Why do designers choose to scale enemies with the player?

[jonthefox]

A lot of my friends are complaining about Diablo 4, saying that the game is so well-made but it is ruined by some very poor design decisions, such as the enemies scaling with player level. They feel like they're "making no progress." I wanted to say, like, I guess the designers at blizzard should have read the rpg maker game design forums.

But in all seriousness, what do you think is the intent of this design decision? This isn't even just some random indie dev from the rpg maker community, this is a team at one of the biggest game design companies in the world coming to this conclusion. What were they thinking?! How does such a design choice enhance player experience? I suppose one way of looking at it would be that in a game like Dark Souls, you always want the combat to feel challenging and that results are more a matter of player skill than time investment - but then why even have levels? Anyway, just thought I would throw this topic up for discussion.

 

[Ms Littlefish]

I enjoy the experience of coming to the realization that you’re 100% in an area that can giga stomp you at any second and you can either outsmart them and outplay them or endure the stomping until you decide to try another area first.

I definitely see how it can feel like a game truly “can’t be done in any order” if there are areas where the enemies clearly outclass you, but if you’re into cheese starts you can have an absolute ton of fun with that.

I do like it when earlier areas of the game are coded to get tougher during a return trip, though. I’m just less jazzed about areas becoming easier if you stumble into an area the devs definitely intended the player to find a bit later on.

I think some devs might choose it for the reason I mentioned earlier, so the game can more easily be done in any order.

 

[AquaEcho]

It's probably an attempt to keep the game consistently challenging throughout the entire playthrough. If you play a non-level scaling game out of its intended order (sequence breaking), it's super difficult when you do the lategame dungeons and you're underleveled but a complete pushover when you go back to finish the earlier sections/dungeons and you're way overleveled. It basically forces you to play through it linearly to keep the challenge appropriate.

 

[caethyril]

Thoughts:

1. Enemies might gain more power per level than player characters. Or they might level faster than player characters, e.g. player level 5 vs enemy level 5, but player level 50 vs enemy level 60. Power curves can be shaped to effectively cap scaling based on certain criteria. Bosses can still act as "gates" if left unscaled.
   
   
2. Scaling accommodates non-linear or variable-rate player progression while retaining challenge, which implicitly enhances replayability. Non-linearity can be due to side-quests and/or plot design. Some players (usually including those who have played the game before) may naturally be very careful to explore every nook and cranny of an area before progressing, which means they'll generally be more powerful at any given point than less careful players. Scaling evens the playing field while still offering both groups suitable rewards.
   
   
3. As mentioned, scaling can be capped: commonly there will be an idea of a min/max "area level". So a min level 20 area could connect directly to the starting zone.
   
   
4. Enemy power can be scaled in various ways, e.g. adjust the (unseen) level/stats, or replace them with visibly different enemies. The latter is more effort. Games like Skyrim, for example, use both these approaches. There are other options, too, e.g. increase the number of enemies.
   
   
5. A power scaling system can be helpful for implementing a difficulty slider or challenge mode.

 

[ZombieKidzRule]

I'm not familiar with Diablo 4 and there are different ways that games do enemy scaling. I agree with what the previous responses have pointed out.

Personally, I don't think the same enemies should scale with the player. Meaning that I don't think a rat with 10 HP should suddenly have 50 HP because the player is higher level. Unless it is a different type of rat.

However, another way I have seen scaling done is that more powerful enemies start to appear in an area when the player gets higher in level. So the player enters one area where the enemies range from slightly below to slightly higher level than the player. The player leaves and comes back 5 levels higher. So suddenly there are different types of enemies in that same area.

I think scaling can be done in a good way that enhances the player experience. But, of course, that also will depend on the perspective of the player as well.

I can't speak for why any developer or team of developers or game designer chooses to approach scaling in any particular way. And it depends entirely on the type of game as well.

For instance, if the game is mostly linear and there is very little reason to back track to previous areas or maybe that is even impossible, then the only scaling I would expect to see is matching the player level in whatever area they are in to try to avoid the player being too weak or too strong.

If the game allows or encourages back tracking and going anywhere you want, then perhaps having some enemies that will challenge the player constantly isn't a bad thing. I think I might prefer that over having no enemies or very easy enemies in an area I return to.

Maybe scaling is used to ensure that the player experiences a consistent challenge throughout the game.

Maybe because some people feel it is easier to balance the game combat by scaling.

I don't know, but it is something I am contemplating as well.

 

[bgillisp]

Honestly I never got it either. Level scaling ruined Sacred 1 for me as I felt I was never getting anywhere in it and I rage quit after a few hours to never return.

 

[TheAM-Dol]

Thoughts:

1. Enemies might gain more power per level than player characters. Or they might level faster than player characters, e.g. player level 5 vs enemy level 5, but player level 50 vs enemy level 60. Power curves can be shaped to effectively cap scaling based on certain criteria. Bosses can still act as "gates" if left unscaled.
   
   
2. Scaling accommodates non-linear or variable-rate player progression while retaining challenge, which implicitly enhances replayability. Non-linearity can be due to side-quests and/or plot design. Some players (usually including those who have played the game before) may naturally be very careful to explore every nook and cranny of an area before progressing, which means they'll generally be more powerful at any given point than less careful players. Scaling evens the playing field while still offering both groups suitable rewards.
   
   
3. As mentioned, scaling can be capped: commonly there will be an idea of a min/max "area level". So a min level 20 area could connect directly to the starting zone.
   
   
4. Enemy power can be scaled in various ways, e.g. adjust the (unseen) level/stats, or replace them with visibly different enemies. The latter is more effort. Games like Skyrim, for example, use both these approaches. There are other options, too, e.g. increase the number of enemies.
   
   
5. A power scaling system can be helpful for implementing a difficulty slider or challenge mode.

Yep, pretty much everything listed here is how I handle this in my game.
My game has somewhat linear level design, however, the levels themselves can be played in any order. So in order to ensure that players are adequately challenged, regardless of what order they do the levels in, the enemies scale.

The enemies do not scale linearly with the player. The first 3 levels the enemies do, but that's mostly because that's the "tutorial" phase. Starting from level 4 enemies begin to balloon in difficulty. From this point, it's about understanding the available equipment, utilizing the resources available, and mastering the skills I have provided the player.

Bosses are still gated at a minimum of level 4, I expect players to be past the "tutorial" phase of the game by the time they reach the first boss.

The leveling system in my game also acts like an automatic difficulty slider (and maybe in the future, I'll add an option to make it a manual difficulty slider too), since in my game it's possible to level down, which would also cause all enemies to level down too.

 

[Lord Vectra]

I think the design is fine if the earlier enemy's scaling is capped, moreso on human enemies. Monsters have a tighter scaling. This is usually to show others are getting stronger too.

Now, I tend to like to make more robust semi-open-world games where there is less control on where you go, and areas you'll have to return to. In my backburner project, I found the best solution was to have enemies scale to the player based on their intended threat level.

Example, if you come back to monsters you fought at the beginning of the game, they will have scaled but still be easier than before. Some enemies will scale slowly but "evolve" once you hit level X of which they will scale faster but not 1:1 scale with you. When it comes to bosses, they have a minimum level and then they scale with you but slightly slower (with some being 1:1). This is to impede on the process of attempting to over-level by making it harder to win simply by doing so but doesn't scale 1:1 to promote the idea of coming back a little later when your party has a bit more heft.

I've been in debates like this before where people say "well, what's the point of leveling up" but stats are only half the battle (less so depending on the game). The abilities you gain on level up could be the reason you win or lose a Boss battle. It might not be that you need giant size HP but you needed more healing abilities or defense buffers.

 

[BubblegumPatty]

I see two things about it: firstly it stops players from trying to brute force their way through the game by grinding. Strong enemy or challenging boss? Don't need strategy if you're just 30 levels higher than it.
It als solves the issue of randomly spawned enemies feeling more like nuisances rather than threats, especially at later levels where there would just... run out of strong enemies to challenge the player with. No one likes being swarmed by Zubats.

But I agree, this has the major issue of robbing the player the feeling of progress, and may incentive the player to avoid leveling up just to ensure they don't get smashed to pieces. The later is my biggest issue with it.

 

[gstv87]

because developers don't usually consider that 2/1 is 100% difference, while 100/99 is 1% difference.
the difference still 1, but when you *scale*, it's not the same amount.

.....and the engine has those percentages all over the place, in every control.

Power curves can be shaped to effectively cap scaling based on certain criteria. Bosses can still act as "gates" if left unscaled.

that ties to a neat model I call EPS: Exposure/Potential/Sustainability.
Exposure means how likely it is that a certain aspect of the confrontation will come under contest (if at a sports match, how likely that the ball will go left or right, or at the goal, or out the field... if in war, how likely that the enemy will find out we're out of ammo, or out of position, or out of breath, and attack)
Potential is the ability to affect the balance of forces somehow, at any given point (can you tackle a player? can you pass the ball? what CAN you do? can you shoot your weapon? DO you have a weapon? etc)
Sustainability is how long you can keep doing what you're doing and maintaining the balance, before the engagement is altered in any way (how long til half time? will your players endure without injury? or your soldiers move without food? etc)
in this case, if all bosses are pre-set, beating them sooner or later, or with more or less casualties will depend on what access you have to the skills that damage those bosses.
if your boss is a tank of HP, it'll take you N turns to beat it by means of hammering it through brute force.... but IT will also hammer you back. Can you heal that damage back and endure?
if your boss is still a tank of HP, and you're still hammering it by brute force, but now you have access to a stun attack, now those N turns become N turns of hammering IT, but it not hammering back for as long as that stun is active.
you can still keep the same HP and attack for everyone, and not give that stun any extra damage, but the drop in sustainability on their side decides the encounter.

 

[Tai_MT]

I'm not familiar with Diablo 4. There are several reasons to "scale" enemies.

1. Makes equipment more valuable than levels. In a "loot based" game, this can be beneficial... or allow players to absolutely destroy the difficulty by twinking items about.

2. Monetization reasons. If you can "buy power" in any way, then enemies "remaining as powerful as you" provides incentive to purchase that power.

3. An (very poorly thought out) attempt to "keep difficulty consistent" across the game.

4. It's easier to "scale" an enemy than design a new one. Cheaper too. MUCH CHEAPER. Also, makes production MUCH FASTER.

5. A means to keep "player power" in check. Basically, prevents "over leveling". Or... ATTEMPTS to prevent it. Players who have had to deal with such systems for a long time know how to get around this idiocy.

6. You can keep XP gain "consistent" and make leveling up "matter less", unless you lock abilities/features behind levels. Put simply, if enemies are always as powerful as they always have been, then there's no difference in being Level 60 or Level 1. Because of that, you can keep XP gain pretty low if you like (and games with monetization will, so they can sell you XP Boosts, while also not damaging the difficulty of their game by letting you level faster).

Take your pick as to why Blizzard did it.

My guess is:

2, 4, and 6. I don't have faith that Blizzard is very good at designing games. Especially when you consider how they treat customers AND employees... so it's all gotta go back to "we don't want to pay anyone anything, and we also want to make a ton of money very quickly for not doing much work".

 

[ZombieKidzRule]

I forgot to mention something about level scaling. It can create a situation where the player can choose to just not level, if that is possible, like in Morrowind, and finish the game as a Level 1 character.

 

[Tai_MT]

A level 1 character with maxed out amazing gear that makes them broken. Which is typically how I get around level scaling. Because I refuse to participate in a system that punishes me while allowing devs to be lazy and overpaid.

 

[gstv87]

@ZombieKidzRule in Oblivion, you level up by training your main abilities.
you can totally build your character backwards, train the abilities that are not main, and become a level 1 Paladin wielding level-99 Destruction spells.

@Tai_MT gear often also scales. I've seen "random thugs" enemies wearing Emerald armor because *I* was wearing High Elf armor, after going through the game without progressing that quest.

 

[Tai_MT]

@gstv87 I've seen that too. But, those random thugs can typically be beaten in some cheap way to obtain their better gear as well. Oblivion and Skyrim have that problem in spades.

It just sort of "depends" on how their particular systems work.

 

[TheAM-Dol]

In response to all of the "I just won't level" or "beating the game at level 1"
See, the way I see it is is....that you are playing the game. If it's my game and you decide to do that, that's fine. It's not like I (and likely other devs) didn't account for this. If this is how you enjoy playing the game feeling like you got one over on the dev "ha! Bet you didn't think your player wouldn't level!" that's fine. Just glad to have you playing.
(also my bosses are gated at level 4, so at least in the case of my game you're probably gonna have to level at least once or twice)

 

[RCXGaming]

Only reason I would ever scale enemies with the player is if the process of leveling is more for learning skills and/or gaining a perks that makes combat more interesting, like passives or a shop unlocks somewhere. I would never, ever use it for the sake of scaling stats themselves, since that's the most boring part of RPGs to begin with.

I think there was a bit that @ZombieKidzRule talked about a while back where "scaling" enemies meant the more you level up, the tougher enemies you encountered instead of just the same enemies but with bigger stats?

Like a LV1 Wolf will not do much to you, but when you hit LV5 they become Dark Wolves that have more lethal skills but interact with the player in different ways? Like you need to reward the player in different ways than just EXP.

Kingdom Hearts has a minimum damage floor function so your attacks scale from world to world regardless of your actual level, so you're never stuck dealing 1 damage to the enemies but you're also not obliterating them outright.

This is coincidentally what allows level 1 runs to be possible in that game, and I plan to incorporate the same thing after learning I could do the same thing with RPG Maker.

 

[Danatoth]

The way I'm avoiding pitfalls of level scaling in my open world game:

Firstly by having level scaling blocks. Max level is 40, and there are 8 different monster tiers. 1-5 5-10 10-15 etc. If the player is level 1-5 it will encounter a pool of these first blocks. If they are level 5-10 they will encounter the second block, etc.

Then in the open world I have the easier areas such as roads between towns start level scaling at level 1. So they will scale with the player all the way from level 1, and are accessible whenever. Then in more far areas, or different dungeons etc, I have the level scaling start at different levels. So when you go further out the scaling will start at level 15. So if you go up there as a level 1, you will encounter level 15 enemies. But if you go up there at 20, the enemies will be level 20.

I think this solves the problem by still having level gated areas so you feel your character progressing and getting stronger, but also still allowing monsters to scale with you so you are always challenged.

 

[RCXGaming]

The way I'm avoiding pitfalls of level scaling in my open world game:

Firstly by having level scaling blocks. Max level is 40, and there are 8 different monster tiers. 1-5 5-10 10-15 etc. If the player is level 1-5 it will encounter a pool of these first blocks. If they are level 5-10 they will encounter the second block, etc.

Then in the open world I have the easier areas such as roads between towns start level scaling at level 1. So they will scale with the player all the way from level 1, and are accessible whenever. Then in more far areas, or different dungeons etc, I have the level scaling start at different levels. So when you go further out the scaling will start at level 15. So if you go up there as a level 1, you will encounter level 15 enemies. But if you go up there at 20, the enemies will be level 20.

I think this solves the problem by still having level gated areas so you feel your character progressing and getting stronger, but also still allowing monsters to scale with you so you are always challenged.

Oh right! I just remembered. Thanks for bringing this up.

Live-A-Live (both the original and the remake) had the endgame arranged so you get dynamic encounters based on your level range.

If your level is super low, the enemies are very easy and you can blitz through them with little effort so you can get stronger. The further you go, the more powerful they get to the point where you're effectively consistently running into bosses.

This is important too, because the final boss is NOT scaled and is the strongest enemy in the game + your party members don't all start at the same level, so this enemy group scaling was necessary to make the game actually function properly.

 

[NamEtag]

On top of @Tai_MT 's answer, I'll add a 7th.

As you add more devs and complexity into the system, having any idea at all how to balance it becomes more difficult to discuss. There's no dedicated language or academe for measuring balance, and when the bigwigs would rather be able to fire and replace devs with minimal impact to production flow, level-scaling prevents the game from being a disaster.

Even if it's still very bad.