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".
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;
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;
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.
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 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.
"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
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.
"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
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.
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.
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..
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
- 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
I guess my D&D upbringing instilled my sense of leveling and progression. Every campaign started with us against Kobolds and Goblins, then moving up to Orcs and Gnolls, then Bubgbears and Ogres. Eventually, we'd get to the "really cool" opponents like Liches and Dragons. That's how I learned. That's come to be my own expectation of recognizable progression.
In EQ, I saw Giants at low levels. Never fought them then, but I kept my eyes on them. Then, after level 20, I could start having a chance on the Hill Giants. Does ESO have anything like this?
How does scaling give this kind of feeling? Or does it even want to?
- 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
How does scaling give this kind of feeling? Or does it even want to?
Doesn't want to, the whole point is to go anywhere and face the same luke-warm mediocre crap without the slightest pinch of progression... forced scaling, that is. Optional scaling is a neat tool at hand.
There can be valid arguments on forced scaling, though with D&D (or any pen-and-paper) ubringing as you said those arguments sounds dumb, since progression is one of the key elements of roleplaying.
But the most dumb (and also pretty invalid) argument is when they bring in immersion. Not just for the double standard of "level 50 rat is immersion breaking when there is a level 5 rat too" vs. "low level orc just trained as hard as the players, that's why the same challenge when the players go back". With that reasoning the more powerful rat could also be a more trained and more dangerous one.
No, what makes the immersion argument a joke is when the forced scaling people, after some struggle, beat the "highly trained" (lol) mob in the newbie zone, and then looking to the left and see that little Jimmy with his level 1 newbie stick is beating the same mob, with the same effort and that's not immersion breaking for them?
"Gee, that sword looks awesome, did you kill dragons with it? Such a great and mighty hero, I'd wager you could help me clear this field without breaking a sweat... wait, you can't?"
Not really accurate there. A scaling system creates challenges by having mobs that are fundamentally above the average line for difficulty, something above where a player would otherwise simply level over.
Point of example is the entire zone of Craglorn in ESO is a group zone, with every challenge there built to be tackled by a team. It's a fundamentally tougher area to take on. Same as with vet mobs in the game, or world bosses, or even the dragons recently added.
Turns out, there's a pretty wide variety of ways employed to make scaling and horizontal systems have both easy and extremely challenging mobs/obstacles.
And the argument of wanting things to be easy rests squarely on the non-scaled system as well. Seeing as over-leveling and over-gearing for a zone or enemy is quite common, and completely udermines any challenge a level appropriate mob would otherwise present in a non-scaled system.
It's ironic too that you create a straw man and then attack it with a false dichotomy. The claim of no sense of progression is simply a false one. Foremost because as a player obtains new skills and broadens core stats, it does have a direct impact on their ability to handle fights. That orc you talk about for example, yes can be taken on by a level 1 character, but a level 10, even with generally scaled stats, will simply have a wider array of skills to apply and a deeper resource pool to draw from, making dispatching the orc a fundamentally simpler experience. So that "clear this field without breaking a sweat" thing actually could/would play out quite differently, as the higher level player, even with scaled content, could clear that field vastly more efficiently by virtue of his broader scope of skills and stats supporting them.
The misrepresentation of "immersion" does not benefit you either. It's not the assumption that things are training to scale with you, it's that "a rat is a rat" and "an orc is an orc". You leveling up doesn't magically make them stronger or weaker because you leveling doesn't make you arbitrarily extend beyond the norms of a being of that world. You're still a mortal entity of that game world and your character's power, while on the extreme end of things, is exists relative to what the beings of that world are realistically capable of. You don't get to become some beefcake that can suplex a god just because you hit max level.
And that's why orcs stay relevant in such a situation, because they are inherently "strong" creatures. Just as rats are inherently weak, but prone to swarms/disease, and other creatures possess their own norms.
It's the more immersive element there because things have norms that they vary between, but seldom break, and the players are beholden to that as much as anything else is.
So how is that immersion breaking to you? Think @AlBQuirky should question the "insightfulness" of such a slanted and misinformed opinion.
Not really accurate there. A scaling system creates challenges by having mobs that are fundamentally above the average line for difficulty, something above where a player would otherwise simply level over.
Point of example is the entire zone of Craglorn in ESO is a group zone, with every challenge there built to be tackled by a team. It's a fundamentally tougher area to take on. Same as with vet mobs in the game, or world bosses, or even the dragons recently added.
Turns out, there's a pretty wide variety of ways employed to make scaling and horizontal systems have both easy and extremely challenging mobs/obstacles.
And the argument of wanting things to be easy rests squarely on the non-scaled system as well. Seeing as over-leveling and over-gearing for a zone or enemy is quite common, and completely udermines any challenge a level appropriate mob would otherwise present in a non-scaled system.
It's ironic too that you create a straw man and then attack it with a false dichotomy. The claim of no sense of progression is simply a false one. Foremost because as a player obtains new skills and broadens core stats, it does have a direct impact on their ability to handle fights. That orc you talk about for example, yes can be taken on by a level 1 character, but a level 10, even with generally scaled stats, will simply have a wider array of skills to apply and a deeper resource pool to draw from, making dispatching the orc a fundamentally simpler experience. So that "clear this field without breaking a sweat" thing actually could/would play out quite differently, as the higher level player, even with scaled content, could clear that field vastly more efficiently by virtue of his broader scope of skills and stats supporting them.
The misrepresentation of "immersion" does not benefit you either. It's not the assumption that things are training to scale with you, it's that "a rat is a rat" and "an orc is an orc". You leveling up doesn't magically make them stronger or weaker because you leveling doesn't make you arbitrarily extend beyond the norms of a being of that world. You're still a mortal entity of that game world and your character's power, while on the extreme end of things, is exists relative to what the beings of that world are realistically capable of. You don't get to become some beefcake that can suplex a god just because you hit max level.
And that's why orcs stay relevant in such a situation, because they are inherently "strong" creatures. Just as rats are inherently weak, but prone to swarms/disease, and other creatures possess their own norms.
It's the more immersive element there because things have norms that they vary between, but seldom break, and the players are beholden to that as much as anything else is.
So how is that immersion breaking to you? Think @AlBQuirky should question the "insightfulness" of such a slanted and misinformed opinion.
Only problem with your 2nd paragraph is all those things can and are soloed .. So is the system working ?
Only problem with your 2nd paragraph is all those things can and are soloed .. So is the system working ?
People regularly solo higher level and challenging content in non-scaling games as well. Hell, even raids get incomplete teams or soloers running them even though that's generally supposed to be the group "endgame". So is that system working?
The often cited examples of D&D as a non-scaling system has always been rife with people doing exactly this kind of thing and utterly breaking and exploiting the system to turn otherwise massive hurdles into nothing.
There are people that will figure out how to take on or even break the toughest challenges in any game with munchkin builds and otherwise.
Should a scaling system, where they can't simply over-level their enemies, be punishing players that are skilled enough to take on such a challenge?
Not really accurate there. A scaling system creates challenges by having mobs that are fundamentally above the average line for difficulty, something above where a player would otherwise simply level over.
Point of example is the entire zone of Craglorn in ESO is a group zone, with every challenge there built to be tackled by a team. It's a fundamentally tougher area to take on. Same as with vet mobs in the game, or world bosses, or even the dragons recently added.
Turns out, there's a pretty wide variety of ways employed to make scaling and horizontal systems have both easy and extremely challenging mobs/obstacles.
And the argument of wanting things to be easy rests squarely on the non-scaled system as well. Seeing as over-leveling and over-gearing for a zone or enemy is quite common, and completely udermines any challenge a level appropriate mob would otherwise present in a non-scaled system.
It's ironic too that you create a straw man and then attack it with a false dichotomy. The claim of no sense of progression is simply a false one. Foremost because as a player obtains new skills and broadens core stats, it does have a direct impact on their ability to handle fights. That orc you talk about for example, yes can be taken on by a level 1 character, but a level 10, even with generally scaled stats, will simply have a wider array of skills to apply and a deeper resource pool to draw from, making dispatching the orc a fundamentally simpler experience. So that "clear this field without breaking a sweat" thing actually could/would play out quite differently, as the higher level player, even with scaled content, could clear that field vastly more efficiently by virtue of his broader scope of skills and stats supporting them.
The misrepresentation of "immersion" does not benefit you either. It's not the assumption that things are training to scale with you, it's that "a rat is a rat" and "an orc is an orc". You leveling up doesn't magically make them stronger or weaker because you leveling doesn't make you arbitrarily extend beyond the norms of a being of that world. You're still a mortal entity of that game world and your character's power, while on the extreme end of things, is exists relative to what the beings of that world are realistically capable of. You don't get to become some beefcake that can suplex a god just because you hit max level.
And that's why orcs stay relevant in such a situation, because they are inherently "strong" creatures. Just as rats are inherently weak, but prone to swarms/disease, and other creatures possess their own norms.
It's the more immersive element there because things have norms that they vary between, but seldom break, and the players are beholden to that as much as anything else is.
So how is that immersion breaking to you? Think @AlBQuirky should question the "insightfulness" of such a slanted and misinformed opinion.
Only problem with your 2nd paragraph is all those things can and are soloed .. So is the system working ?
I've never seen an MMO where people can't solo some or most of the content that is made for groups at their level. But in traditional non-scaled MMOs it's even easier by just outleveling the content. It's how even the worst of the worst used to solo world bosses in ESO before scaling.
"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
Not really accurate there. A scaling system creates challenges by having mobs that are fundamentally above the average line for difficulty, something above where a player would otherwise simply level over.
Point of example is the entire zone of Craglorn in ESO is a group zone, with every challenge there built to be tackled by a team. It's a fundamentally tougher area to take on. Same as with vet mobs in the game, or world bosses, or even the dragons recently added.
Turns out, there's a pretty wide variety of ways employed to make scaling and horizontal systems have both easy and extremely challenging mobs/obstacles.
And the argument of wanting things to be easy rests squarely on the non-scaled system as well. Seeing as over-leveling and over-gearing for a zone or enemy is quite common, and completely udermines any challenge a level appropriate mob would otherwise present in a non-scaled system.
It's ironic too that you create a straw man and then attack it with a false dichotomy. The claim of no sense of progression is simply a false one. Foremost because as a player obtains new skills and broadens core stats, it does have a direct impact on their ability to handle fights. That orc you talk about for example, yes can be taken on by a level 1 character, but a level 10, even with generally scaled stats, will simply have a wider array of skills to apply and a deeper resource pool to draw from, making dispatching the orc a fundamentally simpler experience. So that "clear this field without breaking a sweat" thing actually could/would play out quite differently, as the higher level player, even with scaled content, could clear that field vastly more efficiently by virtue of his broader scope of skills and stats supporting them.
The misrepresentation of "immersion" does not benefit you either. It's not the assumption that things are training to scale with you, it's that "a rat is a rat" and "an orc is an orc". You leveling up doesn't magically make them stronger or weaker because you leveling doesn't make you arbitrarily extend beyond the norms of a being of that world. You're still a mortal entity of that game world and your character's power, while on the extreme end of things, is exists relative to what the beings of that world are realistically capable of. You don't get to become some beefcake that can suplex a god just because you hit max level.
And that's why orcs stay relevant in such a situation, because they are inherently "strong" creatures. Just as rats are inherently weak, but prone to swarms/disease, and other creatures possess their own norms.
It's the more immersive element there because things have norms that they vary between, but seldom break, and the players are beholden to that as much as anything else is.
So how is that immersion breaking to you? Think @AlBQuirky should question the "insightfulness" of such a slanted and misinformed opinion.
Only problem with your 2nd paragraph is all those things can and are soloed .. So is the system working ?
I've never seen an MMO where people can't solo some or most of the content that is made for groups at their level. But in traditional non-scaled MMOs it's even easier by just outleveling the content. It's how even the worst of the worst used to solo world bosses in ESO before scaling.
No dungeons in vanilla EQ2 ( Kaladim ) right now can be soloed at level.. None ..... Many things in UO cannot be soloed ( Even with the highest tiered Pet)
No Dungeons in Anarchy Online can be soloed at level ..
Noone can solo a Vanguard Dungeon ... on the Emu server or at live
Couple ex...
So if we consider that a scaling game is scaling to +/- level ( close to ) it should not be soloable ..
In the scalable scenario players are soloing the content at level ... true
Not really accurate there. A scaling system creates challenges by having mobs that are fundamentally above the average line for difficulty, something above where a player would otherwise simply level over.
Point of example is the entire zone of Craglorn in ESO is a group zone, with every challenge there built to be tackled by a team. It's a fundamentally tougher area to take on. Same as with vet mobs in the game, or world bosses, or even the dragons recently added.
Turns out, there's a pretty wide variety of ways employed to make scaling and horizontal systems have both easy and extremely challenging mobs/obstacles.
And the argument of wanting things to be easy rests squarely on the non-scaled system as well. Seeing as over-leveling and over-gearing for a zone or enemy is quite common, and completely udermines any challenge a level appropriate mob would otherwise present in a non-scaled system.
It's ironic too that you create a straw man and then attack it with a false dichotomy. The claim of no sense of progression is simply a false one. Foremost because as a player obtains new skills and broadens core stats, it does have a direct impact on their ability to handle fights. That orc you talk about for example, yes can be taken on by a level 1 character, but a level 10, even with generally scaled stats, will simply have a wider array of skills to apply and a deeper resource pool to draw from, making dispatching the orc a fundamentally simpler experience. So that "clear this field without breaking a sweat" thing actually could/would play out quite differently, as the higher level player, even with scaled content, could clear that field vastly more efficiently by virtue of his broader scope of skills and stats supporting them.
The misrepresentation of "immersion" does not benefit you either. It's not the assumption that things are training to scale with you, it's that "a rat is a rat" and "an orc is an orc". You leveling up doesn't magically make them stronger or weaker because you leveling doesn't make you arbitrarily extend beyond the norms of a being of that world. You're still a mortal entity of that game world and your character's power, while on the extreme end of things, is exists relative to what the beings of that world are realistically capable of. You don't get to become some beefcake that can suplex a god just because you hit max level.
And that's why orcs stay relevant in such a situation, because they are inherently "strong" creatures. Just as rats are inherently weak, but prone to swarms/disease, and other creatures possess their own norms.
It's the more immersive element there because things have norms that they vary between, but seldom break, and the players are beholden to that as much as anything else is.
So how is that immersion breaking to you? Think @AlBQuirky should question the "insightfulness" of such a slanted and misinformed opinion.
Only problem with your 2nd paragraph is all those things can and are soloed .. So is the system working ?
I've never seen an MMO where people can't solo some or most of the content that is made for groups at their level. But in traditional non-scaled MMOs it's even easier by just outleveling the content. It's how even the worst of the worst used to solo world bosses in ESO before scaling.
No dungeons in vanilla EQ2 ( Kaladim ) right now can be soloed at level.. None ..... Many things in UO cannot be soloed ( Even with the highest tiered Pet)
No Dungeons in Anarchy Online can be soloed at level ..
Noone can solo a Vanguard Dungeon ... on the Emu server or at live
Couple ex...
So if we consider that a scaling game is scaling to +/- level ( close to ) it should not be soloable ..
In the scalable scenario players are soloing the content at level ... true
Oh so now it's a discussion about how ancient MMOs are better? lol.
"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
Not really accurate there. A scaling system creates challenges by having mobs that are fundamentally above the average line for difficulty, something above where a player would otherwise simply level over.
Point of example is the entire zone of Craglorn in ESO is a group zone, with every challenge there built to be tackled by a team. It's a fundamentally tougher area to take on. Same as with vet mobs in the game, or world bosses, or even the dragons recently added.
Turns out, there's a pretty wide variety of ways employed to make scaling and horizontal systems have both easy and extremely challenging mobs/obstacles.
And the argument of wanting things to be easy rests squarely on the non-scaled system as well. Seeing as over-leveling and over-gearing for a zone or enemy is quite common, and completely udermines any challenge a level appropriate mob would otherwise present in a non-scaled system.
It's ironic too that you create a straw man and then attack it with a false dichotomy. The claim of no sense of progression is simply a false one. Foremost because as a player obtains new skills and broadens core stats, it does have a direct impact on their ability to handle fights. That orc you talk about for example, yes can be taken on by a level 1 character, but a level 10, even with generally scaled stats, will simply have a wider array of skills to apply and a deeper resource pool to draw from, making dispatching the orc a fundamentally simpler experience. So that "clear this field without breaking a sweat" thing actually could/would play out quite differently, as the higher level player, even with scaled content, could clear that field vastly more efficiently by virtue of his broader scope of skills and stats supporting them.
The misrepresentation of "immersion" does not benefit you either. It's not the assumption that things are training to scale with you, it's that "a rat is a rat" and "an orc is an orc". You leveling up doesn't magically make them stronger or weaker because you leveling doesn't make you arbitrarily extend beyond the norms of a being of that world. You're still a mortal entity of that game world and your character's power, while on the extreme end of things, is exists relative to what the beings of that world are realistically capable of. You don't get to become some beefcake that can suplex a god just because you hit max level.
And that's why orcs stay relevant in such a situation, because they are inherently "strong" creatures. Just as rats are inherently weak, but prone to swarms/disease, and other creatures possess their own norms.
It's the more immersive element there because things have norms that they vary between, but seldom break, and the players are beholden to that as much as anything else is.
So how is that immersion breaking to you? Think @AlBQuirky should question the "insightfulness" of such a slanted and misinformed opinion.
Only problem with your 2nd paragraph is all those things can and are soloed .. So is the system working ?
I've never seen an MMO where people can't solo some or most of the content that is made for groups at their level. But in traditional non-scaled MMOs it's even easier by just outleveling the content. It's how even the worst of the worst used to solo world bosses in ESO before scaling.
No dungeons in vanilla EQ2 ( Kaladim ) right now can be soloed at level.. None ..... Many things in UO cannot be soloed ( Even with the highest tiered Pet)
No Dungeons in Anarchy Online can be soloed at level ..
Noone can solo a Vanguard Dungeon ... on the Emu server or at live
Couple ex...
So if we consider that a scaling game is scaling to +/- level ( close to ) it should not be soloable ..
In the scalable scenario players are soloing the content at level ... true
Oh so now it's a discussion about how ancient MMOs are better? lol.
Its not Iselin , the point is you cannot solo that content at level in any of those games .. and many others
You cannot solo any dungeon at level in FF14 either ... thats newer
And yet we got videos showing off players soloing things like Mitaar in Anarchy Online, a specific classic server for EQ2 which ignores that it's regularly done otherwise, a claim about Vanguard, and a claim for UO. Which if you take a moment, you also realize that at least three of those games are pre-WoW titles that used a much more heavy handed approach to level graded content in the first place.
Which, however, did not prevent any of them from having players exploiting specific builds or game mechanics to solo or even completely undermine the challenge of the game's content any ways.
Also FF14 kind of enforces group dungeon instances, if you change it in the settings it disables xp/rewards in most cases, and certain bosses utilize one-shot mechanics, kinda why it's not generally done(but does actually get done pretty regularly to farm some dungeons).
Comments
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".
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.
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!
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.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
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.
With that first one players used to routinely swap the leader crown around to make it scale to a level they could all do.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
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.
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.
Once upon a time....
- 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
In EQ, I saw Giants at low levels. Never fought them then, but I kept my eyes on them. Then, after level 20, I could start having a chance on the Hill Giants. Does ESO have anything like this?
How does scaling give this kind of feeling? Or does it even want to?
- 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
Point of example is the entire zone of Craglorn in ESO is a group zone, with every challenge there built to be tackled by a team. It's a fundamentally tougher area to take on. Same as with vet mobs in the game, or world bosses, or even the dragons recently added.
Turns out, there's a pretty wide variety of ways employed to make scaling and horizontal systems have both easy and extremely challenging mobs/obstacles.
And the argument of wanting things to be easy rests squarely on the non-scaled system as well. Seeing as over-leveling and over-gearing for a zone or enemy is quite common, and completely udermines any challenge a level appropriate mob would otherwise present in a non-scaled system.
It's ironic too that you create a straw man and then attack it with a false dichotomy. The claim of no sense of progression is simply a false one. Foremost because as a player obtains new skills and broadens core stats, it does have a direct impact on their ability to handle fights. That orc you talk about for example, yes can be taken on by a level 1 character, but a level 10, even with generally scaled stats, will simply have a wider array of skills to apply and a deeper resource pool to draw from, making dispatching the orc a fundamentally simpler experience. So that "clear this field without breaking a sweat" thing actually could/would play out quite differently, as the higher level player, even with scaled content, could clear that field vastly more efficiently by virtue of his broader scope of skills and stats supporting them.
The misrepresentation of "immersion" does not benefit you either. It's not the assumption that things are training to scale with you, it's that "a rat is a rat" and "an orc is an orc". You leveling up doesn't magically make them stronger or weaker because you leveling doesn't make you arbitrarily extend beyond the norms of a being of that world. You're still a mortal entity of that game world and your character's power, while on the extreme end of things, is exists relative to what the beings of that world are realistically capable of. You don't get to become some beefcake that can suplex a god just because you hit max level.
And that's why orcs stay relevant in such a situation, because they are inherently "strong" creatures. Just as rats are inherently weak, but prone to swarms/disease, and other creatures possess their own norms.
It's the more immersive element there because things have norms that they vary between, but seldom break, and the players are beholden to that as much as anything else is.
So how is that immersion breaking to you? Think @AlBQuirky should question the "insightfulness" of such a slanted and misinformed opinion.
The often cited examples of D&D as a non-scaling system has always been rife with people doing exactly this kind of thing and utterly breaking and exploiting the system to turn otherwise massive hurdles into nothing.
There are people that will figure out how to take on or even break the toughest challenges in any game with munchkin builds and otherwise.
Should a scaling system, where they can't simply over-level their enemies, be punishing players that are skilled enough to take on such a challenge?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Which, however, did not prevent any of them from having players exploiting specific builds or game mechanics to solo or even completely undermine the challenge of the game's content any ways.
Also FF14 kind of enforces group dungeon instances, if you change it in the settings it disables xp/rewards in most cases, and certain bosses utilize one-shot mechanics, kinda why it's not generally done(but does actually get done pretty regularly to farm some dungeons).