week to recover the player, without any change to the world happening during this time........ It is unrealistic and boring IMHO.