|
Your donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Games » General RPG » Open World Difficulty Difficulties

Default Open World Difficulty Difficulties

August 28th, 2015, 19:07
One of the tricky things with open world games is keeping the player challenged. If you want players to be able to go more-or-less where they want then you have to keep the initial challenges low in every direction. The player will pick a direction and go - seeing bigger challenges as they gain power and learn what they're doing. Unless Oxameter is playing your game, though, they'll eventually turn around. Now they are facing enemies that aren't getting stronger and might even be getting weaker as the player advances. Boredom sets in fast.

So what do you do to keep the player challenged? Level scaling to keep the player challenged? Or do you do nothing so the player can get a sense of just how much stronger they've gotten?

This has been on my mind a lot lately as games in the past 10 years seem to start out hard then get easier and easier as they go on. Several of those are pretty linear and have no excuse but I'm not real sure what to do with open world games because, while your game isn't linear, progression sure is.
Zloth is offline

Zloth

Zloth's Avatar
I smell a… wumpus!?

#1

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7,637
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)

Default 

August 28th, 2015, 19:13
No to levelscaling.

Cut off XP from endless respawns, in fact cut neverdying trashmobs design completely and there you have your challenge.
--
Toka Koka
joxer is offline

joxer

joxer's Avatar
The Smoker
Original Sin 1 & 2 Donor

#2

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 23,468
Mentioned: 230 Post(s)

Default 

August 28th, 2015, 19:18
Zloth, you might want to check out Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul and mods like Nehrim, etc.

Basically, the areas around the roads are safe, but they get much more dangerous the deeper off the path you go. This includes dungeons featuring stronger enemies, stronger roaming monsters and more.

Level scaling is not needed. However, I also don't believe that an open-world game means the gamer is entitled to go *anywhere* they want at any time. There should be natural barriers in the form of stronger enemies that lock off parts of the world, similar to the Gothic games and old-school RPGs like that.

But yeah, check those mods I mentioned and see how they do it. They manage to pull off open-worlds that are challenging for a long time.

Deleted User

Guest

#3

Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)

Default 

August 29th, 2015, 04:10
Originally Posted by joxer View Post
No to levelscaling.

Cut off XP from endless respawns, in fact cut neverdying trashmobs design completely and there you have your challenge.
That helps a little in that you don't have to wade through the same critters if you re-trace your steps. Still, though, you need to have a lot more area devoted to low level players than the player will actually use.

Risen 3 is a fine example. They set it up so you can go to any island first. Whichever island you pick first, you'll find a good challenge. Whichever island you pick second, though, will probably be a bit on the easy side. The third will be too easy for sure. The fourth… well… it's a good thing they had well written quests and interesting scenery.

Actually, I had to push the difficulty up to get any challenge at all once I got my first spells. In effect, I implemented my own level scaling! It would have been great if the second island I went to was populated with somewhat stronger enemies, the third even stronger, and so on. Unfortunately, that would also mean PB would have to populate/balance each island at least five times each!


Originally Posted by Fluent View Post
Basically, the areas around the roads are safe, but they get much more dangerous the deeper off the path you go. This includes dungeons featuring stronger enemies, stronger roaming monsters and more.
Skyrim did something similar. Dragons can hit you anywhere but basically higher altitudes meant higher difficulty. It also had some level scaling but nothing like Oblivion's.

Level scaling is not needed. However, I also don't believe that an open-world game means the gamer is entitled to go *anywhere* they want at any time. There should be natural barriers in the form of stronger enemies that lock off parts of the world, similar to the Gothic games and old-school RPGs like that.
Barriers help but, as long as the player has choices, the problem remains. If you remove the choice then the world isn't open anymore. You just replaced the walls with impossible monsters.

But yeah, check those mods I mentioned and see how they do it. They manage to pull off open-worlds that are challenging for a long time.
Thanks, but I threw Oblivion away with lots of other game disks years ago. {The things were filling up my closet!} I'm just looking for general ideas. Bethesda games have had to deal with this a lot but the problem goes way, way back. I think the first time it really annoyed me was Knights of the Old Republic where we got a choice of the order to tackle 3 planets. All were balanced so you could do any of them first - and thus the third one you did was stupidly easy.
Zloth is offline

Zloth

Zloth's Avatar
I smell a… wumpus!?

#4

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7,637
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)

Default 

August 29th, 2015, 13:10
If you want to make an open world game where the player is not limited in regards to where he/she can go on the overworld (outside of a few specific areas), then yes, it's a very tricky question indeed.

One idea would be to have the enemy power increase with time rather than player level, to represent the fact that the bad guys are not just sitting on their thumbs, but actually are growing their forces, and the players action can help slow this down. This is my no means a perfect system, as it means that it's entirely possible for a slow player to shaft itself horribly, and it also means that the player can't just go about mindlessly exploring (things can be done to alleviate this, like for an example there being enemy camps around the map, and doing something about them will decrease their power), but it might at least offer an interesting gameplay experience in a game where it makes thematic sense.

Another option is to take a hybrid approach. Keep most of the combat away from the "overworld", and let it scale slightly, but keep scaling away from quests, thus forcing the player to move between quest lines, as they ramp up in difficulty far faster than the player gets stronger. This would require a lot of fine tuning for it to actually work.

And yet another option would be to not have the player get more "powerful", but rather giving the player more options with leveling up. You unlock new combat moves, as well as non-combat skills (lockpcking, crafting, social skills) with experience, and in theory no combat skill will be better than the other. While you'll still get a bit more powerful (as giving you more options will also increase the chance of you having the right "tool" for any given situation), but it won't be as bad as in say Baldur's Gate, where you get a huge statistical advantage over earlier enemies later on. This system does not give you the satisfaction of being able to just stomp all over the enemies that gave you trouble early on, but at least it means that no area will become a pushover.
Fnord is offline

Fnord

Fnord's Avatar
SasqWatch

#5

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 1,756
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)

Default 

August 29th, 2015, 13:30
Level scaling is something that, even if it's done, should be handled very "lightly"…at some point it starts to break the experience, especially with games that are focused on immersion. I would not have problem with it in Kingdoms of Amalur…game was already cartoonish in design and not something to be taken seriously…in Gothics, it would be a sacrilege.
It would be better to work with some kind of lower enemy "spawn script" according to your level…again done with moderation.
Weapons and equipment should scale slower…Two worlds II handled this very poorly, as after a few hours you could find something that was five times more powerful.
I think it ties, not only into encounter/enemy design but also basic combat system. Dark Souls handled this very well…even if you're entirely focused on stamina build, you have to pay attention to your every action, as the game punishes any recklessness on your end, no matter how overlevelled you are or your equipment.
I've tried "Combat Enhanced" for the Witcher, that does something similar and it makes a huge difference in how you play the game, in comparison with mods that simply scale enemies to or above Geralt's level.
BoboTheMighty is offline

BoboTheMighty

BoboTheMighty's Avatar
SasqWatch

#6

Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Croatia
Posts: 3,900
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)

Default 

August 29th, 2015, 14:02
Originally Posted by Zloth View Post
Risen 3 is a fine example.

Skyrim did something similar.
Actually Risen 3 is not a fine example as you can clear any island you go first (thanks to pistol abuse). Gothic would be a fine example.

Skyrim is a pure garbage when it comes to it and is a horrible level scaling design (although not nearly as bad as Oblivion had):



What I'm saying is this. A game that deserves to be called challenging cannot contain any type of grinding. Floscules of type "but a player doesn't have to grind" does not change the fact that those games in the end are too easy to make through even for a newborn baby.
--
Toka Koka
joxer is offline

joxer

joxer's Avatar
The Smoker
Original Sin 1 & 2 Donor

#7

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 23,468
Mentioned: 230 Post(s)
+1:

Default 

August 29th, 2015, 14:10
I like how Gothic 3 handled it. No levelscaling, no respawn, and yet you still might meet your untimely death behind every corner well into the game.
--
Exitus acta probat.
wiretripped is offline

wiretripped

wiretripped's Avatar
Machiavellian
RPGWatch Donor
Original Sin 1 & 2 Donor

#8

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Leuven, BE
Posts: 2,285
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
+1:

Default 

August 29th, 2015, 14:15
Originally Posted by wiretripped View Post
I like how Gothic 3 handled it. No levelscaling, no respawn, and yet you still might meet your untimely death behind every corner well into the game.
Sadly the game was released in unfinished state so desert dingos (or whatever shackals or wolves I forgot) were respawning endlessly.
I'm pretty sure the actual plan was not to let it happen - Gothic games were designed not to let you pump up your level at one place so you can sweep the floor with anything you stumble upon after it.

Gothic games base design was a great approach. The world has certain types of mobs when you start the game. But when you get to the next chapter, new mobs, harder mobs, appear. They don't appear from the thin air before you progress with the story and their numbers are not infinite. The world is never empty, once killed mobs - never return, and you still have a challenging game.
--
Toka Koka
joxer is offline

joxer

joxer's Avatar
The Smoker
Original Sin 1 & 2 Donor

#9

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 23,468
Mentioned: 230 Post(s)

Default 

August 29th, 2015, 15:54
Originally Posted by joxer View Post
Sadly the game was released in unfinished state so desert dingos (or whatever shackals or wolves I forgot) were respawning endlessly.
I'm pretty sure the actual plan was not to let it happen - Gothic games were designed not to let you pump up your level at one place so you can sweep the floor with anything you stumble upon after it.
That's long been fixed by the community patch though. Actually, come to think of it, I think they did mention there's respawn, but only of a very, very limited kind, and only low lvl enemies. Mostly to not make the world seem too empty and for immersion reasons.
--
Exitus acta probat.
wiretripped is offline

wiretripped

wiretripped's Avatar
Machiavellian
RPGWatch Donor
Original Sin 1 & 2 Donor

#10

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Leuven, BE
Posts: 2,285
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)

Default 

August 29th, 2015, 21:40
So Fnord has time scaling and Joxer has story scaling.

I can't remember Gothic 3 well enough to remember it's system. That was about a decade ago, wasn't it?

MMO's have that 'gray level' solution. If you're too high above an enemy's level then they won't attack you and you won't get anything for attacking them. That's a bit silly for stupid animals but it does make sense for the more intelligent stuff - word of your deadly abilities has spread and they don't want any part of you now. It would be kinda fun to have orcs running at the sight of your mighty character!
Zloth is offline

Zloth

Zloth's Avatar
I smell a… wumpus!?

#11

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7,637
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)

Default 

August 29th, 2015, 21:53
You mean MMORPGs.
MOBAs have no such thing built in.
--
Toka Koka
joxer is offline

joxer

joxer's Avatar
The Smoker
Original Sin 1 & 2 Donor

#12

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 23,468
Mentioned: 230 Post(s)

Default 

August 30th, 2015, 08:59
Originally Posted by Zloth View Post
So Fnord has time scaling and Joxer has story scaling.
Well, I figured that we already had story scaling with games such as Gothic, and most more linear games. Story scaling does come with its set of issues. It either punishes the player for advancing too fast through the story and not doing enough side-quests, as monsters will out-scale the player quickly, or it ends up scaling too slowly compared to the player if the player is doing most or all sidequests. It works well for Gothic 1 & 2, as they are rather "gated" in their approach (and it's questionable if they really can be counted as "true" open world games due to this).

And it just dawned on me that there is one game out there that does time-scaling. Fallout 1. It does not do it to the full extent of what I was talking about, but it does have a level of time-scaling, where certain areas will be populated by more powerful enemies if you wait too long (like Necropolis, which from the start of the game mainly has ghouls, but later on the Super Mutants muscles in and takes over).
Fnord is offline

Fnord

Fnord's Avatar
SasqWatch

#13

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 1,756
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)

Default 

August 30th, 2015, 13:33
In a world governed by tastes and likes, the question has no relevancy.

The OP reads an unsustainable point:
Now they are facing enemies that aren't getting stronger and might even be getting weaker as the player advances. Boredom sets in fast.
Players play for that moment: they want to start weak and grow into an unchallenged power in the gameworld.
Withdrawing that from them hurts their fun.
The end goal is certainly not boring to them.

The challenge question or even the difficulty question should only be dealt with when players are set in a coercive environment (like monetized competition)
That is because it leads players to surrender their tastes and adopt means to solve a situation whether they like them or not.

There are often several ways to achieve things and when players choose means by their tastes, it is not possible to answer the challenge question.

Is driving nails in a soft wood plank, using a nail challenging? There are plain ways to do it. When people do not like those ways to do and choose others they like, the question cant be answered.
--
Backlog:0
ChienAboyeur is offline

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch

#14

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,265
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)

Default 

August 30th, 2015, 20:29
Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur View Post
Players play for that moment: they want to start weak and grow into an unchallenged power in the gameworld.
Withdrawing that from them hurts their fun.
The end goal is certainly not boring to them.
In the end, maybe, but you've got to fill up 40+ hours getting them there.
Zloth is offline

Zloth

Zloth's Avatar
I smell a… wumpus!?

#15

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7,637
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)

Default 

August 30th, 2015, 22:23
Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur View Post
Players play for that moment: they want to start weak and grow into an unchallenged power in the gameworld.
Withdrawing that from them hurts their fun.
The end goal is certainly not boring to them.
That would depend a lot on the player. I for one do not enjoy it when I become an unstoppable killing machine and the game stops challenging me. I do enjoy it when I can get revenge on an enemy type that gave me trouble early on, but I always want to have another challenge waiting for me just around the corner. And this means that I often have to cripple myself in open world games (something that I don't enjoy doing either, but it's the lesser of two evils) for there to be much of a challenge later on.
Fnord is offline

Fnord

Fnord's Avatar
SasqWatch

#16

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 1,756
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)

Default 

August 31st, 2015, 00:35
Linear, Linear with sidequests, Open Worlds separated by chapters, Fully Open World, Sandbox.

Here are the five main options available. Though Linear could be chaptered, it doesn't really matter whether it is or not. Sandbox can't be chaptered.

The most ideal way to 'solve' the Open World 'problem' (if you believe it to be a problem and you desperately hate Linear or Sandbox) as a developer is to create Chaptered Open Worlds. Chapter 1 for levels 1-5, Chapter 2 for levels 6-9, Chapter 3 for levels 10-12, Chapter 4 for levels 13-14, Chapter 5 for level 15.

That way you are constantly on a rollercoaster of hard to easy and back to hard again, all the time governed by your own pace while still enabling suitable end-game power without it becoming too apparent too soon.

You can speed-level, but only to the chapter's barrier, the steamrolling of left-over sidecontent providing little to no XP, but just fun to explore for the sake of it.

By this method you are free to approach the game however you wish without sacrificing gameplay. The only argument against it is the irrational idea that this somehow makes the game more linear, which is crazy, because all games have some form of border unless they perpetually generate random (read crappy) copy-paste dungeons. If you imagine it as 5 games in one, it suddenly all makes sense.
lackblogger is offline

lackblogger

lackblogger's Avatar
SasqWatch

#17

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,353
Mentioned: 91 Post(s)

Default 

August 31st, 2015, 09:32
So what do you do to keep the player challenged? Level scaling to keep the player challenged? Or do you do nothing so the player can get a sense of just how much stronger they've gotten?
I would start out by making a challenging game in the first place. That's really where most of the modern games fail, in my opinion.

Just about the only way modern games manage to challenge the player is through combat - and that's not even that common anymore. It seems all developers can come up with is increasing hit points and damage.

To me, that's just sad.

I think challenges are very interesting - and I think the key to any engaging experience in a game is an appropriate incentive for investment.

As in, if you - as a player - expect to be rewarded, you should expect to be challenged accordingly.

One thing I think we could stand to do away with is the traditional approach to levels and progression. That would also do away with the entire level scaling disease we've been seeing these past 10-15 years.

Make the core experience challenging, and that includes persuading NPCs, evading traps, solving puzzles, figuring out quests, finding secrets, and - naturally - just the basic combat system.

For combat, the way to evolve challenge throughout a game is not, in my opinion, by increasing hit points and damage - but by changing AI behavior and the arsenal available to enemies.

Character progression should be more about expanding your arsenal than giving you ever bigger swords. Sure, loot is important - but I don't think it's very interesting to go steadily from butter knife to lightsaber of death. Don't make it a predictable numerical path of power. Inspire the player to find a style of combat that he likes, and then let weapons have a variety of attributes that can truly be felt - like speed, weight, length and so on. Sort of like what they do in Dark Souls - but expanded even more.

I think the traditional power curve is kinda boring, even when it's done well. I don't think the player himself should be such a passive part of the equation, such as is the case in so many traditional CRPGs. In a traditional CRPG, the player just sits there waiting for his character to build up power through leveling - and eventually, even the least committed player will be able to defeat the toughest enemies, because that's what the stats say.

I'd like challenges to engage me as a player and reward me for my investment, and I'd like combat to be merely one avenue of challenge, among many others - and I'd like most combat to be optional.

Does any of that make sense?

DArtagnan

Guest

#18

Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)

Default 

September 1st, 2015, 05:42
Originally Posted by lackblogger View Post
The most ideal way to 'solve' the Open World 'problem' (if you believe it to be a problem and you desperately hate Linear or Sandbox) as a developer is to create Chaptered Open Worlds. Chapter 1 for levels 1-5, Chapter 2 for levels 6-9, Chapter 3 for levels 10-12, Chapter 4 for levels 13-14, Chapter 5 for level 15.
That makes sense to me. It's new so people would need some sort of loud warning or you'll have forums full of "I played for 2 hours and didn't get one xp" screaming but it seems like it would work well. In the next chapter the region could have stronger monsters or it could be pacified - perhaps even have a village starting up.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Make the core experience challenging, and that includes persuading NPCs, evading traps, solving puzzles, figuring out quests, finding secrets, and - naturally - just the basic combat system.
Well, that's great for you and me, but what those poor folks out there with under 120 IQ? I guess some of these could be made easier if set on lower difficulties but it sure won't be as easy as letting the enemies do 20% more damage.

For combat, the way to evolve challenge throughout a game is not, in my opinion, by increasing hit points and damage - but by changing AI behavior and the arsenal available to enemies.
Yeah - strange that isn't done more. Strategy games do it often. Maybe because the AIs often are less than impressive to start with so making them act dumber on easy difficulties would be downright unrealistic?

When my character power increases, I want to see diversification. Sure, making my lightning bolt do more damage is nice, but I would also like to "learn" the spell well enough that I can fork my lightning and hit two enemies for half damage. Obviously, like a lot of these solutions, it means a lot more development time and testing.
Zloth is offline

Zloth

Zloth's Avatar
I smell a… wumpus!?

#19

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7,637
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)

Default 

September 1st, 2015, 07:42
Well, that's great for you and me, but what those poor folks out there with under 120 IQ? I guess some of these could be made easier if set on lower difficulties but it sure won't be as easy as letting the enemies do 20% more damage.
I know you're not fully serious, but still…

I don't really buy that it has to do with above average intelligence. I don't consider myself intelligent because I play sophisticated and challenging games, anymore than I would consider a car mechanic intelligent because he can fix cars and I can't.

Generally, what it takes to overcome a challenge is investment. Investment is based on interest, and that's where we set ourselves apart from mainstream gamers.

But I'm not talking about how to make the ideal mainstream game, I'm talking about how to make games WORTH the investment. I actually think more people from the mainstream would play sophisticated games if developers made them worth the investment.

But that's not what modern developers are doing, they're making games require minimal investment. Now, that's not to say they're making worthless games - they just don't go much beyond the expected minimum. Well, most don't.

That's the core problem I'm trying to point out.

Obviously, the reason we have that problem is that it's much, much harder to create a game worth investing in - than it is to create a game that doesn't require much of an investment, beyond the time it takes to play it.

Yeah - strange that isn't done more. Strategy games do it often. Maybe because the AIs often are less than impressive to start with so making them act dumber on easy difficulties would be downright unrealistic?
I wish it was strange, but I'm afraid it's simply because it's so much harder to develop a sophisticated AI than it is to simply up the numbers.

When my character power increases, I want to see diversification. Sure, making my lightning bolt do more damage is nice, but I would also like to "learn" the spell well enough that I can fork my lightning and hit two enemies for half damage. Obviously, like a lot of these solutions, it means a lot more development time and testing.
Indeed, it's a lot of hard work - but that's the case with all great games

DArtagnan

Guest

#20

Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)

Tags
easy, game design, hard, open world
RPGWatch Forums » Games » General RPG » Open World Difficulty Difficulties

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:46.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by DragonByte Security (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2022 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2022 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright by RPGWatch