Automatic Levelscaling

Well that's the whole reason why I don't think SotA really needs level-scaling.
To quote myself:

I was making a reference to SotA's skill-level curve.

The idea of looking around scene per scene to try to find an encounter of appropriate level is annoying, but with enough directions through questing I don't think it'd be that much of an issue... so long as it doesn't send you to a difficult area without getting properly leveled up *coughs*Necropolis*coughs*

For sure! I mean, the example is a bit extreme because it's a freakin' dragon but the fundamentals are there:

• It's a different type of encounter; it's using a unique model.
• You clearly see it from a safe area and can avoid it.
• You weren't punished for discovering it.
• You're given a goal; regardless of whenever or not is has treasure.

True but there's also the idea that grinding is grinding because that's all the developers of a game thought you'd want to do. There's a lot of story or dialogue in games these days are "on rails"... it's mindless but I don't necessarily call that grinding.

The key distinction, I find, is repetition.

 

If that were the case my first reaction would be to see if that person needed help due to illness or medical condition. I wouldn't immediately assume the problem was just the room itself.

That's making some assumptions. I really liked ES III-V.. the problem wasn't the scaling itself.. though Oblivion could've been done better.. the problem with ES was the lack of content. They don't go far enough and therein lies a serious problem. For my part I just don't think it's a good match for an online game.. especially for PvP which has been suggested where players themselves are scaled.

I don't have a problem with scaling in general.. I do have a problem with how such a broad concept would be applied specifically to SotA.

 

I personally don't see where SotA could take advantage of it... except maybe some structured "battleground" death-match or capture the flag type scenes but even then it's a huge maybe.

You can't just throw in scaling and call it a day either. ESO's PvP a good example of this: it scales newcomers' characters with attributes akin to a champion level 150 character (160 being the highest leveled mob in the PvP zone) but doesn't take into account that you won't make a dent against champion level 500 characters that are roaming the place; making the entire system pointless. I don't even think it scales your equipment, just your primary stats. So a low-level character potentially deals 300 damage while others hit for 18000 damage.

Heck, with wandering monsters that will eventually show up on the overworld map, we might actually be able to see which areas are more on your level before entering the nearby scenes... assuming they do this right.

Give players enough options (remains to be seen), flatten the leveling curve (as they intend to do) and you got yourself a game that doesn't really need level-scaling.

 

Again with the black/white fallacy. Why?

Also I'm a bit baffled about that you have now changed the goalpost from a good DM, to trying to speak generically "as a DM you don't know" etc.
Equally baffled that, sure you think that killing off characters should only be consensual, but expressing that as some generic rule for RPGs is a very limiting view on the variety of how to play RPGs.

And a bit mindblown that you'd think playing through the events of a Moria campain would be something bad in your view only based on one player voluntarily sacrificing themself.

I'm a bit curious now, are you one of those that think that Game of Thrones is rubbish because it kills of major characters?

???
Uhm, no. The thesis of your argument was that a good DM has to fudge. Where you have no evidence or argument beyond circular to back that up.
Where my argument was that fudging isn't a defining parameter for what makes a good DM.

The monster strength is irrelevant unless you want the players to fight the monster. If the DM must decrease the danger all the time to keep the players alive then that DM hasn't set the scenario properly.

I obviously did though, since I explained that there are other play styles and that you cannot make claims on how other players like to RPG. You are still claiming that a good DM spawn monsters of appropriate level, when there are numerous examples of players who don't want that and numerous examples of good DMs and campains that don't. Risk and Reward and all of that.

Exploring should be fun, yes. But your way of decreasing the risk and decreasing the fear of the unknown isn't as fun to those who want that. Day Z is/was popular due to the fear of the unknown.
In the Ultima Series of old, exploration was fun, precisely because of the fear of the unknown, or the avoidance of a monster you knew was too dangerous but you still managed to sneak around it to see what was beyond.
Part of the allure of Treasure Maps in UO was the danger.

Agreed that in a game a badly designed scene/encounter can make you want to skip something entirely.
But that is the thing though, a good scene design prevents the need for level scaling.
So I'd prefer better scene design any day over having to resort to level scaling since I personally see that as trying to cover up lazy design and thus less fun.

However that wasn't the example here. In Forgotten Realms you could hear rumors of monster X in the mountains, and know that we are not good enough to defeat X yet. But make a map so that you could return when one could.
Such returning things create epic storylines for those of us who enjoy that.

In SotA after levelling up a bit I always try out the next level scene, and retreat and leave if it proves difficult. But after training some more when I return and actually manage it with a slim margin is a grand feeling of accomplishment, more so than the numbers on the char chiming that I got another skill level.

It was you who brought up D&D. In D&D the grind of XP and leveling is part of what made that game so popular.
You can't really have a D&D positive example, without it being known that a bit of grind is a part of the xp/leveling system.

The difference between a system where the grind feels rewarding and where it feels boring is a fine one, and is very dependent on the player's preferences. Some players like a bit of grind every now and then to relax, others hate it with a passion.

 

Level 500 characters should never exist. They're an abomination against nature.

 

I've never played a D&D campaign where I was watching my numbers, anxiously waiting to see when my XP went up to gain me a skill or level, or when killing monsters for XP was just about passively hitting waves of them over and over and watching them fall, while never having to act defensively. That's what grinding is, as far as I'm concerned.

Doing quests fighting and driving back orcs because you can't do a dragon quest yet, though, is not grinding.

Anyway, I have played campaigns where characters died or almost died, because the DM didn't fudge things when there was a run of bad luck. But luckily, that's why healers exist in the world.

 

All games try to give players a sense of achievement to keep them engaged. This is typically done through some kind of progression mechanic, such as levelling up. It worries me that if autoscaling is introduced, there will no longer be any meaningful sense of progression. The player will not have that sense of achievement that comes with having finally reached a high enough level to tackle a particularly difficult monster, for example. Every encounter will seem like every other encounter, and there will be no currently impossible goals to strive for. Maybe there is a way that it can be implemented that allows a true sense of progression, but I'm sceptical.

Given the previous elimination of their subscription model, the fact that ESO has implemented it seems to me to be more a sign of desperation on their part than any kind of valid endorsement.

 

I think Game of Thrones is rubbish because it's pacing is atrociously slow. I was barely able to stay interested for the first episode (it took me 2 attempts to watch it) and I, therefore, never bothered to watch the rest of it. I never cared for the "it gets better" argument.

The Moria campaign example only works if the player volunteers. Since you don't know if that'll actually happen (no one wants their character to die unless they actually want to RP a death), you risk killing the entire group with your stupid Balrog.

Stay baffled as you are, what the hell do I care? I wouldn't want you as a DM, that's for sure.

But the DM does set the scenario, right? So DM does take player level into account... why the hell are you still arguing against that?

... As a DM, when your players are having a bad streak, do you not go easy on them? I'll give the benefit of the doubt that you do. How do you achieve that in a video game? Oh right, you get to respawn instead. That's magical! Lets make character death not matter!

You obviously didn't. I merely stated a standard to how good a DM should be, not how players may or may not enjoy whatever DM they happen to have.

You just admitted a few paragraphs ago that DMs set scenarios... and that there's such a thing as "not setting scenarios properly"... so...

Who said anything about "reducing fear of the unknown"? I certainly didn't.

Removing cheap deaths by not instant-killing your players for exploring does not reduce any sense of danger from any encounters. All it does is empower them with choice.

So what if I brought up D&D? What does that have to do with the fact that grinding is a horrible way to extend a campaign?

Let me rephrase it for you: If you HAVE to grind in an RPG, you're doing it wrong.

I don't trust any level developer to fully replace a DM... so unless the combat doesn't rely too much on arbitrary numbers, there needs a way to prevent players from experiencing cheap deaths if they decide to go off the beaten path.

Level-scaling is not supposed to be a replacement to a good level designer; it's not so much a "cover up" but as a safety net. Lazy design is lazy design regardless of systems in place.

 

He's not. A good DM doesn't set out to kill players.. but they shouldn't necessarily protect the player from doing stupid things that could get them killed either. If I was your DM and you decided you jump across that impassible chasm.. I'm not going to just say "ok you made it" when you fail the die role and fall to your death. I could only tell you it's too far to jump.. if you jump anyway there's only so much I can do. Monsters are no different. Dangers can be a challenge or a deterrent. There is a reason for both to exist.

No world should be so convenient that nothing can kill the player. Especially their own lack of good judgement.

 

Hey! We're getting somewhere. Now do that in a video game and make sure that every player clearly sees and understands the dangers so that their deaths is undoubtedly their fault and not some stupid design.

The only problem I find with these arguments is that you guys are quick to assume that the player(s) did something stupid or rash to warrant their deaths... never seem to stop to wonder if there's a problem with the area or (as a DM) your own campaign. I'm reading all of your posts on the matter (including @Spoon 's) and none suggests the contrary.
"If they die in the video game, I didn't have that problem so it's obviously not the level design that's off, it's the player who went crazy and charged blindly."
"The DM doesn't project the players from doing stupid things"

What about the stuff that isn't stupid? Again, using the words "Obvious" and "clues" in the same sentence is a big "no no".

So why risk putting a Balrog in your campaign, then? Unless you control the Balrog to specifically frighten the players and not actually go out to kill them unless they ask for it, it's a really, really bad idea.

In video game format, the level designer isn't there to manually control the monster. In most games these days, higher level monsters actually aggro from further away which makes the situation even worse.

You need a way for the players to identify the threat and have the ability to get away before getting turned into goo.

 

Global level scaling seems logical for a D&D campaign to keep it challenging because it is centered around a party of adventurers, and that seems logical for SotA too now that I think about it again.

So as far as level scaling is concerned for SotA online mode, it seems reasonable to level scale for certain zones, or at least level scale based upon that zone with some sort of maximum. To keep certian dungeons and caverns and such challenging for the group or individual this really might need to be implemented. Also there is a need for level scaling, for example deep ravenswood is a good example of a place where we can go to level up or gain XP for our XP pool etc. The higher the level we are the more we will have need of zones like that, with a high spawn rate and challenging waves of opponents.

Although I don't think every zone needs to scale to the same difficulty, as we already have a skull rating, they probably scale within that rating with a minimum and a maximum. Although I do have to admit to keep the game interesting and challenging there needs to be some kind of level scaling at work. Also since skills have a diminishing return ultimately level scaling will probably have some sort of diminishing return as well or a cap for scaling (that is still a challenge but reflects the diminishing returns of our skills), and if a player is level 150 or so maybe they don't really need as much challenge as a level 70 player, at some point the scaling should cap off while remaining challenging it should become a bit more managable for a 150 level player than a level 70. It doesn't make sense that a lone level 150 player would be attacked by 50 spiders and 25 skelleton archers considering the character's power increases less noticeable the higher the character level.

Hmm. Maybe level scaling is necessary for SotA.

Then Possibly episode 2 content could have a higher scale cap since characters will already be higher level and there might be new skills to add to our toolbox of skills. Which could be incentive for players to buy episode two sooner rather than holding off. not just for the content but for the challenge. Although SotA is supposed to be a game where the most powerful character is like an olympian not a god. So even then I wonder how much more difficult should it really get. Whatever is challenging ought to remain challenging, and we really shouldn't have Godlike characters by episode 5, but still have a way to progress. I guess that is for another thread, but I suppose in later releases they could have different XP pools for alternative skill sets... ??? or whatever.

 

If every time you enter a given scene it always seems to be the same difficulty as the last time, where is the sense of progression? If things don't get easier as you level up, then why are you levelling up? If I'm not achieving anything, why am I even playing the game?

 

There are already tiers of scenes. 1 skull to level 5 skull.

So let there also be tiers within the scene too that ultimately max out too, but XP should scale a bit with this.

The point is to keep it challenging, but if there is a scale of some kind it can scale in numbers or in the level of the actual foes resulting in somewhat greater reward for surviving (XP and/or loot).

*********

So if you travel with a party level scaling could be quite useful for determining the power/reward of the oppoents.

Although perhaps the level scaling ahould be different for certain zones. Dungeons and special points of interest might have say 10 tiers of difficulty(even if it has a 3skull rating perhaps it could scale ao that more experienced advenrers stil find it challenging later on .... this creates more end game content too since you can revisit it) whereas a normal forest, or normal mountain area might only have 1 tier of difficulty so that you can gather easier at higher levels.

The onjy places that truly need to scale are the places people gather wealth, special resources, and places that are meant to be challenging and replay able.

Do we really want to only go to one of 3 locations once we are level 100? Or would we like to be able to revisit some of the old points of interest as well?

We feel the level gain when we gather resources or treasure than we did at lower level. The adventurer needs to be challenged but not killed everywhere and get more loot, the gatherer needs to be able to gather with less concerns from local beasts as they get more powerful. PvP zones already level scale if you think about it. Players gain XP and get more diverse and more powerful, and that will be the threat at these zones with the added danger of plants and elemetals attacking and rooting you.

***also if a party goes into a dungeon and it level scales, then the likelihood of a good treasure drop should also increase as well. Parties blow through stuff faster anyway and they already have a leveling advantage over other players, maybe their advantage could change a bit while still allowing for both leveling and increased percent chance to aquire a good reward or even resources in some places.

The goal seems to be to make more places worth returning to. Ultimately with 1 to 5 skull zones and a set number of levels to scale each place can be different.... yet still a 5 skull location will have a minimum level to be able to go there but some of those 5 skulls can scale more than other level 5s.

Perhaps the scale can increase for players that have moved on to episode 2 or 3 content so that the old content has more reason to be revisited again by vets too. Unlike wow SotA isn't a game of exponentially more powerful gear and levels. So potentially all the expansions add more content not just a new place to go. The world gets bigger and we travel back to old places... good for local business people too. Would suck if all they players leave and never return to your once thriving business.

 

To play the devil's advocate on this: combat shouldn't be the only obstacle.

As to the question as to why leveling up seems like such an important aspect of RPGs, I think it's primarily the cause of all of issues we find with the genre, so you tell me.

With a combat system that uses skills that improve as we use them, why do we level up at all? It's redundant.

 

Human psychology. Players want to see progression. One powerful way to demonstrate progression is the ability to defeat monsters that previously caused one to run in fear.
If the difficulty of enemies is automatically scaled to the player then how is the player supposed to see that change?

 

And this can only be achieved through martial prowess?

By scaling it off from a "loot-table". What I'm about to tell you isn't about how SotA should be, but how level-scaling normally works when it's done well.

Imagine if caves had the following monsters:

• Rat (level 1-3)
• Bat (level 2-4)
• Goblin (level 5)
• Bandit (level 4-8)
• Bandit Archer (6-9)
• Lich (level 10)

Your game has a bunch of different caves and you can go in any of them in any order, but regardless of the order:

• If you go in a cave at character level 1, you only get rats.
• At level 2, the next cave you explore you'll still find rats but you'll also get bats until level 4 where rats no longer spawn but caves will start to get populated by bandits instead.
• At level 5, you get goblins and bandits.
• At level 6, you get bandits and bandit archers until level 8 where you only get archers.
• At level 10, you get a lich.

Now, image if your game would save the "loot-table" the first time you got inside a cave, meaning that the next time you visit the same cave, you get the same monsters you used to get. So at level 10, if you go to back to the very first cave you've explored, you'd get rats. Easily dispatch-able rats.

Level-scaling, player progression, player freedom.

 

In my neighborhood, it was "Horse Patootie".

 

Horse Patootie is valid, but Horse Hockey preceded it....

 

Well, I am 70 and remember my dad saying "Horse Potatoes". In fact I seldom get through a game of golf without using that phrase to this day. Where does this stuff come from?

 

OK. Sorry, last post on this.... Been trying to remember further back. My grandfather used to say "Horse feathers" instead of cussing.