Level scaling, why is this a thing?

Derekloffin

New member
Jun 17, 2015
32
0
0
Consider this with me. You are making a game. On the one hand you can add a leveling system, and to keep the challenge level consistent you can add a level scaling system. Or you could have skipped all that since they cancel each other out getting the same result without all the extra work. So why do game makers do the former so often?!

What is the point of adding a system to your game, just to turn around and cancel it out? If you want to add abilities with the levels that don't get cancelled out, then add them without the leveling and level scaling. You're basically doing DMC or numerous other action titles with soft leveling systems. You don't need to add a leveling system that is literally pointless.

At the very best, these systems are perfect cancels and do nothing overall. At worst, they don't properly scale and potentially over-scale making the game harder as you level up. The mid point is a game that reduces the effects of levels, but if you just wanted reduced effect from leveling, do so directly without the level scaling. You don't need to give the character 10 points per level, you can give them 1.

So why? Why do they waste time doing this? Is it just that they're REALLY attached to having a "leveling" system? If so, does that actually impress you as a person looking for a game? I know it doesn't me as I immediately roll my eyes knowing the developer at best wasted time in development. So what's the deal?
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Derekloffin said:
Consider this with me.
NO! YOU CAN'T MAKE MEEEEEEEE!

You are making a game. On the one hand you can add a leveling system, and to keep the challenge level consistent you can add a level scaling system. Or you could have skipped all that since they cancel each other out getting the same result without all the extra work. So why do game makers do the former so often?!
Because it's a simple psychological trick to emphasize the notion of progressing from where you began. Your numbers are bigger now than they were 5 levels ago, so you're making progress.

Another reason is to keep you out of places you're not supposed to be yet. That's why there's such a phrase as being "underleveled" for a particular area. Conversely, it grants the player the satisfaction of over-leveling, allowing them to go back to the weaker areas and kill the fuck out of everything as though you're a mad god of destruction.

If you want to add abilities with the levels that don't get cancelled out, then add them without the leveling and level scaling.
And what exactly would you call this milestone upon which you gain new abilities? Personally I'd call it a level up. :3
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Cause people don't appreciate being awesome. One of many reasons Morrowind is better than Oblivion is this exact issue. I loved starting as an insignificant foreign peasant, and clawing my way to kick-ass quasi-deity. Yes its a pain to walk into a cave or dungeon and have everything just be way higher level than you, but then you come back higher level than them and kick their ass.

The idea behind it is to maintain challenge, which is more prevalent in open-world games I guess, since there is less control of progression, where as a more linear game may just block the path with more powerful foes, like in Dark Souls. (Though I suppose leveling in that is much different than most RPGs).

But yes, I think just increasing the weak enemies to be less weak is dumb, since it makes no sense for petty bandits to be decked out in Daedric gear and be a threat to the one destined to challenge the gods themselves.
 

Derekloffin

New member
Jun 17, 2015
32
0
0
RJ 17 said:
Because it's a simple psychological trick to emphasize the notion of progressing from where you began. Your numbers are bigger now than they were 5 levels ago, so you're making progress.
Well, that much I can at least get although I guess it doesn't work on me at all. Just annoys me.

RJ 17 said:
Another reason is to keep you out of places you're not supposed to be yet. That's why there's such a phrase as being "underleveled" for a particular area. Conversely, it grants the player the satisfaction of over-leveling, allowing them to go back to the weaker areas and kill the fuck out of everything as though you're a mad god of destruction.
That's not really a level scaling system though. A level scaling system doesn't have over leveling (and generally not under leveling either). They just have all content level with you to match your level. So if you face that giant rat at level 1 or level 100, the challenge is theoretically supposed to be the same. I have no problem with normal leveling systems, it is the combo of a leveling system with a level scaling system that baffles me as to the purpose.
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
Yeah, level scaling is pretty stupid. The reason they do it is to give you complete freedom to explore but then what's the point of exploring if you are still going to be facing the same enemies and the loot will be leveled too. I strongly prefer a game with a good autosave that allows you to explore and maybe run into an overpowered enemy (that you may be able to beat for high experience).

RJ 17 said:
Another reason is to keep you out of places you're not supposed to be yet. That's why there's such a phrase as being "underleveled" for a particular area. Conversely, it grants the player the satisfaction of over-leveling, allowing them to go back to the weaker areas and kill the fuck out of everything as though you're a mad god of destruction.
This sounds like a game without level scaling.
 

crypticracer

New member
Sep 1, 2014
109
0
0
The idea that the player character has to get stronger, and to represent that you need higher numbers is stupid. Many games with leveling systems straight up shouldn't have them. Your are correct and I think most of these game could go without either. Zelda managed it fine for all but the second game.

But as surveys say or something, people just love seeing numbers go up, it scratches an itch for improvement we all have without actually requiring any, you know, improvement. You killed so and so many guys. Level up, now you do 100 extra damgae, and now the enemy get's 100 extra hitpoints, way to be you. We want to know we are advancing in a game, and levels give us that sense without actually getting further in the game.

So yeah, I agree, it's dumb. But even I still get a little thrill when Level Up appears, even in games where it doesn't mean anything.
 

MysticSlayer

New member
Apr 14, 2013
2,405
0
0
Part of it has to do with standard RPG design. We've spent a long time building RPGs where you level up and, eventually, become powerful enough to make it past something that was too hard earlier. The addition of something like level scaling won't make that go away overnight.

And then there's the psychological aspect. You at least feel like your character is progressing and getting stronger, even if they aren't in relation to the world. Heck, they may actually be getting stronger in relation to the world, just not against a few select major fights. Bear in mind, not everything in the game has to have some significant purpose. A lot of little details to make the world come alive and/or play on psychology (so long as it isn't horribly exploiting it) can go a long way.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
WeepingAngels said:
RJ 17 said:
Another reason is to keep you out of places you're not supposed to be yet. That's why there's such a phrase as being "underleveled" for a particular area. Conversely, it grants the player the satisfaction of over-leveling, allowing them to go back to the weaker areas and kill the fuck out of everything as though you're a mad god of destruction.
This sounds like a game without level scaling.
Depends on which form of level scaling we're talking about: the kind that keeps up with you so that the difficulty never changes or the kind that you keep up with so that the difficulty never changes.

Two different kinds of scaling, but in the end it's the same difficulty curve. The only difference is that one allows you to either fuck up and go somewhere you're not supposed to be or you can go bring down your wrath on all the poor lower level mobs.

I strongly prefer a game with a good autosave that allows you to explore and maybe run into an overpowered enemy (that you may be able to beat for high experience).
You mean like the second kind of scaling - zone based level scaling - that I previously mentioned? :p

And just to further clarify: it's a form of level scaling because as long as you're progressing through each zone in the proper order the difficulty never really changes until you either go back or skip ahead.
 

DefunctTheory

Not So Defunct Now
Mar 30, 2010
6,438
0
0
Level scaling in itself isn't bad, it's just often misapplied or poorly implemented.

In this, it's just like every single other game mechanic ever conceived. People screw up sometimes, for a hundred different reasons. It just is what it is.
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
RJ 17 said:
WeepingAngels said:
RJ 17 said:
Another reason is to keep you out of places you're not supposed to be yet. That's why there's such a phrase as being "underleveled" for a particular area. Conversely, it grants the player the satisfaction of over-leveling, allowing them to go back to the weaker areas and kill the fuck out of everything as though you're a mad god of destruction.
This sounds like a game without level scaling.
Depends on which form of level scaling we're talking about: the kind that keeps up with you so that the difficulty never changes or the kind that you keep up with so that the difficulty never changes.

Two different kinds of scaling, but in the end it's the same difficulty curve. The only difference is that one allows you to either fuck up and go somewhere you're not supposed to be or you can go bring down your wrath on all the poor lower level mobs.

I strongly prefer a game with a good autosave that allows you to explore and maybe run into an overpowered enemy (that you may be able to beat for high experience).
You mean like the second kind of scaling - zone based level scaling - that I previously mentioned? :p

And just to further clarify: it's a form of level scaling because as long as you're progressing through each zone in the proper order the difficulty never really changes until you either go back or skip ahead.
Having more powerful enemies in different loading zones is not level scaling. Level scaling is when the enemies grow WITH the player.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
Derekloffin said:
Snip for space
In Devil May Cry (I assume you mean original series, not the newer one), those baddies are always going to be getting stronger and more frequent. Not sure if that's level-scaling. Now Final Fantasy 8 is DEFINITELY that, and frankly fuck that shit! Dante's powers make you a massive ass-kicker even when the enemies get tougher and tougher. It's fun. FF8 is...well...pointless. So, center your argument around a terrible game and you're gold.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
WeepingAngels said:
RJ 17 said:
WeepingAngels said:
RJ 17 said:
Another reason is to keep you out of places you're not supposed to be yet. That's why there's such a phrase as being "underleveled" for a particular area. Conversely, it grants the player the satisfaction of over-leveling, allowing them to go back to the weaker areas and kill the fuck out of everything as though you're a mad god of destruction.
This sounds like a game without level scaling.
Depends on which form of level scaling we're talking about: the kind that keeps up with you so that the difficulty never changes or the kind that you keep up with so that the difficulty never changes.

Two different kinds of scaling, but in the end it's the same difficulty curve. The only difference is that one allows you to either fuck up and go somewhere you're not supposed to be or you can go bring down your wrath on all the poor lower level mobs.

I strongly prefer a game with a good autosave that allows you to explore and maybe run into an overpowered enemy (that you may be able to beat for high experience).
You mean like the second kind of scaling - zone based level scaling - that I previously mentioned? :p

And just to further clarify: it's a form of level scaling because as long as you're progressing through each zone in the proper order the difficulty never really changes until you either go back or skip ahead.
Having more powerful enemies in different loading zones is not level scaling. Level scaling is when the enemies grow WITH the player.
As you progress through a game, you get stronger and gain access to new areas. As you gain access to new areas, the enemies in those new areas are stronger than the ones in the old areas.

The only difference between that and what you're talking about is in you're talking about the monsters scale to keep up with you, in what I'm talking about you're scaling up to be on par with the monsters.

The difficulty curve in both of these formats is unsurprisingly very similar.
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
RJ 17 said:
WeepingAngels said:
RJ 17 said:
WeepingAngels said:
RJ 17 said:
Another reason is to keep you out of places you're not supposed to be yet. That's why there's such a phrase as being "underleveled" for a particular area. Conversely, it grants the player the satisfaction of over-leveling, allowing them to go back to the weaker areas and kill the fuck out of everything as though you're a mad god of destruction.
This sounds like a game without level scaling.
Depends on which form of level scaling we're talking about: the kind that keeps up with you so that the difficulty never changes or the kind that you keep up with so that the difficulty never changes.

Two different kinds of scaling, but in the end it's the same difficulty curve. The only difference is that one allows you to either fuck up and go somewhere you're not supposed to be or you can go bring down your wrath on all the poor lower level mobs.

I strongly prefer a game with a good autosave that allows you to explore and maybe run into an overpowered enemy (that you may be able to beat for high experience).
You mean like the second kind of scaling - zone based level scaling - that I previously mentioned? :p

And just to further clarify: it's a form of level scaling because as long as you're progressing through each zone in the proper order the difficulty never really changes until you either go back or skip ahead.
Having more powerful enemies in different loading zones is not level scaling. Level scaling is when the enemies grow WITH the player.
As you progress through a game, you get stronger and gain access to new areas. As you gain access to new areas, the enemies in those new areas are stronger than the ones in the old areas.

The only difference between that and what you're talking about is in you're talking about the monsters scale to keep up with you, in what I'm talking about you're scaling up to be on par with the monsters.

The difficulty curve in both of these formats is unsurprisingly very similar.
If the strength of the enemies is not relative to the player, then it isn't scaling.

I should add them when enemies don't scale with you but simply get stronger as you progress into new areas, you can go back to earlier areas to fight earlier enemies to see how you've progressed. In games where the enemy scales with you, that simply isn't possible. It's an entirely different feeling of progression.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
WeepingAngels said:
If the strength of the enemies is not relative to the player, then it isn't scaling.

I should add them when enemies don't scale with you but simply get stronger as you progress into new areas, you can go back to earlier areas to fight earlier enemies to see how you've progressed. In games where the enemy scales with you, that simply isn't possible. It's an entirely different feeling of progression.
Yeah, that's why I called it zone-based level scaling. As long as you're moving forward, the strength of the enemies remains relative to the player. By the description you just presented: that's still scaling. :3
 

nomotog_v1legacy

New member
Jun 21, 2013
909
0
0
One aspect to games with levels and scaling is the loot cycling. Dead island is a good example of how to do a leveling system wrong, but it dose do well with weapon cycling. How it works is you start out with one weapon, you level, your enemies level, but your weapon won't. Eventually you have to rotate your old weapon out to a new one, or mod your old weapon into something new.

This is also a big aspect of Borderlands. The idea is yo get the player to use a wide verity of weapons rather then keep one through out the game.
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
RJ 17 said:
WeepingAngels said:
If the strength of the enemies is not relative to the player, then it isn't scaling.

I should add them when enemies don't scale with you but simply get stronger as you progress into new areas, you can go back to earlier areas to fight earlier enemies to see how you've progressed. In games where the enemy scales with you, that simply isn't possible. It's an entirely different feeling of progression.
Yeah, that's why I called it zone-based level scaling. As long as you're moving forward, the strength of the enemies remains relative to the player. By the description you just presented: that's still scaling. :3
Ok, let me put it another way. If the strength of the enemies does not change throughout the game then it isn't scaling. Example: a blue slime is always level 1 and a red slime is always level 5. They are just found in different loading zones.
 

Elfgore

Your friendly local nihilist
Legacy
Dec 6, 2010
5,655
24
13
I've never had any complaints about a level scaling system and according to the Internet I've played one of the worst, The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. Always kind of confused me why people take such issue with it, just like quick time events.
 

Fat Hippo

Prepare to be Gnomed
Legacy
May 29, 2009
1,991
57
33
Gender
Gnomekin
Generally speaking, developers do this in open-world games in which they do not wish to limit the movement of the player while still maintaining a constant level of challenge. Oblivion became somewhat infamous for its poor implementation of this. As I see it, Bethesda botched three things here:

1. The scaling was very "hard" in the sense that no matter where you were, the game would scale to precisely your level. This became somewhat absurd when the forest just outside of town was just as dangerous as the portal to a dimension of hell. It was both immersion-breaking as well as unsatisfying, since the challenge curve became completely flat.

2. It was possible to level up without increasing your combat skills. This meant that your level 10 character could be just as powerful in combat as your level 1 character, but you would be fighting far more difficult enemies. This made it possible to gimp yourself to the point that the game became almost unplayable.

3. It broke immersion by scaling enemies in ways which did not make sense, i.e. giving all of the bandits incredible equipment which they had no reason to have. This was ridiculed by large portions of the player-base.

Since then, Bethesda has improved on this in Skyrim and Fallout 4, which to my knowledge both implement level-scaling but in a more refined manner. Addressing each issue in turn:

1. The scaling became "softer" by putting certain bounds on the scaling depending on the areas. So in one region, the enemies might scale between level 5 - 15, while in a particular dungeon, they will scale between 20-30. This still offers players some flexibility in terms of their movement and when they enter which part of the game, while also allowing players to feel the satisfaction of being overleveled for certain areas, but hopefully not so much that it becomes tedious.

2. They de-emphasized non-combat skills, which is really less of a solution than a workaround.

3. Related to solution 1, this no longer became as necessary, allowing them to instead assign certain types of enemies to different areas of the game, within which they can scale but in reasonable amounts.

As far as I can tell, this has been well received by most players, and there would probably be complaints if it were removed for Bethesdas next game, since people have begun to expect the freedom it offers. If you want an example of this, watch Yahtzee's old review of Fallout: New Vegas (developed by Obsidian, not Bethesda), in which he complains about the Deathclaws near the starting area of the game. This is despite several NPC's who would tell him not to venture there and the signs telling him to turn back. He assumed he could walk in any direction and that it would be fine. When this was not the case, he blamed the game.

Personally, I don't like it. I find it a lazy way of guiding the player. I prefer the path games like Gothic I&II took, by structuring their world in a logical manner which showed the player where they could expect various degrees of danger. The areas near human settlements and the paths between them tended to be safest. Veering away from paths led to higher threat. Going into the forest (which people warned you not to do in-game) was quite risky. And venturing into mountains, caves or the far reaches of the world was very ill-advised early on. But as the player progressed, he naturally felt how he was able to venture further than before.

This was complemented by a chapter system, which increased the threat level everywhere as players progressed through the game. But this is not level-scaling, as the threat level increased independent of the players strength, incentivizing him to complete side quests and so become powerful enough to cope with more powerful enemies. Contrast this with Oblivion, where leveling is pointless, and Skyrim, in which it is not very important either.

TLDR: Sometimes it's shit, sometimes it's done better, but I'm not a big fan in any case.
 

DementedSheep

New member
Jan 8, 2010
2,654
0
0
Can you give a specific example of them cancelling each other out? because most games I can think of that have that have scaling either:

A) Scale within a range, so for example particular enemy will be somewhere between level 1 and level 10. This just evens out the difficulty for people who grind or are completionists and those who only play what interests them or speed run because these types of players will end up at different levels at the same part of the game.

B) Have scaling but it doesn't keep low level enemies on your power level, they just aren't as weak as they would be without it.

GW2 downscales the player but a level 80 downscaled to level 30 is much stronger than an actual level 30. Its just so a level 80 can participate in low level maps without it being a complete snooze-fest or them killing everything in events so fast lower level character can't get a hit in. Skyrim heavily utilized scaling but you still end up getting noticeably more powerful with originally tough enemy types becoming weaker compared to you. It needed some scaling because you can access most of the map right away and there is no set path.

A levelling system isn't necessarily there just for getting stronger with bigger numbers. It can also be in place so people can develop a play-style and customise builds to fit it as they progress through the game, and don't get all their shiny skills and gear at once. Dumping everything on a player at once can be overwhelming and some people lose motivation to play if their character feels "complete".
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Jun 30, 2014
5,343
358
88
When done well, leveling will unlock new gameplay options (more efficient or fun ways to defeat current enemies), while the level scaling will add new challenges that can be solved only with the most recently acquired options (or that are more fun to defeat with the new skills than with the older ones). When done lazily, they are just Skinner boxes to make the player feel a false sense of progression, so they keep them playing longer (and for the developer that's definitely not a waste of time).