Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Is Scaling content a good thing?

145791014

Comments

  • Po_ggPo_gg Member RarePosts: 4,802
    Scot said:
    I was wondering what MMOs used scaled mobs, I can't remember playing one.
    Most of the old ones, with optional scaling.
    A strict, set-in-stone barrier under which all the players are queezed is for the forced scaling, since it requires the less effort and work.

    By using the games I listed earlier as examples: AoC has only that. It doesn't have character scaling, when you choose to do "scaled content" (be that a villa or an entire zone in hard mode) it always adjust the mobs to you.
    LotRO has both, for instances and skirmishes it scales the mobs and the difficulty to the level you want, but for big battles it scales your character to a set level.
    CO and CoH the most flexible, you could scale both yourself as well as the mobs the way you want - though the mobs only in a narrow range.
    gunklackerScot
  • kjempffkjempff Member RarePosts: 1,635
    edited June 13
    The whole point of "horizontal progression" is to allow access to all parts of the game 
    I am going to be sneaky annoying by saying the whole point of progression is that you do not have access to all parts of the game. You progress to get access to more and more parts of the game. 
    The access to all parts of the horizontal definition is non-progression.
    But I will admit that when people refer to horizontal, they also include various systems that re-introduce some progression through not providing access to all parts of the game (gear progression, stats, point systems). All that horizontal does is to remove levels from the power equation, but in order to have progression the power equation needs to exist as other systems.
    My point is that horizontal "progression" somewhat contradict itself in that manner, by both trying to remove progression but at the same time rely on progression models (all except levels) to provide meaningful gameplay.


    Amaranthar said:
    Scaling makes it all feel false. Progression becomes meaningless.
    And scaling removes identity. You aren't you anymore, or the MOBs aren't themselves, and there's no Snickers Bars. 



    That part we can agree on completely, I also hate scaling. And I will also admit that this is the problem that Horizontal solves, it is just that horizontal introduce other problems.
    Scaling on vertical systems on the other hand tries to solves a non-issue. Or to be more clear an issue not directly related to vertical, but more about how mmos use vertical now. Meaning vertical in itself does not have to be a problem if made well.
    For example the division of players through levels, access, or other progression mechanics, is not a problem in my book, and it provide valuable meaningfull-ness? and identity to a game. The problem has arrived with the "endgame" design focus of modern mmorpgs, and the developers focus on retention and other user attention grabbing features and found that one way to optimize this is to not divide players - The problem is that also has severe negative effects. Meaning, that scaling is a "solution" to a problem the developer has created, and not really a problem that vertical has.
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,576
    edited June 13
    AlBQuirky said:
    Traditional leveling is the most documented laziest way to do a MMORPG, literally.

    Any actual developers want to chime in on this statement? Or maybe show me these "documents" you've seen that I have not?

    To be truthful, I really don't care, but you sure like ass-u-me a lot, don't you?
    How many MMORPG and RPG have level systems? A ton. Means it is well documented. It is literally the easiest way to gate and control content flow.  Level scaling is leveling plus another variable so obviously it is more complex.  
    And you "know" it's the easiest way how, again? You a programmer or something?

    Where does the documentation on "lazy" come in?

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


    (And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 3,952
    kjempff said:
    The whole point of "horizontal progression" is to allow access to all parts of the game 
    I am going to be sneaky annoying by saying the whole point of progression is that you do not have access to all parts of the game. You progress to get access to more and more parts of the game. 
    The access to all parts of the horizontal definition is non-progression.
    But I will admit that when people refer to horizontal, they also include various systems that re-introduce some progression through not providing access to all parts of the game (gear progression, stats, point systems). All that horizontal does is to remove levels from the power equation, but in order to have progression the power equation needs to exist as other systems.
    My point is that horizontal "progression" somewhat contradict itself in that manner, by both trying to remove progression but at the same time rely on progression models (all except levels) to provide meaningful gameplay.


    Amaranthar said:
    Scaling makes it all feel false. Progression becomes meaningless.
    And scaling removes identity. You aren't you anymore, or the MOBs aren't themselves, and there's no Snickers Bars. 



    That part we can agree on completely, I also hate scaling. And I will also admit that this is the problem that Horizontal solves, it is just that horizontal introduce other problems.
    Scaling on vertical systems on the other hand tries to solves a non-issue. Or to be more clear an issue not directly related to vertical, but more about how mmos use vertical now. Meaning vertical in itself does not have to be a problem if made well.
    For example the division of players through levels, access, or other progression mechanics, is not a problem in my book, and it provide valuable meaningfull-ness? and identity to a game. The problem has arrived with the "endgame" design focus of modern mmorpgs, and the developers focus on retention and other user attention grabbing features and found that one way to optimize this is to not divide players - The problem is that also has severe negative effects. Meaning, that scaling is a "solution" to a problem the developer has created, and not really a problem that vertical has.
    Vertical progression in themeparks always had the issue of pushing people through content used and unused as fast as possible.  With slower leveling it was less of an issue because players would be in areas for a while then move on. 

    Players don't want slow leveling.  So you eventually had leveling ramped up.  Now players blow through content quickly.  So they turned more heavily towards gear grinds.  

    Now with leveling scaling you can use content more efficiently.  But as people have said progression feels off.  It was a half measure.  

    My opinion of themeparks it is half a game.  Just like if you had a sandbox MMORPG with no content at all it would be half a game.  Game should be both but that is ambition.  

    Pure themeparks would be better served to be an action adventure instead of a RPG.  This is my opinion just from trying to design one in theory. Take that for what its worth but what I did a lot of in a slow job over a decade, theorycrafting games.

    Instead of focus being on numbers I would focus on mechanics and creative gear.  Having classes actually do unique things vs. reskined power sets that add, delete or multiple numbers.  You know have rogues be able to climb walls. rangers track, priest work in the divine aspects and etc.  

    Gear should provide specific solutions to in game problems that need advancing.  This is the sort of thing you see in games like Legend of Zelda.  You get a grappling hook to access areas previous off limits.  You fire cloak to enter a fire zone.  Mask of the deep to go to under water realm.  
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,576
    Scot said:
    I was wondering what MMOs used scaled mobs, I can't remember playing one. ESO has been mentioned which must have been after I played, but we also hear that it is not fully using a scaled system?
    Didn't GW 2 use scaling, though on players, not mobs?

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


    (And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,188
    AlBQuirky said:
    Scot said:
    I was wondering what MMOs used scaled mobs, I can't remember playing one. ESO has been mentioned which must have been after I played, but we also hear that it is not fully using a scaled system?
    Didn't GW 2 use scaling, though on players, not mobs?
    Never played it past a month; did not like the way they handled, well side lined quests and therefore lore. So really can't remember.

    I had not forgotten Lotro skirmish's though, I was only thinking of scaling during levelling in main game. And CoH had the buddy system which allowed you to group and change to the average level in that group, a must in any game without scaling.
    AlBQuirky

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • LimnicLimnic Member RarePosts: 1,116
    edited June 13
    kjempff said:
    The whole point of "horizontal progression" is to allow access to all parts of the game 
    I am going to be sneaky annoying by saying the whole point of progression is that you do not have access to all parts of the game. You progress to get access to more and more parts of the game. 
    The access to all parts of the horizontal definition is non-progression.
    But I will admit that when people refer to horizontal, they also include various systems that re-introduce some progression through not providing access to all parts of the game (gear progression, stats, point systems). All that horizontal does is to remove levels from the power equation, but in order to have progression the power equation needs to exist as other systems.
    My point is that horizontal "progression" somewhat contradict itself in that manner, by both trying to remove progression but at the same time rely on progression models (all except levels) to provide meaningful gameplay.

    Rather feels the "be sneaky" part was you cutting that statement off before where is said this;

    "although still with MOBs and places where it's too much for you to whatever degree. You do progress, but big numbers are replaced with fun strategies and tactics, smart ideas and trickery, specialized skills and gear."
    Read more at https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/481815/is-scaling-content-a-good-thing/p6#86u6PW7HjCKS2jSm.99

    It throws a rather large wrench into your argument, in that it shows how horizontal progression still has "gated" elements that you have to evolve your character through unlocking of features, rebalancing of stats, etc within the horizontal progression to eventually surpass.

    When people refer to "horizontal" is a misnomer. That'd be like referring to your claims as supporting "vertical". As there are tons of systems within games focused on vertical progression that do not themselves lend to any form of meaningful progression. As another just mentioned recently in the current WoW level squishing thread, WoW itself has example of this with "empty dings" that exist solely for the sake of expansion content having a number to make bigger.

    This contradiction as result is a problem of your own making.

    Horizontal progression creates a consistent baseline. Horizontal progression at no point mandates that players have to stay affixed to that baseline, only that they can evolve in different ways relative to it. The "power equation" doe not need to exist as other systems.

    Stats can migrate up and down relative to a total cap, keeping things balanced, but allowing for a wide berth of asymmetry and specialization.

    Skills can be unlocked, allowing for a wider range of techniques and solutions to any given challenge.

    Gear can similarly allow for both stat rebalancing and skill options opened to players.

    Even things like access to different types of transportation and how that affects scope of the game world.

    This already allows for a massive scope of player progression and shifts in access to content, without ever extending beyond the inherent scope of a horizontal progression system.

    You have to "be sneaky" and try to redefine the situation in a manner that suits your argument to even try to claim otherwise.
  • kjempffkjempff Member RarePosts: 1,635
    Limnic said:
    kjempff said:
    The whole point of "horizontal progression" is to allow access to all parts of the game 
    I am going to be sneaky annoying by saying the whole point of progression is that you do not have access to all parts of the game. You progress to get access to more and more parts of the game. 
    The access to all parts of the horizontal definition is non-progression.
    But I will admit that when people refer to horizontal, they also include various systems that re-introduce some progression through not providing access to all parts of the game (gear progression, stats, point systems). All that horizontal does is to remove levels from the power equation, but in order to have progression the power equation needs to exist as other systems.
    My point is that horizontal "progression" somewhat contradict itself in that manner, by both trying to remove progression but at the same time rely on progression models (all except levels) to provide meaningful gameplay.

    Rather feels the "be sneaky" part was you cutting that statement off before where is said this;

    "although still with MOBs and places where it's too much for you to whatever degree. You do progress, but big numbers are replaced with fun strategies and tactics, smart ideas and trickery, specialized skills and gear."
    Read more at https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/481815/is-scaling-content-a-good-thing/p6#86u6PW7HjCKS2jSm.99

    It throws a rather large wrench into your argument, in that it shows how horizontal progression still has "gated" elements that you have to evolve your character through unlocking of features, rebalancing of stats, etc within the horizontal progression to eventually surpass.

    When people refer to "horizontal" is a misnomer. That'd be like referring to your claims as supporting "vertical". As there are tons of systems within games focused on vertical progression that do not themselves lend to any form of meaningful progression. As another just mentioned recently in the current WoW level squishing thread, WoW itself has example of this with "empty dings" that exist solely for the sake of expansion content having a number to make bigger.

    This contradiction as result is a problem of your own making.

    Horizontal progression creates a consistent baseline. Horizontal progression at no point mandates that players have to stay affixed to that baseline, only that they can evolve in different ways relative to it. The "power equation" doe not need to exist as other systems.

    Stats can migrate up and down relative to a total cap, keeping things balanced, but allowing for a wide berth of asymmetry and specialization.

    Skills can be unlocked, allowing for a wider range of techniques and solutions to any given challenge.

    Gear can similarly allow for both stat rebalancing and skill options opened to players.

    Even things like access to different types of transportation and how that affects scope of the game world.

    This already allows for a massive scope of player progression and shifts in access to content, without ever extending beyond the inherent scope of a horizontal progression system.

    You have to "be sneaky" and try to redefine the situation in a manner that suits your argument to even try to claim otherwise.
    I read it the first time, and you give no new arguments I can relate to otherwise.
    Guess the basic problem is we are not in agreement on what progression means, so it is hard to make any arguments make sense.

    I could say that I disagree that your claim that the "power equation" does not need to exist to have progression, but I fear we speak from such different perspectives, that it is pointless list arguments and examples that it does.

    "big numbers are replaced with fun strategies and tactics, smart ideas and trickery,"  this is not progression. 
    "specialized skills" can be progression if they are unlocked through playing, and make the player able to handle previously unbeatable content. I call it minimal progression and in some cases nonprogression, you call it flat.
    "gear" is progression assuming it adds to "power equation" in some form .. or see above.


  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,449
    Scot said:
    I was wondering what MMOs used scaled mobs, I can't remember playing one. ESO has been mentioned which must have been after I played, but we also hear that it is not fully using a scaled system?
    EQ1 introduced scaling back in 2003.

    Whilst WoW only introduced scaling of landscape mobs with the last expansion it has had scaled its instances - normal, heroic, mythic etc. - for some time. DDO had the same type of approach.

    LotR also uses scaling for many - but not all - of its dungeons; in these the mobs are adjusted to the level of the players. Various "Big Battles" are set at level 100 though and player characters are scaled to 100 - so up and/or down.

    Games that have mentoring systems / sidekicks scale characters up or down as well. CoH did it back in 2003. It also did scaled content.

    And there are others - forgot GW2.

    Different games however use different techniques and approaches.

    The main point of the OP's post - I think - was that "simply" indexing mob level to character level results in a flat game with no sense of getting stronger; so levels 1 to 1, 2 to 2, 3 to 3 etc.  And I think that is a fair point.

    In discussing that point however it is imperative to recognise that not all games are the same.

    Hence my post above about ESO in which mobs are not scaled; period. But nor are they all the same difficulty. And instead of 1 to 1 etc. you actually have (sort of) 1+159 to 160, 2 +158 to 160 ..... and eventually 161 to 160 and eventually 500 to 160, 750 to 160 etc. Except the progression curve isn't linear but you get the idea.

    Games are different and some are indeed somewhat "lazy".


    Scot
  • LimnicLimnic Member RarePosts: 1,116
    kjempff said:
    Limnic said:
    kjempff said:
    The whole point of "horizontal progression" is to allow access to all parts of the game 
    I am going to be sneaky annoying by saying the whole point of progression is that you do not have access to all parts of the game. You progress to get access to more and more parts of the game. 
    The access to all parts of the horizontal definition is non-progression.
    But I will admit that when people refer to horizontal, they also include various systems that re-introduce some progression through not providing access to all parts of the game (gear progression, stats, point systems). All that horizontal does is to remove levels from the power equation, but in order to have progression the power equation needs to exist as other systems.
    My point is that horizontal "progression" somewhat contradict itself in that manner, by both trying to remove progression but at the same time rely on progression models (all except levels) to provide meaningful gameplay.

    Rather feels the "be sneaky" part was you cutting that statement off before where is said this;

    "although still with MOBs and places where it's too much for you to whatever degree. You do progress, but big numbers are replaced with fun strategies and tactics, smart ideas and trickery, specialized skills and gear."
    Read more at https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/481815/is-scaling-content-a-good-thing/p6#86u6PW7HjCKS2jSm.99

    It throws a rather large wrench into your argument, in that it shows how horizontal progression still has "gated" elements that you have to evolve your character through unlocking of features, rebalancing of stats, etc within the horizontal progression to eventually surpass.

    When people refer to "horizontal" is a misnomer. That'd be like referring to your claims as supporting "vertical". As there are tons of systems within games focused on vertical progression that do not themselves lend to any form of meaningful progression. As another just mentioned recently in the current WoW level squishing thread, WoW itself has example of this with "empty dings" that exist solely for the sake of expansion content having a number to make bigger.

    This contradiction as result is a problem of your own making.

    Horizontal progression creates a consistent baseline. Horizontal progression at no point mandates that players have to stay affixed to that baseline, only that they can evolve in different ways relative to it. The "power equation" doe not need to exist as other systems.

    Stats can migrate up and down relative to a total cap, keeping things balanced, but allowing for a wide berth of asymmetry and specialization.

    Skills can be unlocked, allowing for a wider range of techniques and solutions to any given challenge.

    Gear can similarly allow for both stat rebalancing and skill options opened to players.

    Even things like access to different types of transportation and how that affects scope of the game world.

    This already allows for a massive scope of player progression and shifts in access to content, without ever extending beyond the inherent scope of a horizontal progression system.

    You have to "be sneaky" and try to redefine the situation in a manner that suits your argument to even try to claim otherwise.
    I read it the first time, and you give no new arguments I can relate to otherwise.
    Guess the basic problem is we are not in agreement on what progression means, so it is hard to make any arguments make sense.

    I could say that I disagree that your claim that the "power equation" does not need to exist to have progression, but I fear we speak from such different perspectives, that it is pointless list arguments and examples that it does.

    "big numbers are replaced with fun strategies and tactics, smart ideas and trickery,"  this is not progression. 
    "specialized skills" can be progression if they are unlocked through playing, and make the player able to handle previously unbeatable content. I call it minimal progression and in some cases nonprogression, you call it flat.
    "gear" is progression assuming it adds to "power equation" in some form .. or see above.


    Bit more of a fundamental problem. Cutting off the end of a statement to change it's meaning, means you keep arguing against different points than those that are actually being made in the first place.

    Like you saying " the "power equation" does not need to exist to have progression" Even though what I actually wrote was this;

     I said "The "power equation" doe not need to exist as other systems."
    Read more at https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/481815/is-scaling-content-a-good-thing/p7#MpBPrqXSCjCSsrlk.99

    IE, you don't need to tack on external systems for the power equation to exist.  You took that statement,truncated it, and then took that resulting remark in an entirely different direction than it's original remark and meaning.

    I called Horizontal progression flat because progression gets handled through mutation, altering the balance of things so achieve a new status quo within the game. 

    And as far as progression, why would you define earning new skills, gear, mounts or otherwise that serves to either solve a prior problem or expand the scope of the game world you can interact with, not as progressing the character, as well as user experience?

    You might need to define to us what you think progression is if it does not mean that things mechanically advance/move forward, or change in a manner that gives the player more choices/solutions to content and challenges presented.
    gervaise1kjempff
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,449
    Kyleran said:
    <snip>
    ESO is the poster child of level scaling which was implemented well after launch with the One Tameril expansion. <snip>
    No.

    ESO when it launched was considered to be a "traditional" game with "levels". ESO when it launched also had "lazy mob scaling". Three alliance story arcs tied together by an epic story line. You took a new character from level 1 to level 50 through 1 alliance arc. Then you did the second and third in some order doing the exact same quests a new level 1 would do but the mobs had a "50 level" or "100 level" boost depending on your level.

    These were the veteran levels. Lazy scaling. Maybe because they launched with a subscription?

    One Tamriel changed the way mobs were handled, as discussed above, whilst expanding the ways characters progress,

    So the irony: ESO, considered to be a level based game at launch, had dire level scaling. ESO, post One Tamriel, considered to have level scaling is actually more of a traditional level based game! 
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 13,141
    gervaise1 said:
    Kyleran said:
    <snip>
    ESO is the poster child of level scaling which was implemented well after launch with the One Tameril expansion. <snip>
    No.

    ESO when it launched was considered to be a "traditional" game with "levels". ESO when it launched also had "lazy mob scaling". Three alliance story arcs tied together by an epic story line. You took a new character from level 1 to level 50 through 1 alliance arc. Then you did the second and third in some order doing the exact same quests a new level 1 would do but the mobs had a "50 level" or "100 level" boost depending on your level.

    These were the veteran levels. Lazy scaling. Maybe because they launched with a subscription?

    One Tamriel changed the way mobs were handled, as discussed above, whilst expanding the ways characters progress,

    So the irony: ESO, considered to be a level based game at launch, had dire level scaling. ESO, post One Tamriel, considered to have level scaling is actually more of a traditional level based game! 
    ESO also did their level scaling gradually, in stages, even though those who don't play it think it was all done in One Tamriel:

    • ESO launched with level scaling for PvP - Anyone below level 50 got scaled to level 50.
    • A few months in they added a type of level scaling for instanced 4-man dungeons by making the dungeon scale to the party leader's level.
    • After the conversion to CP from vet ranks they changed the dungeon level scaling to peg all mobs at CP160 and scale all the players below that to CP160.
    • They then made all DLC content zones (Orsinium etc.) scale exactly the same way 4-man instanced dungeons scaled - they did this to make DLC accessible to everyone regardless of level,
    • Finally with One Tamriel, they pegged all mobs everywhere to CP160 and scaled any player, anywhere below that level to CP160. 

    It was largely a trivial non-issue for anyone who had been playing all along because they were already used to PvP, dungeons and DLC zones that had worked that way for a long time. It was mostly just new players who had no clue this had been going on all along who freaked out.
    KyleranTorvalgervaise1AlBQuirky
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,860
    Iselin said:
    ESO also did their level scaling gradually, in stages, even though those who don't play it think it was all done in One Tamriel:
    • After the conversion to CP from vet ranks they changed the dungeon level scaling to peg all mobs at CP160 and scale all the players below that to CP160.
    This is the point I felt like it had gelled into a recognizable system. They way they rolled it out to the rest of the game was very well done especially considering the magnitude of change.

    Iselingervaise1KyleranAlBQuirky
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,449
    Iselin said:

    • A few months in they added a type of level scaling for instanced 4-man dungeons by making the dungeon scale to the party leader's level.

    I'd forgot that bit! Stuff, as you say, evolved. 

    Until, as @Torval says "it had gelled into a recognizable system." A system far removed from: you level X so monster will be level X.
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 13,141
    edited June 14
    gervaise1 said:
    Iselin said:

    • A few months in they added a type of level scaling for instanced 4-man dungeons by making the dungeon scale to the party leader's level.

    I'd forgot that bit! Stuff, as you say, evolved. 

    Until, as @Torval says "it had gelled into a recognizable system." A system far removed from: you level X so monster will be level X.
    Yeah. That one was a temporary fix to make getting groups together a bit easier but the later one when they made all 4-man dungeons CP160 was the one that really did the trick.

    With that first one players used to routinely swap the leader crown around to make it scale to a level they could all do.
    Torval
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • esc-joconnoresc-joconnor Member RarePosts: 1,096
    Scaling is an awesome idea. The alternative is 95% mismatched content. You just need to have it adjust to the players desired level of difficulty.

    Mine would be:
    Trash Mobs: Average
    Special Mobs: Challenging
    Scale to group size: Yes

    And to give players the feeling of getting stronger have the number of enemies increase as well as their strength.
    TorvalScot
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,170
    I do not like scaling. I prefer the game built with the idea that a level 1 could provide some, minimal, but some help to "end game" content and level 1 mobs can still kill max level players. The problem is the gap between new and max level. Scaling takes the RPG out of it.
    SteelhelmAmarantharVermillion_Raventhaldeniter
  • Nelson-zbitNelson-zbit Newbie CommonPosts: 26
    It depends on the scale of standard ver. contents and DLC contents. If more than 7:3, it's OK. If less, gorse!
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,188
    It depends on the scale of standard ver. contents and DLC contents. If more than 7:3, it's OK. If less, gorse!
    Welcome to our forums! 

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member RarePosts: 3,558
    Scaling is an awesome idea. The alternative is 95% mismatched content. You just need to have it adjust to the players desired level of difficulty.

    Mine would be:
    Trash Mobs: Average
    Special Mobs: Challenging
    Scale to group size: Yes

    And to give players the feeling of getting stronger have the number of enemies increase as well as their strength.
    For players who don't care about "World" and consistency, I think that's a great idea.
    Not my kind of game, but for your wants (and those of like mind) that's a great way to go.

    It feels like "illusion" rather than "immersion" to me. But I know that doesn't bother many players.
    Scorchien

    Once upon a time....

  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard Member LegendaryPosts: 8,064
    Scaling is an awesome idea. The alternative is 95% mismatched content. You just need to have it adjust to the players desired level of difficulty.

    Mine would be:
    Trash Mobs: Average
    Special Mobs: Challenging
    Scale to group size: Yes

    And to give players the feeling of getting stronger have the number of enemies increase as well as their strength.
    For players who don't care about "World" and consistency, I think that's a great idea. 
    Scaling, at least like implemented in ESO, makes the world actually more consistent and realistic.
    That orc that could kill you when you were level 1 with his arrows can still do it now you are level 50, as it should be, and as it is in the real world.
    Limnicgervaise1Torval
    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars.
    After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that nor does the ability to write.
    CPU: Core I7 9700k (4.90ghz) - GPU: Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti G1 Gaming - RAM: 16GB Kingston HyperX Savage DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston KC1000 NVMe 960gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Philips 40PUK6809 4K 3D TV - Second display: Philips 273v 27" gaming monitor - VR: Pimax 8K headset and Razer Hydra controllers - Soundcard: Sony STR-DH550 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 10 Pro 64 bits.

  • gunklackergunklacker Member UncommonPosts: 247
     One example i can give for against it is LOTRO there were area,s of Elite and heroic mods, these were group area,s and there was excitement and danger there, i remember the Eye of Sauron would light on fire was cool..
  • MargraveMargrave Member RarePosts: 1,171
    I think scaling is terrible. Destroys the feeling of getting stronger on a character.

    If I can't go back to lower level zones and be God-like in aiding friends, then did I ever level up at all?
    JeffSpicoli
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,576
    Scaling is an awesome idea. The alternative is 95% mismatched content. You just need to have it adjust to the players desired level of difficulty.

    Mine would be:
    Trash Mobs: Average
    Special Mobs: Challenging
    Scale to group size: Yes

    And to give players the feeling of getting stronger have the number of enemies increase as well as their strength.
    For players who don't care about "World" and consistency, I think that's a great idea. 
    Scaling, at least like implemented in ESO, makes the world actually more consistent and realistic.
    That orc that could kill you when you were level 1 with his arrows can still do it now you are level 50, as it should be, and as it is in the real world.
    Damn! There goes all the 80's montages ;)
    Jean-Luc_Picard

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


    (And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

  • WhySoSeriousWhySoSerious Member UncommonPosts: 156
    Scaling is one of my most hated features in an MMO, and is an absolute deal-breaker.
    skadadPo_gg
Sign In or Register to comment.