Poll: Level scaling, yes or no?

[endtherapture]

So in the big Kingdoms of Amalur thread there's loads of people bashing the fact they there is no level scaling in the game, forcing a grind etc, meanwhile people bash Oblivion and Skyrim for level scaling, and also praise Dark Souls and Morrowind for the fact there is none.

Personally I think the Dragon Age/Baldur's Gate approach is the best. There's no level scaling but the game is a tailored experience, everything is static and thanks to the story you will be encountering certain areas at certain times, and some areas are just harder than others at some point in the time. ie. Firkraag's Dungeon in BG2 is doable in Chapter 2, but the optimal time is doing it at Chapter 3 late at some point, or even Chapter 6. Dragon Age might be level scaled but I don' even know because everything is at the right level of challenge the whole way through.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Sack of Cheese]

If the game is well-designed, whichever option is fine, but I voted "No" anyway.
I'm the type who loves to backtrack and bully weaker enemies for the evulz.

 

[Doom972]

I liked the system Morrowind used: NPCs have fixed levels, while monsters generated in dungeons scale according to your level when you enter (dungeons reset every 3 days IIRC).

However, linear scaling like the one used in its sequel, Oblivion, is horrible and should never be used in another game.

So it depends on the game and how exactly it's implemented.

 

[LetalisK]

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.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

So in the big Kingdoms of Amalur thread there's loads of people bashing the fact they there is no level scaling in the game, forcing a grind...

I think Kingdom of Amalur is exactly the same as following quote below as my friend who played it said the dungeons scale to you. People bash KoA for the things other games do, yet the other games are great and KoA is average and generic, it makes no sense.

I liked the system Morrowind used: NPCs have fixed levels, while monsters generated in dungeons scale according to your level when you enter (dungeons reset every 3 days IIRC).

---

I would prefer if developers simply just made everything scale to you, especially any quest related enemies for sure. It was so annoying to have to play through Borderlands 2 twice just so you got a consistent challenge. And, Borderlands 1 you literally have to play through that game and the DLC in a very specific order because if you don't, it'll be way too hard or too easy.

People that just wanna play the story should be able to without being underleveled and people that wanna play all the content shouldn't find themselves overleveled and blowing through the main quest. Whatever method that accomplishes that is the right method in my book. Scaling everything to your level seems like the simplest way, maybe not the best though.

 

[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.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Level scaling defeats the purpose of leveling up. I can understand it's use in quest based RPG's since you can do quests in any order but for a linear RPG, there should be no level scaling.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Dragon Age might be level scaled but I don' even know because everything is at the right level of challenge the whole way through.

It most certainly is, since you can choose either of the three different branches (Dwarves, Dalish or Mages) at any point past the prologue. What DA:O does right is that it has a very fine tuned scaling that doesn't intrude on your experience and the scaling allows for the use of abilities and tactics to make battles immensely easier.

Arguably, I think a well done level scaling is the best way to go in open world RPGs or semi-linear RPGs (like Dragon Age). It allows the player more freedom to tackle the game on their own terms and doesn't force grinding or rushing through quests to unlock the stuff needed to get past the beef gates into the areas you want to see. That being said, some times it makes sense to exempt certain parts of the game from the scaling. Leaving certain dungeons or quests non-scaling can really amplify the effect of getting through those areas or quests and adds a lot more immersion (ie. Dragons. Dragons were always dangerous in Dragon Age, whereas they were often just a nuisance in Skyrim).

 

[tippy2k2]

Wow, I'm kind of surprised at the poll results (though it's still early...)

I much prefer level scaling over no-scaling. A lot of games (Borderlands has been brought up) that doesn't have scaling bores me because it's really easy to over-shoot the level you're "supposed" to be at, making the game far too easy. While this takes out the ability to jump ahead and fight things more powerful for the challenge, I personally find that the only real way through those is cheap-tactics and using game-breaking BS moves to plow through them.

This is also a more current attitude but I am heavily in favor of it; level-scaling eliminates grinding. I can't stand grinding and level-scaling is an easy way to eliminate it.

 

[Tom_green_day]

I'm quite fond of it. In Borderlands 2 I like to go back to places with easy enemies when I'm top level and just demolish everyone.

 

[MysticSlayer]

I prefer a game that paces its regular enemies well with the level that you are at with some enemies that are simply too powerful until later in the game or until you start grinding. This gives more of a sense of progression in the games world and it is a lot more fun to beat a single enemy that gave you a ton of trouble earlier than a bunch of enemies that can never give you trouble because they are never far above your level. While it is possible to overshoot the level, having an occasional steep jump in level or just incredibly thoughtful level pacing should remedy this problem, and many games have remedied it through those methods.

In any case, the problem I have with level scaling is that it fails to really give a sense of progression, it doesn't give anywhere near the same feel of needing to know where you can and cannot go, and it is often too easy no matter what (whereas non-level-scaling only has that problem certain times).

 

[Fireaxe]

Level scaling is just stupid.. if a designer wants to bring in stronger monsters into the "open world" of an RPG as the story progresses that's one thing, but making the mudcrab stronger is just dumb.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I hate when enemies scale to your level. It pretty much ruins a game for me.

I much much prefer games where either the entire game is static with "weak" enemies and areas and "strong" enemies and areas. I like the fact that I can go back to an area I once found challenging and decimate the opposition there. When there is no real challenge curve everything just feels so bland, especially when the enemies themselves basically come along with you as in something like Skyrim.

 

[The Abhorrent]

The biggest issue with level scaling is that it's (infamously) difficult to implement correctly. On the other hand, fixed enemy levels have a much more manageable and can definitely implement a proper difficulty curve; plus it has a better reputation, even though it can just as easily be screwed up (and players don't look to the mechanic/premise as the issue).

Probably the best game I've played with level scaling would be Skyrim (small reference pool here), which is actually rather decent... most of the criticism it receives is in relation to Oblivion's terrible level scaling, and that some enemies in Skyrim still have scaling issues (most notably dragons). Still, overall it did a fairly good job... but in the end, I've MANY played games with fixed enemy levels/difficulty which end up with far better difficulty curves.

The reasons for level scaling are to give the player a constant challenge, discourage grinding to allow for players to simply overpower enemies, and to ensure new areas that the player finds aren't a joke (because they entered it at a higher level than intended); good intentions all around. Nevertheless, it's far too easy to screw up (and extremely difficult to get right).

---

As for fixed enemy levels, there are a few inherent issues. Most notably, over-leveling can kill any challenge the game has (and is a common approach by many players too); side-quests can easily do this without the player noticing that they're making it easy for themselves, especially if the game is balanced around the player not doing them. Gimmicky mechanics, such as arbitrarily capping player levels until they pass a certain section of the game (FFX and FFXIII employ this approach), can be employed; however, they'll always feel a bit forced (at least by players who are trying to over-level, the pacing can be done in a way that normal playthroughs don't run into those caps).

You can make the perfect difficulty curve with fixed enemy levels, and it will never feel awkward... provided the player sticks to the prescribed path. This could be done by having generic enemies and side-quests not award the player with whatever they need to level up (or perhaps award very little in comparison to the main story, plus it means it will NEVER work in a sandbox game), but that runs the risk of discouraging players from doing those at all. The possibility of the player over-leveling may just be a necessary evil in with fixed enemy levels.

Anyhow, the main benefit is that fixed enemy levels work... provided the developer has set up the difficulty curve correctly.

 

[TheMigrantSoldier]

Mostly no. I hated how bandits were suddenly armed with "rare" sets of Daedric in Oblivion. That said, I think the areas of lower level enemies should be made clear. I hate missing an area only to come back and depopulate it with over-leveled stats and gear.

Level scaling is alright in certain cases. Like with random encounters (Bounty hunters and assassins) in Fallout.

 

[Something Amyss]

So in the big Kingdoms of Amalur thread there's loads of people bashing the fact they there is no level scaling in the game, forcing a grind etc, meanwhile people bash Oblivion and Skyrim for level scaling, and also praise Dark Souls and Morrowind for the fact there is none.

The major problem with Amalur is that it's possible to cap the end game really low, screwing you out of good items and equipment permanently. I prefer no level scaling, but this is really bad design.

When you need a chart to figure out when it's safe to hit the next zone?

Something's wrong.

 

[FoolKiller]

No.... especially when they do it as tragically badly as Borderlands.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I hate scaling. I especially hate it on items. The fact I get a gimped version of some unique piece of loot simply because I managed to access it early is garbage. I believe in a tailored experience. A little bit of scaling can be okay, but too much(What most developers do) and it is a mess.

 

[KillForGlory]

Level scaling pretty much ruins immersion and makes gameworlds much less epic; venturing into unknown isn't nearly as dangerous.

 

[Reaper195]

Ish. If you are going to have level scaling, don't get rid of weaker enemies. Just add more, harder, enemies. This was the main reason I thought Dead Island was shit. Granted, it wasn't very good, but it wasn't bad. But having a massive sword with explosive powers felt useless when I'd run up to a stumbling zombie and have to hit them four or five times to kill it, yet at the beginning, a broken oar was enough for a 1HK.