Larian Studios Forums Divinity - Original Sin Divinity Original Sin - Beta Game is to hard!

There is no hard cap beyond the fact that there is a limit to how much XP is available, but not everyone will reach the same level - because not everyone is going to trigger every possible XP opportunity before solving the game. Thus you are going to have people reaching the end of Divinity : OS with characters who are different levels.

Since we keep referring to Oblivion/Skryim, I'll let this author explain it for me. Save myself some typing for a change:

Skyrim's Latest Expansion Reminds Us Why Level Scaling Works

Now that Skyrim's Dragonborn DLC is with us, at least on Xbox 360, a classic Elder Scrolls debate is sure to rage anew: Should serious RPG fans be annoyed about "level scaling?"

It's frequently argued that level scaling is a black mark on the RPG genre. The whole point of leveling up is to make your character more powerful, and if all the enemies get more powerful too, you've gained nothing. And it doesn't help that the Elder Scrolls series hasn't always featured the best implementation of this concept. Notoriously, in Oblivion, high-level characters would face ragtag bands of raiders who were wearing rare, top-notch gear.

However, in some cases there is no alternative to level scaling—and if it's implemented properly, it dramatically improves the RPG experience. If anything, more games should use it.

Let's start by looking at Skyrim expansions. For these, Bethesda has very few options. It could steal a page from the MMO playbook, setting a higher level cap and adding content for players who have reached the previous one. The problem with this, however, is that it gives nothing to players who haven't capped out their characters yet—sure, many gamers played Skyrim to death, but many more finished the game long before they reached the cap, and they won't play an expansion if they have to grind to reach the fresh content. Scaling to level is the perfect solution: All players experience a healthy challenge with the new content, regardless of how much leveling they did with the old stuff.

Just as important, level scaling helps smooth out the rough edges of RPGs that give their players choices. Scaling isn't necessary for a linear RPG like Final Fantasy XIII, but when players have side quests and branching paths to choose from, different players will encounter the same content at different levels. Level scaling ensures that players will enjoy the game no matter what path they take through it. In many RPGs, players who methodically do all the side quests find the game getting too easy, a problem that could be solved with some minor level scaling.

This advantage to level scaling is especially pronounced in a game as open-ended as Skyrim or Borderlands. In these titles, you can encounter the same content not just at slightly different levels, but at utterly different eras in your time with the game. Without level scaling, any time you fail to take a quest when you're at the appropriate level, you're basically saying goodbye to that quest forever—soon, it will become comically easy. In the original Borderlands, I found it was pointless to take missions I had missed previously because the enemies did practically no damage.

Still another advantage to level scaling is that it cuts down on “grinding”—the practice of killing enemies at random just for the purpose of getting your level up. Sometimes an RPG needs to hold the line, insisting that some content is for high-level players only. But other times it’s appropriate to give lower-level characters a break and let them play.

Of course, it's easy to do level scaling poorly. Its critics have a point when they say RPG progression ought to mean something. You should get more powerful relative to your enemies as you play, and players who do all the side quests should have an easier time than players who rush through the main quests. Level scaling should never completely erase these gains, just mitigate them enough to make the game playable. And, as I've already mentioned, level scaling should never look absurd—random criminals attacking you on the street should not be as powerful as an elite warrior.

Also, Bethesda made the right decision by cutting off the level scaling at a certain point in Skyrim. Once you become extremely powerful, there probably should be some low-level quests that you can run through effortlessly. And of course, if you're too weak for an area, you ought to get slaughtered if you wander in. There’s so much to do in Skyrim that you never have to grind to get your level up—you just have to keep playing.

All in all, though, level scaling deserves wider implementation. Any RPG with a rich collection of side quests can benefit from evening out the challenge a bit. The RPG genre is famous for giving players plenty of options, and when players have different routes they can take through the content, there needs to be a way to ensure that all these routes will be enjoyable.

Level scaling is the perfect approach. So long as it's handled properly, it enables RPG developers to make huge games with non-linear stories without frustrating their players. That's something we should all want.

I just want to touch on this particular point by saying that while people did pledge based on a pitch and video demonstration of a particular game, they also did so with the knowledge that player feedback could be implemented. That means some aspects of the game could shift in a direction you may not personally like.

In this case, that didn't happen. I'm just explaining why the "people pledged based on blah blah" defense doesn't really work in kickstarter/early access games. Having backed several games, some of which have done complete 180's on me, I'm all too familiar with that unfortunate possibility.

I believe that level scaling goes against the design philosophy Larian is using for D:OS. Even if that's not true, it definitely would count as a major "new feature" and "beta = no new features", so I can't see it happening no matter how many words are spent.

That really depends why it's implemented, which can mean the difference between a feature and a "fix" or "solution" to a problem.

Yes, I agree with you that players' feedback can and should change the game (like it was with the new dungeon in Cyseal). However, there are core elements of the game which are defining features and these systems should not change: if for example the game is advertised as turn-based and developers suddenly decide to make it real time without pause then it would be a very bad turn on their backers. If this actually happens then I am pretty sure that many players will not trust the developer anymore and won't back their next project.

The no-respawn design is Larian's philosophy (I think Swen mentioned it on every possible occasion in his blog, during Kickstarter and here or on steam forums). So, I guess if suddenly the game would be designed around respawns and xp grinding, a high percentage of Larian's fanbase would be very upset. As Stabbey has also mentioned, I believe that also level scaling is against Larian's design philosophy (at least judging from their previous games).

There is no problem.

Also to your first post on this thread;
Pretty sure they stated there's a levelcap.

And let me ask you, honestly, what you believe is more likely for Divinity: Original Sin knowing what type of game it is;
* Some completely standalone piece of content that can be fit anywhere since it has no relation to the main game.
* A continuation of the storyline, which probably holds half-a-dozen spoilers in the first five minutes and makes no sense at all to play until you completed the game.

Thats pretty much the issue, if you're like me, and you do every last quest but you ALSO want a challenge in the fights... well not going to work, I'll be generally overlevelled (funnest part was doing the fire guys in the church area at lvl 5... me and my friend took a long time but managed it (enchanter CC op) but still it was fun... Now we're wildly overlevelled for other stuff but hey

Removing fixed levels, adding level scaling system = major mechanics change.

You seem to believe that I am unaware of how scaling in Skyrim, and more generally in the industry works. This is obviously not the case, and given that I posted a specific example of where scaling went wrong (Legends of Amalur) other than Oblivion, leads us to the following:

#1 - I've played Oblivion, Legends of Amalur, Ultima IV-VIII and so forth, something you manifestly have not, and yet you continue to assume a higher level of knowledge

#2 - your arrogance / lack of good faith in engaging in conversation is at a high threshold

#3 - I've modded many RPG / ARPGs, including Morrowind / Oblivion / Torchlight I/II and so on.


For reference, the concept of static / dynamic scaling (your dungeon example) was introduced in Fallout 3, and they are named Encounter Zones:

Encounter Zone

Encounter Zones group cells, worldspaces, and individual references into similarly leveled encounter areas.
Zone Level

The Zone Level is a value calculated the first time the player loads any of the Encounter Zone's cells. It is stored permanently on the Encounter Zone and is never recalculated. If the player returns to the zone after gaining several levels, the zone's level remains the same as when he first visited.

Leveled Lists use the calculated Zone Level, which is based on the player's level and the Encounter Zone Minimum Level. If the player's level is above the zone's, only a percentage of the player's level is used. The fLevelScalingMult gamesetting controls the amount.

Encounter Zones can be viewed, modified, and created from the Encounter Zone Dialog, found in the main toolbar under World>Encounter Zones. Cells are added to Encounter Zones individually from their Interior Data tab, found from the main toolbar under World>Cells.

http://geck.bethsoft.com/index.php/Encounter_Zone


Given you asked a nonsensical question regarding MOD creation & levels, there's a technical page from Bethesda's Fallout 3 G.E.C.K, showing you how it's done in their engine. Special snowflake, if you're asking about modding & wondering about level scaling, the answer is: learn to use the kit provided.



Hint: if you really want to know why Skyrim breaks, here's the Armor / Damage reduction graph for Skyrim (vanilla):

Damage Taken %



Armor Reduction & Effectiveness






Skyrim's armor system is messed up so that effective HP barely increases so little from 0 to 300 worn AR that even mediocre +health enchantments are more effective, skyrockets between 301 and 567 worn AR, and then falls off completely

http://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/topic/481577-skyrims-armor-system-is-broken/


Still think you know why you were one-shotting dragons? Methinks not.

Damage Cap: there is no damage cap in Skyrim.
Armor Cap: there is a cap to 80% of total damage at 567 armor

e.g. If a player does 1,000 damage, the maximum a player / creature can reduce this to is 200. If the player does 10,000 this is 2,000.

[edit]

On checking, monsters apparently do not have a native getav damageresist #, however the difficulty setting applies a damage reduction % to the player:

Difficulty Player Damage Dealt Player Damage Taken
Novice 2x 0.5x
Apprentice 1.5x 0.75x
Adept 1x 1x
Expert 0.75x 1.5x
Master 0.5x 2x
Legendary 0.25x 3x

So on legendary difficulty, we can count the monsters as ~almost~ hitting AR cap % reduction. This is important because this penalty applies to all monsters, thus rendering the higher threat dragons as more difficult to lower DPS characters.

[edit over]

This produces a massive issue with HP totals:

Dragon - Level - HP - Player level # add to lists

Basic - 10 - 950 - 0

Blood - 20 - 1421 - 18

Frost - 30 - 1860 - 27

Elder - 40 - 2255 - 36

Ancient - 50 - 3565 - 45

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Dragon

In 40 levels, there is only an increase of 2615 HP, and fixed HP amounts are used whereas the DPS of the character (non-magic as magic damage is also broken, a different subject) follows this:



http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Weapons

The use of multipliers (*) produces large numbers, even without enchanting. Players can expect to hit ~300-600 with an 'endgame' (100 skill / perks / daedric) build as early as level 25. As this is on a curve, it should be obvious that attacking a level 10 dragon [950 HP] when your DPS is 40 will take longer than if your DPS is 250 attacking a level 40 dragon [3565 HP].


What do all these numbers mean?

They mean that the player's DPS is never capped, and while the player enjoys a massive % damage reduction between 301-567 AR, the monsters never receive anything but the difficulty modifier and their HP is a fixed total. Monsters don't seemingly have varying AR levels [barring humanoids, potentially], which further penalizes lower level DPS outputs with regards to HP totals. i.e. a 25% damage reduction on a DPS of 40 vrs HP 950 dragon has much more impact than on a DPS of 500 vrs 3565.

Again, the difficulty setting applies a flat x3 damage bonus to all monsters which again is effected as a % by AR. Thus, capping your 80% AR reduction will benefit the player that much more.

This means a player playing on legendary difficulty hits a point where the DPS of mobs is quickly reducing as their AR improves, at the same time as their DPS increases outscale the fixed HP of said mobs, who gain HP at fixed intervals.

Thus the AR / DPS mechanics break Skyrim, not the level scaling.


As I stated a post or two ago:




You might understand my previous comments now. Here's hoping. I'm also 100% sure I understand the mechanics of Skyrim's scaling, and I'm also fairly sure you that you do not, other than in a "hey, I read this opinion piece in a gaming magazine, so I'll block quote it".



and...


/thread


The reason for this is that a scaling system simply cannot work in D:OS with the current mechanics, thus rendering this entire thread pointless.




p.s. If you're going to block quote some random fluff gaming article, at least provide a link. Common courtesy to the person you're ripping off.

SteamUser - very insightful and interesting (to me personally) article! But I agree with Stabbey (and you) that this thread is just going to keep going, and going, and going, with no real relevance to the D:OS beta. Gyson apparently likes level-scaling MMOs; I prefer Larian-style non-scaling RPGs; life goes on. Back to the beta!

Randomly, I'm reminded of the two rather pervy chaps I encountered in the mine tower in Ego Draconis many levels before I should've done. That was annoying, and I almost threw my computer out the window in irritation, but it was such a sense of achievement when I eventually pwned them. It was quite disappointing when DKS put them off-limits until I was supposed to find them.

That would've never happened with PC level offset, which is ultimately just an anticlimax.

What you've just dumped is (in regards to this discussion) a large load of pointless data that attempts to steer people away from the very simple truth of why dragons in Skyrim can be unchallenging: ~70% of the time they are below your character's level, as (unlike other parts of Skyrim) their level is largely fixed rather than scaled in the traditional sense.

You see.. your entire theory makes huge assumptions about my character's level, my build, my gear, settings, etc. At one point you even implied I abused problems with enchantments and/or crafting when in reality I've disclosed absolutely no information to you about any of this. But, by all means, feel free to keep fishing and making wild assumptions - whatever you have to do to avoid admitting the underlying problem, right? All you're doing now is spamming the thread with articles and charts from other sources in some ridiculous attempt to boost your credibility - a method anyone can employ. And before you accuse me of doing something similar - I dumped an article *directly related to the discussion*.



Also, if you're /threading 4+ times during a conversation, you're probably using it wrong. Rather than typing /thread repeatedly, you should just try typing something relevant and accurate. Because that might actually help wrap up a discussion rather than create a situation where someone has to point out your errors. Just a suggestion.

And I'm reminded of the time when I was playing Game-X and reached the much hyped Encounter-Y, only for it to turn out to be a completely disappointing cakewalk because my opponents were so far in level below me.

And, honestly, I'm not trying to be sarcastic with "Game-X" and "Encounter-Y" labels.. it's just that it's happens so often that I wouldn't even know where to begin when picking an example. It's just that common, far more common than the scenario you described, and is becoming more so as developers create an increasing number of games that err on the side of being too easy.




No, not in the sense you're thinking. There's just a finite amount of XP opportunities.

LOL - give it up already, kids; you both have the last word, and you both win.



Ha, I also remember feeling like that in Divinity II - it's all about that satisfying "sense of achievement" for me as well. Good times - at least since I restrained myself from actually chucking the computer .



That's good - I was thinking there was a hard level cap for some reason, but apparently it's just a soft "cap" the player will reach after all XP opportunities are exhausted in the game. As I mentioned elsewhere, I can't stand actual max level caps, at least when the player hits them before all main/optional game content is explored. I want my party to be able to keep developing and earning/experimenting with new skills/abilities/strategies throughout the game, not 2/3 of the way through. Not to knock Spiderweb here (the old Exiles and Avernums - especially Avernum 3! - are some seriously addictive classic RPG goodness), but when Jeff Vogel switched to this hard level cap garbage in Avadon (with 10+ hours of the game still left to play after hitting the cap), he lost a longtime fan. Yeah, yeah, I know why devs use these - to enforce "balance" by ensuring every player is at the exact same level at the end boss - but that's just lazy game design. I need freedom and variety, or it ain't an RPG.

OK, now I need to take my own advice - level scaling isn't happening in D:OS, and neither are hard level caps, so why keep yammering on about it? Peace!

"unlike the other parts of Skyrim"

ALL monsters in Skyrim follow the dragon system of set level bumps, which you have erroneously imagined is not the case

For example, Falmer's level bumps are: 9, 15, 22, 30, 38, 48.

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Monsters

There is no dynamic, constant = to character's level like you imagine, as I explained with the link to G.E.C.K where Encounter Zones set the level ranges of mobs (see? there's a reason for everything I type).

In addition, all leveled enemies are generated more like leveled creatures in Fallout. For example, Bandit NPCs are always a fixed level for their name (Bandits are level 1, Bandit Thugs are level 9, Bandit Highwaymen are level 14, etc). The player's level affects the range of possible bandit types generated within a bandit dungeon, and probably the frequency, but does not seem to affect the resulting stats except in a few rare cases. Lower variant bandits remain reasonably common even when more dangerous bandits are available.

Enemy types also seem to reach a plateau where they stop getting stronger. The strongest bandits (non-boss) are mid-20s. The strongest generic vampire is 54, and guards seem to stop scaling at 50. This implies that the difficulty of many areas will not increase beyond certain levels, except perhaps in frequency of difficult encounters. In other words, dungeons have a level range, where if you do not meet the level requirement, you will face the lowest range of the dungeon. For instance, if a dungeon is ranged from level 15 to 25, and you are level 10, you will face creatures in the dungeon scaled at level 15.

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim%3aLeveling#Effects_of_Leveling

The reason for this:


Skyrim, unlike D:OS, does not have level caps on attributes. Indeed, unlike D:OS, it doesn't even have XP in a traditional sense. You can be level 50 and not be able to wield a sword due to the manner in which stat bumps = level. e.g. if you level stealth, crafting and other skills incorrectly, you can have a non-functional combat char. You can also, unlike D:OS, grind out those skills on the lowest level enemies in the game or without even killing enemies. For instance, you can level block by surrounding yourself with rats and going /afk, or level magic by casting a spell into thin air or make potions without involving yourself in dragon killing.


Level XP

The formula for character leveling is as follows:

Character XP gained = Skill level acquired * fXPPerSkillRank

Skyrim Game Setting variable: fXPPerSkillRank (default =1)

Example: Training Alchemy from 20 to 21 gives 21 Character XP points

XP required to level up your character = (Current level + 3) * 25




http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Leveling



This means that the skills you level and the gear that you acquire determine whether or not that dragon is a challenge, not your actual numerical level. Thus, a purely focused combat character might have an advantage, but in game design this has to be balanced against a median where the other end of the spectrum (a purely stealth / crafting character) is considered. To explain like you're five: given it was highly likely Skyrim would have millions of players, they ran % numbers to get a median HP total which would average out a challenge to the highest # of players.

Which would be fine, if the DPS/AR calcs weren't so broken. (And magic damage calcs, but let's not go there).


Thanks for clearing up the last part of the puzzle: you don't even understand how Skyrim's leveling system works, or how the game is balanced. Thus it is hardly suprising you didn't understand those "irrelevant numbers".

Fifth time lucky, I've run out of patience, as you've proven your own ignorance to my satisfaction. You were right though: there is indeed a lot under the hood of level scaling, as you've so aptly proven you don't understand.



/thread.

Feel free to still give me that half-dozen games list of good scaling games... I'm still waiting, you know.

No, there wont be. It's quite stupid to think a RPG goes gold without AT LEAST (but likely far more) infinite XP-bug. And then, that would be highly stupid.
I don't think Larian is highly stupid.

First of all, I don't think there's a person who played Skyrim that doesn't understand you can obtain levels by advancing skills that have nothing to do with combat (and the risks associated with that). That you believe you're schooling me on this matter is just a huge display of your desperation to appear superior (something you've been trying to do since you stepped foot in this thread), and adding nothing to this discussion.

Second, rather than make more incorrect assumptions (which you've been on a roll with, by the way), you should have simply asked about my characters. I developed them in a very reasonable way, without attempting to game the system or min/max, because I know how easily that can break the balance, and Skyrim was a game I had been seriously looking forward to. And yet in many cases *where level scaling was applied with an extremely light-handed or almost nonexistent touch*, it broke anyway. In sections where level scaling was used more traditionally, it worked fine (for my characters) and allowed for decent challenges.

You can keep tossing charts at this thread and stealing blurbs from resource articles all you want in some insane effort to prove you're a master on this subject, but it doesn't change the fact that you continue to miss the extremely simple concept I've been trying to convey: where level scaling was applied heavily in Skyrim, I found challenge. Where it was applied loosely or not at all, it failed horribly. That you continue to attack me with insults and implications that I don't understand anything is really pretty sad considering your own inability to grasp this crystal clear truth.

But, please, keep looking for something else to blame in regards to the specific balance issues I've been referring to. Maybe you would like to delve into the imbalances of crafting or certain talent trees next. Maybe you want to suggest I enabled the console and modified game settings. I fully expect to see the kitchen sink tossed this way soon.

"unlike the other parts of Skyrim"

ALL monsters in Skyrim follow the dragon system of set level bumps, which you have erroneously imagined is not the case

For example, Falmer's level bumps are: 9, 15, 22, 30, 38, 48.

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Monsters


In addition, all leveled enemies are generated more like leveled creatures in Fallout. For example, Bandit NPCs are always a fixed level for their name (Bandits are level 1, Bandit Thugs are level 9, Bandit Highwaymen are level 14, etc). The player's level affects the range of possible bandit types generated within a bandit dungeon, and probably the frequency, but does not seem to affect the resulting stats except in a few rare cases. Lower variant bandits remain reasonably common even when more dangerous bandits are available.

Enemy types also seem to reach a plateau where they stop getting stronger. The strongest bandits (non-boss) are mid-20s. The strongest generic vampire is 54, and guards seem to stop scaling at 50. This implies that the difficulty of many areas will not increase beyond certain levels, except perhaps in frequency of difficult encounters. In other words, dungeons have a level range, where if you do not meet the level requirement, you will face the lowest range of the dungeon. For instance, if a dungeon is ranged from level 15 to 25, and you are level 10, you will face creatures in the dungeon scaled at level 15.

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim%3aLeveling#Effects_of_Leveling




One of the most important parts of growing up is when to say: "You know what, I was wrong", and leave it alone. Dragons work in exactly the same manner as all other mobs in Skyrim.


Any other misconceptions left?

Just the ones you keep making and have been making from the start. Why are you printing all of that when from the start I said:



Nevermind.. I know precisely why you're printing it: because you want to pretend that it was your position from the very start, when it was actually mine. That's really pathetic.

And, once again, that information you just ripped from some off-site source to use as fodder for your argument does not apply to dragons in Skyrim (which is the creature I have been continually referring to). Dragons in Skyrim have fixed levels.. I explained this in detail pages ago. That you continue to insist otherwise is just ignorance.


Please, heed your own advice.

Yeah, I think we're done here. You've claimed that the rest of Skyrim's monsters don't use the same scaling system as dragons [FALSE] and that the rest of Skyrim scaled a lot better due to this [FALSE] and that issues with Dragons were unique to dragons [FALSE] and that this was because their level scaling was different [FALSE].

You then double-downed and stated I was claiming that Dragons don't have set levels [FALSE] when I'd even typed out the table... of Dragon set levels.


Man, special snowflakes, gotta love them. Or you're a troll. Let us return to what you mis-understood level scaling to be:





No, this isn't what level scaling is at all barring in the most simplest of ARPGs such as Diablo, and the reasons for this are more to do with <level> ranges on the RNG loot generator so that the monkeys pressing their skinner box buttons get sparkly loot that appeals to them. Has nothing to do with challenge in an ARPG setting the monster level = char level. Just... trust me on that one


I have comprehensively shown that Character Level = Monster Level does not equal level scaling, even in a simplified RPG like Skyrim. There's serious hard math under the hood, and it isn't possible (currently) to read a character's stats and dynamically create mobs that scale to an individual character's stats.[1] All RPGs, MMOs, ARPGs use median numbers for very good reasons.


See? The forest man, you missed the forest. You were so up a tree-house you didn't even know the Amazon was burning down around you.



p.s.


You. Still. Don't. Understand. How. Level. Scaling. Works. Or. The. Math.




Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony.



If you want to even start contributing to this topic, I'd suggest reading the G.E.C.K link I provided. Torchlight II uses a very similar method, and I suspect Diablo's is identical. This only works if you have chunks that are either fixed on entry [Fallout 3 / Skyrim[2]] or mobs generated on reload [Diablo, Torchlight II].

HINT: D:OS world map is generated on start, or at the very least, the areas generated are large enough to prevent this from working. To repeat myself (again): D:OS is not an ARPG. The issues with quest / item flags on quicksave reloads should have made you aware of this. Permanent World.

This is why this entire petty crap-shoot has been so frustrating: you. do. not. understand. how. the. game. code. functions. We've not even touched upon <spawners> and the fact that D:OS doesn't use them (I might be wrong, but I'm fairly confident I'm not) ~ and yes, I've coded a fair number of <spawners> in my time.



[1] If you can provide an example of this, you'd be rich. Very rich indeed.
[2] There are mods for Skyrim that change the global spawning level settings to give a greater challenge / more realistic spawning (e.g. 3% chance of ultra-level mobs), but what you have to understand is this: Skyrim spawns mobs on loading a chunk [or similar method, I'm a little rusty] and periodically removes all mobs. Which is why I mentioned Kingdoms of Amalur[3], btw. D:OS, as we've stated about 1,000 times, does not.
[3] See http://amalur.wikia.com/wiki/Area-Level_Cap_and_%22Anti-Overlevelling%22_Guide for issues in large fixed level zones with repeated quests / generated dungeons. Bascially, what KoA & Skyrim do is set a permanent level flag on the <spawners>, which allows the game to repopulate mobs with only a single variable in the <spawner>.