Scaling in RPGs (...Dragon Age)

[abharsair]

Except... if you didn't bother much with sidequests and just pursued the main story -- as I did in my first playthrough -- the late and endgame were balanced more or less OK. I did my second playthrough siding with the Mercs, did all the sidequests I could find, and ended up swatting dragons like flies. I haven't even tried a mage build on it.

In my case it was the other way around. During my first run I did every side quest and played a mercenary and it was too easy, second time around I didn't do everything and played a mage and it was still too easy.

Exactly -- but in a game with lots of optional content with rewards (XP and phat lewt), you *will* become all-powerful if you go through it, if the main quest is balanced for someone who, say, only goes through a half of the optional content.

Sure, if the optional content is readily accessible from the beginning on, if the main story has no influence on the optional content (and maybe even vice versa), if the optional content hands out experience and "phat lewt" indiscriminately, and if the main story can be safely ignored for a long time, then yes, your scenario is quite accurate. But to me that's not an open world, it's a mess.

Ah, so you don't actually object to level scaling at all -- but merely to the indirect effects it may have on the game designer's psyche, in that it encourages laziness and otherwise poor design?

OK, I guess, but IMO that's a bit of a convoluted argument.

On the contrary. I do object to level-scaling on the basis that it makes in my opinion character development more or less moot, and since I stated that in my previous posts already, I thought I wouldn't repeat myself and add instead a new argument.

 

[Prime Junta]

It sounds like you've convinced yourself that DA's level-scaling as described by David is justified?

Perhaps if DA level-scales in isolated spots, intelligently and carefully like BG2, it could be OK. Otherwise, it could really suck.

Let me put it this way: BioWare hasn't done cack-handed level-scaling before (in fact, when they've erred, it's been on the side of not enough balancing, such as in NWN OC or BG2 early game, rather than too much), so I'd be surprised (not to mention disappointed) if they started now. So while I'm not strictly speaking *convinced* of this, yes, it is my default assumption that they won't screw up something as fundamental as this.

 

[Prime Junta]

In my case it was the other way around. During my first run I did every side quest and played a mercenary and it was too easy, second time around I didn't do everything and played a mage and it was still too easy.

Perhaps the game was balanced for a fighter siding with the Paladins and only doing a part of the sidequests, then.

Sure, if the optional content is readily accessible from the beginning on, if the main story has no influence on the optional content (and maybe even vice versa), if the optional content hands out experience and "phat lewt" indiscriminately, and if the main story can be safely ignored for a long time, then yes, your scenario is quite accurate. But to me that's not an open world, it's a mess.

That's a quite a lot of hedging right there. What you're describing is a very specific type of game structure: something not unlike Baldur's Gate 2, as a matter of fact: more like a hub-and-spoke design with the spokes opening up over the course of the game rather than a genuinely open-world design, and each set of spokes small enough not to cause the character to get unbalanced as s/he goes through them.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that level scaling isn't needed for that specific type of game. However, it's far from the only way to build a (pseudo-) open world cRPG -- and IMO not even the most interesting one.

On the contrary. I do object to level-scaling on the basis that it makes in my opinion character development more or less moot, and since I stated that in my previous posts already, I thought I wouldn't repeat myself and add instead a new argument.

And I've pointed out that your argument is fallacious, because it only applies to games where level-scaling is done so poorly that it has this effect. It's like you're objecting to salt because it's possible to ruin a dish by putting in too much.

 

[Thrasher]

Well considering Bioware's fall from the quality of gameplay in BG2 to more recent releases, it's reasonable to be concerned.

 

[Prime Junta]

True, but IMO their failures lie elsewhere. What I'm most concerned about in DA is that it seems terribly derivative and clichéd, and going by the scenes they've shown, the dialog (both writing and voice acting) is awful to the point of being embarrassing.

In a nutshell, I'm optimistic about the mechanics of the game; about the content, not so much.

 

[abharsair]

And I've pointed out that your argument is fallacious, because it only applies to games where level-scaling is done so poorly that it has this effect. It's like you're objecting to salt because it's possible to ruin a dish by putting in too much.

Yes, but what if all the dishes which used salt tasted horrible so far?

OK, so we had Oblivion and I think most of us can agree that it did level-scaling really badly. Then we had BG2 which apparently had some level-scaling, but I would still like to know to which extent, and if the main story was actually affected by it.

So what other games are there with a non-intrusive and working level-scaling for more than just random encounters? I honestly don't know, so maybe someone can come up with a couple of good examples.

 

[Prime Junta]

What about the ones that would have tasted really good with a bit more salt?

 

[Thrasher]

I don't agree. The gameplay has steadily gone downhill for me since BG2.

 

[Prime Junta]

I don't agree. The gameplay has steadily gone downhill for me since BG2.

That's a matter of opinion, and one that I don't (entirely) share.

BG2 was very much a mixed bag gameplay-wise in my opinion; the early game was either unbelievably bad or really good, depending on which order you took the quests -- the big flaw in it was that the game gave entirely the wrong hints about the order, nudging you towards the toughest ones early on, while leaving the easy ones for you to discover on your own, rather than the other way around as it should have been. It's also an enormously poorly balanced game; there are a zillion ways to make a squib, at least one way to make a character that's so powerful that it's not even funny, and a handful of genuinely playable builds. I can't really fault BG2 as such for it, though, because most of these flaws are inherent in the AD&D system.

At its best, though, BG2 *was* very very good. But terribly uneven.

From a purely gameplay POV, I liked KOTOR and Jade Empire, although the latter clearly represented a new direction for BW. I hated NWN OC and SoU; HotU on the other hand was rather good (again, purely gameplay-wise -- as a ROLE playing game it was pretty thin, being pretty much the ultimate dungeon crawl and nothing else).

I haven't played BG. I do have it, though, but I find the early game so tedious that I can't put up with it; I'm entirely willing to believe that it picks up a bit after that -- it took me at least a dozen attempts to get through the first dozen hours of BG2, and that most certainly did pick up from there on out.

Mass Effect was a letdown, in most ways. IMO it only really picked up during the last quarter of the game, and it was deeply flawed in many respects -- the loot and inventory system, the repetitive, tedious sidequests, the poor class differentiation.

KOTOR is IMO the all-around best BioWare game so far; it's balanced, relatively well written, there's plenty of room for character differentiation, the intra-party dynamics are pretty cool, and it's broad and long enough to feel "big" without becoming a lifestyle. It doesn't, perhaps, rise to quite the dizziest heights of gameplay in Baldur's Gate 2, but then again it doesn't have any of its near-crippling flaws either.

So, from where I'm at, there's no steady downward trend to be seen. Instead, there's a sequence of uneven games, with the later ones usually avoiding the mistakes of the earlier ones, but sometimes making new ones. I don't particularly like the direction they've taken with Jade Empire and Mass Effect, but that's another matter. BioWare games are competently made, if (usually) somewhat unimaginative and a bit staid.

 

[Dusk]

I can't really fault BG2 as such for it, though, because most of these flaws are inherent in the AD&D system.

Personally, I don't like to be mastering "epic" level of AD&D sessions...taking it into account, I have to admit BGII did quite a good job.

 

[Thrasher]

I saw no "crippling" flaws in BG II, but then I picked a good balanced party the first time around.

On the other hand, I found KoTOR shallow and simplistic dumbed down gameplay.

i'd rather a game presents a challenge rather being boringly "balanced".

 

[JDR13]

On the other hand, I found KoTOR shallow and simplistic dumbed down gameplay.

I'd have to agree. In fact, I actually think it's one of Bioware's *worst* games, at least it was for me.

 

[Dusk]

I saw no "crippling" flaws in BG II, but then I picked a good balanced party the first time around.

On the other hand, I found KoTOR shallow and simplistic dumbed down gameplay.

i'd rather a game presents a challenge rather being boringly "balanced".

I believe that's where the "spiritual successor" thing comes in.

There are four difficulty level in DA: Casual < Normal < Hard < Nightmare. The hard is recommended for old players since BG series and you still got Nitmare level. Check out for Georg Zoeller's posts in this thread at the official boards.

"Normal" difficulty I think. I don't see anyone who hasn't played at least several hours of the game beating that particular battle on hard.

The dutch article confirms they played on 'medium', which is 'normal' difficulty.

Casual < Normal < Hard < Nightmare.

Just in case you don't know, here is a link to Dragon Age Central, a convenient site for checking comments of the designers.

 

[Prime Junta]

I saw no "crippling" flaws in BG II, but then I picked a good balanced party the first time around.

I said *near* crippling. They obviously weren't crippling, since I eventually was drawn into the game and came to greatly appreciate its strengths.

How did you know in which order to do the quests? I've DM'ed D&D campaigns for over twenty years; I know the system inside and out, so my problem wasn't building an effective character or a balanced party -- my problem was that the game shepherded me to the Copper Coronet, where I was handed quests that were way too hard for a low-level party. I repeatedly banged my head against them, before I figured out that I actually had to sneak into the back room and talk to some completely random people to get my first low-level quest, and then induct Yoshimo (whose skills I really didn't need) to get another one; from there on out, things started to unwind.

On the other hand, I found KoTOR shallow and simplistic dumbed down gameplay.

Yes, many people seem to feel this way. I honestly can't see why, though, but that's probably just me. Perhaps some people just are willing to ignore certain glaring flaws if a game has certain special strengths, while I have a lower tolerance for flaws and lower expectations of great heights?

i'd rather a game presents a challenge rather being boringly "balanced".

And, once again, you present this as a binary choice with no middle ground -- it's either Oblivion or Baldur's Gate, with nothing in between.

 

[Prime Junta]

Personally, I don't like to be mastering "epic" level of AD&D sessions...taking it into account, I have to admit BGII did quite a good job.

Yes, as I said, many of the problems are inherent in AD&D -- the monk class is way overpowered, as is the Blade bard kit; the dual-classing rules are completely stupid from a suspension of disbelief POV *and* they amount to an exploit rather than a gameplay element (because of the way the XP requirements go up geometrically, which makes it possible to trade off, like, one wizard level for, what, ten Kensai levels, for example.) Conversely, multiclassing is artificially crippled.

AD&D is really a god-awful RPG system -- I was insanely happy when 3.0 came out (and terribly let down when 4.0 did).

 

[txa1265]

Let me put it this way: BioWare hasn't done cack-handed level-scaling before (in fact, when they've erred, it's been on the side of not enough balancing, such as in NWN OC or BG2 early game, rather than too much), so I'd be surprised (not to mention disappointed) if they started now. So while I'm not strictly speaking *convinced* of this, yes, it is my default assumption that they won't screw up something as fundamental as this.

That is my basic assumption.

 

[Maylander]

Yes, as I said, many of the problems are inherent in AD&D -- the monk class is way overpowered, as is the Blade bard kit; the dual-classing rules are completely stupid from a suspension of disbelief POV *and* they amount to an exploit rather than a gameplay element (because of the way the XP requirements go up geometrically, which makes it possible to trade off, like, one wizard level for, what, ten Kensai levels, for example.) Conversely, multiclassing is artificially crippled.

AD&D is really a god-awful RPG system -- I was insanely happy when 3.0 came out (and terribly let down when 4.0 did).

Let's not forget Summon Planetar, Timestop, 11 Kensai (or 9 if I recall correctly) -> Mage dual class, Mage/Fighter multiclass, and so on and so forth. BG2 is far from well balanced. A single Sorcerer would be able to annihilate a small army of Fighters or similar. Sure, it makes sense for a high level Sorcerer to be able to do that, but that doesn't mean it's well balanced.

While I enjoyed the combat in BG2 (and still do - I replay it several times every year), I hardly think it's the "pinnacle of combat simulators".

Also, I want to add a little something to the discussion about BG2 scaling. The scaling is quite simple:
Player level X: Pack consists of mobs Y, Z
Player level Y: Pack consists of improved versions

A few example:
Ghouls/Mummies - Player level 10: Pack consists of Ghouls and Mummies
Ghouls/Mummies - Player level 15: Pack consists of Greater Ghouls (hasted) and Greater Mummies (redicilously nasty disease)

Big, undead pack - Player level 10: Pack consists of Ghouls, Skeleton Warriors and Mummies
Big, undead pack - Player level 15: Pack consists of Greater Ghouls, Skeleton Warriors with arrows (slightly different model as well) and Greater Mummies
Big, undead pack - Player level 20: Pack consists of Greater Ghouls, Skeleton Warriors with arrows (slightly different model as well), Greater Mummies and a Lich. Yes, a Lich.

Golem pack - Player level 10: Pack consists of stone and clay golems
Golem pack - Player level 15: Pack is identical + 1 Iron Golem
Golem pack - Player level 20: Iron golem is replaced by an Adamantite Golem

Werewolves, Shades, etc all have similar scaling.

This is used almost everywhere in BG2. Firkraags dungeon, sewers, cult of the eyeless, the asylum, you name it. It's all over the place. The easiest way to notice this is to make a Throne of Bhaal character, then import him/her to Shadows of Amn. You'll now be so high level you'll always meet the most dangerous packs.

I don't mind this kind of scaling. Yes, it makes things harder depending on your level, but at least you *feel* as if you're killing something dangerous (it's a LICH, not the same damn GOBLIN you killed 15 levels ago).

I certainly wouldn't mind this kind of scaling in DA.

 

[GothicGothicness]

Absolutely! Level scaling in Oblivion is done absolutely horribly, it ruins the game for anyone other than casuals. But then there are lots of pretty god-awful design choices in Oblivion, starting with the way it's possible to become master of all guilds and boss of all factions, regardless of their relations with each other.

I had one example from Oblivion, however if you kept reading, I have the other problems with level scaling which are general. Futhermore BG2 is hardly a good example, I would hardly say it is a sand-box game in the style of Oblivion, where you could do anything at any time, it is split into chapters and parts open up depending on which chapter you are on, making it far more easy to level scale than oblivion.

No matter what you do, you get stuck with the same problem sooner or later, if you have the same hand chosen monsters at the same place, you would end up fighting the same monsters in the same place and near enough to your level, which is still generic and boring, it also breaks the immersion, why should monsters automatically become stronger without doing anything just because a player levels ???. The alternative is that it is very easy to complete an area when you are high level which is also rather boring.

I see my alternative as far more interesting even if it might create balancing or other problems, and especially it would give the player the feeling that I can't stay and play with apples for 2 entire days while the world is in danger ( and nothing happens ) , since things are always happening now.

Pros of my system:
Unpredictable
A lot of variety
Great replayability
Sense of a living world

Cons
Unbalanced
Hard to implment

Level scaling:
"Pros"
The game remain challanging always. ( sometimes it is fun to feel powerful , and many players like it, so easy is not always = bad )

Cons
"Dead world"
predictable
The same every time
You get used to fighting "generic monster A" with generic level difference X

I know you could add "random" elements to the level scaling but it would hardly make it as interessing as my system.

As far as dragon age go, I am not looking forward to fight "generic Ogre A" which is within level range +/- 3 levels of me for the 1000 time. ( I certainly hope it would not be like this, but I have my fears )

 

[Dusk]

Yes, as I said, many of the problems are inherent in AD&D -- the monk class is way overpowered, as is the Blade bard kit; the dual-classing rules are completely stupid from a suspension of disbelief POV *and* they amount to an exploit rather than a gameplay element (because of the way the XP requirements go up geometrically, which makes it possible to trade off, like, one wizard level for, what, ten Kensai levels, for example.) Conversely, multiclassing is artificially crippled.

Even if you call AD&D 2nd ed., it makes a considerable difference depending on how many books you refer to. There are quite a lot of AD&D books which Bioware seem to have used to implement into BGII and, somehow, I don't believe that it is done genuinely with balance in mind. I see there was considerable geeky enthusiasm in it. Although they could have only used core rule books and have adjusted the balance within them, they used even supplemental books. Monk was not included in the core rule of AD&D and kits are from supplemental books, for example. That said, considering the number of the references they used, I think they did a decent job. Offering Dual Class option, which is obviously to justify "badass" NPCs, to PCs are not a wise move in terms of balance but I guess it's one of their ways of lip servicing to likely minded geeky gamers. You must know that D&D fan base has been a nest of Munchkinism. In a way, BGII symbolizes a kind of "Golden Era" for players with such taste.

As for my personal preference, even as a player, I almost instinctively don't go as far as exploiting the rules except that I composed a party which can deal with various threats. To be honest, D&D is not my favorite rule sets but it doesn't mean that I have no good memories about it and BG series reminded me of such memories. Related with this, personally, I like BG better than BGII since it contains more feel of PnP RPG.

 

[Thrasher]

@PJ

I usually never follow the prescribed path in RPGs, so that's why I didn't have the problems you did. It also means that I have a history of breaking badly made linear games that assume you follow the obvious path...

Kotor was simplistic and dumbed down because it didn't really matter too much what skills you picked, or how you did combat, you could always win. There were few real threats and risks. Tactics and strategy were mostly missing... Nice story, weak gameplay.

Boringly balanced applies to KotOR as well as Oblivion. But at least Oblivion had the free-roaming exploration element and more interesting combat that KoTOR was missing...