Low (in comparison) Level Caps

[Eschaton]

JRPGs tend to have ridiculously high level caps.  Some are over nine thousand (WHAT!?  NINE THOUSAND!?).  The usual is either 99 or 100.  Most of the time, these level caps are unnecessary, even when taking the side quests and bonus bosses.

When I entered my BioWare/Obsidian RPG phase, I've noticed very low level caps that could be comfortably reached by the end of the game.

The earlier editions of D&D capped your characters at 20, regardless of the numbers of classes in which you took those levels you had. (Jesus, I only speak English, and I barely speak it that well!).  Later editions introduced Epic characters that surpassed 20, but these characters tended to be Olympian Gods. 

I found that I liked this.

I found that this process really placed a lot of emphasis on your build over raw grinding; it helped you set your build and character progression in stone.  You had to choose what role your character played in combat and stick with it; any deviations, and your build is sub-optimal.  Game with very high level caps allow you access to most or all customization options, rendering the nonlinear progression pointless.

I've come to prefer it.  Others might disagree.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on low level caps?

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

Depends on how hard it is to get to next level + on how useful getting the higher levels are... 

 

[Vox Novus]

I'm okay with lower level caps; ultimately I think though there is no reason to have the level cap be too much higher than what is necessary to beat the game (or optional bosses/side-quests/dungeons). Since players have different skill levels I see that as the main reason to have the cap set a number of levels higher than what is absolutely necessary to beat the game that way less skilled players can have increased stats to make up for the difference.

 

[RagnarokZero]

The game I just released had a level cap of 50. You might be level 25-30 at the end of the game so there was no reason to allow people to get to level 99. In addition, the hardest boss was level 50 so, it creates more of a challenge by limiting players to just level 50. I'm in favor of lower level caps. It makes the characters seem more human and less like gods. In some rpgs, you do 50 damage at the beginning of the game and 30,000+ at end game... it's a bit ridiculous to see that kind of character growth over the course of a game. 

 

[Tai_MT]

My thoughts on any level caps has always boiled down to a few factors.  How quickly will I reach the level cap?  In most every RPG I've ever played with low level caps (including some of the Mass Effect games), I'd reach the level cap before finishing even half of the game.  Mass Effect 1, I reached my level cap at a good place...  My second playthrough.  Of course, it helped that you were capped on your first playthrough and then given your last ten levels on the second playthrough.  This at least made the second playthrough worth doing.  Mass Effect 2, I reached my level cap BEFORE THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME.  Yeah, I got my 5 levels bonus from carrying my character forward, but then topped out before the middle of the game.  I hadn't even done that many sidequests either.  I later started up a file without carrying a character over, and found the same issue.  I would get a little farther into the game, but not much farther than halfway and be maxed out again.  It feels silly to be maxed out before exploring a majority of the content to me.  Then, we had Mass Effect 3.  I imported my file again, got 30 free levels from it, and then proceeded to max out about a quarter of the way through the game again.  I've also had this issue with Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas.  It's very easy to hit level cap without even trying, and then it just feels like there's no reason to care about doing Quests anymore.  Combat loses its flavor when nothing is gained from it (no xp, no cash) as in Mass Effect 2 and 3...  Quests lose their flavor when you can't gain xp from them, and only gain the same amount of loot you'd get from just random encounters or searching treasure chests instead.

I find that I enjoy high level caps that I will rarely ever reach more than low level caps that are extremely easy to reach.  Unfortunately...  Those are the ONLY two varieties level caps come in.  Either you max out too quickly, or don't max out at all.  I'm not an advocate for gaining max skills in a game and being all-powerful or anything like that...  I just believe in GREAT game design.  Unfortunately for most developers, that doesn't include anything they do.  If you include a system in your game, ANY system in your game, it needs to remain useful and relevant until the END of that game.  If you have a system in which you gain levels and choose skills after those levels, it needs to remain functional until you beat the game.  If it tops out long before the end of the game (as most low level caps do), it's not a useful feature.  It could be better implemented as a system in which simply completing Quests or training skills would give you these necessary boosts or skills for your character (or characters).  There is literally no reason for a "level up" system to exist if you're going to max out the character by mid-game or by 75% game completion mark.  The functions of a level up system in a low level cap that maxes out quickly are better served in OTHER ways that would regulate your power (as is the point of a low level system in the first place).  You could more easily handle it by "Do a quest, pick a power", or "do a quest, level up a power" if you wanted to implement a "low level" cap.

Now, if we're talking about a game where you have 20 levels and you reach level 20 about 2 or 3 hours before finishing the game, I have no problem with that.  A low level cap in that case wouldn't be out-of-place or even a bad thing.

HOWEVER!  That is not how game programmers do it for low level caps, and here's why:  It's much easier to program 25-30 monsters in a 1-20 level range in order to add diversity to combat than it is to program 200-400 monsters in a 1-99 level range in order to make combat worthwhile and keep xp values flowing in good chunks to reasonably obtain level 99 if you wanted to.  Honestly, that's the trick right there.  Most game devs don't talk about it, but that's what they're doing.  A low level cap is basically just a way for game developers to save time, money, and resources on the enemy assets.  D&D is even guilty of this to an extent.  All they do is give you something like 10 monsters per level, and then you buy expansions for another 10 monsters per level.  With a cap of 20 to 30, this becomes fairly easy for them to do, since they don't really have to worry about balancing.  Balancing is an issue for a GM to handle, not the designers.  Honestly, creating a creature asset for D&D takes no longer than 3 minutes and in the latest versions they even tell you how, and give you the option of rolling dice on these monsters to determine what they are, if you have no idea what kind of monster you want.  It's so easy for D&D to make new creatures that they can have the DM do it by rolling D20s.  But, if we're talking video games...  If you have low level caps, you don't end up fighting very many enemies.  There will be a few species of enemies and then they'll have "scaled to your level" equipment and stats with new names (so that they SEEM new, despite just being buffed creatures with different equipment), and you'll fight them ad infinitum nauseum until the end of the game.

So, there you go, that's the trick.  Low level caps = few enemies.  High level caps = more enemies.  Just look at all the enemies in any standard Final Fantasy game, even the ones that are just palette swaps that have different abilities or buffed stats.  Still more variety than the something like 7 total enemies with their level specific types in games like Fallout.  Sure, there's like 10 different Super Mutants, but they're all a Super Mutant.  Sure, there's like 50 different people, but they're all just people with different equipment.  Sure, there's like 6 kinds of ghouls, but they are still just ghouls who run up and melee you, with only "Glowing Ones" doing anything different than the rest.  If the level cap were higher in games like Fallout, the devs would ultimately have to design more monsters or at least higher leveled monsters just to cope with your now current level in order to keep a steady flow of xp into your character.

Basically... in short...  Low level caps are a great way for a sneaky dev to be lazy without most players knowing that's what they're doing.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

I agree with the above post... It's really tedious to develop ways on how to create such diversity of creatures to utilize a high level cap...

 

[Tai_MT]

I agree with the above post... It's really tedious to develop ways on how to create such diversity of creatures to utilize a high level cap...

Tedious beyond measure.  Which makes it a good thing most players don't NOTICE that's the reason they have a low level cap, and not as a way for devs to make you "specialize" your characters in any way ~_^

 

[Eschaton]

I had this idea where I would work out how much XP was required to reach the cap, and then meticulously (read:  fricking tediously) divide it among each and every battle and quest (assuming there's no random battles).  To reach the cap, you'd have to do everything in the game first.

Well, maybe not the ridiculously difficult bonus boss, anyway.

This would require absolute accountability and micromanagement of each point, but hey...

 

[Andar]

So, there you go, that's the trick.  Low level caps = few enemies.  High level caps = more enemies.  Just look at all the enemies in any standard Final Fantasy game, even the ones that are just palette swaps that have different abilities or buffed stats.  Still more variety than the something like 7 total enemies with their level specific types in games like Fallout.  Sure, there's like 10 different Super Mutants, but they're all a Super Mutant.  Sure, there's like 50 different people, but they're all just people with different equipment.  Sure, there's like 6 kinds of ghouls, but they are still just ghouls who run up and melee you, with only "Glowing Ones" doing anything different than the rest.  If the level cap were higher in games like Fallout, the devs would ultimately have to design more monsters or at least higher leveled monsters just to cope with your now current level in order to keep a steady flow of xp into your character.

Basically... in short...  Low level caps are a great way for a sneaky dev to be lazy without most players knowing that's what they're doing.

Not really, especially considering that D&D originated as a PnP RPG and later D&D computer games had to follow the rules set for PnP.

The reason why game rules originating from PnP usually have lower numbers is because in PnP the players have to write the numbers down, and getting dice rolls resulting in several thousands as a number is a bit more complex than most people want to do on a gaming table.

On the other hand, if developing a computer game without that PnP background, you'll end up limiting your numbers by the available digits (that's why it's 99 and not 50 with two digits) and often wish to go to higher numbers to impress others - after all, the computer handles the dice rolling and number handling much easier than PnP.

Creating new monsters is a drain on the developer's resources, but that was handled by simply changing colors on existing pictures or by leveling the monsters for a long time.

So there is no correlation between the level cap and the number of monsters unless the developer decide to do it that way - but I agree that a lot of developers just follow "that's how everyone does it these days" without thinking about other options. Whether to call that lazy, unimaginative or simply a restriction placed by the publisher paying for the development (who usually don't want the developer to experiment but follow proven mechanics) is not something we should do.

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

Now to my own thoughts about levels.

Before you should even try to find a level cap for your game, you should start to think about "what is a level for the character".

In many JRPG's the answer to that question is either "a grinding curve" or "nothing" - if you're already at L70 and HP400+, then getting another level with +5 HP is basically worthless. Which is why the same games have the player getting levels every three or four battles just to get the HP up to the point where they need to be to survive the next boss.

I've been designing PnP RPGs as a hobby for several years, and I changed to a completely different level mechanism a long time ago to get rid of some of the assumptions in a lot of RPG's that were nothing but thoughtless sticking to ancient decisions from the very first D&D edition...

For example, "why does the player has to start at level 1?"

That was set when there was no thought about the world surrounding the players, and it backfired in a lot of RPGs by having either the "Level-zero-NPC" or placing the NPCs outside the player rules to keep everything balanced while telling the player that their "Level 1 Character" already have their education behind them and learned how to fight etc...

In my world/setting, the level 1 is when you're a baby - new adventurers usually start at level 4. That not only allowed me to fit weaker NPCs into the same progression as the player characters, it also allows for different campaign scales - If the players want to play novices at a magic academy, they simply start with level two or three depending on the school year. And if they want a campaign with veterans, they'll be getting characters of level 8 or so as the character creation contains a fast leveling mechanism to place the PC's at the desired level.

(Anyone remembers the old dragonlance books where the group was described as veterans meeting again after a few years of adventuring, but the mage was still limited to one spell per day because they had to conform to level 1 characters as it was the beginning of the story? It was never stated that way in the books, but you could see it reading between the lines and descriptions)

There are a lot of ways to handle levels and level caps - if the developer is willing and allowed to put some time into thinking about it instead of just conforming to "how the others do it".

 

[Espon]

I keep level caps high for those that like to grind a bit, and for optional content.  While you could beat the game at level 50, the optional content content would be designed for being level 50-80 with a powerful super boss at the end.

I hate feeling blocked from character progression due to a low level cap, especially if it happens before you reach the end of the game.

 

[Eschaton]

"what is a level for the character"

For example, "why does the player has to start at level 1?"

The level is, and always has been, a gauge for the player to determine how strong they are relative to the game itself, regardless of the character's background.  At least that's how I saw it.  And it always applies to adults.  There are always special rules (read: penalties) for children based on their size modifiers and lack of skill.

I keep level caps high for those that like to grind a bit, and for optional content.  While you could beat the game at level 50, the optional content content would be designed for being level 50-80 with a powerful super boss at the end.

I hate feeling blocked from character progression due to a low level cap, especially if it happens before you reach the end of the game.

Wait, who actually likes grinding?  Either way, I'm not talking about FFXIII-level dickery with their arbitrary rising caps, I'm talking about a hard cap at the end, telling you that you're not leveling anymore that just happens to be a low number compared to f*cking Disgaea or whatever.

 

[Andar]

The level is, and always has been, a gauge for the player to determine how strong they are relative to the game itself, regardless of the character's background.  At least that's how I saw it.  And it always applies to adults.  There are always special rules (read: penalties) for children based on their size modifiers and lack of skill.

Ah - but you only need those special rules because of the level being set for adults, that's what I was talking about.

If you set the level scale like I did, you get a scale that works for everything without needing those special rules.

And the "usual" way of starting with level 1 also only works for a very focused group of characters - if you want an NPC that has a long life with learning crafts and knowledge areas but never training fighting or his body (HP), you'll get into problems if you want to compare a "level" with player characters that use focused levels like those introduced by D&D.

Yes, level is a comparison gauge - but the way it's used by most game rules it doesn't allow a comparison with everything in the game but only with those of similiar build (that means enemy/monster/ally only, not average NPCs)

 

[Espon]

Wait, who actually likes grinding?  Either way, I'm not talking about FFXIII-level dickery with their arbitrary rising caps, I'm talking about a hard cap at the end, telling you that you're not leveling anymore that just happens to be a low number compared to f*cking Disgaea or whatever.

I have no idea what you just said.

 

[Eschaton]

Neither do I, anymore.  I think I misread your post, anyway.

 

[Tai_MT]

Who actually likes grinding?  I don't know, let's go ask all the millions of MMO players out there.  That's what those games are, massive grind-fests.  With massive cult followings.  Look at things like Farmville on facebook, again, more massive grind fests.  There are people who enjoy it...  Quite a lot of people, apparently...

So, it's at least nice to include the OPTION to grind if a player feels like it.

 

[Jawnsunn]

I don't really care how high the level caps are honestly. As long as I have a good time and the bosses give me a run for my money, then I'm good.

The Etrian Odyssey games had level cap of around 60-75. Even at max level, you'll still have a hard time with enemies.

Hell, Ys 1 for the PC Engine only had a level cap of 10! Things still killed you.

 

[Naridar]

I personally prefer to avoid strictly linear leveling whenever possible, I'm more for a non-linear solution like the Sphere Grid (FF 10), Growth book (Mana khemia) or weapon stat purchases (Tales of Hearts). When it's not possible, I like to have a higher level cap, because lower levels either limit the feeling of growth (30 levels in Fallout 3, Mass Effect 2, neither is enough to feel a change in characters' power), or the importance of one level becomes extremely disproportionate. In most WRPGs, a level difference of 2-3 usually results in a curb-stomp battle. In most JRPGs, on the other hand, a level difference of such proportions is almost worth nothing by the end of the game (e.g. in Tales of Phantasia, most guides recommend Lv. 90-100 for the final boss, while he's still beatable as low as Lv. 55-60, possibly lower with skill and more preparation).

And higher level caps don't necessarily mean it's more difficult to program. In Fallout 3, it is because the enemies are full 3D models who have to be animated with several dozen different animations, probably with mo-cap. But in Disgaea's case, it would be reasonably possible to create a game faster than its' playtime (theoretically, every script necessary for a Disgaea clone is available for VX - not Ace), since it's mostly randomly generated. Extending the level cap with content to 100.000 from 10.000 would not be half as difficult as extending the level cap in Fallout 3 from 30 to 50.

 

[Eschaton]

More and higher levels tend to translate to empty levels.

 

[Galenmereth]

My take (and how I'm doing it in my game) is that you don't need to reach max level to finish the main storyline of the game. I'm designing encounters so that you don't need to "grind" or "farm" to be able to beat the game normally. To acommodate those who do this on the way there, I have an enemy scaling system in place that scales their stats somewhat upwards to a certain limit. However, I have sidequests and optional areas where those who wish to push the game further and level their characters to max level (probably 99) can do so, and are rewarded with harder and harder encounters (I'm a fan of the optional "rear end in a top hat" level boss fights in FF games myself) and opportunities to really give their party and character builds a run for their money.

 

[Tai_MT]

I personally prefer to avoid strictly linear leveling whenever possible, I'm more for a non-linear solution like the Sphere Grid (FF 10), Growth book (Mana khemia) or weapon stat purchases (Tales of Hearts). When it's not possible, I like to have a higher level cap, because lower levels either limit the feeling of growth (30 levels in Fallout 3, Mass Effect 2, neither is enough to feel a change in characters' power), or the importance of one level becomes extremely disproportionate. In most WRPGs, a level difference of 2-3 usually results in a curb-stomp battle. In most JRPGs, on the other hand, a level difference of such proportions is almost worth nothing by the end of the game (e.g. in Tales of Phantasia, most guides recommend Lv. 90-100 for the final boss, while he's still beatable as low as Lv. 55-60, possibly lower with skill and more preparation).

And higher level caps don't necessarily mean it's more difficult to program. In Fallout 3, it is because the enemies are full 3D models who have to be animated with several dozen different animations, probably with mo-cap. But in Disgaea's case, it would be reasonably possible to create a game faster than its' playtime (theoretically, every script necessary for a Disgaea clone is available for VX - not Ace), since it's mostly randomly generated. Extending the level cap with content to 100.000 from 10.000 would not be half as difficult as extending the level cap in Fallout 3 from 30 to 50.

You do know that the Sphere Grid is incredibly linear for everyone except Kimahri, right?  There are very few places to change directions or make new choices no matters who's section of the grid you're in at the time.  The choices you do make merely allow you to pick up skills and stats you could choose to miss or ignore if you wanted as well.  Then, after hitting the dead end of those trails, you have to spend your level ups to backtrack and resume on the trek of the linear hallway line of leveling up.

Now, much later you do get to open up character customization a bit more...  But, by that point in the game, you're almost done playing it anyway, so the system gets no points for trying.  If there was another system that mirrored the Sphere Grid in its entirety, it would be the Crysterium from FF13.  It is freakin' EXACT in implementation, except it looks different and requires a crapload more time to gain levels in once it opens up at 40 hour mark.