True, and I don't like it either. But if they do that, at least it doesn't mean you trivialize all the other areas. When you open something up but gate it behind high level monsters, why is it even accessible at low levels unless there's ways to go there early? And if there are, that means that all the OTHER areas that aren't high level end up becoming completely trivial, simply because you wanted to go to Place X first.
Both are an illusion of choice, it's only that one of them is at least honest about it. Doesn't mean I want that in any game, of course.
Well, apparently I wasn't wellspoken enough to get my point across. I think, though, you are misunderstanding me completely. I gave an example of how you could increase the challenge by using sub-areas or levels in a dungeon to increase difficulty by having higher grade enemies which may force an inexperienced player to need to bounce in between areas a bit to find a reasonable challange, but whereas an experienced player can move on through with metaknowledge.
I can only speak for myself ofc, but I would be suprised if what you paint out (after picking the first area, all the other areas become trivial because you leveled up by the critters didn't) is something all those who voted "No" believes. Just because you don't use level scaling to even out the opposition doesn't mean that all opposition have to be on either a higher power curve than you (too strong for you) or way, way below (trivial). There's a middle, you know, and with clevel level-creation as I mention above you can create good challenge througout the game without the use of enemy level scaling-
No. I NEVER want any fight to be TRIVIAL. I want some to get easier as I get better (levels, gear, skill, whatever), but I also want to maintain a challenge for as long as possible. Games are fun because they are a challenge. They're not walls you have to climb over and then it's smooth walking from there. That's never fun. There's a reason the hardest fights tend to be towards the end of the game, if levels trivialized things that wouldn't be the case. In fact, it's a sign of bad balancing.
Ok, so "trivial" is a strong word. I don't much enjoy trivial fights either, I prefer 'realistic' fights. Even a inferior enemy can kill an experinced one with a lucky blow, though it is very unlikely. I also like the idea that a battle-hardened veteran with high-grade equipment will slaughter the lesser beings, but he or she should still have to tread carefully and avoid being killed by gangs of lower leveled enemies. I don't get that picture you paint out though, where you climb a wall and then it's all flat with not even a speed bump on the horizon. But I've already spoke of how such things can be avoided by good level design, so no need to go there again.
I get the logic, but this is a game. I don't want it to be 100% consistent with logic if that means I'm not having any fun. Can you really imagine everyone fleeing before you at the mere mention of your passage? Great fun, walking through all those deserted streets and empty hills, where nothing and no one stands against you. Much game. Very engaging.
People tend to get too hung up on the RP aspect. Maybe that's because this is D&D-based, and they're used to campaigns being run by humans. But there, too, things are adapting. DMs don't bore you by making you fight twenty encounters of lvl 1 goblins for six hours straight.
This is the core of discussion right here, the definition of "fun" for you and me respectively. You think it's fun with a constant (increasing?) challange, whilst I think it's fun with powercurves and a static world not revolving around my character. You also seem quite keeon on using terms like "all the time", "everyone" and "always" etc when debating. Have I ever spoke of that? The answer is ofc no, I haven't. I never said I wanted everyone to flee before my godchild, I just said that if I play a character who's the spawn of a god, experienced, well-equipped, in a party of his equals, and encounter a group of weak goblins, is it reasonable that they attack? Prolly not, if you apply some sort of realism, which I think is fun.
And also, it IS a roleplaying game after all, so can you really blame me for getting "hung up" on RP aspect? I consider it fun and a vital part of all games like these. If I want a pure challenge wihtout the RP aspect, I play other kind games. And tell me where in BG1-ToB you fight only lvl 1 goblins for 6 hour straight? I have never seen that part of the games. It makes it easier to discuss if you use examples that are more reasonable.
See my first point again. If they're super strong, why can you go there? In terms of game mechanics, mind you. Either it's just a tease and you're not supposed to be there yet, in which case the game is offering illusion of choice and forces you into a certain progression path; or you can be there if you gain the power early somehow, in which case all the OTHER areas you go to afterwards are suddenly trivial. Neither is good for engaging, fun gameplay.
Well, because there's no invisible wall blocking you? Because you are a sentient being able to make your own choices, and if you want to travel somewhere you really shouldn't, what's stopping you? Because you can go there, realize it's very dangerous, flee with your tail between your legs only to return at a later stage and pwn all opposition? Because with sufficent metaknowledge you know just the way to beat that part of game even at lower levels? The game doesn't create an illusion of choice, it actually gives you choice, but gently nudges you in the right direction. But if you choose another path, manage to beat it and become stronger, then you'll become stronger and thus making the other parts of the game easier, yes. But you can eg use chapters and other 'gates' to increase the difficulty quite linear to the character development. It's not uncommon that games eg gives you three locations to choose from, you can complete them in any order, then once all three are done, two, three new ones open up etc. I think that's a pretty decent way of creating a RP game.
While that makes sense in theory, the static nature of the enemy distribution means that you essentially have a set progression path. Go to Area A, then B, then C. If you go to Area C first, you get stomped. But if you then level up so you can survive Area C, Areas A and B are ridiculously easy and no challenge at all - i.e. as soon as you deviate from the path set before you, the game goes out of whack. That's why scaling is put into games in the first place, usually.
You have played alot of BG obviosly, but not all games have to have the same powercurve as the good'ol AD&D 2E we have in the BG games. True, in BG and it's sequels, once your CHARNAME reaches a certain level and have aquired certain equipment, large portions of the game then becomes trivial indeed. But that's not due to the lacking level-scaling of the enemies, that's due to the very core rules of DnD and their implemtations in BG, as well as, the items added etc. Other games could have a much smoother and linear power curve than BG, which is rather exponential up until a point, thus keeping your character more in line with the opposition as the story unfolds.
I think I should prolly preview and re-read this before posting, but I'm too lazy, hehe
here's a middle, you know, and with clevel level-creation as I mention above you can create good challenge througout the game without the use of enemy level scaling-
Only because you enforce a progression path, i.e. "don't go here yet, go somewhere else first".
Ok, so "trivial" is a strong word. I don't much enjoy trivial fights either, I prefer 'realistic' fights. Even a inferior enemy can kill an experinced one with a lucky blow, though it is very unlikely. I also like the idea that a battle-hardened veteran with high-grade equipment will slaughter the lesser beings, but he or she should still have to tread carefully and avoid being killed by gangs of lower leveled enemies.
Nice in theory, but just not the case in BG. You roflstomp lower level enemies without a scrap of a chance for them to do anything. You'd literally have to sit there for an hour until their natural 20s get your HP down (anyone who's kited Drizzt early in BG1 can attest to that). Also "realism", in a game with dragons and fireballs? Not to mention that a truly realistic world would be quite boring. I think you're just picking and choosing for your idea of "realism".
This is the core of discussion right here, the definition of "fun" for you and me respectively. You think it's fun with a constant (increasing?) challange, whilst I think it's fun with powercurves and a static world not revolving around my character.
That's fine. You can enjoy that. It's not good game design, but no one forces you to like good design. There is a reason so many games use some form of scaling, simply because the extreme scenarios detract from the experience. Step outside of Candlekeep, meet a lvl 7 bandit, get killed with one arrow. GGWP. That would be a truly static world not revolving around your character. How come seasoned warriors and commanders you meet are all roughly in your level range, fresh out of home?
I never said I wanted everyone to flee before my godchild, I just said that if I play a character who's the spawn of a god, experienced, well-equipped, in a party of his equals, and encounter a group of weak goblins, is it reasonable that they attack? Prolly not, if you apply some sort of realism, which I think is fun.
It's fine if you think not fighting is fun. Personally, I don't see the point in having enemies you never get to fight in a game. Once or twice, sure, that can be a fun interlude, but it'd have to be a regular thing in your scenario. Unless you just make every enemy stupid enough to underestimate you as you walk towards them with 5 other people fully clad in magical items. Realism, for sure.
And also, it IS a roleplaying game after all, so can you really blame me for getting "hung up" on RP aspect? I consider it fun and a vital part of all games like these. If I want a pure challenge wihtout the RP aspect, I play other kind games
A valid enough point, but I get the feeling there's more picking and choosing going on. There's already plenty of compromises being made between RP and mechanics. Where do you draw the line, and why? And is that choice really not influenced by knowledge of the status quo?
Well, because there's no invisible wall blocking you? Because you are a sentient being able to make your own choices, and if you want to travel somewhere you really shouldn't, what's stopping you?
Death is stopping me. This is the definition of an illusion of choice. It's like saying sure, nobody is forcing you to use a plane to travel. You can just walk. It'll take weeks instead of a few hours, but nobody is FORCING you to use that mode of travel. It's not a real choice. Just because there is no wall there doesn't make me anymore able to go inside if I get one-shot by the first enemy.
Because you can go there, realize it's very dangerous, flee with your tail between your legs only to return at a later stage and pwn all opposition? Because with sufficent metaknowledge you know just the way to beat that part of game even at lower levels?
But that is precisely WHY I would appreciate scaling. The game is already too easy to begin with. If you then go and make yourself more powerful to access certain areas early, it becomes even easier in all the other areas. I'm taking away from my game experience simply because I am making a choice - and that I have a problem with. I'd rather the choice be up to me, and the game adapt fluidly to keep presenting a challenge regardless. That way I can go where I like without feeling that I'm taking away from my own enjoyment later simply because I want to do something other than the set progression path. I've always been a "more choice = good" kind of person, but I suppose that's not a universal truth. If people enjoy having less REAL choice, they're free to do so.
But you can eg use chapters and other 'gates' to increase the difficulty quite linear to the character development.
Only by pre-defining a progression path. Any deviation gets punished by a mismatch in the set difficulty curve. The only alternative is adaptive difficulty, i.e. scaling.
It's not uncommon that games eg gives you three locations to choose from, you can complete them in any order, then once all three are done, two, three new ones open up etc. I think that's a pretty decent way of creating a RP game.
Yes, this is one possibility. It's a compromise between truly adaptive scaling and a fully rigid progression path, but it can't really come in arbitrary levels of granularity. It works only well at the topmost levels, e.g. how BG separates the game essentially into pre-UD, UD, and post-UD phases. Any more differentiation and you're restricting choice too much.
To take BG as an example, tt would mean e.g. that you can only do the Slaver Compound, the Cult of the Eyeless, and the Bridge Murders to start with. Then only once you're done with all 3, can you do DAK, Trademeet, or Umar Hills. Then when you're done with THOSE, you can do Planar Sphere, Windspear Hills, Planar Prison. It would work, mechanically, but it'd be restrictive to people and not feel fun.
True, in BG and it's sequels, once your CHARNAME reaches a certain level and have aquired certain equipment, large portions of the game then becomes trivial indeed. But that's not due to the lacking level-scaling of the enemies, that's due to the very core rules of DnD and their implemtations in BG, as well as, the items added etc.
Both are to blame, certainly. Equipment power creep is real, which is why I can heartily recommend the IR/SR mods to curb that a bit. But enemies not scaling is part of the problem. You can observe that in Nightmare Mode, where higher stats on enemies suddenly do mean a change in paradigms, and struggle despite powerful items at very early times (e.g. FoA+3). It's not a perfect solution of course, but it does hint at future possibilities.
I think another big problem is also the static nature of the XP progression. The XP you earn steadily increases, but the XP required for levels does not. As a result, you often level more quickly late in the game than you do early on, which is a bit of a contradiction to how most games do it. It also makes you run into the problem of high levels more quickly, where the DND system fails a bit due to simply not having been designed for players of lvl30 or even lvl40. It would be an interesting thought to address this in tandem with a mob-sclaing change.
End chapter scaling makes sense, but it does not have to mean higher level enemies. It could also include more low level enemies, more variation of enemies, better AI for the enemies, more traps and summons, etc. I think boosting all encounters is overkill. I would rather see encounters in assorted locations improved based on a random number (so not always improved, but only if your RNG gets the check). Places to improve other than end chapter fights..... bandit camp, xvart village, gnoll stronghold, ulcaster, firewine, mines (2x), things like that.
Personally, I can't escape the feeling that 'scaling' is simply an excuse to further dumb down the game playing experience, in the same way that 'balancing' often leads to samness and the elimination of difference.
Don't go into the ruined temple, they said in the tavern, something evil lurks there.... Don't venture unawares into the ruined temple, said the wise woman on the road, something undead lurks there.... the bard in the pub where I had a pint was singing a song about a mighty Lord that died and rose again as undead.... on the deserted track leading up to the ruined temple were several half eaten corpses of adventurers..... further up the track I passed a mail box with the name label 'Lich Lord' written on it....
And then I DIED! What kind of crazy game puts a Lich in when I'm only second level!!!!!!!!!!! What a stupid game!!!!!!!!!!
@Lord_Tansheron I think you are confusing mob scaling with challenge increasing with character level. They are both very different things.
Oblivion is a perfect example of mob scaling. As your level increases, the monster's (mob's) level increases proportionately. The only thing that doesn't stay proportional is your equipment. You say that mob scaling is in game design for a reason: that reason is generally done because it is the easiest way for the programmers to try to keep a challenge. Designing a game without mob scaling, and instead using planning by predicted character advancement, is a lot more work, and is reminiscent of older games, like ultima and Magic candle. Unfortunately, in a game with mob scaling, every battle tends to stay the same, everything is very static, there is little variety from one battle to the next. Oblivion did this horribly. Essentially, the higher your level, the more times you have to swing you sword to kill something.
Difficulty increasing with character level is already implemented in baldurs gate. For example, if you go to the underdark as soon as possible, there are fewer mind flayers and beholders. If you wait, there are more. This is not uniform all over the the game, but it is implemented in many parts of the game and in many quests. And it is there just enough to almost not be noticeable, but still provide the challenge necessary for higher level parties.
You said that this game is easy. I don't find the game easy. Some people talk about how easy it is, but for new people and veterans alike, this game is freaking hard. I play on normal without difficulty increasing mods, and I still get my elven arse handed to me on a regular basis. Perhaps it is easy for you due to your familiarity with the game, not due to poor design.
As @Skatan said, I prefer fights to be realistic. But there aren't really any trivial fights that I can think of in this game, unless you do something like go back to the slaver compound after doing everything else in chapter 6, a quest which is specifically pointed out to you in the very beginning of the game with big signs that say, "DO THIS QUEST FIRST." If you don't want to, though, no big deal. Come back when you're so powerful that those slavers would have to be morons to refuse you anything.
Besides, what's the point of playing a game where your character increases in power if you're never able to find any situations where that power is of any benefit to you? You increase in power and so does the next guy you're going to fight...so why even strive for an increase in power?
@FinneousPJ I am aware of that. That was the entire point of my post. I'm not really sure why you pointed that out to me. But this thread is about mob scaling, not level scaling, or in other words, "challenge increasing with edit: character level".
@FinneousPJ BG doesn't have mob scaling. It has what you call "level scaling," which is the same thing as what I called, for clarification purposes, "challenge increase with difficulty level" in my other post. As you and I both said, they are two different things. I'm sorry, but I'm still confused by both of your posts. Could you please explain?
@mashedtaters The way I see it "level scaling" (the scaling of levels) is a subset of "mob scaling" (as in the scaling of mobs i.e. non-boss enemies). Hence, my point is both Oblivion and BG have "mob scaling", but in Oblivion it's implemented as "level scaling" while in BG it's scaling the quality & quantity of mobs.
@FinneousPJ Thank you for clarifying. I was confused because you said that they were not the same thing. I see now that you believe that they are similar. I personally believe that the way BG and Oblivion implements "generic scaling" are so dissimilar that they cannot be compared to each other with any accuracy at all.
In Oblivion, it is implemented in such a way that the challenge never seems to change. There is only a monotony increase. Swing your sword 20 or 30 times, instead of 4 or 5. In Baldur's Gate, the battles actually do get more difficult as you progress through the story. In minor, infrequent instances along the main plot-line, in BG2, monsters are added based on your level...but that's about the extent of any sort of "level scaling" in BG2, other than recruit-able NPC XP increase based on Charname's XP. The main challenge in BG2 increases with the advancement of plot-line and predicted character advancement. For example, if you were to bring a level 1 character to ToB, your character would be mutilated (still likely to happen with a character of appropriate level). If you did something similar in Oblivion, you would stand the same chance as if you waited. I have yet to try the Oscuro mod for Oblivion. I lost my CDs a while ago.
@mashedtaters: I'd recommend buying the game again from Steam in order to play Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul. It's a vast improvement on vanilla--it's actually stronger than vanilla Skyrim.
Comments
I can only speak for myself ofc, but I would be suprised if what you paint out (after picking the first area, all the other areas become trivial because you leveled up by the critters didn't) is something all those who voted "No" believes. Just because you don't use level scaling to even out the opposition doesn't mean that all opposition have to be on either a higher power curve than you (too strong for you) or way, way below (trivial). There's a middle, you know, and with clevel level-creation as I mention above you can create good challenge througout the game without the use of enemy level scaling- Ok, so "trivial" is a strong word. I don't much enjoy trivial fights either, I prefer 'realistic' fights. Even a inferior enemy can kill an experinced one with a lucky blow, though it is very unlikely. I also like the idea that a battle-hardened veteran with high-grade equipment will slaughter the lesser beings, but he or she should still have to tread carefully and avoid being killed by gangs of lower leveled enemies. I don't get that picture you paint out though, where you climb a wall and then it's all flat with not even a speed bump on the horizon. But I've already spoke of how such things can be avoided by good level design, so no need to go there again. This is the core of discussion right here, the definition of "fun" for you and me respectively. You think it's fun with a constant (increasing?) challange, whilst I think it's fun with powercurves and a static world not revolving around my character. You also seem quite keeon on using terms like "all the time", "everyone" and "always" etc when debating. Have I ever spoke of that? The answer is ofc no, I haven't. I never said I wanted everyone to flee before my godchild, I just said that if I play a character who's the spawn of a god, experienced, well-equipped, in a party of his equals, and encounter a group of weak goblins, is it reasonable that they attack? Prolly not, if you apply some sort of realism, which I think is fun.
And also, it IS a roleplaying game after all, so can you really blame me for getting "hung up" on RP aspect? I consider it fun and a vital part of all games like these. If I want a pure challenge wihtout the RP aspect, I play other kind games. And tell me where in BG1-ToB you fight only lvl 1 goblins for 6 hour straight? I have never seen that part of the games. It makes it easier to discuss if you use examples that are more reasonable. Well, because there's no invisible wall blocking you? Because you are a sentient being able to make your own choices, and if you want to travel somewhere you really shouldn't, what's stopping you? Because you can go there, realize it's very dangerous, flee with your tail between your legs only to return at a later stage and pwn all opposition? Because with sufficent metaknowledge you know just the way to beat that part of game even at lower levels?
The game doesn't create an illusion of choice, it actually gives you choice, but gently nudges you in the right direction. But if you choose another path, manage to beat it and become stronger, then you'll become stronger and thus making the other parts of the game easier, yes. But you can eg use chapters and other 'gates' to increase the difficulty quite linear to the character development. It's not uncommon that games eg gives you three locations to choose from, you can complete them in any order, then once all three are done, two, three new ones open up etc. I think that's a pretty decent way of creating a RP game. You have played alot of BG obviosly, but not all games have to have the same powercurve as the good'ol AD&D 2E we have in the BG games. True, in BG and it's sequels, once your CHARNAME reaches a certain level and have aquired certain equipment, large portions of the game then becomes trivial indeed. But that's not due to the lacking level-scaling of the enemies, that's due to the very core rules of DnD and their implemtations in BG, as well as, the items added etc. Other games could have a much smoother and linear power curve than BG, which is rather exponential up until a point, thus keeping your character more in line with the opposition as the story unfolds.
I think I should prolly preview and re-read this before posting, but I'm too lazy, hehe
Also "realism", in a game with dragons and fireballs? Not to mention that a truly realistic world would be quite boring. I think you're just picking and choosing for your idea of "realism".
That's fine. You can enjoy that. It's not good game design, but no one forces you to like good design. There is a reason so many games use some form of scaling, simply because the extreme scenarios detract from the experience. Step outside of Candlekeep, meet a lvl 7 bandit, get killed with one arrow. GGWP. That would be a truly static world not revolving around your character. How come seasoned warriors and commanders you meet are all roughly in your level range, fresh out of home? It's fine if you think not fighting is fun. Personally, I don't see the point in having enemies you never get to fight in a game. Once or twice, sure, that can be a fun interlude, but it'd have to be a regular thing in your scenario. Unless you just make every enemy stupid enough to underestimate you as you walk towards them with 5 other people fully clad in magical items. Realism, for sure. A valid enough point, but I get the feeling there's more picking and choosing going on. There's already plenty of compromises being made between RP and mechanics. Where do you draw the line, and why? And is that choice really not influenced by knowledge of the status quo? Death is stopping me. This is the definition of an illusion of choice. It's like saying sure, nobody is forcing you to use a plane to travel. You can just walk. It'll take weeks instead of a few hours, but nobody is FORCING you to use that mode of travel. It's not a real choice. Just because there is no wall there doesn't make me anymore able to go inside if I get one-shot by the first enemy. But that is precisely WHY I would appreciate scaling. The game is already too easy to begin with. If you then go and make yourself more powerful to access certain areas early, it becomes even easier in all the other areas. I'm taking away from my game experience simply because I am making a choice - and that I have a problem with. I'd rather the choice be up to me, and the game adapt fluidly to keep presenting a challenge regardless. That way I can go where I like without feeling that I'm taking away from my own enjoyment later simply because I want to do something other than the set progression path. I've always been a "more choice = good" kind of person, but I suppose that's not a universal truth. If people enjoy having less REAL choice, they're free to do so. Only by pre-defining a progression path. Any deviation gets punished by a mismatch in the set difficulty curve. The only alternative is adaptive difficulty, i.e. scaling. Yes, this is one possibility. It's a compromise between truly adaptive scaling and a fully rigid progression path, but it can't really come in arbitrary levels of granularity. It works only well at the topmost levels, e.g. how BG separates the game essentially into pre-UD, UD, and post-UD phases. Any more differentiation and you're restricting choice too much.
To take BG as an example, tt would mean e.g. that you can only do the Slaver Compound, the Cult of the Eyeless, and the Bridge Murders to start with. Then only once you're done with all 3, can you do DAK, Trademeet, or Umar Hills. Then when you're done with THOSE, you can do Planar Sphere, Windspear Hills, Planar Prison. It would work, mechanically, but it'd be restrictive to people and not feel fun. Both are to blame, certainly. Equipment power creep is real, which is why I can heartily recommend the IR/SR mods to curb that a bit. But enemies not scaling is part of the problem. You can observe that in Nightmare Mode, where higher stats on enemies suddenly do mean a change in paradigms, and struggle despite powerful items at very early times (e.g. FoA+3). It's not a perfect solution of course, but it does hint at future possibilities.
I think another big problem is also the static nature of the XP progression. The XP you earn steadily increases, but the XP required for levels does not. As a result, you often level more quickly late in the game than you do early on, which is a bit of a contradiction to how most games do it. It also makes you run into the problem of high levels more quickly, where the DND system fails a bit due to simply not having been designed for players of lvl30 or even lvl40. It would be an interesting thought to address this in tandem with a mob-sclaing change.
i've googled little essay for example, it's pretty good http://www.writing-world.com/sf/world.shtml
there can be magic in realism (also known as magic realism
I think boosting all encounters is overkill. I would rather see encounters in assorted locations improved based on a random number (so not always improved, but only if your RNG gets the check). Places to improve other than end chapter fights..... bandit camp, xvart village, gnoll stronghold, ulcaster, firewine, mines (2x), things like that.
I think you are confusing mob scaling with challenge increasing with character level. They are both very different things.
Oblivion is a perfect example of mob scaling. As your level increases, the monster's (mob's) level increases proportionately. The only thing that doesn't stay proportional is your equipment. You say that mob scaling is in game design for a reason: that reason is generally done because it is the easiest way for the programmers to try to keep a challenge. Designing a game without mob scaling, and instead using planning by predicted character advancement, is a lot more work, and is reminiscent of older games, like ultima and Magic candle. Unfortunately, in a game with mob scaling, every battle tends to stay the same, everything is very static, there is little variety from one battle to the next. Oblivion did this horribly. Essentially, the higher your level, the more times you have to swing you sword to kill something.
Difficulty increasing with character level is already implemented in baldurs gate. For example, if you go to the underdark as soon as possible, there are fewer mind flayers and beholders. If you wait, there are more. This is not uniform all over the the game, but it is implemented in many parts of the game and in many quests. And it is there just enough to almost not be noticeable, but still provide the challenge necessary for higher level parties.
You said that this game is easy. I don't find the game easy. Some people talk about how easy it is, but for new people and veterans alike, this game is freaking hard. I play on normal without difficulty increasing mods, and I still get my elven arse handed to me on a regular basis. Perhaps it is easy for you due to your familiarity with the game, not due to poor design.
As @Skatan said, I prefer fights to be realistic. But there aren't really any trivial fights that I can think of in this game, unless you do something like go back to the slaver compound after doing everything else in chapter 6, a quest which is specifically pointed out to you in the very beginning of the game with big signs that say, "DO THIS QUEST FIRST." If you don't want to, though, no big deal. Come back when you're so powerful that those slavers would have to be morons to refuse you anything.
Besides, what's the point of playing a game where your character increases in power if you're never able to find any situations where that power is of any benefit to you? You increase in power and so does the next guy you're going to fight...so why even strive for an increase in power?
I am aware of that. That was the entire point of my post. I'm not really sure why you pointed that out to me.
But this thread is about mob scaling, not level scaling, or in other words, "challenge increasing with edit: character level".
BG doesn't have mob scaling. It has what you call "level scaling," which is the same thing as what I called, for clarification purposes, "challenge increase with difficulty level" in my other post. As you and I both said, they are two different things. I'm sorry, but I'm still confused by both of your posts. Could you please explain?
Thank you for clarifying. I was confused because you said that they were not the same thing. I see now that you believe that they are similar. I personally believe that the way BG and Oblivion implements "generic scaling" are so dissimilar that they cannot be compared to each other with any accuracy at all.
In Baldur's Gate, the battles actually do get more difficult as you progress through the story. In minor, infrequent instances along the main plot-line, in BG2, monsters are added based on your level...but that's about the extent of any sort of "level scaling" in BG2, other than recruit-able NPC XP increase based on Charname's XP. The main challenge in BG2 increases with the advancement of plot-line and predicted character advancement.
For example, if you were to bring a level 1 character to ToB, your character would be mutilated (still likely to happen with a character of appropriate level). If you did something similar in Oblivion, you would stand the same chance as if you waited.
I have yet to try the Oscuro mod for Oblivion. I lost my CDs a while ago.