Automatic Levelscaling

The game can't force you do something. If you do it anyway you obviously want to play the game more than you want to quit. In either case, story scenes may be an exception to the norm. Though I do remind you that in offline you might have companions with you. Also, this problem isn't necessarily unique to SotA. Have you ever, for example, gone to the Isle of Fire in Ultima VII and tried to do the quest of Courage early on? It's a quest right? Don't know how many companions I've killed trying to complete that early.

Anyway, as far as quests along the main storyline goes I see two viable options. 1: Lower the difficulty of those areas or 2: Stall you and not allow access until you have a better chance to survive it. Personally I'd go with #2.. with an NPC that says something like "until you can do X I can't let you in in good conscience" or "I'm not going in there until I know you can keep me safe"

A problem I have with some quest design.. at least in ES games is the apparent urgency. They rush you from point A to point B for most of the quest such that if all you do is the story you're finished before you're even level 20 and you've got no incentive to do anything. Or at least I always lose interest in playing once the main quests are done. I use the fact that quest progression is purely event driven to back off and allow myself to enjoy the rest of the game until I'm ready to tackle the story in my own time. Given the long term nature of SotA I imagine I will take the same approach offline here.

Granted.. given statements made very early on that you don't need to specifically be a high level fighter to 'win' or finish the story.. the story should at least be something you can finish with companions.

An isolated, single player instance like the necropolis could perhaps benefit from difficulty scaling until that part of the story is complete.. at which point I would turn it off.

 

So in this case the discussion is on ESO, which is greatly different in progression to a traditional ES game. Especially since the devs couldn't make up their minds on how they wanted progression to work. Vet levels, champion points, etc. With the release of Wrothgar the game became Elder Chores Online with a goal of completing the daily chore quests hoping for the right random number to hit.

In the case of ESO, progression is/was region based. There was a main quest chain and several supplementary quest chains. One could sweep the points of interest on a map region and be ready for the next map region or one could hit the main quest points and wing it with a lower level character and then complain about how they keep getting killed and beg for soul gems/cash.

There was a large discussion on people wanting to go anywhere at any time. It looks like that argument won. To me that nullifies character progression and justifies my decision to leave several max vet/max CP characters to pasture. They lost their vision a very long time ago for where they wanted the game to go and are now simply looking to cash in on trying to get people into for pay areas as fast as possible.

Based on how that game was run, that is probably the last bethesda game I will purchase. The game showed a fair amount of promise during beta and the early subscription phase.

 

so..ya...my 2 cents...i HATE this idea. everybody equal....horse-hockey!

 

Kudos for use of the phrase "horse-hockey"

 

Pretty sure Bull-hockey preceded horse-hockey by at least a generation........

 

It's interesting to see the reactions to this idea. And it is interesting to see how a minority is pushing the game more and more into a very small niche.
People here want Ultima Online 2 with standard MMORPG mechanics. But they don't seem to care about the genre or the success of SotA. They want to get THEIR game, which of course is understandable (I want MY game, too). Some people here loved UO and some here love standard MMORPGs. And they want to shape a new game into this direction and have fun playing it. But I can't help myself to see that this could lead to the downfall of this game. The niche is much too small. SotA won't reach many new players by sticking to old and outdated mechanics that only a "handful" of people want to play.
I see SotA struggling with this. The game wants to please those in the communty who are pushing for UO 2. But I get the impression that the devs are aware that this could be a "mistake" and not be very helpful for the game to become successful and they try to include elements that attract new players. But all of this together somehow doesn't fit and work.

We will see how SotA will stand against other, more modern games in the genre and we will see if it can be successful as UO 2.

 

I already lost track of this thread.

So the issue is about grinding basically? What if it will eventually more enjoyable, after the game mechanics are more finished? Or, what if there would be auto-generated sub-guests which are just meant to make leveling more enjoyable? Of course the "gap" between storylines or stages shouldn't be too large here. Isn't it supposed be also part of YOUR story in this game how you developed you character?

 

You assume a minority as you're assuming people's motivations and future success of an unfinished game.

So let me put this to you. Among the genres you mention that supposedly do so well.. how many games do you actually play based on the very logic you suppose here and for how long have you been playing them or plan to continue playing them?

 

Sure I assume it is a minority. I don't know the numbers.
But how many people are posting here regularly?
How many people are playing PvP based MMORPGs? How many people are playing casual games?
I would really love to hear the actualy numbers of actively playing SotA players. Then I would like to hear how many of those players are interested in the story, how many are not interested in the story?
I could go on an on.
As long as we don't have actual numbers I can only assume. But I include into my assumption how "well" received hardcore MMORPGs are nowadays in comparison to more "casual" games. I include into my assumption how SotA is received outside of this forum. There are other places where this game is discussed for example the Steam forums on the reviews there are not so good.

I don't play MOBAs or shooters at all but I admire how well they manage to cater to a broad audience. How well they manage to create a fluid gameplay.
I would love to play a deep story-driven RPG without any numbers but still with character progression. If I fight long enough with a sword, I get better but I don't see it as stats or numbers, I feel it be beating enemies faster. I would love to play a RPG completely without any HUD. A game in which everything is done directly in the world, without any lists or windows.
How long would I play such game? For as long as it takes for me to explore everything and complete the story. Then I would move on the next game, explore another world, experience another story.
I don't want to linger in the same virtual world for years, I want to experience new worlds.

 

Your arguments would be a lot more convincing if you did. How do you know it's a broad audience? What indicators are there that their audience would be any different without scaling difficulty? How do you know the gameplay is 'fluid' by your standards if you don't play them yourself?

You've been around here long enough. You should that forum users aren't an accurate representation of the total player base. It's one of the reasons I usually avoid voting in poles.

Saddly those are numbers that would certainly be skewed. I for one will be playing through the story but only offline but I am certainly not the average player. I'd wager most who just want the offline experience have little cause to be actively playing until all the major quests are fleshed out and balanced. But I wouldn't take that as a meaningful indicator of much.

Well you talk about a small niche. I'm all for minimal UI but players need to see progression. Numbers are the easiest way to show that.

 

You're talking about specifics of the game, I'm talking about the system in general. Level-scaling doesn't mean that monsters are automatically equal to the player's level, nor does it mean that combat is easy or stale, that's up to the implementation. That's my argument. Also, if you want to bring up the skull pole into this, please understand that the devs have specifically mentioned that they will NOT be placing them in every scene.

You're talking like some folks just rush in and die or don't pay attention. Good for you! Because you don't have a problem, the problem never existed in the first place!

I'm not talking about SotA specifically, I'm talking about the pitfalls of not-having scaling in general. So why in the hells are you arguing that the problem doesn't exist?

My point is that people talk like level-scaling stunts a game's experience because they assume that level-scaling means that the monsters have to be equal to the player, I'm arguing that level-scaling can be used to emulate a good DM. This entire argument that you've written doesn't contradict anything that I've said.

Worse case scenario, I'd rather have a game that does make the monsters of equal strength than having a game that has skewed difficulty spikes all over the place.

Here, allow me to quote myself to make my point clear (as you obviously didn't read that far):

A good DM would NEVER spawn impossibly difficult monsters... in any circumstances! Regardless of how he has built his campaign or how his players are playing in it.

 

I disagree. A good DM might provide monsters that players are meant sneak past rather than defeat, or provide hints of a dragon existing in the world that they're not yet ready to fight. RPGs are about storytelling, not grinding.

 

Fiddlesticks.

Imagine playing Ultima V and trying to go in to the dungeon Doom when you're lev. 1. Fighting dragons, daemons, wisps, corpsers.

Honestly, @Lord_Darkmoon , I don't want the focus of the game to be on grinding either, but you're equating grinding with anything that gets in the way of completing gameplay content right away, and I don't agree with that. Most of the Ultima games involved adventuring and fighting, and gaining skill. If not the example in Ultima V, then, if I remember correctly, in Ultima VI and VII, you needed to learn certain spells to complete some quests. To dispel force fields, unlock magical locks, etc.

 

You were talking like because you have that problem everyone does. The point I was making is If I can avoid death and continue to play and progress, so can others.

Why aren't you talking about SotA specifically? Are we not discussing the merits of an idea to be implemented IN SotA? Are you suggesting ALL games should have scaling difficulty throughout?

I never said a problem doesn't exist. I just disagree that everyone has the same issue. I avoid the problem with relative ease but that's how *I* play..

As a DM myself I have to disagree. No world is so convenient.

 

See that's the thing, it's the players who ultimately decide is they sneak or not. DM design be damned, he/she has to take into account that the players won't necessarily do what the DM is thinking and, even if they do, they might not succeed.

So what? If they fail sneaking around, they're dead? Is that how you treat your players as a DM? I hope not. A DM's job is to make everyone (including himself/herself) have a good time. Instant-killing your players "because you wanted your players to sneak past a monster" isn't a good idea.

You're right about one thing, though: RPGs are about storytelling. Which begs the question why you would want to give the impression that they need to grind by spawning impossibly hard monsters?

If people have a problem with something, that means that there's a problem and whatever that people have a problem with needs to be revised. If you have a room with 10 people, and one guy is sweating like a pig, it doesn't matter how the others feel, you SHOULD re-evaluate how you're cooling/heating the room. Whenever or not you actually need to change the temperature (or, if so, by how much) is another issue altogether.

Because people have the wrong mindset that "level scaling = bland, easy, un-rewarding" regardless of the game. They had a bad experience some game(s), they blame the concept and will forever believe that the concept is bad because of it. The issue isn't about level-scaling itself, but how most devs do it.

Everyone shits on Elder Scrolls: Oblivion for it but they don't even stop to think about Morrowind: http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Leveled_Creatures_(Morrowind)

But Morrowind was such an amazing experience that had no level scaling, right? /sarcasm

I already said my piece on whenever or not I'd want level-scaling in SotA, but everyone seems to be fixated on disagreeing with a very simple fundamental principle. Illustrating that people are more eager to say that level-scaling is bad, rather than discuss about if SotA would actually benefit form it.

 

I got your point, but it is based on circular reasoning. You assume that good DMs must level scale the campain to fit the party level. Then based on that assumption you argue that a game could emulate a good DM through level scaling. Etc.
But you have yet to provide any validation for WHY a good DM would have to adjust the world to fit the party when a plethora of better options are available to a good DM.

Actually it wasn't meant to, nor does it have to. This since it showcased that other definitions of a good DM exists.

That would be a very strange conclusion on your end. That would seem very out of character for a poster such as myself and it would also be contradictory to what I wrote in that post.
Of course I read your whole post, that could easily be deduced from my response to it.
"If you're level 5, it may as well just mean that you'd be encountering level 15 monsters instead of level 100... allowing you to run away instead of getting instantly one-shotted."
Is completely irrelevant since the level of the monster doesn't matter. Which you yourself allude to there with the 'allowing to run away' and 'one-shotted'.
So as long as the DM does allow the party a way to avoid the monster and avoids having the party one-shotted by the monster, its level is completely irrelevant, hence why I ignored it in my reply.

That is an incorrect statement derived from an incorrect black/white fallacy.

Of course a good DM could use 'impossible' or 'too difficult' monsters if the circumstances would create a better story from that. The circumstances is of course everything.

Lets take a LOTR book/movie example so that you see where I'm coming from.

You are in Moria, someone just dropped stuff down the well and suddenly the drums starts echoing in the tunnels and hallways - the goblinkind is coming. The good DM supplies a good challenge with waves of defeatable monsters which are getting worse and worse- BUT with the obvious clues that not only are there overwhelming numbers/foes coming after these waves, but also there is a really really big bad one coming that the party has a very slim chance of defeating (the balrog).
Making the sense of urgency and desperation well up. Building tension along the way. Always forcing the party to retreat or flee.
Finally, the bridge in the great hall presents the party with an opportunity. The gandalf player decides to make a heroic sacrifice for the party. Epic stuff which everyone will remember. (Although the DM chickens out and lets the gandalf player come back after approprioterly having bribed the DM with candy and cola for a later session).

Thus in the same manner the impossible hordes and the impossible monster can be utilized to great effect for a good DM to drive drama and story forward, or hinder the players from making unecessary detours which adds nothing to the story.
If the players were bad players and instead would have resisted the DM's story plus the clues and refused to retreat then yes a good DM would have to prove that the danger is real by hurting/killing etc. Otherwise the players get the boring feeling of invincibility.

Ed Greenwood's adventures and campain world of Forgotten Realms is a perfect example of a campain world filled with monsters way out of the player's initial league. With the Time of troubles being a prefect example of a series of adventures where the player party is next to forces that can easily kill them if they are not careful.

Which makes it so much more satisfying after you have leveled up (grinding) through a series of adventures, and return to a place where you visited before and suddenly you realize that now you can actually take them on.

Which is the same feeling that I want from a sandbox game, and something which I did get from the Ultima Series of old.

But that is a personal preference which fit both my PnP RPG style as well as my CPU RPG style. I fully understand that there are other playing styles out there with people who has different preferences. Which is why I wouldn't make such claims about what constitutes a good DM as you try to.

This since there are good DMs that fudge and there are good DMs that never fudge.
Fudging or Level scaling is never the defining parameter for "good", not for D&D DMs, nor for CPU RPGs.

 

ESO should not be a compaired, they are money hungry and trying to make up the money they spent on developing the game.

Its a simple business move:
They were sub based, everyone that wanted it bought it > they ran out of influx/people started leaving > switched to f2p, now everyone that owns the game has to buy the expansions along with the cash shop for people to dump more money into (optional sub) > moved to level scaled so anyone that might have put off game thinking it was too much of a time sink, might reconsider.
And im sure next step will be like WoW were you can just start at lvl 80 with a new character.

I dont find immersion in level scaling, and i think thats something you want as well. I dont find it apealing at all to have magic levels/power and kick everythings ass at level 10.

This is one of the reasons I prolly wont play CoE. Massive friend level scaling. But thats the only type of level scaling I condone if even slightly, is friend level scaling where u get scaled together so a person with alot of time can still adventure be friend with someone that doesnt, or started much later.

But that just opens the door for power leveling and what not beyond what we already have with the GM bonuses.

Id rather this game be niche than some mass appealing corporate pos

 

Yes, but SotA doesn't have harsh penalties, and if you realize you can't sneak past a monster or kill him, you can just leave the area and do something else. If you die, you'll resurrect. Its pretty much like the other Ultima games like that.

Whether I agree with you depends on what you're arguing here.

If what you're suggesting is that monsters shouldn't be artificially harder than they would be because of some invisible level number, and that players who are smart could use their wits to try to figure how to cope with a monster that's much much harder than them, I agree. But if what you're suggesting is that there shouldn't be monsters that players may want to avoid because those monsters are hard and out of their league, I disagree.

What in your view is grinding? Is it just going on and fighting other battles while you avoid battles you feel you can't take on? I don't agree.

 

It is my belief that, ultimately, character and monster levels shouldn't exist in RPGs as they're essentially arbitrary; especially in video game format where you can't reason with a DM. So grinding is the antithesis of what I want in any video game; the idea that one should do a specific activity for an arbitrary amount of time in order to get to an arbitrary number high enough so that the player(s) can have fun. That disgust me.

Farming (gold, items), grinding... that mentality (for players and devs alike) is doing a disservice to the genre.

That's not what I'm suggesting at all but I do believe that players who stumble upon such encounters have a way of avoiding death to prevent them for punishing their exploration. If I go inside a cave and spot a lich, I want to be able to turn around and run away and not get a death bolt to the back of my head; killing me instantly.

This is particularly more important in video games where the DM or level designer is not present to make judgement calls.

Level-scaling can do three things:

• If monsters are equal level to the player, it allowing players to kill anything anytime (boring).
• If monsters have a level cap based on the level of the player (or if they're part of a spawn table), it gives players a chance to fight whatever they're facing if they're skilled enough (interesting).
• Any of the above: Gives the players a chance to run away (compromise).

If you realize you can't sneak past a monster and/or kill it, then that means that it's already too late. Dying/resurrecting shouldn't be an excuse for a DM or level designer to skew the difficulty curve.

Lets not. Unless the player asked the DM to come up with a worthy death for his character, the DM (in your example) just created a scenario that killed off a player character... "Obvious" and "clues" are not good words to put together.

As a DM, you don't KNOW how obvious your clues are until you either get a good feel for your players or until you see your players playing your campaign. You could argue that video games can achieve that through testing and Q&A but that isn't remotely as tailored to each player as it should be. Level-scaling entire concept is to compensate for it.

... well DUH! This quote is the thesis of my argument concerning DMs. The problem is that we are talking about LEVEL-SCALING and thus require monster difficulty to be considered. The entire purpose of scaling monsters is to allow challenge while still giving players a WAY TO AVOID THE MONSTER if the encounter is too difficult!

You obviously didn't get my point.

Good DMs don't send their players to the slaughter. They spawn monsters of appropriate level. "Appropriate" being "at a reasonable level considering the players' level". It is INFLUENCED by, not equal to.

Level-Scaling in video games is a way to compensate for the human nature of a DM and allow the players to not get slaughter merely because they wanted to explore.... exploring should be fun, no?

Or you end up never going back to a place that frustrated the shits out you. I certainly don't. The area was badly conceived, why on earth would I subject myself to it yet again?

Feelings of triumph can be achieved without sloppy design.

Also, if you have to grind in an RPG, the game's doing it wrong.

 

@Gix,

What I dislike currently about the game is that I can walk into a forest scene and discover that the wolves are level 30 wolves instead of level 5 wolves, so I have to exit and find wolves more my level. I go around checking scenes to see which scenes are 5 skull scenes or 2 skull scenes, and eventually find wolves my level. That makes no sense at all.

What I don't mind, though, is seeing a dragon in the distance over a cliff in Grunvald Barrens, and avoiding going up there, knowing that he's dangerous, huge, and breathes fire, and I'll have to run from him to keep safe. He might be guarding treasure, but I'll avoid it for now. Do you agree?

Read my post earlier in the thread, though... why level scale, when you can just make level not matter much in the first place? The only problem isn't monsters that are artificially hard to beat, its also monsters that are artificially too easy to beat. It should be a tactics vs. tactics battle between the player and monsters. Even easier enemies should require the player to remain active and engaged and paying attention to win the fight. Tougher enemies should just be much tougher tactically to go against, and that would be why you'd need to gain skills to be effective against them. That also keeps the game fun no matter what difficulty monster you're fighting.

The key in your definition of grinding, "the idea that one should do a specific activity for an arbitrary amount of time in order to get to an arbitrary number high enough so that the player(s) can have fun," is "...so that the player(s) can have fun." Grinding is grinding because it's mindless. Right now low level mobs are boring to fight and they respawn right away so you can fight waves and waves by just clicking on them over and over. The problem isn't as much in there being impossibly hard monsters, but in the whole design of combat.