Gothic 3 will not ENTIRELY be scaling.

[St. Toxic]

How about just remove levels and skills eh, and make it a Rune type of game, getting by only on actual opponent difficulty? Because that's what scaling does to a game.

 

[Atrokkus]

Hey Toxy, what brings you to our humble dwelling?

 

[St. Toxic]

I don't know anymore.

 

[Jason]

The excitement of moderating "Fallout 3 and the Future" must've lost it's glory.

 

[Crichton]

How about just remove levels and skills eh, and make it a Rune type of game, getting by only on actual opponent difficulty? Because that's what scaling does to a game.

If scaling actually did that, it would be perfect, but it only goes about halfway. In oblivious, monsters/animals scale at a faster rate than humanoids, leading to distortion over time and not all the skills scale nicely with level so after a while things flatten out for a lot of character types because they hit a peak before they're done leveling (in oblivious, hand-to-hand characters max out their skill and don't get weapon upgrades to keep improving). Naturally the monsters keep improving anyway because their damage isn't based on weapons or skills.

I've maintained for some time that character progression is an enemy of gameplay, but so many people enjoy it for its own sake that there seems to be no hope of it going away, whole genres of games have developed just to provide level progression (MMOs, diablo, dungeon siege).

 

[St. Toxic]

If scaling actually did that, it would be perfect.

No, it'd be retarded. If you have skills and levels they need to be of some use, which scaling has a way of crippling, and if you don't have skills or levels, you have no need for scaling.

In oblivious, monsters/animals scale at a faster rate than humanoids.

No, they scale by your level rate, and I personally gained 15 levels on speechcraft alone ( I coarsed people out of their dinners ), something that didn't add to my overall combat ability.

I've maintained for some time that character progression is an enemy of gameplay

I don't see how.

but so many people enjoy it for its own sake that there seems to be no hope of it going away, whole genres of games have developed just to provide level progression (MMOs, diablo, dungeon siege).

Don't forget the early arcade era mungo, with all the highscore mumbo jumbo. You need some kind of reward for playing through a game, and that's that.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

How about just remove levels and skills eh, and make it a Rune type of game, getting by only on actual opponent difficulty? Because that's what scaling does to a game.

No, that's what Oblivion style scaling does to a game. Scaling can be used in many ways, it can have limits, be used on only a subset of enemies (and loot) follow various mathematical models, can work through mod stat change or mod replacement etc. It's a very versatile concept, and in most games people don't even notice it (see the NWN example above). If used well, it can help to fine-tune gameplay, simulating what a good DM does. Only if you level (almost) everything, as Oblivion does what you say becomes true. Case in point: all the Oblivion mods that effectively eliminate that problem from the game still make extensive use of leveling - they merely change the way it works.

 

[St. Toxic]

Fine, level scaling is what deals the killing blow to skills and levels. But en all scaling is just one of those things I'll never get. Loot is what an opponent carries, which has nothing to do with anything tweakable, unless you're playing one of those randomly generated dungeoncrawlers in which case I fully endorse mindrape like adjusting loot in accordance to general idiocy. The level of a "boss" ( oh god ) shouldn't be altered in an rpg containing even a hint of side-quests, because one of the good things with side quests is that they prepare your character for encounters of that type, alas making it easier. If you have no chance of surviving a boss encounter at your level because all you did was run around and punch people in the throat, you're basicly playing a worthless game -- with what, like, Final Fantasy combat? Turn based, real-time, whatever; you may be in for hell but you're never in for impossible. I'm not Mr PnP, but I guess the point of tweaking stuff there is because you don't have any real control of your character beyond command -> roll dice -> hope you get lucky, which is not the case in crpgs.

 

[Crichton]

No, it'd be retarded. If you have skills and levels they need to be of some use, which scaling has a way of crippling, and if you don't have skills or levels, you have no need for scaling.

The use of levels can spread out exposure to the content (like allowing access to higher level spells as the game progresses) the same way other genres do (an FPS doesn't hand out all the weapons at the beginning).

Quote:
In oblivious, monsters/animals scale at a faster rate than humanoids.


No, they scale by your level rate, and I personally gained 15 levels on speechcraft alone ( I coarsed people out of their dinners ), something that didn't add to my overall combat ability.

But over the course of those 15 levels, your humanoid enemies gained ~15 levels of combat ability, what would you estimate the animals gained going from wolves to timber wolves to mountain lions? 20? 25? By the end game my fist-fighter was more than a match for any humanoid but hopeless against bears, the animals were gaining power faster, hence scaling faster.

Quote:
I've maintained for some time that character progression is an enemy of gameplay


I don't see how.

In addition to all the balance issues it introduces (game designers have to account not only for different types of character but different scales of character), it presents a constant easy-out solution to any problem, go kill some rats and get a stronger/faster/smarter/better character.

Don't forget the early arcade era mungo, with all the highscore mumbo jumbo. You need some kind of reward for playing through a game, and that's that.

Why? The most popular games out there are sports games and FPSs that don't "reward" the player since they're mostly played as one-off levels. If the game is worth spending $50 bucks on, shouldn't the gameplay be its own reward? If it isn't, how many people that don't post on RPGcodex or play MMOs get a chubby knowing that they have a level X character?

 

[Azarkon]

Shit, how long would it take you to figure out that the CARROT STICK OF PROGRESSION *is* part of the gameplay for RPGs, Crichton?

Yes, there's a fuckload of people who enjoy FPS and Sports Games. Guess what, there's also a fuckload of people who DON'T (esp. in Asia). There's no such thing as universal entertainment. Different strokes for different folks in different moods. I'll fire up UT2004 or CS when I feel like pwning some noobs. I'll load up WoW when I want to revel in how powerful my character is and become even stronger hurhurhur.

Believe it or not, there are many people out there who DON'T want games to be based on player skill, but who want to feel they're getting better through the course of a game. Character-based progression provide that feeling, and therefore they exist, and always will in one form or another.

 

[St. Toxic]

The use of levels can spread out exposure to the content (like allowing access to higher level spells as the game progresses) the same way other genres do (an FPS doesn't hand out all the weapons at the beginning).

A generic afps, truly it doesn't. However, neither do rpg's -- so there's your content exposure.

But over the course of those 15 levels, your humanoid enemies gained ~15 levels of combat ability, what would you estimate the animals gained going from wolves to timber wolves to mountain lions? 20? 25? By the end game my fist-fighter was more than a match for any humanoid but hopeless against bears, the animals were gaining power faster, hence scaling faster.

That's what I said.

In addition to all the balance issues it introduces (game designers have to account not only for different types of character but different scales of character), it presents a constant easy-out solution to any problem, go kill some rats and get a stronger/faster/smarter/better character.

It's up to the player wether he wishes to spend his time on killing for exp, questing for exp or just following the main quest line. It's not a faulty game mechanic if it's presented as a choice. As for balance, there's simply the issue of shaping every quest and encounter with a "minimum 'scale' to complete" tag in mind.

Why? The most popular games out there are sports games and FPSs that don't "reward" the player since they're mostly played as one-off levels.

You're talking about games that feature a clear opponent distinction, and beating that opponent is the main reward. These are also games often equipped with end-game statistics, showing what a marvellous player you've been. The whole "most popular" spin is also quite the funkmaster, G, especially since The Sims is quite über popular and features no playing reward whatsoever (you should have mentioned it, just to stump me see), unless uploading your statistics on the net is something to gobble over. Sims was extremely boring for me, as I don't have that "play with dolls sandbox" gene that some seem to have, and it's popularity hardly makes me reconsider -- if anything it gives me the right to point and laugh at the general population.

If the game is worth spending $50 bucks on, shouldn't the gameplay be its own reward?

I've yet to see a pure gameplay oriented 50 greens company chugger, buster, and I probably never will. You pay for quality, and quality eats up gameplay like a hungry pacman -- it's "the new era" motto or something. We have the old arcades, some nes/snes/gens platformers (evendoh they always featured a slight of character progression) and a couple of old/free pc-games. Keep in mind, no game with a real story can have gameplay as the reward, no game with length can have gameplay as the reward -- what you're asking for would force any game into simplicity.

If it isn't, how many people that don't post on RPGcodex or play MMOs get a chubby knowing that they have a level X character?

Why do you even ask? Too many, obviously.

I'll load up WoW when I want to revel in how powerful my character is and become even stronger hurhurhur.

Marvellous. I wonder, if when the dream comes crushing down, all the hours spent to fuel your alter ego will be paid back to you in tears.

 

[Azarkon]

Not a night passes by when I am not forced awake from tears streaming down my face for the 250 days worth of sweet hours lost over the course of six years on Everquest. The midnight streets are filled with my anguished howls echoing across the void of indifferent time, waking sleeping beasts and men alike to the misery of their meaningless, wasted lives. :wink: