Personally I like it. And to me it's not so much about removing level gaps between players as it is about keeping every zone in the world relevant at any level.
But it needs to be done carefully to keep the all-important sense of progression alive despite the scaling.
It works in ESO because that game has always had individual skill lines that progress totally apart from the base character level based on either use of skills from a skill line, PvPing, doing dungeons, finding lore books, etc. There are always character progression goals that have nothing to do with base character level. The impact of character level on the progression power curve in ESO has always been minimal compared to the other progressions built in - this has always been the way even before scaling was introduced.
The other thing they did simultaneously with scaling was that they added zone-specific gear set drops to each zone - 3 sets per zone - that drop at your level. A lot of those sets can be incorporated into advanced "end-game" builds and they're equally useful if you get that gear at lower levels. That reinforces what I said in my 1st paragraph about keeping zones relevant at all levels being their primary motivation as well as giving them the ability to release new content that is not level locked at all.
Why do they even need scaling with that system? Why not just go all in on it?
Personally I like it. And to me it's not so much about removing level gaps between players as it is about keeping every zone in the world relevant at any level.
But it needs to be done carefully to keep the all-important sense of progression alive despite the scaling.
It works in ESO because that game has always had individual skill lines that progress totally apart from the base character level based on either use of skills from a skill line, PvPing, doing dungeons, finding lore books, etc. There are always character progression goals that have nothing to do with base character level. The impact of character level on the progression power curve in ESO has always been minimal compared to the other progressions built in - this has always been the way even before scaling was introduced.
The other thing they did simultaneously with scaling was that they added zone-specific gear set drops to each zone - 3 sets per zone - that drop at your level. A lot of those sets can be incorporated into advanced "end-game" builds and they're equally useful if you get that gear at lower levels. That reinforces what I said in my 1st paragraph about keeping zones relevant at all levels being their primary motivation as well as giving them the ability to release new content that is not level locked at all.
Why do they even need scaling with that system? Why not just go all in on it?
What's your idea of "all in"?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Personally I like it. And to me it's not so much about removing level gaps between players as it is about keeping every zone in the world relevant at any level.
But it needs to be done carefully to keep the all-important sense of progression alive despite the scaling.
It works in ESO because that game has always had individual skill lines that progress totally apart from the base character level based on either use of skills from a skill line, PvPing, doing dungeons, finding lore books, etc. There are always character progression goals that have nothing to do with base character level. The impact of character level on the progression power curve in ESO has always been minimal compared to the other progressions built in - this has always been the way even before scaling was introduced.
The other thing they did simultaneously with scaling was that they added zone-specific gear set drops to each zone - 3 sets per zone - that drop at your level. A lot of those sets can be incorporated into advanced "end-game" builds and they're equally useful if you get that gear at lower levels. That reinforces what I said in my 1st paragraph about keeping zones relevant at all levels being their primary motivation as well as giving them the ability to release new content that is not level locked at all.
Why do they even need scaling with that system? Why not just go all in on it?
What's your idea of "all in"?
No need for scaling, basically. More detailed, and I don't know how ESO works, HPs and damages that don't go up that much and leave the world mostly open to players regardless of levels, but also with horizontal advancement where you get new special attacks, defenses, spells, bonuses, etc., that add to what a player can do and make combat and other aspects more fun, while also allowing players to get past specific obstacles more easily.
I do hate that it tends to trivialize levels. That being said, there are other avenues of growth apart from just your numeric level - such as ability unlocks and gear upgrades. Level scaling just makes these feel less impactful because you can't go to some old stomping ground and lord over it.
I do like that it keeps all content relevant. If you missed a low level area during the leveling process, it hasn't just become a trivial piece of content with no reason to visit. It still presents a challenge and can still offer some benefit.
I thought GW2 found a decent middle ground. If you went to a lower level area, the mobs weren't scaled up to you; you were scaled down to the mobs. You got to keep all your abilities though, so it didn't feel like a nerf or impact rotations or play styles. And at max level deltas, the level scaling would put you a few levels over the area: enough to make it feel that your character had some command over the area, but not so much that the content felt trivial.
I do hate that it tends to trivialize levels. That being said, there are other avenues of growth apart from just your numeric level - such as ability unlocks and gear upgrades. Level scaling just makes these feel less impactful because you can't go to some old stomping ground and lord over it.
I do like that it keeps all content relevant. If you missed a low level area during the leveling process, it hasn't just become a trivial piece of content with no reason to visit. It still presents a challenge and can still offer some benefit.
I thought GW2 found a decent middle ground. If you went to a lower level area, the mobs weren't scaled up to you; you were scaled down to the mobs. You got to keep all your abilities though, so it didn't feel like a nerf or impact rotations or play styles. And at max level deltas, the level scaling would put you a few levels over the area: enough to make it feel that your character had some command over the area, but not so much that the content felt trivial.
Again, why not just go all in on that. Forget the scaling and lower the power gaps. Add horizontal progression as I just spoke of in my previous post. It's a cleaner game and a more clear progression in a more open world.
Personally I like it. And to me it's not so much about removing level gaps between players as it is about keeping every zone in the world relevant at any level.
But it needs to be done carefully to keep the all-important sense of progression alive despite the scaling.
It works in ESO because that game has always had individual skill lines that progress totally apart from the base character level based on either use of skills from a skill line, PvPing, doing dungeons, finding lore books, etc. There are always character progression goals that have nothing to do with base character level. The impact of character level on the progression power curve in ESO has always been minimal compared to the other progressions built in - this has always been the way even before scaling was introduced.
The other thing they did simultaneously with scaling was that they added zone-specific gear set drops to each zone - 3 sets per zone - that drop at your level. A lot of those sets can be incorporated into advanced "end-game" builds and they're equally useful if you get that gear at lower levels. That reinforces what I said in my 1st paragraph about keeping zones relevant at all levels being their primary motivation as well as giving them the ability to release new content that is not level locked at all.
Why do they even need scaling with that system? Why not just go all in on it?
What's your idea of "all in"?
No need for scaling, basically. More detailed, and I don't know how ESO works, HPs and damages that don't go up that much and leave the world mostly open to players regardless of levels, but also with horizontal advancement where you get new special attacks, defenses, spells, bonuses, etc., that add to what a player can do and make combat and other aspects more fun, while also allowing players to get past specific obstacles more easily.
ESO still has a few things that require a level check to participate: PvP unlocks at level 10 and there is one PvP campaign reserved for those under level 50. The 3 easiest dungeons also unlock at level 10 and which dungeons you can do unlock progressively every few levels with the more difficult "veteran" versions unlocking much later after 50. In those cases though it's not so much about levels as it is about levels being a rough estimate of what abilities and passives you could have reasonably unlocked in the amount of time you needed to play to have progressed the skill lines to a point where you have a reasonable tool kit to handle the content.
But yes, they could easily remove levels if they wanted to. IDK why they didn't - you'd have to ask them - but my guess is that levels are a harmless security blanket for a much bigger portion of the potential player base than the great thing it would be for the tiny minority who want to see levels gone.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Personally I like it. And to me it's not so much about removing level gaps between players as it is about keeping every zone in the world relevant at any level.
But it needs to be done carefully to keep the all-important sense of progression alive despite the scaling.
It works in ESO because that game has always had individual skill lines that progress totally apart from the base character level based on either use of skills from a skill line, PvPing, doing dungeons, finding lore books, etc. There are always character progression goals that have nothing to do with base character level. The impact of character level on the progression power curve in ESO has always been minimal compared to the other progressions built in - this has always been the way even before scaling was introduced.
The other thing they did simultaneously with scaling was that they added zone-specific gear set drops to each zone - 3 sets per zone - that drop at your level. A lot of those sets can be incorporated into advanced "end-game" builds and they're equally useful if you get that gear at lower levels. That reinforces what I said in my 1st paragraph about keeping zones relevant at all levels being their primary motivation as well as giving them the ability to release new content that is not level locked at all.
Why do they even need scaling with that system? Why not just go all in on it?
What's your idea of "all in"?
No need for scaling, basically. More detailed, and I don't know how ESO works, HPs and damages that don't go up that much and leave the world mostly open to players regardless of levels, but also with horizontal advancement where you get new special attacks, defenses, spells, bonuses, etc., that add to what a player can do and make combat and other aspects more fun, while also allowing players to get past specific obstacles more easily.
ESO still has a few things that require a level check to participate: PvP unlocks at level 10 and there is one PvP campaign reserved for those under level 50. The 3 easiest dungeons also unlock at level 10 and which dungeons you can do unlock progressively every few levels with the more difficult "veteran" versions unlocking much later after 50. In those cases though it's not so much about levels as it is about levels being a rough estimate of what abilities and passives you could have reasonably unlocked in the amount of time you needed to play to have progressed the skill lines to a point where you have a reasonable tool kit to handle the content.
But yes, they could easily remove levels if they wanted to. IDK why they didn't - you'd have to ask them - but my guess is that levels are a harmless security blanket for a much bigger portion of the potential player base than the great thing it would be for the tiny minority who want to see levels gone.
I'm not saying remove the levels. I'm saying reduce their power gaps and leave a little for progression that doesn't disappear with scaling. Between that little power gap, plus some more through new additions in the horizontal side of progression, you can have most content stay viable but more easily overcome, and allow players to go where they want to go without the scaling (maybe around 80% of the world). And still be challenged to one degree or the other in most of it.
And why does a game need artificial barriers like level checks? Let players learn through game play.
And why does a game need artificial barriers like level checks? Let players learn through game play.
Because the bulk of the people who play in 2019 would bitch loudly and frequently if the mean developer had the temerity to drop them into something they're not ready for.
Not to mention that the other 3 people in the group wouldn't put up with your incompetence for more than 5 seconds and would get rid of you.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Personally I like it. And to me it's not so much about removing level gaps between players as it is about keeping every zone in the world relevant at any level.
But it needs to be done carefully to keep the all-important sense of progression alive despite the scaling.
It works in ESO because that game has always had individual skill lines that progress totally apart from the base character level based on either use of skills from a skill line, PvPing, doing dungeons, finding lore books, etc. There are always character progression goals that have nothing to do with base character level. The impact of character level on the progression power curve in ESO has always been minimal compared to the other progressions built in - this has always been the way even before scaling was introduced.
The other thing they did simultaneously with scaling was that they added zone-specific gear set drops to each zone - 3 sets per zone - that drop at your level. A lot of those sets can be incorporated into advanced "end-game" builds and they're equally useful if you get that gear at lower levels. That reinforces what I said in my 1st paragraph about keeping zones relevant at all levels being their primary motivation as well as giving them the ability to release new content that is not level locked at all.
Why do they even need scaling with that system? Why not just go all in on it?
What's your idea of "all in"?
No need for scaling, basically. More detailed, and I don't know how ESO works, HPs and damages that don't go up that much and leave the world mostly open to players regardless of levels, but also with horizontal advancement where you get new special attacks, defenses, spells, bonuses, etc., that add to what a player can do and make combat and other aspects more fun, while also allowing players to get past specific obstacles more easily.
ESO still has a few things that require a level check to participate: PvP unlocks at level 10 and there is one PvP campaign reserved for those under level 50. The 3 easiest dungeons also unlock at level 10 and which dungeons you can do unlock progressively every few levels with the more difficult "veteran" versions unlocking much later after 50. In those cases though it's not so much about levels as it is about levels being a rough estimate of what abilities and passives you could have reasonably unlocked in the amount of time you needed to play to have progressed the skill lines to a point where you have a reasonable tool kit to handle the content.
But yes, they could easily remove levels if they wanted to. IDK why they didn't - you'd have to ask them - but my guess is that levels are a harmless security blanket for a much bigger portion of the potential player base than the great thing it would be for the tiny minority who want to see levels gone.
Yeah, it is a compromise. Levels have been losing meaning more and more. The treadmill is so controlled/refined and you are geared up so well there basically is 0 change in open world leveling challenge. Leveling has become faster as well.
Level scaling just is logical conclusion. Players will complain there is no content but they skipped half of it. Maybe an exaggeration but I always questioned the logic in vast vertical progression. It puts pressure on content because players get through it fast as possible and content is skipped and outdated. It also keeps the familiarity of leveling.
If my game had little depth outside of questing I would keep everything relevant.
And why does a game need artificial barriers like level checks? Let players learn through game play.
Because the bulk of the people who play in 2019 would bitch loudly and frequently if the mean developer had the temerity to drop them into something they're not ready for.
Not to mention that the other 3 people in the group wouldn't put up with your incompetence for more than 5 seconds and would get rid of you.
Catering to them breeds more of it. Where do you want that to end? Look at where we are now.
The problem of elites who won't accept the less that elite is an issue of social interaction. Games these day are lacking greatly in that, because players are divided by level content and don't make long lasting friendships/associations. Yes, scaling helps that a lot, I would think. But has the other issues. Get the best of all worlds, and skip scaling in exchange for low Power Gaps.
I do hate that it tends to trivialize levels. That being said, there are other avenues of growth apart from just your numeric level - such as ability unlocks and gear upgrades. Level scaling just makes these feel less impactful because you can't go to some old stomping ground and lord over it.
I do like that it keeps all content relevant. If you missed a low level area during the leveling process, it hasn't just become a trivial piece of content with no reason to visit. It still presents a challenge and can still offer some benefit.
I thought GW2 found a decent middle ground. If you went to a lower level area, the mobs weren't scaled up to you; you were scaled down to the mobs. You got to keep all your abilities though, so it didn't feel like a nerf or impact rotations or play styles. And at max level deltas, the level scaling would put you a few levels over the area: enough to make it feel that your character had some command over the area, but not so much that the content felt trivial.
Again, why not just go all in on that. Forget the scaling and lower the power gaps. Add horizontal progression as I just spoke of in my previous post. It's a cleaner game and a more clear progression in a more open world.
I'm all for different developers trying different ideas.
Maybe not all of them work... but I remember a time when every new game coming out was a carbon copy of one particular AAA game in the MMO space. Those were dark days.
I'd rather have a lot of variety and some of them suck, and some of them be great, than to have every single game be another flavor of Vanilla.
I have never enjoyed scaling. You level up from 1 to 60, get new abilities, outfit yourself with better gear and weapons, and you are still challenged by the mobs in the newbie area? No thanks.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Double edged sword. I like that I can go anywhere in the game, but at the same time any sense of progression is lost. I always appreciated going back and helping out lowbies in the lower zones in MMO's. Remember when you could go buff everyone up and practically double their leveling time that was already pretty slow? Oh the good old days.
I didn't like it in SWTOR where I got boost to "fit" the party of high-level players. Most of them visited instances before so I never had enough time to pay attention to details. But despite from that - I believe that scaling is ok in some situations.
I dislike the mechanic because I feel like.......what did I just spend all that time leveling for?
And the developers are like what I just spend all that time making content for as you spend the remainder of your game in 1% of the game.
And here-in lies the problem. This genre, at least in part, is floundering because publishers have made this so that players are playing for the developers, instead of developers developing for players. It's their job to develop something I want to play. It's not my job to play something they want to develop.
Funny how single player RPGs use scaling and we dont think about the fact that a pack of wolves should always be a challenge but in a MMORPG we want to be able to stand in the middle of a pack of wolves and laugh as they hit us for no damage. I think there is a disconnect here and I dont see how that makes the game fun or a challenge.
I dislike the mechanic because I feel like.......what did I just spend all that time leveling for?
And the developers are like what I just spend all that time making content for as you spend the remainder of your game in 1% of the game.
And here-in lies the problem. This genre, at least in part, is floundering because publishers have made this so that players are playing for the developers, instead of developers developing for players. It's their job to develop something I want to play. It's not my job to play something they want to develop.
Yeah for you. Imagine getting funding and saying you know I want to make 90% of the content irrelevant after a few months. You know, there are few players who rarely come back to newbie zones that like one shot shit.
I am more on the I rather just have no level end and NPCs fall on the difficulty scale based on your abilities you have, gear and player skill.
Personally, I feel that scaling removes the sense of progression and accomplishment, especially if it is coupled with limited hotbar/action combos. It removes any sense of obligation or attachment to my character if it essentially remains the same from Lv 1 to Lv 100. Example: GW2 and ESO. Both great games, but neither keep me for long when I do play them; I never felt as if my character was truly progressing in either game,
Comments
Why not just go all in on it?
Once upon a time....
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
More detailed, and I don't know how ESO works, HPs and damages that don't go up that much and leave the world mostly open to players regardless of levels, but also with horizontal advancement where you get new special attacks, defenses, spells, bonuses, etc., that add to what a player can do and make combat and other aspects more fun, while also allowing players to get past specific obstacles more easily.
Once upon a time....
I do hate that it tends to trivialize levels. That being said, there are other avenues of growth apart from just your numeric level - such as ability unlocks and gear upgrades. Level scaling just makes these feel less impactful because you can't go to some old stomping ground and lord over it.
I do like that it keeps all content relevant. If you missed a low level area during the leveling process, it hasn't just become a trivial piece of content with no reason to visit. It still presents a challenge and can still offer some benefit.
I thought GW2 found a decent middle ground. If you went to a lower level area, the mobs weren't scaled up to you; you were scaled down to the mobs. You got to keep all your abilities though, so it didn't feel like a nerf or impact rotations or play styles. And at max level deltas, the level scaling would put you a few levels over the area: enough to make it feel that your character had some command over the area, but not so much that the content felt trivial.
Forget the scaling and lower the power gaps. Add horizontal progression as I just spoke of in my previous post.
It's a cleaner game and a more clear progression in a more open world.
Once upon a time....
But yes, they could easily remove levels if they wanted to. IDK why they didn't - you'd have to ask them - but my guess is that levels are a harmless security blanket for a much bigger portion of the potential player base than the great thing it would be for the tiny minority who want to see levels gone.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Between that little power gap, plus some more through new additions in the horizontal side of progression, you can have most content stay viable but more easily overcome, and allow players to go where they want to go without the scaling (maybe around 80% of the world). And still be challenged to one degree or the other in most of it.
And why does a game need artificial barriers like level checks? Let players learn through game play.
Once upon a time....
Not to mention that the other 3 people in the group wouldn't put up with your incompetence for more than 5 seconds and would get rid of you.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Level scaling just is logical conclusion. Players will complain there is no content but they skipped half of it. Maybe an exaggeration but I always questioned the logic in vast vertical progression. It puts pressure on content because players get through it fast as possible and content is skipped and outdated. It also keeps the familiarity of leveling.
If my game had little depth outside of questing I would keep everything relevant.
The problem of elites who won't accept the less that elite is an issue of social interaction.
Games these day are lacking greatly in that, because players are divided by level content and don't make long lasting friendships/associations.
Yes, scaling helps that a lot, I would think. But has the other issues. Get the best of all worlds, and skip scaling in exchange for low Power Gaps.
Once upon a time....
Maybe not all of them work... but I remember a time when every new game coming out was a carbon copy of one particular AAA game in the MMO space. Those were dark days.
I'd rather have a lot of variety and some of them suck, and some of them be great, than to have every single game be another flavor of Vanilla.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
This genre, at least in part, is floundering because publishers have made this so that players are playing for the developers, instead of developers developing for players. It's their job to develop something I want to play. It's not my job to play something they want to develop.
I am more on the I rather just have no level end and NPCs fall on the difficulty scale based on your abilities you have, gear and player skill.