I'm a bit disappointed CDPR decided to stick with "levels".

+
I'm okay with levels. But. Leveled enemies should look tougher, not like similar looking enemy's damage varied greatly from scratching to one shoting with different leves.
 

Tuco

Forum veteran
I honestly hate the argument "Well, they have to restrict your options somehow" because it completely ignores the DOZENS of games that already achieved that type of result without explicit level gating.
Gothic, for instance, doesn't need once to tell you that that your level is inadequate or that some enemy is more dangerous than others. It becomes self evident by playing.

The very Ultima you mentioned, @Bondaebu , is first and foremost a story-driven RPG with a series of strictly sequential events as main quest.
 
Yeah, that kinda sucks. But it can still be done somewhat properly. I absolutely love how Assassin's Creed Unity implemented it. Enemies were much more aggressive and deals a shit ton of damage on higher levels/stars. They felt more genuinely intimidating but were still killable, offered an enjoyable amount of challenge on player skill and without being a damage sponge. But that said, the enemy variety in ACU wasn't much. You just kept seeing the same thugs and guards over and over. That's gonna be difficult here.

If it's ultimately not fun, then I could just wait for a mod like Brutal and Realistic Combat in TW3.
 
Copying it here from an old thread:
You didn't quote my very next part of the post you quoted:

Personally, I like the idea of no levels at all in theory ... but I think it practice it would feel a lot like playing a game with levels with the HUD turned off. You never know what your getting into until it's too late. Which would be realistic and interesting, but also frustrating most likely after a few hours.

But as I've said before I DO like the idea of no leveling at all -

Yeah it's not an ideal design IMO. I don't really need my character to feel significantly more powerful at then end of a game than at the beginning to feel like they've "progressed." Learning additional ways to deal with problems is always great, but keeping the character around roughly the same damage output level works fine. Joel in the tLoU is a good example, though it's not an RPG, and a linear game, so applying it to an open world level design is not 1 for 1. He improves some abilities over the course of the game, but the progression of the character is not dependent on him feeling significantly more powerful.

On to the other points:

With the system I described, which is exactly the same as sekiro (don't know if you've played it), the world is almost completely open exactly because it has no levels and you can do different areas in the order you prefer. But sekiro doesn't have side quests
Without sidequests, I dont think the balancing works.

so a good way to solve it is looking at RDR2: in RDR2 side quests appear only when it makes sense for the plot, briefly: there's an alteranation between moments when you are forced to do the main quest and moments when you can do side quests. Game pacing and rhytm are so perfect that you never think "oh my god, I'm in a hurry to find Ciri, but first lemme play some gwent".
I much preferred TW3 quest design over RDR2s. (1) RDR2 has basically no real character progression. Which makes balancing much easier over the course of the game. Like I said above, I don't need the PC to become God like powerhouse, but some progression is much preferred. (2) RDR2 feels much more linear to me than I would prefer.

While I don't particularly like leveling, I do think the solutions you have presented lead to more problems than the problem itself (which is the artificial nature of levels and narrative progression). I may come back later after reflection and try to propose what I think would work.
 
You didn't quote my very next part of the post you quoted:
Sorry, old post, I haven't re-read everything, just copy-pasted.
You never know what your getting into until it's too late.
Not if devs don't let you accept quests earlier than you should.
RDR2 has basically no real character progression.
At that time death stranding wasn't out yet, but today I'd use that game as an example of a good progression system.

For the game being too linear, it's the closest example I can think of an open-world game with side quests that can -somehow- resemble a story driven RPG.
I do think the solutions you have presented lead to more problems than the problem itself
I'd be happy to hear your opinion. :)
 
I'd be happy to hear your opinion. :)
It's definitely a challenge because of all the balancing issues between gameplay and narrative.

I think the quest design structure as done in TW3 is probably still my favorite I've ever seen. I'm totally on board with having sidequests with increased challenge pop-up based on where you are in the main quest. Which is the basic concept in RDR2 as well. I just didn't like how in RDR2, the side quests were basically part of the main quest, where you had to complete a bunch of them before the next main quest would trigger. So it was really all pretty much main quests, with a few exceptions here or there.

But that basic idea is fine. So long as the side quests are truly sidequests.

The question becomes, how to balance that narrative structure with consistently competitive gameplay that allows for character progression?

CDPR has settled on leveling. Which is based on the basic concept that as a character progresses they become more powerful ... and then creating a uniform measurement of how powerful everything is, so the player has some concept of how powerful things are relative to one another.

Based on what we already know, the simplest answer is just take out or hide the numbers right?

Do everything through skill progression as you use the skills, and perk points/attribute points which you receive as main-quest rewards instead of level rewards. You could control encountering really hard enemies to some degree by keeping the toughest outside-of-main-quest fights strictly tied to side quest-lines and not open world content, and then only having those questlines become available in the mainquest once the player is likely to have progressed far enough in the main story. In CP2077, since V has an optical scanner, it could be used to measure threat levels of enemies in-game. So you could still make some areas tougher than others ... and just have V rely on her in-head-HUD to know "no threat-moderate threat-high threat-suicidal" basic range, without knowing a specific level. This would give the player a crutch to rely on with an in-world explanation, without the strict reliance on leveling. That's the game telling V where those NPCs appear to be relative to her in power-fulness. This would probably be my ideal solution based on what we already know about this game.

No game has really done it that way before to my knowledge ... but I think it could work. It's honestly not that different than what CDPR already has planned, it just obscures the numbers a bit, and ties increasing power more directly to the main quest.

...

The other more radical alternative requires rethinking what progression is in the first place. More about the variety of possible actions rather than the power of those actions, right? Therefore you make enemies and V everywhere roughly within a reasonably similar range in HP, damage output, and etc for the entirety of the game. But increase enemies challenges based the number of things they can do within the locations where they are placed. So the progression would be through the number of options the player has, not how powerful they are.
 
Last edited:
Levels can give you a sense of progression and achievement. My fear is that they'll be like Witcher 3 and nerf the xp you get from missions to 0 because you're 5 levels too high.

So long as I can do missions whenever I want and not get penalized for doing the main story first, I'll be happy.

Eh, not really.

For the sake of argument, suppose you have levels. Your level 1 character acquires enough experience to become a level 2 character. They level up, gain the option to select new attribute improvements (skills, stats, perks, whatever) and pick something. Now your level 2 character is more powerful.

Now consider a different scenario. Your starting character performs actions, tasks, whatever. They acquire experience. After enough experience they cross a threshold where they improve. Again, they gain the option to select a new improvement and pick something. Notice anything here? Yep, no levels. The experience gain is attached directly to the improvements.

Basically, the levels aren't what creates the sense of progression. The improvements create the sense of progression. Levels only serve as an obvious and convenient measurement for this progression. A level 2 character or NPC is stronger compared to a level 1 character or NPC. It's difficult and cumbersome to display this power difference without slapping a single number on it.

I suspect the core problem, and the reason levels are used in this game, is having varying power level NPC's and characters in an open world. Reducing everything to the same power level isn't a great solution. It solves the problem but creates others.

Keeping this power level variation but removing the level "label" doesn't solve anything either. In that case those differences remain but there is no way to conveniently display them. Unless you use another means to do so, which also creates it's own problems (specifically, how... and yes there are a lot of ways to do so).

No levels, but trust me, you know a strong enemy when you meet one. You "just" need a good game designer who knows how to place enemies.
EDIT: demo showed how scanner can give you info about how dangerous an NPC is, that could subsitute levels with colours or word:
View attachment 11003845
So you don't end up fighting someone too strong /EDIT

This is a good example of what I mean.... So you cut out levels and instead replace them with some comparison mechanic designed to look at each and every ability of a given NPC and spit out a power level. This then gets converted to a word or words the player sees when evaluating the NPC. This NPC is easy, this one is difficult, this one will curbstomp you into the ground. What is the difference between this and levels? You're just replacing levels as a power metric with words.

An acceptable compromise for levels IMHO, is standard levels for enemy type: ALL scavengers (first demo) are level 2, ALL vodoo boys are all level 18 and ALL max tac officers are level 36 (bosses excluded, ofc). Levels do not reflect their DMG output or HPs (if not to minimum extent, an advanced assault rifle is better than a 9mm, and skinweave gives more defense or HP than a t-shirt), but their abilities:
-scavengers are normal guys with guns and that's it (level 2)
-vodoo boys have good cyberware for their limbs (unhuman strenght and speed) (level 18)
-trauma team has very good gear (level 25)
-max tac has both cyberware and gear (x-ray vision, smoke bombs, super strenght and speed, double jumps) (level 36)

How would this be any different from deciding all of X level NPC is in Y location? I mean, you can say enemy A is always level 2 and enemy B is always level 18. But... you still have to put them in the game world. In which case you end up with level 2 locations and level 18 locations. If you're doing it this way you could just as easily decide every NPC in location A is around level 2 and each in location B is around level 18. The only real difference would be instead of a level label you'd be relying upon a visual label (name of the NPC). At the cost of less NPC variation per area....

Unless you mean to say location A has a handful of scavengers and a couple voodoo boys. So, call it a level 15 location. Change the distribution of scavengers to voodoo boys more in favor of voodoo boys for the level 18 location. The trouble is then you're encountering a collection of pushovers and a couple difficult enemies in this area.

You'd be better off scaling everything to the player for the whole game. My player is level 1 at this area so all enemies are level 1. They go to level 2 and now all enemies are level 2. Unfortunately, some players dislike this mechanic. An optional toggle works though.

Even your comments on good game designers knowing how to place NPC's isn't without consideration. So you set things up where the player naturally reaches the proper leveled opposition. But there you're talking about giving them a push toward certain areas at certain moments in the leveling process. It doesn't exactly fit with open world.

Obviously, levels can be done in a way not fitting with open world too. There I'd think other solutions would be superior to driving the player in specific directions though.

The post by Kakita is a very good example. Instead of having levels dictate bullet sponginess or damage output make them determine the abilities available to the NPC's. The level 15 NPC isn't superior to the level 10 NPC because he magically has more HP or damage. He's superior because he uses grenades instead of only shooting at the player. Maybe he has a healing inhaler. More cyberware, thus more abilities, or armor (means more HP but at least the context fits), whatever. In short, make him tougher because he does or has more stuff.
 
There really isn't that many options for a traditional RPG. It's either level based or skill based pretty much, and both have their advantages/disadvantages.
what is the disadvantage of skill based then? i can not think of one.
Post automatically merged:

The scaling and levels also mean that enemies are damage spongy, that there are no silencers and no stealth options for gun play...
Im not 100% sure of these conclusions, but every shooter RPG had these downsides and cyberpunk could have been better than this.
it is not scaling OR levels...
the best option we all want is same as in real life.. if you do not train or do not have the right weapons you will not last a sec in combat with a seasoned vet.

NPC's in different areas are just better and/or in higher numbers. Better armor, better stims, better weapons, more skills.

it is like you train one year in boxing and think.. i will NEVER step in the ring with the regional champion till i have at least 3 more years intensive training or a gun :p
 
Last edited:
The post by Kakita is a very good example. Instead of having levels dictate bullet sponginess or damage output make them determine the abilities available to the NPC's. The level 15 NPC isn't superior to the level 10 NPC because he magically has more HP or damage. He's superior because he uses grenades instead of only shooting at the player. Maybe he has a healing inhaler. More cyberware, thus more abilities, or armor (means more HP but at least the context fits), whatever. In short, make him tougher because he does or has more stuff.
This seems to rely too much on AI, which isn't progressing much. It's dumb. It's hard to make it use complex tactics with a bunch of skills and variety of weapons. Unlike, for example, boss battles, with an arena and various scripts for enemy to do more stuff than regular idiots. Without compex tactics it comes down to "more damage, more protection" + 1-2 extra skills like turning almost invisible or stunning. Or throwing grenades. It will be enough for some time, but it still gets to the point "more damage and more protection". Otherwise your growing firepower and skill set just wipe enemies without much care.
 
The other more radical alternative requires rethinking what progression is in the first place. More about the variety of possible actions rather than the power of those actions, right? Therefore you make enemies and V everywhere roughly within a reasonably similar range in HP, damage output, and etc for the entirety of the game. But increase enemies challenges based the number of things they can do within the locations where they are placed. So the progression would be through the number of options the player has, not how powerful they are.
Starting with this one, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but this is exactly what I've been suggesting all along. :)

The question becomes, how to balance that narrative structure with consistently competitive gameplay that allows for character progression?
Same as RDR2, side quests open when main quests allows it.
Do everything through skill progression as you use the skills, and perk points/attribute points which you receive as main-quest rewards instead of level rewards. You could control encountering really hard enemies to some degree by keeping the toughest outside-of-main-quest fights strictly tied to side quest-lines and not open world content, and then only having those questlines become available in the mainquest once the player is likely to have progressed far enough in the main story. In CP2077, since V has an optical scanner, it could be used to measure threat levels of enemies in-game. So you could still make some areas tougher than others ... and just have V rely on her in-head-HUD to know "no threat-moderate threat-high threat-suicidal" basic range, without knowing a specific level. This would give the player a crutch to rely on with an in-world explanation, without the strict reliance on leveling. That's the game telling V where those NPCs appear to be relative to her in power-fulness. This would probably be my ideal solution based on what we already know about this game.
I wouldn't use main quests rewards if not in terms of cyberware you can buy with the money you get from quests.

I suggested the in-head-HUD as well.
You're just replacing levels as a power metric with words.
As I was just writing above, that should be just an additional help in case it's not clear that a giant or a huge robot are more dangerous than a wolf or a guy with a knife.
In which case you end up with level 2 locations and level 18 locations.
I don't want locations classified by levels and levels should be very similar in terms of DMG input/output. Enemies need to be more or less ubiquitous in the map to offer variety (narrative-wise, of course)
Even your comments on good game designers knowing how to place NPC's isn't without consideration. So you set things up where the player naturally reaches the proper leveled opposition. But there you're talking about giving them a push toward certain areas at certain moments in the leveling process. It doesn't exactly fit with open world.
Not certain areas, but compulsory missions in the main quest, after which other side quests are open and present the challenges you were introduced to by the main quest.
Instead of having levels dictate bullet sponginess or damage output make them determine the abilities available to the NPC's. The level 15 NPC isn't superior to the level 10 NPC because he magically has more HP or damage. He's superior because he uses grenades instead of only shooting at the player. Maybe he has a healing inhaler. More cyberware, thus more abilities, or armor (means more HP but at least the context fits), whatever. In short, make him tougher because he does or has more stuff.
As I said above, this is exactly what I'm hoping for future games and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. :)
 
So what if someone looks ordinary, but enhancements make him an absolute powerhouse? I mean, I doubt V will look like Adam Smasher. If V can look relatively normal while still having badass upgrades, you won't be able to tell it just by looks.
 
So what if someone looks ordinary, but enhancements make him an absolute powerhouse? I mean, I doubt V will look like Adam Smasher. If V can look relatively normal while still having badass upgrades, you won't be able to tell it just by looks.
First, we need to see the context. According to the lore, such implants are extremely expensive. Which means that'd be a boss or very "high-level" (I'll use this term to make things clear) enemy, to say the least. Given the story-driven nature of the game, you won't encounter such enemies in the crowd, which will be populated by brainless, harmless, herd of NPCs following their scripted routine. After this consideration, if such enemy is a boss, you'll know for sure he's dangerous. If he's an high-level type of enemy, it goes back to the example I made before with max tac and purple ninjas from Sekiro: the main quest makes you encounter one of them, from then on you can recognize them. If it's not enough, you still have the scanner with the level of threat to help you out.
 
First, we need to see the context. According to the lore, such implants are extremely expensive. Which means that'd be a boss or very "high-level" (I'll use this term to make things clear) enemy, to say the least. Given the story-driven nature of the game, you won't encounter such enemies in the crowd, which will be populated by brainless, harmless, herd of NPCs following their scripted routine. After this consideration, if such enemy is a boss, you'll know for sure he's dangerous. If he's an high-level type of enemy, it goes back to the example I made before with max tac and purple ninjas from Sekiro: the main quest makes you encounter one of them, from then on you can recognize them. If it's not enough, you still have the scanner with the level of threat to help you out.
Another thing. We have levels. Is the scanner still in the game? What is it for then?

Polygon:
In addition to unlocking new, tougher missions, a higher Street Cred will also improve vendor prices and stock. There are items in various stores that require a certain level of Street Cred. Character Level doesn’t come into play for these requirements, and it seems that you’ll be able to use any weapon or item you pick up, regardless of your Character Level. But to buy something particularly fancy in a store, you’ll need to be well known throughout Night City.
 
Ehhhhh except the side quests aren't really sidequests in RDR2. They're just slower paced non-linear portions of the main quest.
There are side quests, like the crazy professor with the robot. Or in general all the quests with a white marker on the map. Of course, you can't compare RDR2 with the abundance of side quests from RPG, but its structure is still applicable.
Another thing. We have levels. Is the scanner still in the game? What is it for then?
I don't know what it's for except for "rarity" (whatever that means) and if the enemy is part of a bounty hunter quest, but you can see V using it in the B roll when she goes saving the monk from maelstrom. 3:15


Also, it seems you can't see enemies' weaknesses anymore in the scanner. Maybe it's just a low tier one here. :shrug:
 
Or in general all the quests with a white marker on the map. Of course, you can't compare RDR2 with the abundance of side quests from RPG, but its structure is still applicable.
I mean yeah, TW3 already has a very similar structure to that.
 
I mean yeah, TW3 already has a very similar structure to that.
The problem with quests in TW3, IMHO, is that you can accept end-game quests as soon as you leave vizima. And that, according to its narrative, you shouldn't do ANY quest until you've saved Ciri. There's a big dissonance between narrative and game design: who cares about an old lady's pan when your daughter is in danger and the world risks destruction? With that narrative, side quests should be relegated to end-game, but nobody would've done them that way, so obviously devs forced us with levels.

The last GOW could've had the same problem, but Cory Barlog was smart enough to add a simple dialogue between Atreus and Kratos: they're doing side quests to collect better gear and more importantly because those are training for atreus who need to learn how to fight. It still has useless levels, but still...
 
Not certain areas, but compulsory missions in the main quest, after which other side quests are open and present the challenges you were introduced to by the main quest.

Do you mean lock out over-leveled quests until other areas are completed? If so, again, this fits poorly with open world. Open world to me means I can go anywhere and attempt anything (not necessarily succeed) whenever I wish within the game world. Obviously, main questlines have to be gated to some extent. Gating side quest content with main quest content just so the player never faces over-leveled quest content doesn't strike me as a good concept.

This seems to rely too much on AI, which isn't progressing much. It's dumb. It's hard to make it use complex tactics with a bunch of skills and variety of weapons. Unlike, for example, boss battles, with an arena and various scripts for enemy to do more stuff than regular idiots. Without compex tactics it comes down to "more damage, more protection" + 1-2 extra skills like turning almost invisible or stunning. Or throwing grenades. It will be enough for some time, but it still gets to the point "more damage and more protection". Otherwise your growing firepower and skill set just wipe enemies without much care.

Wiping enemies out without much care is probably going to happen anyway. Look no further than TW3. After 1-2 playthroughs I had a hard time staying engaged with the combat at times. Even on DM against over-leveled enemies it was too easy. Those over-leveled encounters weren't hard. They were repetitive.

Turning enemies into bullet sponges with absurd damage output doesn't make a game inherently more difficult. It just forces the player to execute mechanics correctly and raises the time interval where they have to do so. Pressing my buttons the right way for 10x more time isn't appealing.

Forgive me but in 2020 I don't think it's a stretch to ask for the game AI to have the ability to properly use tools like grenades. Flanking, minimal group tactics, self-healing, even retreating when injured. I still recall my first time playing FEAR years ago. The enemy AI did all of this stuff. It wasn't intelligent by any means but at least it was trying. That game is almost a decade old.
 
Wiping enemies out without much care is probably going to happen anyway. Look no further than TW3. After 1-2 playthroughs I had a hard time staying engaged with the combat at times. Even on DM against over-leveled enemies it was too easy. Those over-leveled encounters weren't hard. They were repetitive.

Turning enemies into bullet sponges with absurd damage output doesn't make a game inherently more difficult. It just forces the player to execute mechanics correctly and raises the time interval where they have to do so. Pressing my buttons the right way for 10x more time isn't appealing.

Forgive me but in 2020 I don't think it's a stretch to ask for the game AI to have the ability to properly use tools like grenades. Flanking, minimal group tactics, self-healing, even retreating when injured. I still recall my first time playing FEAR years ago. The enemy AI did all of this stuff. It wasn't intelligent by any means but at least it was trying. That game is almost a decade old.
It doesn't matter how old it is. It's all heavy scripting and polishing to make enemies do complex stuff. In small, condensed games it's possible. Large games can't afford that.

Leveled enemies isn't an ideal solution either. Far from that. I see it more as a compromise.
 
Do you mean lock out over-leveled quests until other areas are completed? If so, again, this fits poorly with open world. Open world to me means I can go anywhere and attempt anything (not necessarily succeed) whenever I wish within the game world. Obviously, main questlines have to be gated to some extent. Gating side quest content with main quest content just so the player never faces over-leveled quest content doesn't strike me as a good concept.
No, the world is open from the beginning, there are no low/high level areas, missions are distributed all over the map from the beginning and can be completed. Now, depending on the type of game, there can be different ways to gate quests, if necessary at all. In TW3, there was NO WAY you could complete a quest 4 levels above you, because enemies became UNBEATABLE. In a theoric level-less CP77 that has street cred working as reputation, street cred (obtained by completing both main and side quests) would gate fixers who would gate missions: nobody would hire mr nobody to infiltrate a military base and steal a prototype, you need to have a reputation first. In Skyrim, there's no gate at all (which I'm fine with as well), and in totally math-free ideal RPG where progression is based on active skills and not numbers increase, it would even avoid many problems with balancing the game.

A couple of observation: if you don't like quests being impossibile to be completed then I don't understand why you're fine with levels at all. Illusion of choice?
TW3 gave you the opportunity to waste your time trying to beat a lvl 15 quest after 3 hours in the game, but didn't give you the opportunity to complete the quest at all. Also, main quest already gated side missions since it was the only properly viable way to level up.
 
Top Bottom