3 RPG(ish) related questions concerning enemy level scaling, experience point gain, and player/party stats.

Page 2 - Love gaming? Join the PC Gamer community to share that passion with gamers all around the world!
1) Level Scaling: Not present in all forms of RPGs, but it seems the inclusion or exclusion of that element is more apparent in an open world structured game. Oblivion had level scaling, while Skyrim didn't. Skyrim employed more of a hybrid system where most enemy "types" had a range of levels. Piranha Byes games and The Witcher 3 don't, resulting in exploration that can be tense because you don't know what level of enemy you'll encounter. There are many variations of how "level scaling" is employed, but personally I don't like that feature in RPGs. I'd rather have the tension of not knowing what I'll encounter when I explore.
Sacred 2 did that well. I don't need to explain to you. For everyone else, monster lvl was based on current difficulty, and the amount of time you have stayed alive. Don't die and you always be surrounded by things that want to hurt you.

I believe in the journey, its not the end that interests me. Too many end game guides, what is the rush to finish a game? Blames wow for making people think the end is where game really starts.
 
Sacred 2 did that well. I don't need to explain to you. For everyone else, monster lvl was based on current difficulty, and the amount of time you have stayed alive. Don't die and you always be surrounded by things that want to hurt you.
The level scaling was truly unique (and underappreciated) in Sacred 2, there was a progressive momentum to it that you wanted to maintain by keeping your character alive and face those more challenging foes (and better loot drops). I never made it all the way through the game without dying at least 2 or 3 times, even on normal difficulty, but it was a fun game mechanic that I haven't seen in any other game.

I also liked how they used different colored circles under enemies to show the challenge rating. Red (way over your head), to orange, to yellow, to green, to grey (where you got little to no experience).

I believe in the journey, its not the end that interests me. Too many end game guides, what is the rush to finish a game?
If a game is good, why would you want it to end? Finish a bad game, and move on—or just drop and move. But a good game—enjoy it, delay starting a probably bad game as long as possible
That's exactly how I approach games that I like, it's my character's journey and experience that define the game for me, and the "final battle", or whatever the end game is, has far less interest to me (though I do try to finish most games that I start).
 
The level scaling was truly unique (and underappreciated) in Sacred 2, there was a progressive momentum to it that you wanted to maintain by keeping your character alive and face those more challenging foes (and better loot drops). I never made it all the way through the game without dying at least 2 or 3 times, even on normal difficulty, but it was a fun game mechanic that I haven't seen in any other game.
The penalty for dying once in that game was enough to contemplate restarting game as the time spent getting the enemies back to the same lvl in that game can be better spent on a new character. MY lvl 130 died once and though I had a save game and could roll back, I knew.
I still try to get through arpg without dying. TL2, the only penalty was lost items (anything you had found), and in that game you could pay gold to resurrect where you died but well boss is still there, so its your choice.,
Grim Dawn that I am playing now has no penalties from what I can see. But I remember if it doesn't.

Play Journey, it has no end... you will understand if you play it to end... its not a long game (90 minutes) but its your choice where you end. I only stopped playing as I don't want to play it to death.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY