Level scaling, why is this a thing?

[Fat Hippo]

I'm a little baffled that some very vocal people have no goddamn idea how Level Scaling works.

Anyone here, hands up, playing Skyrim in full Daedric Armour with maxed out stats in every area, how hard do you find fighting a Wolf?
Fallout New Vegas, that Deathclaw at the start, is it STILL impossible?

The goal isn't that every enemy is as tough as you just that there is still an element of challenge. Even with Zone Based level scaling , the enemies get harder as you progress to give you a bit more of a challenge and keep pace with the levels you gained in the last area.

The whole reason it's called 'Scaling' is to keep the balance ffs.

Any game where your enemies change and stop being the same ones in the same quantity you fought in level 1 has level Scaling. Hell, even ZELDA, when you get the Master Sword you can deal 2 blocks of damage not 1 so you encounter more enemies in the new areas who need more hits to kill. If you sink the effort into upgrading and getting the Golden Sword/Biggoron's sword you can do more and get passed the scaling but it doesn't change the fact the difficulty adjusted to the level you were on.

Conceptually, Level Scaling is basically just a difficulty curve adjusting to you the player and your character improving.

What the OP appears to be talking about is redundant levelling systems that appear as 'RPG elements' in games that don't feel like they make an impact. I'm not sure which ones they're referring to since those games are by and large buying abilities and combos, I'm not familiar enough with DMC to remember how it worked but I'm pretty sure Stinger Level 3 did more damage than Stinger Level 2 regardless of opponent so...

I have never heard of this being referred to as level scaling. In Zelda, you do get more powerful items as you progress through the game, and the enemies do get more difficult, but the game is basically linear, and not adjusting to your character on the fly. If we say that every game which gets harder with time has level-scaling, the term becomes meaningless, because almost every equipment-based linear game does that. You could then argue that DOOM has level scaling because the later stages are harder, but you also have better guns. That's not scaling, it's simply the design of the game. I do not think using the term "level scaling" in a way which encompasses almost every single-player game ever designed makes a lot of sense.

For a sensible definition of "level scaling", the game needs to be reading the player's strength somehow (usually done by reading his "level" in an RPG, thus the name) and actually changing itself dynamically to accommodate this. In Zelda, the number of enemies will always be the same and they will have the same strength. The game does not analyze what items you have and adjust itself afterwards. While Oblivion meanwhile is constantly checking what level the player has and giving you different enemies in response.

Not that there is any clear authority on this matter, but here are descriptions I've found which made sense to me:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LevelScaling
http://www.giantbomb.com/level-scaling/3015-608/

 

[Neonsilver]

They can always make low level enemies run away from you, that way you don't need to worry about fighting a level 1 rabbit if you don't want to.

Which would be less annoying but still boring and in a game that encourages exploring or where the storyline brings you back to an earlier location it would be just as bad. If the story sends me to a place I want some challenge there. As annoying as random fights can be I would be just as annoyed at having to walk through an empty area.

In a game with a linear progression where it's unlikely that you return to an earlier place it's something entirely different. A game that did that well in my opinion would be Wild Arms 3. You can evade combat entirely, but it you can't do it every time, since it costs a resource. But weaker enemies cost less or even nothing so you can avoid those fights.


Level scaling is not necessary in every game, but saying it never has any use is definitely wrong. It just depends on the game.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

I have never heard of this being referred to as level scaling. In Zelda, you do get more powerful items as you progress through the game, and the enemies do get more difficult, but the game is basically linear, and not adjusting to your character on the fly. If we say that every game which gets harder with time has level-scaling, the term becomes meaningless, because almost every equipment-based linear game does that. You could then argue that DOOM has level scaling because the later stages are harder, but you also have better guns. That's not scaling, it's simply the design of the game. I do not think using the term "level scaling" in a way which encompasses almost every single-player game ever designed makes a lot of sense.

But that's exactly my point, the idea of Level Scaling is the game becoming more difficult as your progress and improve. The key components being

1. The Player's level increases/they 'improve'
2. The Enemies likewise improve to match the Player's 'Level'.

You could argue what qualifies as a Level but in adventure games where you incrementally improve, if your opposition improves with you then they ARE Scaling.

For a sensible definition of "level scaling", the game needs to be reading the player's strength somehow (usually done by reading his "level" in an RPG, thus the name) and actually changing itself dynamically to accommodate this. In Zelda, the number of enemies will always be the same and they will have the same strength. The game does not analyze what items you have and adjust itself afterwards. While Oblivion meanwhile is constantly checking what level the player has and giving you different enemies in response.

But this form of Scaling is only necessary in Open World Games, it doesn't mean that every example of Level Scaling has to be from an open world game. Giving you appropriate foes for the level you're operating at is the core point of Level Scaling, whether this is done actively or not shouldn't change the fact the enemies are adjusted for your level. Like, using Link to the Past as an example, when you get the Master Sword then the areas you go to afterwards and the Dark World feature more Blue enemies than Green enemies.

Level Scaling is a fancier word for Difficulty Curve.

 

[JCAll]

Maybe you're right, but FF8's ham-fisted approach to level scaling has successfully poisoned the well for me.

I do agree though that certain enemies being level scaled would work, but I think ultimately you and I enjoy games differently. I myself have fond memories of grinding my character up to a point where that frustrating ponce Seymour is little more than a fly on my windshield.

Oh god, I remember FFVIII just being impossible if you gained too many levels too early. Because the monsters stats all went up, but your stats only really raised through junctioning, so if you were too high a level too early you were dead.

I've never seen another RPG that actively punished you for leveling up. I guess you were just supposed to play Triple Triad instead.

 

[Fat Hippo]

But that's exactly my point, the idea of Level Scaling is the game becoming more difficult as your progress and improve. The key components being

1. The Player's level increases/they 'improve'
2. The Enemies likewise improve to match the Player's 'Level'.

You could argue what qualifies as a Level but in adventure games where you incrementally improve, if your opposition improves with you then they ARE Scaling.

Okay, we're obviously just arguing semantics at this point, but since we both understand what the other person actually means, we might as well dive into it.

What you describe is not the "idea" of level scaling as much as a definition which you are assigning to it, while I assign a different definition to it. I would argue that your definition is not very useful, and is not very commonly used either. In fact, outside of this thread, I've never seen or heard anyone use it. Because as you define,...

Level Scaling is a fancier word for Difficulty Curve.

Then why use the term that way? We already know what a Difficulty Curve it, it's a very common way to express the concept. There's no reason to make Level Scaling synonymous with Difficulty Curve, when we could also use Level Scaling to describe: The game dynamically reads the players "level" and changes the game to suit it.

This is different from a difficulty curve, which is static. A particular part of the game will be of the same difficulty every time the player enters it, independent of the player's strength. The later parts will generally be harder, but there is no "scaling" taking place, because the player's strength is never being measured by the game. The designers might know how strong the player is, but there is never a need for the game to measure and react to it. The designers have already accounted for this fact in their level and enemy design.

But this form of Scaling is only necessary in Open World Games, it doesn't mean that every example of Level Scaling has to be from an open world game. Giving you appropriate foes for the level you're operating at is the core point of Level Scaling, whether this is done actively or not shouldn't change the fact the enemies are adjusted for your level. Like, using Link to the Past as an example, when you get the Master Sword then the areas you go to afterwards and the Dark World feature more Blue enemies than Green enemies.

The difference is that when designers decide to use Level Scaling, they do this because they don't know what the player's strength will be, which is also why it's most common in open-world games. In a linear game, the designer can simply design a sensible difficulty curve and therefore offer the player a feeling of progression. But if they don't know in what order a player will try to tackle challenges, they program the game to change itself for the player.

As an addendum, this definition of Level Scaling is quite obviously also what the OP meant when he posed his question in the thread. He had no intention of arguing for the removal of difficulty curves, but rather doesn't want the game's world to adapt to his condition.

 

[Saltyk]

Well, level scaling in your typical JRPG is pretty dumb. There is no need to scale the enemies to the player's level as they won't be going to the end of the game till they are level 57 anyway.

However, in more open world type games, I like a bit of level scaling. If the castle on the hill has enemies that are level 27-35, why even let me have the option to go there when I am level 3? I don't stand a chance. Level scaling lets me go there and maybe pick up unique items, allies, or abilities that make the rest of the game easier.

I think Division oddly did it pretty well. The world is open, but there are clearly defined levels in the different areas. You know that enemies in this area are going to be level 14-17, so you know not to got there when you're level 6. So I'm not going to explore, see enemies in the distance, engage them, and suddenly realize they have 15 levels on me.

 

[chrissx2]

I don't like level scaling, especialy when it works both ways (downscaling and upscaling the enemies).
I want some elite guards to kick my ass. To give me a reason to go find better gear, improve my skills, get stronger and then come back to show them who's the boss. If everything is on the same level, the game becomes quite boring. I also don't want the rats that I fought at lvl 1 to be just as strong as me when I return at lvl 100. This completely removes satisfaction from progressing in the game.

 

[Ftaghn To You Too]

I have yet to experience a single video game in which level scaling was not an abomination. It's a terrible idea, and video games as a whole would be improved if we chuck it into the fire.

 

[DementedSheep]

I like level scaling because without it the game can become too easy. I'm a completionist, which means I'll put off a main quest so I can do the side stuff than return to the main quest having overleveled it and the game is now boring. Skyrim is a good example, as the dragons quickly drop off in difficulty as you level up, which means my scrawny Breton battle-mage can go toe-to-toe with a monster of legend and kill it with a few chops to the face. Yes, I'm the chosen one with the blood of a dragon, but it still doesn't feel right that I should be able to kill it so effortlessly. Dragon Age: Inquisition was even worse for me as I found myself constantly checking my level and the suggested level of the next main quest lest I overleveled and found myself bored (thank Andraste for the option to turn on level scaling).

If you want to try and keep the difficulty, stop and think about what would be a reasonable level for the player to be at when they find the place compared to the rewards for completing the task.

How do you determine that beyond building a strictly linear game? What's "reasonable" for one will be unreasonable for another. Let's say there are three types of gamers: gamers that follow the game at a steady but measured pace, gamers who look for anyway to speed through it, and gamers who like to see everything before moving on. Which of these approaches is the "right" approach? Choose wisely, because you've damned the other two to boredom, either from easily mowing down enemies who vastly underlevel them or being forced to grind before they're able to clear the next mission.

Granted, not everything should be leveled with you. Critters and bandits and the like should be weaker as you grow stronger. Further, I feel like weaker enemies should never be thrown out entirely, because it does give you a sense of growth if enemies who terrorized you earlier are cannon fodder for you now, but they should be accompanied by stronger foes. Ultimately, if I reach the final boss and kill him by barely lifting a finger, I feel robbed of any sense of accomplishment. I would rather have a steady difficulty curve than feel like a walking god.

Isn't the point (one point atleast) of doing all the quests to become godlike? If you can't become godlike after doing all the quests, then you never can. You make a choice to do all the side stuff (or grind in a JRPG), you don't get to complain about being over leveled.

Or because you just like doing the quests or are compeltionnist? This is the problem, not every player wants the same thing. I lean towards being a completionist but I hate being over-leveled. This is problem in a lot of RPGs because I don't want to end up face rolling though everything but I would have to skip a whole bunch of content I paid for or find away to intentionally gimp myself to avoid that.

You can't be a completionist and not be/complain about being over leveled just like you can't read a walk through and then complain about spoilers.

If someone was complaining about being under leveled because they avoid as many battles and quests as they can, would you tell them not to avoid those things if they don't want to be under leveled?

Have you forgotten what this thread is about or something? Soft level scaling helps fix this problem. That's why it's there.

Edit: and you comparison doesn't even make any sense, the point of walk-through is to give you step by step guide which necessitates spoiling things. The point of of side quest and exploration is not to over level you.

If the side quests in the game you are playing give XP awards then side questing does = possible over leveling, especially if you insist on doing them all.

Just as one who looks at a walkthrough should expect spoiler, one who skips no side quests should expect over leveling.

No, I haven't forgotten what this thread is about, you want level scaling to fix the negative consequences of your completionist behavior, fuck other players who actually want to become godlike and therefore pursue the side quests.

And you're saying fuck other players who don't want to faceroll everything by trying force them into skipping content they paid for and want to do. Funny how that fucking works, right? There always going to be someone not getting what they want. It's not like I even said this should be how all game operate, its just a reason to have it (ie: what this thread is discussing).

The difference is that you want to rob players who want to become godlike of a way to make that happen. You can currently choose not to be a completionist if you don't want to be over leveled.

Perhaps a no XP toggle would be great for everyone but level scaling is not even on my radar as acceptable.

Because "don't do half the content you want to do" is a reasonable thing to expect from other players? and there is usually is a way to become godlike regardless, you can grind over the level scaling range or just look up an OP build.

You don't find level scaling acceptable? well fine, don't play games that have it.

 

[WeepingAngels]

I like level scaling because without it the game can become too easy. I'm a completionist, which means I'll put off a main quest so I can do the side stuff than return to the main quest having overleveled it and the game is now boring. Skyrim is a good example, as the dragons quickly drop off in difficulty as you level up, which means my scrawny Breton battle-mage can go toe-to-toe with a monster of legend and kill it with a few chops to the face. Yes, I'm the chosen one with the blood of a dragon, but it still doesn't feel right that I should be able to kill it so effortlessly. Dragon Age: Inquisition was even worse for me as I found myself constantly checking my level and the suggested level of the next main quest lest I overleveled and found myself bored (thank Andraste for the option to turn on level scaling).

If you want to try and keep the difficulty, stop and think about what would be a reasonable level for the player to be at when they find the place compared to the rewards for completing the task.

How do you determine that beyond building a strictly linear game? What's "reasonable" for one will be unreasonable for another. Let's say there are three types of gamers: gamers that follow the game at a steady but measured pace, gamers who look for anyway to speed through it, and gamers who like to see everything before moving on. Which of these approaches is the "right" approach? Choose wisely, because you've damned the other two to boredom, either from easily mowing down enemies who vastly underlevel them or being forced to grind before they're able to clear the next mission.

Granted, not everything should be leveled with you. Critters and bandits and the like should be weaker as you grow stronger. Further, I feel like weaker enemies should never be thrown out entirely, because it does give you a sense of growth if enemies who terrorized you earlier are cannon fodder for you now, but they should be accompanied by stronger foes. Ultimately, if I reach the final boss and kill him by barely lifting a finger, I feel robbed of any sense of accomplishment. I would rather have a steady difficulty curve than feel like a walking god.

Isn't the point (one point atleast) of doing all the quests to become godlike? If you can't become godlike after doing all the quests, then you never can. You make a choice to do all the side stuff (or grind in a JRPG), you don't get to complain about being over leveled.

Or because you just like doing the quests or are compeltionnist? This is the problem, not every player wants the same thing. I lean towards being a completionist but I hate being over-leveled. This is problem in a lot of RPGs because I don't want to end up face rolling though everything but I would have to skip a whole bunch of content I paid for or find away to intentionally gimp myself to avoid that.

You can't be a completionist and not be/complain about being over leveled just like you can't read a walk through and then complain about spoilers.

If someone was complaining about being under leveled because they avoid as many battles and quests as they can, would you tell them not to avoid those things if they don't want to be under leveled?

Have you forgotten what this thread is about or something? Soft level scaling helps fix this problem. That's why it's there.

Edit: and you comparison doesn't even make any sense, the point of walk-through is to give you step by step guide which necessitates spoiling things. The point of of side quest and exploration is not to over level you.

If the side quests in the game you are playing give XP awards then side questing does = possible over leveling, especially if you insist on doing them all.

Just as one who looks at a walkthrough should expect spoiler, one who skips no side quests should expect over leveling.

No, I haven't forgotten what this thread is about, you want level scaling to fix the negative consequences of your completionist behavior, fuck other players who actually want to become godlike and therefore pursue the side quests.

And you're saying fuck other players who don't want to faceroll everything by trying force them into skipping content they paid for and want to do. Funny how that fucking works, right? There always going to be someone not getting what they want. It's not like I even said this should be how all game operate, its just a reason to have it (ie: what this thread is discussing).

The difference is that you want to rob players who want to become godlike of a way to make that happen. You can currently choose not to be a completionist if you don't want to be over leveled.

Perhaps a no XP toggle would be great for everyone but level scaling is not even on my radar as acceptable.

Because "don't do half the content you want to do" is a reasonable thing to expect from other players? and there is usually is a way to become godlike regardless, you can grind over the level scaling range or just look up an OP build.

You don't find level scaling acceptable? well fine, don't play games that have it.

With level scaling, even grinding is pointless, don't you see that? Why did you ignore the no XP toggle thing?

 

[DementedSheep]

I like level scaling because without it the game can become too easy. I'm a completionist, which means I'll put off a main quest so I can do the side stuff than return to the main quest having overleveled it and the game is now boring. Skyrim is a good example, as the dragons quickly drop off in difficulty as you level up, which means my scrawny Breton battle-mage can go toe-to-toe with a monster of legend and kill it with a few chops to the face. Yes, I'm the chosen one with the blood of a dragon, but it still doesn't feel right that I should be able to kill it so effortlessly. Dragon Age: Inquisition was even worse for me as I found myself constantly checking my level and the suggested level of the next main quest lest I overleveled and found myself bored (thank Andraste for the option to turn on level scaling).

If you want to try and keep the difficulty, stop and think about what would be a reasonable level for the player to be at when they find the place compared to the rewards for completing the task.

How do you determine that beyond building a strictly linear game? What's "reasonable" for one will be unreasonable for another. Let's say there are three types of gamers: gamers that follow the game at a steady but measured pace, gamers who look for anyway to speed through it, and gamers who like to see everything before moving on. Which of these approaches is the "right" approach? Choose wisely, because you've damned the other two to boredom, either from easily mowing down enemies who vastly underlevel them or being forced to grind before they're able to clear the next mission.

Granted, not everything should be leveled with you. Critters and bandits and the like should be weaker as you grow stronger. Further, I feel like weaker enemies should never be thrown out entirely, because it does give you a sense of growth if enemies who terrorized you earlier are cannon fodder for you now, but they should be accompanied by stronger foes. Ultimately, if I reach the final boss and kill him by barely lifting a finger, I feel robbed of any sense of accomplishment. I would rather have a steady difficulty curve than feel like a walking god.

Isn't the point (one point atleast) of doing all the quests to become godlike? If you can't become godlike after doing all the quests, then you never can. You make a choice to do all the side stuff (or grind in a JRPG), you don't get to complain about being over leveled.

Or because you just like doing the quests or are compeltionnist? This is the problem, not every player wants the same thing. I lean towards being a completionist but I hate being over-leveled. This is problem in a lot of RPGs because I don't want to end up face rolling though everything but I would have to skip a whole bunch of content I paid for or find away to intentionally gimp myself to avoid that.

You can't be a completionist and not be/complain about being over leveled just like you can't read a walk through and then complain about spoilers.

If someone was complaining about being under leveled because they avoid as many battles and quests as they can, would you tell them not to avoid those things if they don't want to be under leveled?

Have you forgotten what this thread is about or something? Soft level scaling helps fix this problem. That's why it's there.

Edit: and you comparison doesn't even make any sense, the point of walk-through is to give you step by step guide which necessitates spoiling things. The point of of side quest and exploration is not to over level you.

If the side quests in the game you are playing give XP awards then side questing does = possible over leveling, especially if you insist on doing them all.

Just as one who looks at a walkthrough should expect spoiler, one who skips no side quests should expect over leveling.

No, I haven't forgotten what this thread is about, you want level scaling to fix the negative consequences of your completionist behavior, fuck other players who actually want to become godlike and therefore pursue the side quests.

And you're saying fuck other players who don't want to faceroll everything by trying force them into skipping content they paid for and want to do. Funny how that fucking works, right? There always going to be someone not getting what they want. It's not like I even said this should be how all game operate, its just a reason to have it (ie: what this thread is discussing).

The difference is that you want to rob players who want to become godlike of a way to make that happen. You can currently choose not to be a completionist if you don't want to be over leveled.

Perhaps a no XP toggle would be great for everyone but level scaling is not even on my radar as acceptable.

Because "don't do half the content you want to do" is a reasonable thing to expect from other players? and there is usually is a way to become godlike regardless, you can grind over the level scaling range or just look up an OP build.

You don't find level scaling acceptable? well fine, don't play games that have it.

With level scaling, even grinding is pointless, don't you see that? Why did you ignore the no XP toggle thing?

because level scaling within a set range rather than every enemy being you exact level is a common form of level scaling.
And I don't he problem with and XP toggle either if that's how the developer want to do things but thats a bit hamfisted.

 

[WeepingAngels]

I like level scaling because without it the game can become too easy. I'm a completionist, which means I'll put off a main quest so I can do the side stuff than return to the main quest having overleveled it and the game is now boring. Skyrim is a good example, as the dragons quickly drop off in difficulty as you level up, which means my scrawny Breton battle-mage can go toe-to-toe with a monster of legend and kill it with a few chops to the face. Yes, I'm the chosen one with the blood of a dragon, but it still doesn't feel right that I should be able to kill it so effortlessly. Dragon Age: Inquisition was even worse for me as I found myself constantly checking my level and the suggested level of the next main quest lest I overleveled and found myself bored (thank Andraste for the option to turn on level scaling).

If you want to try and keep the difficulty, stop and think about what would be a reasonable level for the player to be at when they find the place compared to the rewards for completing the task.

How do you determine that beyond building a strictly linear game? What's "reasonable" for one will be unreasonable for another. Let's say there are three types of gamers: gamers that follow the game at a steady but measured pace, gamers who look for anyway to speed through it, and gamers who like to see everything before moving on. Which of these approaches is the "right" approach? Choose wisely, because you've damned the other two to boredom, either from easily mowing down enemies who vastly underlevel them or being forced to grind before they're able to clear the next mission.

Granted, not everything should be leveled with you. Critters and bandits and the like should be weaker as you grow stronger. Further, I feel like weaker enemies should never be thrown out entirely, because it does give you a sense of growth if enemies who terrorized you earlier are cannon fodder for you now, but they should be accompanied by stronger foes. Ultimately, if I reach the final boss and kill him by barely lifting a finger, I feel robbed of any sense of accomplishment. I would rather have a steady difficulty curve than feel like a walking god.

Isn't the point (one point atleast) of doing all the quests to become godlike? If you can't become godlike after doing all the quests, then you never can. You make a choice to do all the side stuff (or grind in a JRPG), you don't get to complain about being over leveled.

Or because you just like doing the quests or are compeltionnist? This is the problem, not every player wants the same thing. I lean towards being a completionist but I hate being over-leveled. This is problem in a lot of RPGs because I don't want to end up face rolling though everything but I would have to skip a whole bunch of content I paid for or find away to intentionally gimp myself to avoid that.

You can't be a completionist and not be/complain about being over leveled just like you can't read a walk through and then complain about spoilers.

If someone was complaining about being under leveled because they avoid as many battles and quests as they can, would you tell them not to avoid those things if they don't want to be under leveled?

Have you forgotten what this thread is about or something? Soft level scaling helps fix this problem. That's why it's there.

Edit: and you comparison doesn't even make any sense, the point of walk-through is to give you step by step guide which necessitates spoiling things. The point of of side quest and exploration is not to over level you.

If the side quests in the game you are playing give XP awards then side questing does = possible over leveling, especially if you insist on doing them all.

Just as one who looks at a walkthrough should expect spoiler, one who skips no side quests should expect over leveling.

No, I haven't forgotten what this thread is about, you want level scaling to fix the negative consequences of your completionist behavior, fuck other players who actually want to become godlike and therefore pursue the side quests.

And you're saying fuck other players who don't want to faceroll everything by trying force them into skipping content they paid for and want to do. Funny how that fucking works, right? There always going to be someone not getting what they want. It's not like I even said this should be how all game operate, its just a reason to have it (ie: what this thread is discussing).

The difference is that you want to rob players who want to become godlike of a way to make that happen. You can currently choose not to be a completionist if you don't want to be over leveled.

Perhaps a no XP toggle would be great for everyone but level scaling is not even on my radar as acceptable.

Because "don't do half the content you want to do" is a reasonable thing to expect from other players? and there is usually is a way to become godlike regardless, you can grind over the level scaling range or just look up an OP build.

You don't find level scaling acceptable? well fine, don't play games that have it.

With level scaling, even grinding is pointless, don't you see that? Why did you ignore the no XP toggle thing?

because level scaling within a set range rather than every enemy being you exact level is a common form of level scaling.
And I don't he problem with and XP toggle either if that's how the developer want to do things but thats a bit hamfisted.

A set range that is known to the player or like Final Fantasy 8 where you wouldn't know without a guide? In FF8 you could become godlike but only by manipulating your stats and not level grinding.

 

[DementedSheep]

I like level scaling because without it the game can become too easy. I'm a completionist, which means I'll put off a main quest so I can do the side stuff than return to the main quest having overleveled it and the game is now boring. Skyrim is a good example, as the dragons quickly drop off in difficulty as you level up, which means my scrawny Breton battle-mage can go toe-to-toe with a monster of legend and kill it with a few chops to the face. Yes, I'm the chosen one with the blood of a dragon, but it still doesn't feel right that I should be able to kill it so effortlessly. Dragon Age: Inquisition was even worse for me as I found myself constantly checking my level and the suggested level of the next main quest lest I overleveled and found myself bored (thank Andraste for the option to turn on level scaling).

If you want to try and keep the difficulty, stop and think about what would be a reasonable level for the player to be at when they find the place compared to the rewards for completing the task.

How do you determine that beyond building a strictly linear game? What's "reasonable" for one will be unreasonable for another. Let's say there are three types of gamers: gamers that follow the game at a steady but measured pace, gamers who look for anyway to speed through it, and gamers who like to see everything before moving on. Which of these approaches is the "right" approach? Choose wisely, because you've damned the other two to boredom, either from easily mowing down enemies who vastly underlevel them or being forced to grind before they're able to clear the next mission.

Granted, not everything should be leveled with you. Critters and bandits and the like should be weaker as you grow stronger. Further, I feel like weaker enemies should never be thrown out entirely, because it does give you a sense of growth if enemies who terrorized you earlier are cannon fodder for you now, but they should be accompanied by stronger foes. Ultimately, if I reach the final boss and kill him by barely lifting a finger, I feel robbed of any sense of accomplishment. I would rather have a steady difficulty curve than feel like a walking god.

Isn't the point (one point atleast) of doing all the quests to become godlike? If you can't become godlike after doing all the quests, then you never can. You make a choice to do all the side stuff (or grind in a JRPG), you don't get to complain about being over leveled.

Or because you just like doing the quests or are compeltionnist? This is the problem, not every player wants the same thing. I lean towards being a completionist but I hate being over-leveled. This is problem in a lot of RPGs because I don't want to end up face rolling though everything but I would have to skip a whole bunch of content I paid for or find away to intentionally gimp myself to avoid that.

You can't be a completionist and not be/complain about being over leveled just like you can't read a walk through and then complain about spoilers.

If someone was complaining about being under leveled because they avoid as many battles and quests as they can, would you tell them not to avoid those things if they don't want to be under leveled?

Have you forgotten what this thread is about or something? Soft level scaling helps fix this problem. That's why it's there.

Edit: and you comparison doesn't even make any sense, the point of walk-through is to give you step by step guide which necessitates spoiling things. The point of of side quest and exploration is not to over level you.

If the side quests in the game you are playing give XP awards then side questing does = possible over leveling, especially if you insist on doing them all.

Just as one who looks at a walkthrough should expect spoiler, one who skips no side quests should expect over leveling.

No, I haven't forgotten what this thread is about, you want level scaling to fix the negative consequences of your completionist behavior, fuck other players who actually want to become godlike and therefore pursue the side quests.

And you're saying fuck other players who don't want to faceroll everything by trying force them into skipping content they paid for and want to do. Funny how that fucking works, right? There always going to be someone not getting what they want. It's not like I even said this should be how all game operate, its just a reason to have it (ie: what this thread is discussing).

The difference is that you want to rob players who want to become godlike of a way to make that happen. You can currently choose not to be a completionist if you don't want to be over leveled.

Perhaps a no XP toggle would be great for everyone but level scaling is not even on my radar as acceptable.

Because "don't do half the content you want to do" is a reasonable thing to expect from other players? and there is usually is a way to become godlike regardless, you can grind over the level scaling range or just look up an OP build.

You don't find level scaling acceptable? well fine, don't play games that have it.

With level scaling, even grinding is pointless, don't you see that? Why did you ignore the no XP toggle thing?

because level scaling within a set range rather than every enemy being you exact level is a common form of level scaling.
And I don't he problem with and XP toggle either if that's how the developer want to do things but thats a bit hamfisted.

A set range that is known to the player or like Final Fantasy 8 where you wouldn't know without a guide? In FF8 you could become godlike but only by manipulating your stats and not level grinding.

Why not? if it dose it by region they can put the ranges on the map.

 

[WeepingAngels]

I like level scaling because without it the game can become too easy. I'm a completionist, which means I'll put off a main quest so I can do the side stuff than return to the main quest having overleveled it and the game is now boring. Skyrim is a good example, as the dragons quickly drop off in difficulty as you level up, which means my scrawny Breton battle-mage can go toe-to-toe with a monster of legend and kill it with a few chops to the face. Yes, I'm the chosen one with the blood of a dragon, but it still doesn't feel right that I should be able to kill it so effortlessly. Dragon Age: Inquisition was even worse for me as I found myself constantly checking my level and the suggested level of the next main quest lest I overleveled and found myself bored (thank Andraste for the option to turn on level scaling).

If you want to try and keep the difficulty, stop and think about what would be a reasonable level for the player to be at when they find the place compared to the rewards for completing the task.

How do you determine that beyond building a strictly linear game? What's "reasonable" for one will be unreasonable for another. Let's say there are three types of gamers: gamers that follow the game at a steady but measured pace, gamers who look for anyway to speed through it, and gamers who like to see everything before moving on. Which of these approaches is the "right" approach? Choose wisely, because you've damned the other two to boredom, either from easily mowing down enemies who vastly underlevel them or being forced to grind before they're able to clear the next mission.

Granted, not everything should be leveled with you. Critters and bandits and the like should be weaker as you grow stronger. Further, I feel like weaker enemies should never be thrown out entirely, because it does give you a sense of growth if enemies who terrorized you earlier are cannon fodder for you now, but they should be accompanied by stronger foes. Ultimately, if I reach the final boss and kill him by barely lifting a finger, I feel robbed of any sense of accomplishment. I would rather have a steady difficulty curve than feel like a walking god.

Isn't the point (one point atleast) of doing all the quests to become godlike? If you can't become godlike after doing all the quests, then you never can. You make a choice to do all the side stuff (or grind in a JRPG), you don't get to complain about being over leveled.

Or because you just like doing the quests or are compeltionnist? This is the problem, not every player wants the same thing. I lean towards being a completionist but I hate being over-leveled. This is problem in a lot of RPGs because I don't want to end up face rolling though everything but I would have to skip a whole bunch of content I paid for or find away to intentionally gimp myself to avoid that.

You can't be a completionist and not be/complain about being over leveled just like you can't read a walk through and then complain about spoilers.

If someone was complaining about being under leveled because they avoid as many battles and quests as they can, would you tell them not to avoid those things if they don't want to be under leveled?

Have you forgotten what this thread is about or something? Soft level scaling helps fix this problem. That's why it's there.

Edit: and you comparison doesn't even make any sense, the point of walk-through is to give you step by step guide which necessitates spoiling things. The point of of side quest and exploration is not to over level you.

If the side quests in the game you are playing give XP awards then side questing does = possible over leveling, especially if you insist on doing them all.

Just as one who looks at a walkthrough should expect spoiler, one who skips no side quests should expect over leveling.

No, I haven't forgotten what this thread is about, you want level scaling to fix the negative consequences of your completionist behavior, fuck other players who actually want to become godlike and therefore pursue the side quests.

And you're saying fuck other players who don't want to faceroll everything by trying force them into skipping content they paid for and want to do. Funny how that fucking works, right? There always going to be someone not getting what they want. It's not like I even said this should be how all game operate, its just a reason to have it (ie: what this thread is discussing).

The difference is that you want to rob players who want to become godlike of a way to make that happen. You can currently choose not to be a completionist if you don't want to be over leveled.

Perhaps a no XP toggle would be great for everyone but level scaling is not even on my radar as acceptable.

Because "don't do half the content you want to do" is a reasonable thing to expect from other players? and there is usually is a way to become godlike regardless, you can grind over the level scaling range or just look up an OP build.

You don't find level scaling acceptable? well fine, don't play games that have it.

With level scaling, even grinding is pointless, don't you see that? Why did you ignore the no XP toggle thing?

because level scaling within a set range rather than every enemy being you exact level is a common form of level scaling.
And I don't he problem with and XP toggle either if that's how the developer want to do things but thats a bit hamfisted.

A set range that is known to the player or like Final Fantasy 8 where you wouldn't know without a guide? In FF8 you could become godlike but only by manipulating your stats and not level grinding.

Why not? if it dose it by region they can put the ranges on the map.

By region? You mean preset by the developers and static like say...Dragon Quest 8 or do they actually scale based on the players level when they enter the region for the first time?

 

[DementedSheep]

I like level scaling because without it the game can become too easy. I'm a completionist, which means I'll put off a main quest so I can do the side stuff than return to the main quest having overleveled it and the game is now boring. Skyrim is a good example, as the dragons quickly drop off in difficulty as you level up, which means my scrawny Breton battle-mage can go toe-to-toe with a monster of legend and kill it with a few chops to the face. Yes, I'm the chosen one with the blood of a dragon, but it still doesn't feel right that I should be able to kill it so effortlessly. Dragon Age: Inquisition was even worse for me as I found myself constantly checking my level and the suggested level of the next main quest lest I overleveled and found myself bored (thank Andraste for the option to turn on level scaling).

If you want to try and keep the difficulty, stop and think about what would be a reasonable level for the player to be at when they find the place compared to the rewards for completing the task.

How do you determine that beyond building a strictly linear game? What's "reasonable" for one will be unreasonable for another. Let's say there are three types of gamers: gamers that follow the game at a steady but measured pace, gamers who look for anyway to speed through it, and gamers who like to see everything before moving on. Which of these approaches is the "right" approach? Choose wisely, because you've damned the other two to boredom, either from easily mowing down enemies who vastly underlevel them or being forced to grind before they're able to clear the next mission.

Granted, not everything should be leveled with you. Critters and bandits and the like should be weaker as you grow stronger. Further, I feel like weaker enemies should never be thrown out entirely, because it does give you a sense of growth if enemies who terrorized you earlier are cannon fodder for you now, but they should be accompanied by stronger foes. Ultimately, if I reach the final boss and kill him by barely lifting a finger, I feel robbed of any sense of accomplishment. I would rather have a steady difficulty curve than feel like a walking god.

Isn't the point (one point atleast) of doing all the quests to become godlike? If you can't become godlike after doing all the quests, then you never can. You make a choice to do all the side stuff (or grind in a JRPG), you don't get to complain about being over leveled.

Or because you just like doing the quests or are compeltionnist? This is the problem, not every player wants the same thing. I lean towards being a completionist but I hate being over-leveled. This is problem in a lot of RPGs because I don't want to end up face rolling though everything but I would have to skip a whole bunch of content I paid for or find away to intentionally gimp myself to avoid that.

You can't be a completionist and not be/complain about being over leveled just like you can't read a walk through and then complain about spoilers.

If someone was complaining about being under leveled because they avoid as many battles and quests as they can, would you tell them not to avoid those things if they don't want to be under leveled?

Have you forgotten what this thread is about or something? Soft level scaling helps fix this problem. That's why it's there.

Edit: and you comparison doesn't even make any sense, the point of walk-through is to give you step by step guide which necessitates spoiling things. The point of of side quest and exploration is not to over level you.

If the side quests in the game you are playing give XP awards then side questing does = possible over leveling, especially if you insist on doing them all.

Just as one who looks at a walkthrough should expect spoiler, one who skips no side quests should expect over leveling.

No, I haven't forgotten what this thread is about, you want level scaling to fix the negative consequences of your completionist behavior, fuck other players who actually want to become godlike and therefore pursue the side quests.

And you're saying fuck other players who don't want to faceroll everything by trying force them into skipping content they paid for and want to do. Funny how that fucking works, right? There always going to be someone not getting what they want. It's not like I even said this should be how all game operate, its just a reason to have it (ie: what this thread is discussing).

The difference is that you want to rob players who want to become godlike of a way to make that happen. You can currently choose not to be a completionist if you don't want to be over leveled.

Perhaps a no XP toggle would be great for everyone but level scaling is not even on my radar as acceptable.

Because "don't do half the content you want to do" is a reasonable thing to expect from other players? and there is usually is a way to become godlike regardless, you can grind over the level scaling range or just look up an OP build.

You don't find level scaling acceptable? well fine, don't play games that have it.

With level scaling, even grinding is pointless, don't you see that? Why did you ignore the no XP toggle thing?

because level scaling within a set range rather than every enemy being you exact level is a common form of level scaling.
And I don't he problem with and XP toggle either if that's how the developer want to do things but thats a bit hamfisted.

A set range that is known to the player or like Final Fantasy 8 where you wouldn't know without a guide? In FF8 you could become godlike but only by manipulating your stats and not level grinding.

Why not? if it dose it by region they can put the ranges on the map.

By region? You mean preset by the developers and static like say...Dragon Quest 8 or do they actually scale based on the players level when they enter the region for the first time?

Either? I'm not talking about any specific game or trying to find the one solution although I think levelling scaling works better with minimum and maximum level set by the developer rather than to the players exact level. It's just a tool in the box.


We probably have different experiences with level scaling sine I don't play JRPGs.

 

[WeepingAngels]

I like level scaling because without it the game can become too easy. I'm a completionist, which means I'll put off a main quest so I can do the side stuff than return to the main quest having overleveled it and the game is now boring. Skyrim is a good example, as the dragons quickly drop off in difficulty as you level up, which means my scrawny Breton battle-mage can go toe-to-toe with a monster of legend and kill it with a few chops to the face. Yes, I'm the chosen one with the blood of a dragon, but it still doesn't feel right that I should be able to kill it so effortlessly. Dragon Age: Inquisition was even worse for me as I found myself constantly checking my level and the suggested level of the next main quest lest I overleveled and found myself bored (thank Andraste for the option to turn on level scaling).

If you want to try and keep the difficulty, stop and think about what would be a reasonable level for the player to be at when they find the place compared to the rewards for completing the task.

How do you determine that beyond building a strictly linear game? What's "reasonable" for one will be unreasonable for another. Let's say there are three types of gamers: gamers that follow the game at a steady but measured pace, gamers who look for anyway to speed through it, and gamers who like to see everything before moving on. Which of these approaches is the "right" approach? Choose wisely, because you've damned the other two to boredom, either from easily mowing down enemies who vastly underlevel them or being forced to grind before they're able to clear the next mission.

Granted, not everything should be leveled with you. Critters and bandits and the like should be weaker as you grow stronger. Further, I feel like weaker enemies should never be thrown out entirely, because it does give you a sense of growth if enemies who terrorized you earlier are cannon fodder for you now, but they should be accompanied by stronger foes. Ultimately, if I reach the final boss and kill him by barely lifting a finger, I feel robbed of any sense of accomplishment. I would rather have a steady difficulty curve than feel like a walking god.

Isn't the point (one point atleast) of doing all the quests to become godlike? If you can't become godlike after doing all the quests, then you never can. You make a choice to do all the side stuff (or grind in a JRPG), you don't get to complain about being over leveled.

Or because you just like doing the quests or are compeltionnist? This is the problem, not every player wants the same thing. I lean towards being a completionist but I hate being over-leveled. This is problem in a lot of RPGs because I don't want to end up face rolling though everything but I would have to skip a whole bunch of content I paid for or find away to intentionally gimp myself to avoid that.

You can't be a completionist and not be/complain about being over leveled just like you can't read a walk through and then complain about spoilers.

If someone was complaining about being under leveled because they avoid as many battles and quests as they can, would you tell them not to avoid those things if they don't want to be under leveled?

Have you forgotten what this thread is about or something? Soft level scaling helps fix this problem. That's why it's there.

Edit: and you comparison doesn't even make any sense, the point of walk-through is to give you step by step guide which necessitates spoiling things. The point of of side quest and exploration is not to over level you.

If the side quests in the game you are playing give XP awards then side questing does = possible over leveling, especially if you insist on doing them all.

Just as one who looks at a walkthrough should expect spoiler, one who skips no side quests should expect over leveling.

No, I haven't forgotten what this thread is about, you want level scaling to fix the negative consequences of your completionist behavior, fuck other players who actually want to become godlike and therefore pursue the side quests.

And you're saying fuck other players who don't want to faceroll everything by trying force them into skipping content they paid for and want to do. Funny how that fucking works, right? There always going to be someone not getting what they want. It's not like I even said this should be how all game operate, its just a reason to have it (ie: what this thread is discussing).

The difference is that you want to rob players who want to become godlike of a way to make that happen. You can currently choose not to be a completionist if you don't want to be over leveled.

Perhaps a no XP toggle would be great for everyone but level scaling is not even on my radar as acceptable.

Because "don't do half the content you want to do" is a reasonable thing to expect from other players? and there is usually is a way to become godlike regardless, you can grind over the level scaling range or just look up an OP build.

You don't find level scaling acceptable? well fine, don't play games that have it.

With level scaling, even grinding is pointless, don't you see that? Why did you ignore the no XP toggle thing?

because level scaling within a set range rather than every enemy being you exact level is a common form of level scaling.
And I don't he problem with and XP toggle either if that's how the developer want to do things but thats a bit hamfisted.

A set range that is known to the player or like Final Fantasy 8 where you wouldn't know without a guide? In FF8 you could become godlike but only by manipulating your stats and not level grinding.

Why not? if it dose it by region they can put the ranges on the map.

By region? You mean preset by the developers and static like say...Dragon Quest 8 or do they actually scale based on the players level when they enter the region for the first time?

Either? I'm not talking about any specific game or trying to find the one solution although I think levelling scaling works better with minimum and maximum level set by the developer rather than to the players exact level. It's just a tool in the box.


We probably have different experiences with level scaling sine I don't play JRPGs.

The former (You mean preset by the developers and static like say...Dragon Quest 8) is not level scaling though.

 

[DementedSheep]

I like level scaling because without it the game can become too easy. I'm a completionist, which means I'll put off a main quest so I can do the side stuff than return to the main quest having overleveled it and the game is now boring. Skyrim is a good example, as the dragons quickly drop off in difficulty as you level up, which means my scrawny Breton battle-mage can go toe-to-toe with a monster of legend and kill it with a few chops to the face. Yes, I'm the chosen one with the blood of a dragon, but it still doesn't feel right that I should be able to kill it so effortlessly. Dragon Age: Inquisition was even worse for me as I found myself constantly checking my level and the suggested level of the next main quest lest I overleveled and found myself bored (thank Andraste for the option to turn on level scaling).

If you want to try and keep the difficulty, stop and think about what would be a reasonable level for the player to be at when they find the place compared to the rewards for completing the task.

How do you determine that beyond building a strictly linear game? What's "reasonable" for one will be unreasonable for another. Let's say there are three types of gamers: gamers that follow the game at a steady but measured pace, gamers who look for anyway to speed through it, and gamers who like to see everything before moving on. Which of these approaches is the "right" approach? Choose wisely, because you've damned the other two to boredom, either from easily mowing down enemies who vastly underlevel them or being forced to grind before they're able to clear the next mission.

Granted, not everything should be leveled with you. Critters and bandits and the like should be weaker as you grow stronger. Further, I feel like weaker enemies should never be thrown out entirely, because it does give you a sense of growth if enemies who terrorized you earlier are cannon fodder for you now, but they should be accompanied by stronger foes. Ultimately, if I reach the final boss and kill him by barely lifting a finger, I feel robbed of any sense of accomplishment. I would rather have a steady difficulty curve than feel like a walking god.

Isn't the point (one point atleast) of doing all the quests to become godlike? If you can't become godlike after doing all the quests, then you never can. You make a choice to do all the side stuff (or grind in a JRPG), you don't get to complain about being over leveled.

Or because you just like doing the quests or are compeltionnist? This is the problem, not every player wants the same thing. I lean towards being a completionist but I hate being over-leveled. This is problem in a lot of RPGs because I don't want to end up face rolling though everything but I would have to skip a whole bunch of content I paid for or find away to intentionally gimp myself to avoid that.

You can't be a completionist and not be/complain about being over leveled just like you can't read a walk through and then complain about spoilers.

If someone was complaining about being under leveled because they avoid as many battles and quests as they can, would you tell them not to avoid those things if they don't want to be under leveled?

Have you forgotten what this thread is about or something? Soft level scaling helps fix this problem. That's why it's there.

Edit: and you comparison doesn't even make any sense, the point of walk-through is to give you step by step guide which necessitates spoiling things. The point of of side quest and exploration is not to over level you.

If the side quests in the game you are playing give XP awards then side questing does = possible over leveling, especially if you insist on doing them all.

Just as one who looks at a walkthrough should expect spoiler, one who skips no side quests should expect over leveling.

No, I haven't forgotten what this thread is about, you want level scaling to fix the negative consequences of your completionist behavior, fuck other players who actually want to become godlike and therefore pursue the side quests.

And you're saying fuck other players who don't want to faceroll everything by trying force them into skipping content they paid for and want to do. Funny how that fucking works, right? There always going to be someone not getting what they want. It's not like I even said this should be how all game operate, its just a reason to have it (ie: what this thread is discussing).

The difference is that you want to rob players who want to become godlike of a way to make that happen. You can currently choose not to be a completionist if you don't want to be over leveled.

Perhaps a no XP toggle would be great for everyone but level scaling is not even on my radar as acceptable.

Because "don't do half the content you want to do" is a reasonable thing to expect from other players? and there is usually is a way to become godlike regardless, you can grind over the level scaling range or just look up an OP build.

You don't find level scaling acceptable? well fine, don't play games that have it.

With level scaling, even grinding is pointless, don't you see that? Why did you ignore the no XP toggle thing?

because level scaling within a set range rather than every enemy being you exact level is a common form of level scaling.
And I don't he problem with and XP toggle either if that's how the developer want to do things but thats a bit hamfisted.

A set range that is known to the player or like Final Fantasy 8 where you wouldn't know without a guide? In FF8 you could become godlike but only by manipulating your stats and not level grinding.

Why not? if it dose it by region they can put the ranges on the map.

By region? You mean preset by the developers and static like say...Dragon Quest 8 or do they actually scale based on the players level when they enter the region for the first time?

Either? I'm not talking about any specific game or trying to find the one solution although I think levelling scaling works better with minimum and maximum level set by the developer rather than to the players exact level. It's just a tool in the box.


We probably have different experiences with level scaling sine I don't play JRPGs.

The former (You mean preset by the developers and static like say...Dragon Quest 8) is not level scaling though.

If it scales enemy to your level unless your out of the range it scales to (which can be quite wide) it is level scaling.

 

[WeepingAngels]

I like level scaling because without it the game can become too easy. I'm a completionist, which means I'll put off a main quest so I can do the side stuff than return to the main quest having overleveled it and the game is now boring. Skyrim is a good example, as the dragons quickly drop off in difficulty as you level up, which means my scrawny Breton battle-mage can go toe-to-toe with a monster of legend and kill it with a few chops to the face. Yes, I'm the chosen one with the blood of a dragon, but it still doesn't feel right that I should be able to kill it so effortlessly. Dragon Age: Inquisition was even worse for me as I found myself constantly checking my level and the suggested level of the next main quest lest I overleveled and found myself bored (thank Andraste for the option to turn on level scaling).

If you want to try and keep the difficulty, stop and think about what would be a reasonable level for the player to be at when they find the place compared to the rewards for completing the task.

How do you determine that beyond building a strictly linear game? What's "reasonable" for one will be unreasonable for another. Let's say there are three types of gamers: gamers that follow the game at a steady but measured pace, gamers who look for anyway to speed through it, and gamers who like to see everything before moving on. Which of these approaches is the "right" approach? Choose wisely, because you've damned the other two to boredom, either from easily mowing down enemies who vastly underlevel them or being forced to grind before they're able to clear the next mission.

Granted, not everything should be leveled with you. Critters and bandits and the like should be weaker as you grow stronger. Further, I feel like weaker enemies should never be thrown out entirely, because it does give you a sense of growth if enemies who terrorized you earlier are cannon fodder for you now, but they should be accompanied by stronger foes. Ultimately, if I reach the final boss and kill him by barely lifting a finger, I feel robbed of any sense of accomplishment. I would rather have a steady difficulty curve than feel like a walking god.

Isn't the point (one point atleast) of doing all the quests to become godlike? If you can't become godlike after doing all the quests, then you never can. You make a choice to do all the side stuff (or grind in a JRPG), you don't get to complain about being over leveled.

Or because you just like doing the quests or are compeltionnist? This is the problem, not every player wants the same thing. I lean towards being a completionist but I hate being over-leveled. This is problem in a lot of RPGs because I don't want to end up face rolling though everything but I would have to skip a whole bunch of content I paid for or find away to intentionally gimp myself to avoid that.

You can't be a completionist and not be/complain about being over leveled just like you can't read a walk through and then complain about spoilers.

If someone was complaining about being under leveled because they avoid as many battles and quests as they can, would you tell them not to avoid those things if they don't want to be under leveled?

Have you forgotten what this thread is about or something? Soft level scaling helps fix this problem. That's why it's there.

Edit: and you comparison doesn't even make any sense, the point of walk-through is to give you step by step guide which necessitates spoiling things. The point of of side quest and exploration is not to over level you.

If the side quests in the game you are playing give XP awards then side questing does = possible over leveling, especially if you insist on doing them all.

Just as one who looks at a walkthrough should expect spoiler, one who skips no side quests should expect over leveling.

No, I haven't forgotten what this thread is about, you want level scaling to fix the negative consequences of your completionist behavior, fuck other players who actually want to become godlike and therefore pursue the side quests.

And you're saying fuck other players who don't want to faceroll everything by trying force them into skipping content they paid for and want to do. Funny how that fucking works, right? There always going to be someone not getting what they want. It's not like I even said this should be how all game operate, its just a reason to have it (ie: what this thread is discussing).

The difference is that you want to rob players who want to become godlike of a way to make that happen. You can currently choose not to be a completionist if you don't want to be over leveled.

Perhaps a no XP toggle would be great for everyone but level scaling is not even on my radar as acceptable.

Because "don't do half the content you want to do" is a reasonable thing to expect from other players? and there is usually is a way to become godlike regardless, you can grind over the level scaling range or just look up an OP build.

You don't find level scaling acceptable? well fine, don't play games that have it.

With level scaling, even grinding is pointless, don't you see that? Why did you ignore the no XP toggle thing?

because level scaling within a set range rather than every enemy being you exact level is a common form of level scaling.
And I don't he problem with and XP toggle either if that's how the developer want to do things but thats a bit hamfisted.

A set range that is known to the player or like Final Fantasy 8 where you wouldn't know without a guide? In FF8 you could become godlike but only by manipulating your stats and not level grinding.

Why not? if it dose it by region they can put the ranges on the map.

By region? You mean preset by the developers and static like say...Dragon Quest 8 or do they actually scale based on the players level when they enter the region for the first time?

Either? I'm not talking about any specific game or trying to find the one solution although I think levelling scaling works better with minimum and maximum level set by the developer rather than to the players exact level. It's just a tool in the box.


We probably have different experiences with level scaling sine I don't play JRPGs.

The former (You mean preset by the developers and static like say...Dragon Quest 8) is not level scaling though.

If it scales enemy to your level unless your out of the range it scales to (which can be quite wide) it is level scaling.

Preset by the developers and static is not scaling.Most JRPG's used to be like this, it works the best for linear games. For open world games I guess you would need some sort of level scaling but I guess that's one of the reasons I prefer more linear games.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Developer are now lazy and/or incompetent. Level scaling is stupid and should be thrown out of the window.
You have shit like Skyrim where enemies level as you level, but unless you actually leveled up properly to increase your strength, you will end up in a situation where you can't defeat the fucking wolfs that are everywhere because now they are stronger than the Dragons, yet you picked flower picking skills and smiting.
Yet in the same series you have a game that did levels right, Morrowind. Enemies scale to a very small degree, some don't change at all. There are high level regions, low level regions and as you level up you can explore more safely. You can explore even before, but it's dangerous and you need to be sneaky.
There is no point in leveling if the enemy gets stronger as well. For me part of leveling is getting more powerful. What's the best way of seeing how much more powerful you are than beating the crap out of enemies that were once too strong for you. You can go back to the places you had to avoid and finally explore that cave you always wanted but couldn't because it was guarded by high level enemies. While Xenoblade Chronicles X had some bad enemy placement, it also had a lot of stuff you could see, but couldn't access. Not that it blocked you off but that there were strong enemies. You could see it, not touch it. It was something that gave you even more motivation to explore and get more powerful.

Level scaling is a tool used by lazy and incompetent developer in order to avoid proper world design. Instead of actually designing a proper connected world with different themes and difficulty, they just leave everything on the same difficulty. Why bother doing work when people eat it up.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

The idea of a leveling system is to give the player a sense of progression, the idea that their character is growing stronger as the game progresses. Level scaling is done so as to not discourage exploration in an open world RPG environment by placing a monster too far out of the players league in a certain area and having the player getting stomped into mulch when he/she wanders into that area.