Poll: Level scaling, yes or no?

[DementedSheep]

I?m bit of a completionist and do everything in a zone before moving on. Because if this if there is no scaling I tend to get over leveled without trying to be. Of course if I didn't do that and came back to finish previously unfinished quest it would be piss easy and that would be an issue too...so yes I think some scaling is good. I don?t think enemies should be scaled DOWN to your level, it just shouldn't be a massive grind with little to actually do to move on and have cues and to which areas are meant for high levels.

But level scaling done badly can make everything feel the same, especially when paired up with a level system that gives you bigger numbers rather than more tools to use and being able to kick the ass of weak enemies that use to be hard dose help the sense of progression so it?s a tricky thing to balance. You can?t just add x% of health and damage to enemies every level. If it?s a game with random encounters and spawning enemies I guess you change the type of enemies and composition of groups you are likely to come across (though still seeing weak enemies as well) as you gain levels or have scaling within a range that depends on the area you are in/enemy type.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

I prefer no scaling, generally. If I'm at the end of the game and my character should be a massive badass by now, why are all the basic mooks also equally powerful now?

But at the same time, there can be a feeling of serious disappointment when you out-level an enemy that's supposed to be a major lore character, one of the most powerful entities in the world, and you just one hit kill it straight away. Boring!

So a system where bosses and powerful creatures will remain challenging, whilst lesser creatures can eventually be left in the dust, could work.

Or you could just make an rpg with skill-based combat, so that the 'I'm a crazy awesome badass' feeling comes naturally as you get better at the game, rather than just because your stats/gear give you a huge advantage...

 

[shootthebandit]

I dont like levels in general (probably why i steer clear of most RPGs). I dont get why a level 2 can beat a level 202 purely because there are 200 arbritrary numbers between them. I like games based on skill rather than the fact someone has been playing longer. Granted skill does come with experience but i prefer everything to be the same and knowing that i beat an opponent because of my skill rather than the fact i have grinded for longer. On the subject of grinding games with levels be it scaled or not promote a monotonous grind rather than engaging diverse gameplay

 

[Odbarc]

I hate level scaling. I just wish areas had difficulties versus everything everywhere getting harder alongside with you.

Otherwise theres no sense of growth or accomplishment. You can't just load up on preparations and go on an excavation.

 

[DoPo]

I would prefer if developers simply just made everything scale to you

This is something I don't like as a concept at all. For me, if you have levels in your game, you shouldn't be levelling the enemies automatically too - it's sort of defeating the purpose of having levels in the first place. However, if you don't have levels in the game, but some other means of progression, then go ahead.

I wouldn't even mind if RPGs removed stat increases completely. To me, an RPG is about getting new abilities/skills/feats/spells/moves/etc. that allow for more options in combat and new strategies along with tailoring your character build properly to stack certain bonuses. I really hate when RPGs fall into the trap of just increasing stats as you level and you can't fight certain enemies just because your strength stat is too low and you can't deal enough damage and/or your defense stat is too low and you can't block or take any hits.

Oh, I feel the same way, as well. The best type of progression is widening one's aresenal, not just giving them more stuff across the board - more health, mana/resources, stronger attacks, more attacks, more options and moves, etc. etc. etc. Just go for a very limited amount of these and then the game itself should be able to scale better. This removes the really annoying trend of "you fight goblins at levels 1-10, then orcs at 10-20, ogres at 20-30" and so on and so forth ad anauseam - after all, it's pretty much the same stuff all the time anyway - you have a mook and you kill it, you can change the model of the mook but enough times the changes don't go leaps and bounds above "tweak some numbers", so...it's pretty much a slightly more complicated way of palette swapping. Progression shouldn't really make you be able to laugh off damage just because the source is an enemy you faced at the start of your journey, but progression should make it easier to deal with them.

I still appreciate what some RPGs go for, which is you ending up as pretty much a demigod in terms of power or so. In that case, level scaling is just...weird. Sure, you have all the power but so do your enemies, so it's useless. Though what usually happens is you have all the power and your enemies still lag behind just because guided improvement beats simple static number increases. In that case, level scaling is still useless. The whole "more numbers" all the time really tends to screw up the feeling of progression one is going for.

 

[The_Echo]

Have am I supposed to feel progress as a character if even the shittiest monsters keep up with me through the whole game?

Level scaling is a no for me.

 

[thePyro_13]

If your going to have level scaling then you'd might as well not have levels. The whole point of levels is that you find something that is hard to fight, but when you come back later you're more capable of fighting it.

If everything just scales to whatever level you are, then you're all really just still level 1 for all the difference it makes.

 

[Sarge034]

I enjoy level scaling when it is area specific. It just feels more natural to have people telling you not to go to (insert map location here) because it is a bad place. When you inevitably go before you are supposed to and see if you are bad enough a dude only to get your ass handed to you. It makes you think, in game and IRL, perhaps I should have listened to the people who know the area. Really helps with immersion. However, for no reason should enemies scale to the player. It's not like those (insert generic first enemies here) were taking steroids while you were out...

 

[Veylon]

FFT did level scaling pretty well. If you are in an early area, you fight Goblins and Chocobos. They are mostly your level. However, at higher levels, you will have unlocked a whole slew of new abilities and have better equipment. So you'll crush them fairly easily.

Aside from that, I'm in favor of putting new, more powerful enemies in early areas if level-matching is desired. It can be justified via plot; if the world as a whole is hurtling towards darker times, it ought to reflect that. It can also make early, safe areas dangerous zones with new missions.

 

[TheRaggedQueen]

I'm not usually a fan of level scaling, but I enjoy how it was handled in Fallout 3 and New Vegas. Rather than having everything just get more and more buff, the area-specific enemies will gain better weapons or stats the more you level, but only up to a point. Bandits might start off with handguns and eventually gain shotguns and SMGs, but if you backtrack they're still handling that instead of wielding laser and plasma weaponry.

 

[sXeth]

I'd say no to level scaling, though I'd put forth a second argument that the enemies should follow some logical constraints.

One common thing in RPGs that don't level scale is you start out in a village with weak monsters, and eventually progress to some sort of major capital/castle/city. But the city, despite large numbers of people, armed defense forces, and likely having cleared terrain nearby of hiding holes to make farmland or the like, will inexplicably be surrounded by incredibly dangerous foes that should make it unlivable.

 

[otakon17]

Hell no. It removes the sense of growth from gaining levels and finding new gear and learning new techniques. I liked Dragon Age Origins for the fact that while it did key creatures to your level on your first appearance in an area, as you grew stronger they remained the same and it showed. Dragon Age II ruined that utterly with its level scaling, especially so with the lieutenant and elite and boss enemy scaling. Your tanks became useless, your defense pointless and your damage output dropped regardless if you were level 1 or level 50 by a set amount. I WANT my characters to feel powerful later on in the game, not still getting thrashed even with the best gear possible and the most experience possible.

So, no I hate level scaling. I love the feeling of fighting in an area long enough to outstrip the enemies and then crush them in combat. Or even better, Earthbounds way and allow you to automatically win fights if you're high enough level.

Off topic: Escapist, WHY do I have to enter a captcha even though I haven't posted at all yet today? Hell why do I have to post a captcha after ONE post in a day most of the time? Seriously, I've been here for over 2 years, I'm pretty sure I'm not a robot...

 

[ThunderCavalier]

I don't think level scaling is inherently good or bad. It all depends in how it's implemented and whether or not it makes sense for the game.

This.

Personally, I liked New Vegas's approach. It buffed enemies where it needed to and it kept enemies fodder in other areas, making traveling through certain areas nostalgic and others suicidal if you weren't prepared (so you couldn't get to New Vegas by traveling through Quarry Junction).

 

[vashthblackseed]

I love and hate level scaling. I love the addition of new and equally challenging enemies. I hate that they usually remove the lower leveled enemies from the random encounter chart.
I wish that random encounters they would add more powerful opponents to the list and simply increase the number of lower leveled ones. It would fun to be running around in a forest in Skyrim and kill a bear 1 time; next time I encounter a pack of 8 wolves.

 

[Amir Kondori]

It really depends on how it is implemented, like most things. In Oblivion leveled enemies ruined that game for me. In Skyrim they realized that you should never run into a level 50 wolf, and capped different enemies at different levels and some enemies only show up once you hit a certain level. So in Skyrim it works.
In Morrowind you could stumble into a cave with some crazy people/creatures in it that would just murder you. Then you had to high tail it out of there, mark it on your map, and come back when you were stronger. It gave you a real sense of progression to come back and stomp these people who were unbeatable before. So in Morrowind non-leveled enemies worked.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

No I do not like level scaling.

I think the experience is better especially if you reach a zone where you get your ass kicked..then you leave defeated and come back a few levels later and with all your wrath you strike them down from defeating you in the first place. That feeling is simply awesome.

The fact that Witcher 3 will have no level scaling and it's open world makes me all giddy to play it -NOW-.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Yes and know. I enjoy the way Skyrim does it because while they do scale the enemies, after a certain point, you can become powerful enough that it doesn't matter (and it matters even less if you abuse crafting). Plus, the scaling wasn't that noticeable. You'd still fight lower versions of enemies and sometimes they'd be with the higher leveled versions making a more varied fight. Oblivion was annoying though. I detest Guild Wars 2's system. The way you can walk into a level 80 zone and do quite well even though you have level 24 gear is ridiculous. I like feeling some sort of progression. I don't get that feeling in Guild Wars 2. I just can't help but feel how pointless the game is when I'm playing. It's probably not a good sign when my favourite part of the game is the jumping challenges. Almost beat the damn Mad King's Clock Tower!

 

[thejackyl]

I don't mind scaling too much as long as it's done right. Oblivion didn't do it well since EVERYTHING scaled to you it actively encouraged you to not level up.. Skyrim did it better where areas have enemies within a level range and when you enter it they are locked either at your level or the lowest in that range, whichever is higher (I think, I'm not 100% sure). That way there is that sense of progression.

I think a decent way would be to give enemies a set level and stats, but all, or at least certain enemies, will scale up or down depending on the level difference. If you're higher level they gain some stats, if you're lower they lose some. However, scaling down they'll hit a diminishing return (meaning a lesser effect per level) VERY early (a level or two), where as if they scale up they'll hit it a little later.

That way you can play at your own pace and still get a decent and fair challenge, and even if you grind you still wont be able to beat EVERY challenge with one shot, at least depending on how much you grind.

 

[Mad World]

Not a fan of scaling; I prefer fixed levels.

What would be REALLY awesome is if NPCs leveled up in the same way that you do: killing things, using potions, etc. (basically, doing it the same way that the player does). But, probably won't see anything like that for a long time.

Personally, I think that developers need to shift priories. Stop obsessing over graphics; instead, focus on things like A.I.

 

[Saltyk]

It can depend. Level scaling in a game like Dragon Age or Mass Effect can allow you to choose when you go to your next destination. That game also has some preset gear that avoids some of the pitfalls of level scaling.

Honestly, it can depend on the game. Not scaling works in linear games where they can know how strong you should be to continue. Scaling works if the player has a lot of freedom.

Scaling enemies when I level is stupid. What's the benefit of leveling up if the enemies always keep pace? There are bosses in Final Fantasy 8 that are actually easier at a lower level than if you level up. I mean, what the hell? I get the idea that forcing a grind is boring... but if there's an equal challenge on the boss of the game at level 1 as there would be at level 100, then why does our character not just go there right away and kill him?

That said, if my actual world PROGRESS would provoke tougher enemies in earlier areas, that would be fine. I'd love to go back to a game's first area and have NPCs tell me that since I caused so much havok, a tougher gang of whatever moved into the area and is now on the roads, doing bad things that only my whoever I am can stop.

It's also possible to effectively turn your party into powerhouses that can destroy enemies even at high levels in FFVIII. Taking advantage of AbilityX4 and the Bonus skills. You just need to keep your whole party at low level and when you get Bahamut and Cactuar, KO two members and build the third to level 100 using the boosts. Do that to every character you want to use and they can easily have base stats of 100. With proper jumctions and possibly the Devour command, you can easily buff them even higher. Thus, making things much easier.

Still, I think FFVIII had some issues in that front. Plenty of annoying enemies that just had too much HP. T-Rexuar and Malboro as examples. That game still has my most hated form of Malboro, too.

Either way, FFVIII does actively discourage leveling up. Enemies grow much more than your party.