Level scaling, why is this a thing?

[Chaos Isaac]

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.

Final Fantasy 8 is one of those bad/good examples. As it's scaling sucks, but at the same time, it works perfectly if you know what you're doing. If you manage to card every monster, make those cards into high level spells and assign those spells to stats. You're basically 'leveling up' without making monsters stronger, and so, getting stronger is much more around micromanagement then leveling.

It's a bit more in depth, but the game does nothing to let you know that, so most people don't even know about that. I had the game for years before I figured out how it wants me to play.

But yeah, it's not that good. But at the same time works.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

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.

This sums it up perfectly, with the perfect comparison too.

The element of the unknown is lost massively with level-scaling too. I want to walk into a dungeon where I may stumble across something that will tare me to peices in seconds. It adds to the real sense of exploration and intrepidation.

 

[FalloutJack]

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.

Final Fantasy 8 is one of those bad/good examples. As it's scaling sucks, but at the same time, it works perfectly if you know what you're doing. If you manage to card every monster, make those cards into high level spells and assign those spells to stats. You're basically 'leveling up' without making monsters stronger, and so, getting stronger is much more around micromanagement then leveling.

It's a bit more in depth, but the game does nothing to let you know that, so most people don't even know about that. I had the game for years before I figured out how it wants me to play.

But yeah, it's not that good. But at the same time works.

I disapprove of the whole game, but to just be talking about the leveling thing... So, in order to do any good, you have to go through a bunch of irritating extra stuff which has nothing to do with the actual game in order for your 'levels' to mean anything. That's not good. That's one of the key reasons it's a terrible game. To take a Monty Python metaphor... If your Last Supper painting has Three Christs, it doesn't 'work' because you balanced the fat one with two skinny ones. That's needless complexity. Leveling is all about gaining experience (generally through combat) in order to become stronger. Bells and whistles are option, not all-encompassing and overshadowing the leveling. That is why this game mechanic sucks.

 

[Tahaneira]

My greatest argument for level scaling is Kingdoms of Amalur. By about a third of the way through the game, every time I entered a new area I could kill the toughest enemy in about four hits and my exp acquisition was still accelerating. That was a game that absolutely would have benefited from intelligent application of scaling, because the alternative (due to the absolutely ridiculous number of sidequests in that game) was to make it so you'd get roflstomped by rats in a new area unless you spent four hours assisting every guild member, helping every granny, and turning over every rock for collectibles in each of the previous maps.

There are places where it's appropriate and where it's not. It would have helped there.

 

[WeepingAngels]

My greatest argument for level scaling is Kingdoms of Amalur. By about a third of the way through the game, every time I entered a new area I could kill the toughest enemy in about four hits and my exp acquisition was still accelerating. That was a game that absolutely would have benefited from intelligent application of scaling, because the alternative (due to the absolutely ridiculous number of sidequests in that game) was to make it so you'd get roflstomped by rats in a new area unless you spent four hours assisting every guild member, helping every granny, and turning over every rock for collectibles in each of the previous maps.

It sounds like the game needed some balancing, not level scaling.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

I disapprove of the whole game, but to just be talking about the leveling thing... So, in order to do any good, you have to go through a bunch of irritating extra stuff which has nothing to do with the actual game in order for your 'levels' to mean anything. That's not good. That's one of the key reasons it's a terrible game. To take a Monty Python metaphor... If your Last Supper painting has Three Christs, it doesn't 'work' because you balanced the fat one with two skinny ones. That's needless complexity. Leveling is all about gaining experience (generally through combat) in order to become stronger. Bells and whistles are option, not all-encompassing and overshadowing the leveling. That is why this game mechanic sucks.

Oh my god, yeah it sucks. But, I was just saying.

It's worse because leveling in the game is not what you want to do. Leveling up basically only makes you weaker and the enemies stronger. Meanwhile junctioning everything makes you stronger and everything else stays the same. It's a little more confusing since some bosses are set at a certain level and can't be lower then that. (They can be higher though.)

 

[MiskWisk]

I absolutely despise level scaling. Admittedly, my first encounter was FF8 as a naive little-er tyke, which if you weren't aware of the draw exploit became damn near impossible causing it to become an eye-gouging exercise in frustration. Regardless, my issues with level scaling have remained ever since they and I haven't played a game yet that made it feel like it was a good idea. Every time I have seen it I have been irritated because proper fixed, hell, even tiered, levels would work so much better. Like Ulfric in Skyrim being one of the weakest characters in the game because he was one of the first characters spawned and was attached to your level.

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. Sure, it's effort but it is a damn sight better than just programming a code for a level scaling system that is far more likely to bug out.

 

[Morti]

Well you learn something new everyday... I knew I was uncommon in liking FF8, I had no idea it was because people didn't get junctioning. The only problem I had with it was playing through without casting spells, because why would I waste them on mediocre damage when I could boost my stats? For me, the principle leveling mechanic was always earning GP, or farming the last few materials for an upgrade.

 

[SmallHatLogan]

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.

I think the point RJ17 is trying to make is that linear games that don't have scaling in the way you describe it still have the enemies designed to be scaled to the player's expected level. So while the enemies stats don't change in real time depending on your level, they will still usually be around the same level as you. I'd say scaling is still an accurate word to use even if it does muddy the water a bit.

 

[WeepingAngels]

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.

I think the point RJ17 is trying to make is that linear games that don't have scaling in the way you describe it still have the enemies designed to be scaled to the player's expected level. So while the enemies stats don't change in real time depending on your level, they will still usually be around the same level as you. I'd say scaling is still an accurate word to use even if it does muddy the water a bit.

Scaling is not accurate here. Let's take Dragon Quest 8, a game that I am playing now. I can explore at will and the further I get from the starting town (Farebury) the stronger the enemies get, my level doesn't matter to the game. Likewise the closer I get to the starting town, the easier the enemies get, my level still doesn't matter to the game. This is the opposite of scaling.

I can go too far and get my ass handed to me, it's a risk but it's an effective grind strategy as stronger enemies give better XP and Gold rewards.

I say again, level scaling is when the enemies scale with the level of the player. It is NOT when developers purposely place static but stronger enemies along the path through the game.

 

[Adamantium93]

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.

 

[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.

 

[lacktheknack]

Because getting better than the game is boring?

Most complaints are massively overstated anyways. The "horror stories" of level 50 characters in Oblivion getting offed by an errant rat are all a pack of lies. You tend to do a lot better than you would if you hadn't leveled up in a non-scaling world, so there's still a feel of progression.

 

[Saelune]

I think a lot of people defending level scaling forget that its not the same as throwing stronger enemies at you. I don't want the same enemies to get stronger, I want to rank up in what I fight. From annoying rats in the basement, to ruffian bandits in the woods, to a hoard of orc, to a dragon atop a mountain peek, to the very gods themselves.

But when you kill those gods, you want those rats and bandits and orcs to not also be at your level. You just want to worry about larger and better things.

 

[MiskWisk]

Snip

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.

 

[Lodgem]

Like the OP, I don't like level scaling. I remember playing The Bard's Tale (the older party based RPG, not the 2004 game) and entering the Castle for the first time. The enemies in there were WAY over my head and I didn't stand a chance. However, I also remember how it felt coming back to the Castle later and beating the enemies that were previously too powerful. This sense of progression, of becoming more powerful, is one of the reasons I enjoyed playing RPGs. If I could go into the Castle with a level 1 party and have exactly the same challenge as a high level party much of this feeling of progression would have been lost.

I can see some arguments in favour of level scaling, however. The strongest argument, in my opinion, is open vs linear gameplay. The Bard's Tale is largely linear. There is an order in which you're expected to complete the various dungeons and while you don't have to follow that order strictly the level of the enemies forces you do do so to a large extent. Contrast with Oblivion where I can, at lest in theory, focus on the Mage Guild questline without worrying too much if the enemies will be too powerful for me, or if this will make the main quest too easy when I eventually get back to it.

There are, of course, different designs that can find a better balance between non-linear gameplay and statically-levelled enemies so as to provide an experience somewhere between The Bard's Tale and Oblivion, but one thing that you can still get from an RPG with levelled enemies is a choice in specialisation, and the different strategies that choice opens up.

Imagine a game where you start with 10 points in a number of skills. At various stages during the game you can choose to increase one of those skills, but it will cost you a point in a different skill. As you progress you can gain more control as to what specialisations your character can have. A character that pushes magic to the cost of all else will have to employ different strategies to a character that pushes a combination of melee and armour use but neither is necessarily stronger than the other. This is how an RPG with levelled enemies seems to feel. As you progress you need to be more aware of how you've chosen to specialise your character. Assuming the game is balanced with this in mind this isn't a bad choice, just a different one.

 

[Redvenge]

So, you have two games:

Game "A", you complete Dungeon 1, then you have sufficient power to complete Dungeon 2, which then leads to Dungeon 3.

Game "B", you can complete any of the 3 Dungeons in any order, the enemies will just scale to your level.

The OP's position is that Game "A" is superior to Game "B"? If that is your preferred game, then alright. I don't think either style is inherently better. As others have posted, it is entirely in the execution.

 

[loa]

I dunno, I found skyrims level scaling of just putting more enemies everywhere fun.
It doesn't really "cancel out" your levels on a numerical level by giving bears +10 strength rather than making your playthrough unique by letting you encounter new enemy types so instead of 1 bear, you encounter 2 tigers.

The most fun skyrim mods are the ones that add a bunch of crazy enemy types which all interact with the level scaling to give it more steps so once you are badass mc blowshitup, dragons will be everywhere and everything explodes. It's beautiful.

 

[sonicneedslovetoo]

My best example would be Skyrim, because I avoid the MQ so much I tend to get to bleak falls barrow really late and normally wandering across the waterfall bridge there is a Draugr. HOWEVER when you reach there at a really really high level it turns into a troll which has different loot and attacks. Another reason is to keep loot consistant so at higher levels you can not only fight enemies with better armor and weapons but also loot enemies with better armor and weapons.

Obviously Skyrim wouldn't make sense of bandits changed from the sentient races into dire rats or undead so they need to keep getting better gear to keep up with the player. Also spells in Skyrim change over the course of progression, they start out kinda wimpy as the novice spells and then they begin to grow in power and gain area of effect stuff. On top of that higher level enemies have higher level enchants and in theory that should make them more threatening(but in Skyrim generally it does not).

Another example I would bring up would be Diablo 3, nothing at lv 1 will have very much interesting to do, but once you reach max level special enemies start having 4 or 5 extra nasty things that you have to watch out for. All of which would most likely be too hard for most players to get around with the measly number of skills they have before lv 15 or so.

 

[Derekloffin]

So, you have two games:

Game "A", you complete Dungeon 1, then you have sufficient power to complete Dungeon 2, which then leads to Dungeon 3.

Game "B", you can complete any of the 3 Dungeons in any order, the enemies will just scale to your level.

The OP's position is that Game "A" is superior to Game "B"? If that is your preferred game, then alright. I don't think either style is inherently better. As others have posted, it is entirely in the execution.

No, my position is game B shouldn't have a leveling system in the first place as it is pointless. It should instead dispense with the leveling system, and the time spent to make it then make the scaling system to cancel it out, and simply concentrates on other aspects of the game play.

To be more concrete, let's say every level you gain 5% damage. But, every enemy in the game also gains 5% hp. This is a perfect cancel. Sure you're pumping out bigger numbers, but it still takes you 10 hits to kill that ghoul at level 1 or level 100. You could have instead just dispensed with the 5% increase in damage and hp entirely and had the same game.

I understand people like the freedom, but the freedom isn't lost by dispensing with the system. In fact, the leveling system with level scaling is only an illusion of progress when there actually is none. So the choice isn't freedom verses non-freedom, it's freedom with the illusion of progress, or just the same freedom without the illusion.

Now, as some have mentioned here, there are softer level scaling systems that level scale so much then stop. Those I'm mostly okay with. I still prefer a system that let's me experience the game with unchecked difficulty, but that isn't completely lost under that system, just diminished somewhat.

But, anyway, from people's responses, I get the impression it is the illusion that is appealing. I guess I just can't wrap my head around that.