A simple solution to world scaling \ no world scaling?... my thoughts

[topeira]

A simple solution to world scaling \ no world scaling?... my thoughts

just tossing something here.

there will always be the argument of which is better - static leveled world or leveling world.
there are down sides and up sides to each system and it's a matter of opinion more than what is right or wrong.
however it seems unanimous to all players of TW3 that we do not like to be too overleveled so everything is too easy. in general - TW3 players seem to enjoy challenge.

lets say, for the sake of the argument, that if you are a level 12 geralt the proper challenge is enemies whose accumulative levels is your level - so counting all the enemies levels together should reach 12 to provide a good fair challenge. this means that 4 level 3 bandits will be fine, or 12 lvl1 wolves or one big level 12 monster. (i know in practice this isnt so simple but for the sake of the argument i simplify the idea).

my base suggestion on how to make certain monsters stay weak yet impose a challenge is to add quantity and levels to groups of mobs:
lets say that on level 5 it was fun fighting 5 lvl1 wolves, but at level 12 you squash 5 lvl1 wolves with ease. so later in the game spawn nodes that spawn wolves would spawn 6 lvl1 wolves and 2 lvl 3 vargs. together they are a mob whose accomulative level is 12 - the appropriate challenge.
if killing 5 lvl2 drowners is too easy on geralt level 12 than the spawn nodes will spawn 4 lvl2 drowners along 2 lvl 3 hags (level 14 mob), OR 3 lvl2 drowners, 2 lvl3 foglets and 1 lvl3 hag (level 15 mob).
same with bandits - instead of crushing a mob of 6 naked level 2 bandits that spawn in a certain location, make the location spawn a mob of 3 naked dudes with clubs, with 4 lightly armored dudes with axes and one boss with a shield.

in boss fights - if you outlevel a contract that pits you against a lvl8 wyvern than instead of fighting one lvl8 whyvern you fight it along 3 smaller wyverns or other monsters that compliment it. instead of a lvl 10 warewolf - a level 10 werewolf with 5 lvl1 wolves.

this requires at least 3 or 4 variations in each monster type that would make sense to work well together (some enemies of really low level and some of rather high level so you can mix and match) but im pretty sure this is already the case.

Does this make sense to you?

 

[styku]

This, if executed properly, is not such a bad idea. It will still give you the feeling of getting more powerful, because you can hack'n'slash those poor monsters easily. However at the same time you still need to be on guard, because a pack of those can easily encircle and stagger you and then finish you off.
Depending on how hard is it to execute from developer's perspective, it may be worth considering.

BTW, I'm over 60h and 17 levels into the game, and I don't really feel overleveled. Even while fighting with group of bandits around ~7 lvl, if I miss a dodge, the guy with huge axe still manages to eat half of my HP in one swing from time to time.

 

[unwizzo]

in boss fights - if you outlevel a contract that pits you against a lvl8 wyvern than instead of fighting one lvl8 whyvern you fight it along 3 smaller wyverns or other monsters that compliment it. instead of a lvl 10 warewolf - a level 10 werewolf with 5 lvl1 wolves.

For one thing I'm on the static side of the discussion. But this idea of yours at least the wyvern one is not really in line with the idea of a contract imo. The whole Idea is that you have this one big bad monster that's terrorizing the neighbourhood, if you listen to the locals oftentimes you hear them telling stories about this one monster they saw. And now you take the contract and find 3 wyvern instead of one, if I would encounter such a thing I would ask myself: Okay I killed the young ones, where is parent?

 

[topeira]

For one thing I'm on the static side of the discussion. But this idea of yours at least the wyvern one is not really in line with the idea of a contract imo. The whole Idea is that you have this one big bad monster that's terrorizing the neighbourhood, if you listen to the locals oftentimes you hear them telling stories about this one monster they saw. And now you take the contract and find 3 wyvern instead of one, if I would encounter such a thing I would ask myself: Okay I killed the young ones, where is parent?

i meant small wyverns so appear ALONG the big boss fight. not multiply the boss fight.

and not to mention i think the monster hunting quests could level up to be roughly your level. but even without deluding my idea into a different one where contracts are involved, i think fighting a large gryffin accompanied by a few sub-monsters would be better than squishing the griffin because you outleveled it by 5 levels.
this way if you fight it when you are around it's level than you get one tough boss fight when he is the single enemy you encounter. just like right now. BUT if you outlevel it by enough than the game will add more complementing enemies, because i think most ppl will prefer a boss with minions more than a really easy boss without minions.

 

[soldiergeralt]

for a solution to exist, there must be a problem. i'm having a lot more trouble trying to locate the problem first in this instance.

 

[K.Constantine]

for a solution to exist, there must be a problem. i'm having a lot more trouble trying to locate the problem first in this instance.

There is absolutely no problem with being "overleveled" as some people are putting it. The actual problem is that the enemy placement and level selection for them is beyond retarded. You have multiple instances of generic Bandit enemies ranging from level 1 to 20 with no visual difference between them, same for monsters. Both previous games did it perfectly, by having enemies be clearly tiered, stupid countryside bandits were starter human enemies and were weak, later on you faced tougher human enemies, which were professional soldiers. Same with the monsters, you start out on Nekkers, then later get into Drowners and Rotfiends, Ghouls, Alghouls, Cemetaurs, Graveirs etc. There was both a sense of progression and challenge. In TW1, by act 3 you could take on a Ghoul easily, while in Act 1 they were a challenge, they still put Ghouls in there, but they were easy, which is why those Ghouls were in support of an Alghoul, which was much tougher.
CDPR didn't want to do level scaling, because it's a bullshit way to cater to casuals, but they were too lazy to take cues from good flat leveled games such as Fallout New Vegas, and those two really underground ones, namely The Witcher 1 and The Witcher 2, doubt any of the devs have even played those.

 

[unwizzo]

i meant small wyverns so appear ALONG the big boss fight. not multiply the boss fight.

and not to mention i think the monster hunting quests could level up to be roughly your level. but even without deluding my idea into a different one where contracts are involved, i think fighting a large gryffin accompanied by a few sub-monsters would be better than squishing the griffin because you outleveled it by 5 levels.
this way if you fight it when you are around it's level than you get one tough boss fight when he is the single enemy you encounter. just like right now. BUT if you outlevel it by enough than the game will add more complementing enemies, because i think most ppl will prefer a boss with minions more than a really easy boss without minions.

imo a contract is basically a 1v1 you against this monster and if you outlevel it, good for you as it shows you that you're no weakling anymore and in the same time it shows that not all monsters are the same, some are simply weaker than others.
To implement your idea would mean much more than just spawning more monsters with a boss. In most of these contracts you're following tracks, of one monster, or you have a monster entering scene (like the chort) again one monster.You would have to change a lot to explain why there are now somehow 4 wyverns instead of the one you're tasked to hunt or why there is now a pack of wolves, that appears out of nowhere without leaving any tracks or anything.

 

[jim_uk]

That's a good idea but it has a flaw, shoving in more mobs or a greater variation of them will have a performance impact and two out of three platforms are already struggling to hold 30 FPS. It's a good idea for a mod though.

 

[K.Constantine]

That's a good idea but it has a flaw, shoving in more mobs or a greater variation of them will have a performance impact and two out of three platforms are already struggling to hold 30 FPS. It's a good idea for a mod though.

Adds are never a good way to balance, it's boring and lazy.

 

[topeira]

Adds are never a good way to balance, it's boring and lazy.

there is no much better way and it's a better way than no balance at all.

lets face it - without level scaling there is NO WAY to balance the game. if you lower the XP gain per quest than ppl who do not want to do all side quests (at all or just before the main quest) will not level up fast enough to tackle the main quest. ppl who do tons of side quests will over level. the balance of no level scaling depends on how much side content the player does and there is no way the devs can know how much side content the player will do so you cant adjust that.
players who do a lot of side quests will over level. players who dont take tons of side quests will not level enough. you just cant balance it. impossible.
only level scaling is a way to maintain the balance but that goes against what some ppl want.
my idea is a middle ground. i think not a bad one. maybe a lazy one, but better than nothing and i THINK it's better than some of the other ideas.

 

[Ravici]

Just throwing in an actual scenario. One of the islands in skelly has a load of bandits on it. If I remember correctly. lvl15. I went through there as lvl21 and even though there are quite a few bandits, only two, possibly 3, bandits can attack at any one time (they trip over each other).

The issue I'm trying to suggest against your OP is that although mob (as in group) attack seems like a solution, the fact is, they would all need to attack in concert.

 

[topeira]

Just throwing in an actual scenario. One of the islands in skelly has a load of bandits on it. If I remember correctly. lvl15. I went through there as lvl21 and even though there are quite a few bandits, only two, possibly 3, bandits can attack at any one time (they trip over each other).

The issue I'm trying to suggest against your OP is that although mob (as in group) attack seems like a solution, the fact is, they would all need to attack in concert.

first - i am not just talking about having 20 bandits instead of 5. i meant having a few high level bandits and a few medium and the rest lower level. a mix. to avoid having tons of low level enemies.

also, i didnt notice that only attack at the same time, even in that large bandit camp in skellige. i always found the issue in that the bandits dont charge at you. they stay where the spawn, and they spawn in groups of maybe 3 or four in a certain place.
besides, since only having 3 bandits attacking at the same time seem really realistic (4 bandits all close swinging swords at geralt would just mean they'd hit each other) i am not bothered by it.
having SOME of these bandits be really tough (if you are level 21 than one or two bandits of level 20) and a few other that are level 15 might solve the issue.
having numerous bandits mean that you need to survive for longer during a longer fight.

it isnt a perfect idea, but it's better than how it is right now and as i said in the last post in the last page - it is impossible to balance this game with static leveled world. impossible completely.

 

[ManuW3]

I like this idea, and it's easy to implement too. It could simply be added to a new difficulty mode, so people who are happy with the game as it is could play it as it is and those who want added difficulty could simply go up one difficulty level. I think devs should seriously listen to this suggestion as it could be added in future updates and it could make the game more appealing for more people.

 

[Millian]

Alternate mode: No levels on weapons. All weapons do roughly the same damage (maybe a bit more for magical ones). All armor protects roughly the same.
You gain a very modest amount of hit points.
The way you get better is through new skills / better attacks / more speed.

That way every monster is still dangerous. Every hit still counts. But you'll be better at dishing out damage and avoiding damage, as you should be with with experience.

 

[topeira]

Alternate mode: No levels on weapons. All weapons do roughly the same damage (maybe a bit more for magical ones). All armor protects roughly the same.
You gain a very modest amount of hit points.
The way you get better is through new skills / better attacks / more speed.

That way every monster is still dangerous. Every hit still counts. But you'll be better at dishing out damage and avoiding damage, as you should be with with experience.

This way, while i always preferred it, is the action-game route. ppl wouldnt want that. they would want a RPG where you get stronger.

your way means that armors and weapons vary little and perhaps have specific advantages or disadvantages - so one sword is 10% faster, but does less damage and only allow 2 runes on it. another sword has a more narow range or damage (instead of 50-75 it has a 65-69) and had +8% for criticals. just an example.
and armors are roughly the same yet some have more places for runes. some have better protection against magicla monsters while others have faster stamina regen etc etc.
also this means that you'd need more ACTIVE skills that change the way you play more and in this TW3 (at least. barely remember TW2) is a little lacking.

this solution is a radical change from how TW works and i doubt it will be implemented.
maybe by modders to TW3 but it is such a HUGE balance to every monster and human and every equipment and skill in the game that i bet no one would even try it.

 

[K.Constantine]

there is no much better way and it's a better way than no balance at all.

lets face it - without level scaling there is NO WAY to balance the game. if you lower the XP gain per quest than ppl who do not want to do all side quests (at all or just before the main quest) will not level up fast enough to tackle the main quest. ppl who do tons of side quests will over level. the balance of no level scaling depends on how much side content the player does and there is no way the devs can know how much side content the player will do so you cant adjust that.
players who do a lot of side quests will over level. players who dont take tons of side quests will not level enough. you just cant balance it. impossible.
only level scaling is a way to maintain the balance but that goes against what some ppl want.
my idea is a middle ground. i think not a bad one. maybe a lazy one, but better than nothing and i THINK it's better than some of the other ideas.

WITCHER ONE AND TWO DIDN'T NEED SCALING OR ADS, Jesus Christ, why is the modern generation of gamers this fucking daft.

 

[topeira]

WITCHER ONE AND TWO DIDN'T NEED SCALING OR ADS, Jesus Christ, why is the modern generation of gamers this fucking daft.

TW1 and TW2 were rather linear where devs knew EXACTLY where you're going, what monsters you'll encounter and what levels you will be when you encounter them. they couldd much more easily balance each encounter.
in TW3 you can go back and forth between quests and get late game quests early and visa versa. they have no control over what you do next and where you'll do it!

Jesus Christ, why is the modern generation of gamers this fucking daft?...

 

[Tuco]

I think an even better and more elegant solution would be to not have a system that relies so much on "vertical growth" in the first place, but more in an "horizontal" expansion of your abilities.
it also really fits more an open-world, non-linear approach.

For those who are not familiar with the concept, let's try to explain how this idea should work:

- Let's start saying that we wouldn't have "level-based" monsters. Instead, like in D&D, monsters would be level-less creatures defined mostly by their (fixed) stats and special abilities. A drowner would be a drowner across the whole game, period, and same would go for wolves, bears, specters, etc.
Of course, that doesn't deny the possibility to add more powerful variations of the same monsters, as the game already does with darker drowners, bigger bears, worgs instead of common wolves, more powerful specters and so on.

- The player stats wouldn't grow as steadily across the levels. He would just gain these new talents improving his basic abilities/stats and better gear over time.

- Gear wouldn't be as steady in power growth either (with end game trash weapons outperforming early games "relics" by hundreds of damage points , but it also wouldn't have level restrictions to it.

It's important to stress that despise how it may sound on paper, these kind of systems don't really negate the sense of growth, nor make every monster easy to fight at level one.
What you would have, instead, is a more subtle approach in power increase, where rather than having a newborn character that starts at level 1 with 30 hp* and ends at level 50 with thousands of them, you'd have, say, a character that starts with 100 HP and can end the game with 180-200 HP but far more resistant to damage, efficient in parrying/dodging and so on.

* Please note that all the numbers in this example are purely in abstract terms and don't make any reference to the actual stat system used in TW3.

 

[KingKnee]

ppl who do tons of side quests will over level.

They did kinda cheat on that by giving you next to no xp for non main quests.