Monster Levelling and Game Balance

[BlackWolf500.298]

All three Dragon Age games, Divinity: Original Sin, etc. and even TW2 are familiar examples where the player becomes so overpowered, that by the end of the game, there is no need to plan for combat. We all know that challenging fights are crucial to keep the player interested in completing the game.

Will this happen with TW3?

You kidding me, right?
What about the bloody Dragon?
I had a lot of trouble fighting that Dragon I tell ya. I was on hard difficulty sure, and I wasn't that used to the difficulty of games like TW at the time I played it the first time and maybe I didn't die that often, but it was HARD. And the Vran fight? Very demanding.

If you are talking about the "normal soldiers", to be honest I think it is good that way. It just wouldn't make sense having Geralt fight a damn Kyran, Arachas, Golems and other beasts and then be beaten down by a normal soldier with ease.
The Nilfgaardian camp for example was a challenge. Not HARD, but you had to be on your toes. This could be another way CDPR could change difficulty, by modifying the number of enemies you fight, altering their reflexes and intelligence based on difficulty you chose.

Yeah sure, the balance was not perfect, I agree. In the end it could have been harder and there was one or two combinations that made Geralt REALLY powerful because of the skills you acquired (like Igni was really OP, I was like a Firedevil, and I didn't even go full magic, I was more of a magic/swordsman mix with a tad bit alchemy in there).

But that is a balance thing. That has little to do - IMO - with leveling itself but more with the actual balance of your skilltree. And also, it makes sense to become stronger and stronger in an RPG, since you will also face off stronger monsters later on. So yeah they should make sure monsters are strong enough and potions an regeneration stats are not OP. But I'm sure they do.

One thing to keep in mind though, according to CDPR it will be more your skill this time around that determines if you will succeed or not. So I'd expect something like the light version of a "Dark Souls" approach.

On the other hand, there are also a lot of monster out there as far as I know which will be hard no matter which level you are, which means you will never be able to reach a level of equality with those monsters, you'd need to outwit them if you want to succeed. Now for those of you saying "but the Wild Hunt should be the strongest, right?" Well.... no. There are several reasons speaking against this. First, the main boss was never the hardest in a Witcher game. Second, the journey is the important bit, not the destination (in terms of gameplay). Third and most importantly - the Wild Hunt was never strong on their own, they were strong because of their numbers, we can actually even hear a hint at that in a flashback in TW2 talking about how the Hunt fell under the swords of the Witchers in the dozens but they were too many so it was a stalemate.

I think even if they will be a little bit easy I never found that a "main boss" had to be super hard. Just challenging like in Dark Souls. I mean sure he should hit hard and punish mistakes very harsh, he should be unforgiving, but in the end I don't play the game for the bosses. And if I do then I am rather off searching for creatures which are just merely evil and have to be eliminated rather than the "main quest bosses" which are rather threatening or interesting for Geralt because they have a personal connection and he needs to beat them to achieve something on his way to his goal.

I think the caveat this problem is that players deserve to feel rewarded for accomplishing something EPIC. If they explore the deepest dungeon or kill the hardest boss getting an item that's just plain average feels underwhelming. For accomplishing something EPIC the player deserves to get an item that makes them feel like a Beowulf or an Achilles.

On the other hand, what I always found fascinating about the Witcher - and a lot of people who played the game and I talked to seemed to have made the same experience - is that for me the reward for exploring a location in The Witcher was always the location itself and it's inhabitants (monsters, civilians, soldiers, enemies, friends, etc). I guess it was just alone the beauty of the environments and the stories that were told by talking to people or fighting enemies you find in strange places that were enough to reward me for my exploration.

Hmmm.... Well.

The issue here is that LoZ doesn't rely on a numbers as a progression system.. In a number based progression system gear has to increase exponentially in power in order to maintain the same rate of power increase. i.e. in order for a level 60 item to have the same percentage of power increase as a level 5 item the stat increase has to be a lot bigger. So you run into the problem of power creep and end up in the situation you described in where you're one-shotting common enemies at level 60 and only bosses present a challenge.

I suppose the solution to this is not to rely on numbers as a form of progression. And I suppose The Witcher 3 is already doing this to some extant since they're trying to balance the skill tree like an action game. i.e. level ups unlock new abilities and better combat animations rather than flat stat increase.
I suppose we'll have to wait and see how it turn out

Exactly.
Also, important to note is the approach they take with monsters telling you you could beat monsters 20 levels higher then you IF you are skilled enough. Easy to play, hard to master. Means they should approach the main quest in a similar way, put the monsters on levels where you can actually beat them without having any side quest done but you will have to be near PERFECT in your reactions to do so. Find a way to put a monsters level in the middle between "minimum the player would have done at this point" and "maximum a player would have done at this point". You can kind of make the parameters based on the areas you are in saying maximum is you have done all quests available in the area at this point in the main story timeline. If you travel to other regions of course it will be your fault, but there is a small margin for error which means it might be a little easier if you have over-leveled, but not THAT easy after all.

What I am trying to say is, it doesn't matter if you are level 20 and you enemy is level 50, you can beat him. It just means the fight takes a lot longer, you are not allowed to make so many mistakes (maybe even none at all (1 hit = dead)) and you might have to use a lot of potions and tricks. But it is POSSIBLE.

The devs will probably assume that most people will complete at least 2 or 3 side-quests in a region which will enable them to have at least a chance against the "bosses" in the main storyline. Another good way to do it is to bring the hard bosses later in the main storyline. I mean you have already established a certain level in the Prologue (Kear Morhen and White Orchard) and then you venture out and make more quests, and the main storyline only throws big enemies at you later, while side-quests may give you REALLY HARD enemies here and there because they are not scaled to a specific chronological order.

I also have the feeling we will not meet a lot of "bosses" in the main storyline.
There are 90 different monster types out there, at least 40 or so "BIG monsters" I bet. I do think that the majority of "bosses" and "monster hunting" will definitely be in the side quests this time around while the main storyline will be more about finding Yenneger and Crir and figuring it all out.

Better solutions: Operator fight (pre-EE), Dragon fight. If you hadn't reached a certain level, the fight was much harder but still possible. If you had over-levelled, it didn't really help you because you still had to THINK about how you handled the fight, and prepare for it. That's what I'm hoping for in TW3, that preparation and strategy/tactics are more important than level, that being under-levelled makes it challenging, and that being over-levelled doesn't help much.

I strongly agree, CLEVER boss design that is the solution.

(WTF?! I never fought that Operator, where in the HELL was that fight? I only fought the guy with the wraiths for the Vran sword, never fought that "Operator" with the gargoyles.....)

 

[SageFox.326]

According to germans, it wouldn't.

 

[dragonbird]

(WTF?! I never fought that Operator, where in the HELL was that fight? I only fought the guy with the wraiths for the Vran sword, never fought that "Operator" with the gargoyles.....)

I can never remember how it worked in EE. Before then, it was in the sewers, only available if you'd completed the "From a Bygone Era" quest in every chapter. Available on both paths, but on Iorveth Path it was easy to miss the Chapter II phase unless you knew about it.

After EE, from memory only, it stopped being available on Iorveth Path, and the nature of the fight changed. I didn't like it as much.

 

[volsung]

I think characters become overpowered mostly in games that are all about the action and combat. RPG's should be about much more than that. But the problem is a lot of companies out there seem to think "attributes make the RPG" and so they stamp arbitrary elements in arbitrary skill trees for the sake of it. Can't help but have a lot of powers at the end.

A good cRPG should see beyond the combat and offer options to develop substantially different main characters. Not everything has to be solved by killing every single thing.

Several classic cRPG's did this well. So did the first Witcher to an extent. If you think about it, Geralt relearns or discovers every basic move all by himself, and talents help you specialize in potions, swordfighting, signs or a combination. Minor non-combat talents were for example improved alcohol resistance, a legitimate resource used to gain influence with people.

The Witcher 2 is much more reliant on combat which meant two things: Geralt had to forget how to fight (so we could "rebuild him"), and there were some serious buffs in each subtree for lack of other, non combat talents. I don't see why Geralt has to change so much from beginning to end, he's already an expert swordsman. Like someone said the damage scale is way off the charts by the end game. The game should offer more options on how to build his personality and perhaps weapon preferences.

I have purposefully tried not to read too much about TW3. But I'm hoping it will be a much better RPG than TW2. This includes options that are not solely for combat purposes. And in turn, this may actually help balance the game.

 

[tahirahmed]

All three Dragon Age games, Divinity: Original Sin, etc. and even TW2 are familiar examples where the player becomes so overpowered, that by the end of the game, there is no need to plan for combat. We all know that challenging fights are crucial to keep the player interested in completing the game.

Will this happen with TW3?

While there is no perfect answer for this until we play the game ourselves, I personally think that there will be no shortage of challenge in TW3. Assuming by the fact that GameStar journalist (level 7) just got one shotted by a level 24 Wyvern it means that there will be areas where we absolutely don't want to venture until we're ready or we'll have to take Dark Souls approach and just run past such enemies until we're ready to face them head on. This will keep on going like this because there will be some end game enemies too with higher level than Geralt.

Now since the journalist didn't saw any respawning it means either 1) enemies respawn after a good bit of time or 2) they don't respawn at all. In first case I'd like to see enemies respawning with slightly different A.I such as more aggressive use of special attacks or more defensive skills against Geralt's attack or in higher numbers. In second case it means the game doesn't like you to stay in one area for long and will eventually force you seek new areas for more enemies. I like the first approach more because second approach means the world will keep getting empty as you progress and I don't like this.

I also think you won't get overpowered very easily in TW3 because as I remember CDPR told us that you won't get any XP from killing monsters so that means no grinding and you'll have to do quests to level up.

 

[Geralt_of_bsas]

If an easy end game will happen in TW3 depends on what exactly they want to do, and how they plan to solve problems.

No leveling enemies, probably means that their capabilities will stay constant, and because of that, the end game will likely be very hard, and make players adapt to its difficulty. Its a question impossible for any of us to answer well honestly, it depends too much of CDPR's game balancing skills.

What I think its more likely to happen, is that TW3 will have a relatively challenging end game in normal mode, for a 70 or 80 hour playthrough, so a half way between the basic 50 hours, and the complete 100 hours. Make of these numbers what you want of course, the important thing is the relationship between them.

Now in hard the game might hold up for doing every side content and keep being challenging, and in Dark the game is probably meant to be super difficult no matter what you do, while Easy would be story mode

 

[YeOldeMurloc]

Why creatures must have levels?

I really don't like when enemies have levels in single player rpgs. I would rather have enemies that are as hard to fight at high level as they were when I had low level.
In Dragon Age Inquisition I was overleveled before I even had completed half of the main story and game became too easy as I could just solo dragons on nightmare difficulty.
I hope that's not the case with Witcher 3.

 

[moonknightgog]

I really don't like when enemies have levels in single player rpgs. I would rather have enemies that are as hard to fight at high level as they were when I had low level.

Because the no level scaling is the only scaling in the RPGs open world.
Just...put DA I in to the garbage and play Gothic.

 

[gaktem]

I think that you can't over lvl to much in this game. Once you are too high lvl to do some quests, those quests will turn gray and only offer greater rewards instead of exp.

 

[wichat]

Personaly... Why? Do they train? do they face several witchers every day as Geralt faces several monsters? Do deers and rabbit get up level when the hunter train his shot every day?...I don't really like to face the same enemy whch get the same level as me. It's bored to me. I need to find new enemies with differents strength. That's the real challenge in an organic open world. 200 hours fighting always drowners no matter my level? No, thank you.

 

[statmonster2]

You could have an enemy which is gathering its strength (whether quantity or quality) over time. More recruits joining up with the them, or their source of power allows them to grow in strength over time. The longer you take to make it to the final showdown, the stronger it is.Hints that the enemy is growing in strength could add a sense of urgency to the payer's mission.

 

[volsung]

Why must enemies rely on "strength"? Unless his strength is measured by the size of his... army. In which case Geralt doesn't even stand a chance. He's just a simple witcher, not a superhero!

I'd like to see more encounters based on intelligence and wits like books Geralt. TW2 Geralt is kind of a bully, always rushing into action.

 

[kalel78]

im personally against level scaling.. especially in an open world game. i dont want the rat that i encountered at the beginning of the game to be just as powerful 20 levels later.

also, in a game of exploration.. i want to come across dangerous areas. and these areas should be REALLY difficult to overcome if im too low level (but not impossible). and the opposite should be true.. if i am high level and im tracing back to an earlier part of the game to finish up a story quest or something.. the mobs should be super easy to kill.

others have brought up the argument that stats can eventually make the character overpowered.. even against the later encounters. and while i see the point in that argument.. thats why we should judge the game on how the devs combat this problem. IMO, the best games are the ones that overcome this obstacle.

as for using dialogue to achieve objectives.. this has been a staple of cRPGs in general, and is absolutely a part of the previous two witcher games.. and they've advertised it will be the same for Wild Hunt.

obviously the proof is in the pudding so to speak.. but im not to worried.

 

[Tuco]

I really don't like when enemies have levels in single player rpgs. I would rather have enemies that are as hard to fight at high level as they were when I had low level.
In Dragon Age Inquisition I was overleveled before I even had completed half of the main story and game became too easy as I could just solo dragons on nightmare difficulty.
I hope that's not the case with Witcher 3.

The game becoming too easy or too hard is more a matter of ruleset and balance than scaling.
That said I think I can relate to you to some extent, in the sense that regardless of difficulty I simply don't like enemies being tied to level, and even less when the same types of enemies return in different areas with different levels.

Generally speaking I like bestiaries in RPGs like they work in D&D: each type of enemy isn't defined by levels but instead by a set of fixed stats and special abilities and these monsters are *consistently* and reliably the same across the whole game.
Level scaling is what I dislike the most, but even in a scenario without it, seeing a zombie at lvl 2 and then 20 hours later similar zombies at level 15 in another area is almost equally disappointing.

I'd rather see a scenario where a "zombie" (just to keep using the same example) means "Oh yeah, that specific enemy of which I can safely and consistently estimate the power level across the whole game".

That said, even the ruleset and leveling system used in these games play their part to make a difference.

The leveling systems I like the most are the ones where you get a clear sense of getting stronger over time through a a series of marginal improvements, but *without* experiencing an exponential growth.
I love stuff like "You start with 50 HP and you end with 90 and a lot more good to parry or avoid damage" and I despise stuff like "You start with 30 HP and you end with 9999".
I also like when dangerous enemies keep being dangerous even when you level up and become more confident facing them.I don't find particularly enjoyable going through the whole "I'm going to one-shot stuff that was killing me in one blow barely a couple of levels ago".

Dark Souls for instance manages this quite decently. There's no enemy you can't even dream to face at level 1, and if you put a lot of effort and skill in it you can pretty much clear the game without leveling up... But of course it becomes progressively easier to kill enemies as you grow in power.
Still, even the weakest of the grunts is something that can do enough damage to kill you in few blows if you don't even try to defend yourself.

 

[gogmeister777]

Yes, this is something that many people are concerned about.

I'm guessing the main campaign will have a greater chance of losing its challenge near the end since they won't be able to so easily estimate at what level you'll do them. Also, I doubt they'll want to make the last sections of the campaign only beatable if you're level 60 since that would force people to do virtually everything (assuming you have to do the vast majority of sidequests to reach max level).

The rest of the game though? Well, since they said there will be creatures that will challenge you at the highest levels then yes, I'd imagine they'll always be something challenging around, especially for those who never max out.

Also, difficulty should be taken into consideration I guess. If you're determined to be challenged for as long as possible, I'd recommend playing on Dark\Death March.

---------- Updated at 11:50 PM ----------

I know this sounds extremely stupid, but it could work in practice. They should add a 'warning' sign in the menu that would appear each time you are overleveled in comparison with your progression in the main quest. Then at least you'd know that you should stop side-questing and do some main-quest for a bit..

Apparently, in your log book, quest names will turn grey when you're higher than the level for it. You'll get more gold though, to make up for less xp.

 

[Lieste]

You won't need to level to 60 in order to finish. Miles stated in his Q&A response that he had never reached the level cap in his plays.

 

[Bellator Pius Gratus]

Also I hate the idea that "level 29 thug with a blunt sword" will oneshot a level 1 Geralt (legendary witcher who is widely considered the greatest swordsman in the world)

Well...in the books, apparently all it took was

Spoiler

a bumpkin with a pitchfork

. And Geralt was no doubt a master swordsman back then. ^_^

I really don't like when enemies have levels in single player rpgs. I would rather have enemies that are as hard to fight at high level as they were when I had low level.
In Dragon Age Inquisition I was overleveled before I even had completed half of the main story and game became too easy as I could just solo dragons on nightmare difficulty.
I hope that's not the case with Witcher 3.

Yes, I agree, but isn't this the case with Witcher 3? That out in the world are monsters and entire areas that are too difficult for a low-level Geralt? You may go there, and fight them, but skill and luck will be required as you lack the stats.

Have you played Gothic? Devs have said that they are fans of Gothic and mentioned it in Witcher 3 interview(was it Monnier??).

Anyway, Gothic is an old-school game from 2001. I'm a fan of Gothic as well (especially Gothic 2 was so cool!) and I loved to hear devs mentioning it in regards to Witcher 3.

Basically in Gothic you start out as a very very weak character inside a magical prison dome. Seriously, you run a lot in the beginning. Even a pack of wolves is enough to make you run off into the horizon. Or actually, rather running back from whence you came, a safe area, because there are worse creatures than wolves out there. You are extremely exposed, but the alluring world is still out there for you to explore.

You may however run willy nilly wherever you want, as long as you're alive to use your legs. You're not for very long though if you're not cautious. You carefully study monsters behaviour, and run away from them a lot. Take them on one by one if you can.

From the beginning you need to level, you need to join a faction. You need to do quests and get better equipment(which ties in with joining a faction).

Slowly you rise through the ranks, and you start wondering what the hell you were running from. Then you meet an Orc. And then you die.

Eventually though you will persevere, get stronger, better, more skillful. But the adventure that took you there...oh I wouldn't trade it for the world. That feeling of being a small fry in a big unexplored world with all kinds of danger. Priceless! ^_^

This is exactly what I expect from Witcher 3. Player skill and luck may keep you alive on highest difficulty, but without the stats and buffs all it takes is one (un)lucky hit from a monster. Eventually though, you will have the armour, weapon and stats to take on anything. With ease? I doubt it, but still.

Though I was thinking. As we level up we get to unlock twelve skill slots right? And in these slots we may assign skills? But must we assign anything? Want to keep things difficult and interesting? Then simply refrain from assigning any skills and keep the twelve slots empty. No assigned skill, no mutagens. See how far that takes ya. That ought to please you masochistic players out there.

 

[ub3rprogmr]

That feeling of being a small fry in a big unexplored world with all kinds of danger.

Nicely said!
Oh I miss Gothic..

 

[riandor79]

Interesting thread... Though obviously TW3 is done and dusted from a design perspective.
still, my opinions on it are that as good as Gothic feels, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a low level Geralt by the time you get to the third game in a series. Even if you treat this as standalone, it still doesn't make a lot of lore sense that an epic swordsman and Witcher like Geralt is too meek to handle an opening area like in Gothic. Obviously you probably weren't implying it should be, nor does it look like this is how it has been done anyway, but the point remains its a fine balance between making Geralt fit lore and yet still leave you as a player with progression.

in a lot of respects it would be easier to have this world and have players be a new Witcher, a trainee who goes out into the world allowing the character and player to grow in unison. I have a feeling this might come later from CDPR should this indeed be Geralt's retirement.

as for xp progression then on monsters such as drowners, it would seem to make the most sense to me to have them yield only small amounts of xp. The path of the Witcher is to complete contracts, not farm monsters, so xp gain should be tied to completing contracts and quests. At certain levels you could simply disable XP gain if a monster is x levels below your own.

At this point attacking drowners other than as a result of a contract should be for materials only.

as for bosses, well that should depend on the boss... I always disliked human bosses who had ridiculous health bars for no reason other than "difficulty". What I prefer for these kind of bosses is how hard they can hurt me. Do they have poisoned blades? Are they magical like Vilgefortz or a Witcher like myself. Different for beasts of course, those you can buff until the cows come home, but I think you need to be cleverer when it comes to humans.

What I would like to see more in games is a stamina bar when fighting as often great swordsman/fighters will kill someone in one flurry, or a few select hits. to that end its about working the opening against skilled opponents and good hits should not take down an HP bar, but should weaken the defences allowing you to either land a quick blow that you need multiples of or if you have battered them, offer up a chance of a killing blow. Similarly if you get hit, you are equally open.

In in short big health bars for me only really work on monsters, ones where you could imagine them being some form of creature that can take all these hits, lick their wounds and recover, but humans are squishy and should remain so and as such more interesting techniques should be simulated to make them interesting opponents.

 

[savioeven]

To balance the game for the player
Because this game as a lot of dialogues and quest not like bloodborne where there is less dialogue and you have to figure out the lore.
But the common simmilarity between the two are that there are HUNTERS