Larian Studios Forums Divinity: Original Sin 2 Divinity - Original Sin 2 - General Open Ended? and a request/plea to Larian.

Congrats. You just turned "grind" (already not fun) to "worthless grind" (since gain will be nullified, even less fun is to be had).
Tell me one... ONE... game that *benefited* from having worthless grind to it.

You know, it's just your opinion on grinding as a mechanic.
Maybe OP likes to grind stuff and he would like to have that in the game. I myself really like grinding. I couldn't say why though, hahaha.

But still, I don't think any form of grinding has it's place in DOS. It doesn't fit the game.

Having stuff to "refill" parts of maps would be great though. If justified correctly. Like the events proposed here.

Level scaling is one of those things that's divisive because it can be done so badly, but other times it works incredibly well. For me, Oblivion was a good example of both: vanilla, out of the box, its level scaling was rather poor: it got to the point where I thought "why am I even bothering?" as the scaled baddies sometimes changed appearance but the challenge was always the same and the rewards eventually became inconsequential.

But the game engine itself offered incredibly flexible level scaling, as some of the overhauls such as OOO demonstrated, and they took a somewhat turgid game and made it incredible. There was actually a challenge, and for the first few levels I daren't venture off Imperial Isle, and then at higher levels I could just swat the more annoying enemies away without them becoming tedious. But there was always a challenge if I went looking for it.

For me, that proved that level scaling can work and can keep a game interesting. But if done badly (or overly cautiously, or whatever) it can also ruin an otherwise good game.

Level scaling and respawning are mechanics that every game can't benefit from. A hack'n'slash, a very open-world game like the ES series, just cry for respawning/level scaling. HnS is all about leveling and gearing, so you need monsters to gain XP and loot. An Elder Scroll game do not force the player into doing the game linearly, so you need level scaling to keep him entertained and [somehow] challenged.

Let's not fool ourselves : DOS1 was a very linear game, even if you COULD take shortcuts with the right character builds. Around me a lot of people complained that they weren't sure where to go when they reached the second map ( yeah, the forest, can't remember the name ), and ended up fighting ennemies 2, 3 if not 4 levels higher than themselves. I can attest to that : that's what happened to us too. We almost got the "cure" to the Deathknight problem before we were even sent to get it. Needless to say, the opposite is also true : content was trivial when we got on the right path again.

In the end I'd rather have a no-respawn, no-leveling scaling game, as I prefer to find areas that I can't do now. Gives a little motivation to prepare and come back later. It also help lower the risks of self-spoiling. Also, since DOS is a turn based game, it can be more tedious than an action-RPG : just imagine, you went to the far side of the map for nothing, as you got lost while questing, only to find out that you have to re-fight everyone on the way back because they respawned. That's a trait I always deeply disliked on the Final Fantasy games : big maps with combats every 5 cases that take forever to initialize, and then forever to win.
You could totally have respawn events though. Like the guy you had to kill summon his guards, and now you have a full alert castle to flee.

Why do people hate levelscaling? What will happen to D:OS if enemies have a minimum level and will still be notable when you completed other quests before you return?
Why do I hate levelscaling in Skyrim: I see a Wolves at level 3 and barely kill them. Later, at level 10 I see more Wolves, consider how much I must have improved and get killed because I unjustifiably "overextended myself". Same goes to Areas. You remember the common pattern that in a specific region, there are weak enemies. 20 levels later, when you return, the enemies are stronger and of different type than what you (justifiably) expect them to be. Every place feels just the same. Or worse: Oblivion where higher difficulty is set equal to higher enemy health.

Regarding D:OS: The points above more or less do not apply here. You will witness every encounter and area once. Orcs are level 2 in the beginning iirc, 6-8 at the western beach, and level 12-14 later in the game. Always being around your current level. Isn't that a bit like levelscaling already?
If people find a specific encounter too challenging and they are at the correct level already, why don't they reduce the difficiluty like I often did in BG2?
One point against levelscaling I agree to is when you replay the game and try to plan ahead. That will feel awkward. I am not sure if it is a thing, though.

It was a real letdown for me when I realised I had skipped the crab boss battle, although I have already been overleveling the other content east of Cyseal. It is no fun beating a boss down and all his awesome attacks and scripted events are a waste of time. It is like playing Zelda with 99 general keys. So for me, levelscaling or similars (like asymmetric combat bonuses) are ok specifically in D:OS as long as there still is a "level wall".

Respawning in its pure form will create redundant content. "Respawn" does not need to mean encounter. You can fill largely depopularized areas with kith: beggars, rabbits, deer,.. anything that creates the illusion of liveliness. As long as it does not hinder travel it is very fine.

[edit] ... was looking at a bad post order

I think I may found something that can be really balanced between level scaling and no-scaling!!!

How about IF enemy's have a special ability unlock or a extra layer by the player levels?

Example: If you are level 5 by doing the extra "respawn events or grinding in arena and such (limited and no enemy respawns)" and the enemy's you are battling with are is the usual level 3 normal skeleton with swords BUT now it has a powerful shield that absorbs all elemental damage (which you will not know about) that summons a elemental Level ? out of the shield (depends on players level). Maybe it has another ability when you killed them without triggering the shield ability, it will reconstruct it's self and turn into another form of hybrid skeleton with new abilities that will match the players level.

That is probably the best or proper way to balance it right? IF you are at a higher level when you decide to do those respawn events and other activities that includes more XP? but I also know that players want to see ALL the enemy's unlock abilities and layers when playing on hard mode so it will be tactical, challenging and pretty much balancing most of the players skill and abilities.

What do you guys think?

My point of view:

No level scaling. In Oblivion I had epic battles against rats and I was unable to beat 2 goblins at once after killing lots of demons. This took away any feeling of progress and I quit playing. I think you should not change things from D:OS.

No respawning. Beating the same enemies over and over again is not fun, it is boring. It is also very time consuming in a game with a rather slow turn based combat. That does not mean that areas have to be empty forever once you clear them. But there must be a reason why something is there.
Example: You defeat all undead in a ruin. Later you come back to a nearby village and people tell you that bandits have taken over the ruins. They were looking for a new base for a long time and after the undead were gone, they found the ruin to be the perfect hideout. They placed traps and barriers everywhere, so you need a different approach than the first time. Maybe you get the option to join the bandits and you attack the village together. A dungeon becomes a town and vice versa.

I remember this too. Oh my god that was awkward. Being completely rekt by a rat at level 25...

The thing with level scaling and monster respawning, when put together, IMO, remove the sentiment of progression because, like said above, you go back at like, the beginning of the game and you encounter a rat that is doing 1000 dmg to you like a giant or a dragon would do.
For me, you're supposed to completely destroy monsters at the beginning of the game if you come back 10 hours later.

Actually, it does. This has been hashed out before, but if done properly (level scaling within a specific range), it can be very beneficial to the game. What kind of level scaling are you envisioning, with your statement?

Pure level scaling - where the enemies all scale to your exact level? In which case, I semi-concur (it can still be done properly to provide a challenge, but is much more difficult to implement, and far easier to get wrong).

or

Hybrid level scaling - Where the enemies are a minimum level, but will also scale up to your level (within a specific range)? This is something I proposed before and would stand behind.

*EDIT*
Missed that there was a page 2 before I posted. Vometia pretty much summed up what I meant.

Level scaling in Sacred was pretty bad and made the game worse, specially with protection quests that were made for lower-level enemies.

If you're doing effort to make hybrid scaling, like, an enemy from lvl 12-14... I would say "why bother". Why put so much effort in something so small, so insignificant and something that wont at all resolve what people apparently think was wrong (it wasn't) in D:OS. Stick the lvl 12's in one dungeon and the 14's in another dungeon. Give players the choice, have more content.

Definitely my preference of developer time, more content rather than having them waste time like this. And then you could say "they can just add X HP/damage and stuff" but that's just as half-baked and not thought-out that 'full scaling' would do, and we already have ample proof of can be very very bad.

As a tiny green man once said.
"Do or do not."
No game ever benefits from adding half-baked sollutions for something, often making the 'cure' worse than the disease in the first place.

Why is this such a difficult topic for people? Level scaling destroys any sense of progression in a single-player RPG and makes the mobs trivial from a story telling perspective. In single player RPGs you don't have trash mobs. High level trash mobs are a concept designed for MMOs because it makes sense there from a gameplay perspective. The logic is the other way around for SP RPGs - mobs shouldn't be strong because they have levels, they should have levels because they are strong. I.e. an Elder Dragon is always 25th lvl because it's an Elder Dragon. A shoddily trained bandit with a club is always 2nd level because s/he is what s/he is.

No level scaling of either the mobs or the items. IT'S BAD. DON'T DO IT. It also has a bajillion other problems from a single-player RPG perspective.

The problem is that Larian already hinted twice that they want to make a nonlinear experience and they are currently trying with levelscaling which they do not like (They had some "cool ideas" about that).
D:OS 1 was designed in a way that fights at every stage of the game were challenging.
And D:OS 2 will lose lots of it's gameplay if you usually are to strong for the encounters.

The discussion should not revolve how bad level scaling is but what the alternatives are.
Autoattack so you can finally progress isn't.

You know how that particular problem is solved and has been solved since the dawn of RPGs? By not making passive level gains trump everything else in terms of power. In Baldur's Gate your character was still awful at high levels if you had a stupid build. In D:OS not so much. Passive level gains should offer small increment in power/survivability, not be the end-all be-all of character progression. A difference of 2-3 levels shouldn't be so noticeable as to make the fights trivial even with a good build.

On top of that they could also easily control XP gain, so to not make the characters massively overpowered compared to the mobs. Non-linear game doesn't mean level-up-a-palooza.

Yes, 2-3 levels *should* be noticable. I really don't want the modern RPG/MMO-esque system of like 100 levels where being level 50 or 60 is pretty much inseperatable. What's wrong with the good old system of old RPG's where leveling was interesting, progressive and a true reward than having to need to fist-feed "level up cookies" every 30m to keep the gamer interested, but in doing so make leveling a meaningless pointless and utterly useless mechanic devoid of it's intention?

It reminds me of:

Pre-PoE Release: "12 levels is too low. Make it atleast 30 or so. You can't expect people to just get 11 level ups in a 60 hour game. Leveling would be just too slow, too long playing without leveling"
... then ...
Post-PoE Release: "Yeeeeah, leveling goes way too fast. You should really cut XP progression by like 50%, that would make the game much better!"

Also I *totally* miss going to hell and being pummelled to death if not suitable suited rather than 'modern RPG's having the true Demon of Hell being level 2 just to suit you and "we can't have people not instantly move all around this gigantic map"...
I miss Morrowind in Bethesda's concept of making a game. Allowing you to go anywhere, anytime without issue or join every single guild is definitely not making their games better.

Lastly... did you seriously used BG as example for levels being meaningless? The game where a rat could one shoot your mage on lvl 1, but by level 3 they can already pretty much get apocalyptic, not to mention going totally overkill at level 5. And then there comes cloudkill.
Yeah, levels mean an immense deal in Baldur's Gate.

Nobody said you are going to get 100 levels. Only the first few levels had huge differences in BG. That's why I said at "high levels". You are basically a peasant who can hardly swing a sword at lvl 1. But the first few levels were linear as f**k and you couldn't go anywhere you wanted. Well, you could, but you couldn't kill the mobs. That was deliberate. To not overpower the characters compared to the mobs. Leveling up shouldn't be just numbers that go up to an uncontrollable degree like you seem to suggest and think is an "event".