Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
PENALTIES FOR LEVELING UP
Posts
Antilurker77
871
Antilurker77
View playlists
Closeauthor=Kaempfer
FFXII, which has been mentioned previously, had a pretty good system for this. Monsters gave you less reward the higher level you were, but the experience needed to level up didn't increase too much between levels. So those Cactuars you fight near the beginning? Yeah, they, give you 1xp now and no lp at all. Have fun fighting a thousand of them. That T-Rex looking mofo that killed you near the start? Maybe you're strong enough to kill it now...
I think you're thinking of the wrong game. FF12 had no penalties for XP/LP and the standard exponential XP curve. Farming low-level mobs was a really good way to farm LP too.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Yeah, I definitely got 90% of my LP from level 1 enemies in the starting zone outside of Dalmasca. The monsters there only gave 1 LP, but monsters forty hours further into the game only gave 4 LP. Once you were a little higher level than you were supposed to be, you could just walk around in circles for a couple hours to complete the entire license board - or leave it running overnight, and let the game play itself with gambits.
I feel like this is the kind of thing that penalties for leveling up are designed to prevent. Scaling the LP in FF12 would have done wonders. Or just, you know, having a steeper curve.
I feel like this is the kind of thing that penalties for leveling up are designed to prevent. Scaling the LP in FF12 would have done wonders. Or just, you know, having a steeper curve.
Yeah, one of the grinding tricks of FF12 is to fight some special enemy (not a hunt but still a one-time enemy) that spawns other enemies. You can setup your gambits so you will kill the flunkies but not the main dude, standard cure/charge when HP/MP is low, and let it run overnight and you can fill the license board and get a pile of levels too.
I don't mind dying as long as the penalty is a lack of progress instead of losing progress because the latter really bugs me, even as a kid. Warp back to the king and lose half your gold / warp back to Britania and lose exp / respawn and lose all your souls (which you can recollect!) are all far preferable consequences to dying than loading your last save game. Or frequent autosave with save anywhere. I can't even call the FF1 style antiquated because better solutions were around before JRPGs existed.
I also remembered one game that was the biggest dickpunch for levelling up: Ultima 3 NES! (my experience with the others is minimal at best) Enemy tables were dictated by where you were and your level and even the starting area had top tier enemies at the highest levels. Nothing max lethal like ☠GRASS☠ or ☠FLOOR☠ but more than enough that you would wipe against them. The problem is that character power is barely affected by level and mostly by gameplay progression. You've got to get the cash and find the stores so you can get decent equipment. You've got to find the shrines and pay the fees so you can power up your characters. There was something else too but I don't remember but it involved taking sandpaper to your eyeballs. I wish the LP I learned of all this was archived so I could refresh my memory but alas. Screw you Ultima 3.
I don't mind dying as long as the penalty is a lack of progress instead of losing progress because the latter really bugs me, even as a kid. Warp back to the king and lose half your gold / warp back to Britania and lose exp / respawn and lose all your souls (which you can recollect!) are all far preferable consequences to dying than loading your last save game. Or frequent autosave with save anywhere. I can't even call the FF1 style antiquated because better solutions were around before JRPGs existed.
I also remembered one game that was the biggest dickpunch for levelling up: Ultima 3 NES! (my experience with the others is minimal at best) Enemy tables were dictated by where you were and your level and even the starting area had top tier enemies at the highest levels. Nothing max lethal like ☠GRASS☠ or ☠FLOOR☠ but more than enough that you would wipe against them. The problem is that character power is barely affected by level and mostly by gameplay progression. You've got to get the cash and find the stores so you can get decent equipment. You've got to find the shrines and pay the fees so you can power up your characters. There was something else too but I don't remember but it involved taking sandpaper to your eyeballs. I wish the LP I learned of all this was archived so I could refresh my memory but alas. Screw you Ultima 3.
It may be an annoyment to lost progress, but you won't make the same mistake again, I'm sure. (Keep in mind I'm referring mainly to things like going where you're not supposed to and getting wiped because your party isn't strong enough or not bothering to level up a bit and fighting a boss that you knew was coming because every other dungeon before this one had a boss at the end.)
One of the main issues I had with DQ8 was the lack of funds unless you hit the grind. You want to beat the boss you need better equipment. You want better equipment, you're going to need crazy cash. Only way to get crazy cash is to grind your ass off. Monsters didn't drop enough to let you progress easily. You could create alchemical items, sure, but most of those you wanted to keep because they were either better than what you had or would need further down the road. :/
I hate having to grind for money just to progress. (The rest of the game was peachy-keen, though.)
One of the main issues I had with DQ8 was the lack of funds unless you hit the grind. You want to beat the boss you need better equipment. You want better equipment, you're going to need crazy cash. Only way to get crazy cash is to grind your ass off. Monsters didn't drop enough to let you progress easily. You could create alchemical items, sure, but most of those you wanted to keep because they were either better than what you had or would need further down the road. :/
I hate having to grind for money just to progress. (The rest of the game was peachy-keen, though.)
turkeyDawg
195
author=Feldschlacht IV
Overcoming an obstacle is extremely awesome and cathartic and it's not an experience I'd ever want to deny anyone.
A player that goes 'aw man I died I'M NEVER PLAYING THIS GAME AGAIN' isn't really someone that I'd want to develop a game for.
B-b-b-but, the
Kaempfer
1932
author=Antilurker77
I think you're thinking of the wrong game. FF12 had no penalties for XP/LP and the standard exponential XP curve. Farming low-level mobs was a really good way to farm LP too.
I wasn't thinking of the wrong game, I am just an idiot.
edit: gotta admit though, it would have been a good idea!
RyaReisender
200
author=Liberty
What I don't get is the mentality that it's bad to die to figure out that something is a bad idea. Hey, I died fighting that aforementioned dinosaur thing. I got a funny anecdote out of it and learned not to tangle with the damn things. Lesson learned, carry on playing, it's not a detrimental part of the game.
Now I could understand if you died all the damn time doing different things while trying to actually follow the plot/road laid out for you, but dying once by doing something that clearly isn't supposed to be done at the current level? Not a bad thing. It sends a clear signal (don't do the fucking thing) and sets the boundary. Like the Super Mutants in Fallout 3 - you don't go tangle with them straight out of the gate even if they are accessible at that time. It's just stupidity (or being very, very ready because you planned out going to fight them) to go out and hit them then complain that that area's too hard.
A death here or there doesn't really break a game. Bosses should be hard. Areas that you aren't supposed to go in should be hard. Otherwise, just scale every enemy to the players level or have no enemies at all. Death isn't always a bad thing.
I can only partially agree here. Dying is bad and can drop your motivation to continue playing a game to 0. I often quit games the first time I die in them.
The whole "Learn by dying" concept is dumb. It's particularly bad with bosses. When you always have to die at a boss first because on the first battle with him you first need some turns to figure out his weaknesses and by the time you understand the tactic your supposed to use you already wasted too many resources, you won't feel "good". Also when you then beat the boss easily on second try it just feels dumb. Dying also ruins immersion. I want to be able to clear the game without dying. Dying is fine if I as the player felt I did something wrong, but it shouldn't be used as core "learning" part of the gameplay.
And it doesn't have to be like that. There are games that do it a lot better. There are games with very challenging boss battles but that leave you time to figure out the correct strategy and beat the boss in one go. In those open world games it's also often possible to survive even when going into a "wrong" region. For example I think of Might & Magic VI - I almost never got "game over" in that game. When I end up in a region too hard for me I notice it pretty fast by enemies dealing quite huge damage against me, maybe knocking my mage unconcious with one hit, but the game always leaves me the chance to turn tails and run (at least if you have at least one tank in the group).
author=Rys
Dying is bad and can drop your motivation to continue playing a game to 0. I often quit games the first time I die in them.
The whole "Learn by dying" concept is dumb. Dying is fine if I as the player felt I did something wrong, but it shouldn't be used as core "learning" part of the gameplay.
What about Dark Souls? Dying in that game is not only part of the storyline (you're kinda like a ghost-person), but its a fundamental part of its trial and error gameplay.
As for the rest of your post, I agree that dying shouldn't be necessary for a challenge, nor should it be an expectation opposed on the player (unless it's Dark Souls), but completely avoiding the possibility of dying or else you'd quit the game is some bitch shit. Dying doesn't ruin immersion, sure, it's frustrating, but if you suck at the game or if you have a really bad run at a difficult part, you die. Unless the game is really unfair about losing progress (i.e., a save point miles before a difficult boss fight), man up and saddle up and try again, sissy. I have way less time to invest in playing a game than I used to, but I still appreciate fair handed failure.
RyaReisender
200
Well I've been avoiding Dark Souls exactly out of this reason, so I never played it and thus can't comment on it. The whole idea just doesn't work for me.
I disagree though... dying ALWAYS ruins immersion. Or at least reduces it. Because you don't die in real life and then try again. If you die and retry the "being scared of dying" is lower each time and that's less immersion for me.
I'll stick to my "extreme permadeath" playing style. Though if I really love a game, chance is high I'll give it a second chance.
I disagree though... dying ALWAYS ruins immersion. Or at least reduces it. Because you don't die in real life and then try again. If you die and retry the "being scared of dying" is lower each time and that's less immersion for me.
I'll stick to my "extreme permadeath" playing style. Though if I really love a game, chance is high I'll give it a second chance.
LightningLord2
230
To bring the discussion back on topic, I'd like to mention one thing where I think level scaling is appropriate: An optional bonus battle area like the Battle Frontier in Pokémon. It keeps the same level of challenge no matter when you attempt it. As it is completely optional, it won't get in the way of the player making progress when leveling up and being able to take on foes more easily.
NebelSoft
33
I once had a simple yet curious idea for exp "penalty" :
exp, depending on how long it takes you to kill the enemy unit ; P
that would work somewhat like this, you simple get 10 exp / hit, no matter what enemy. if you need 10 hits to kill the enemy it's 100 exp - on the other hand when you are strong enough to kill the enemy with 1 hit, it's only 10 exp. something like that.
exp, depending on how long it takes you to kill the enemy unit ; P
that would work somewhat like this, you simple get 10 exp / hit, no matter what enemy. if you need 10 hits to kill the enemy it's 100 exp - on the other hand when you are strong enough to kill the enemy with 1 hit, it's only 10 exp. something like that.
RyaReisender
200
author=NebelSoftThat's not a penalty but rather a bonus for being weak. Which isn't such a bad idea, I use it in some of my games (but rather than exp your stat growth depends on the actions you do, if you do more actions, higher chance for the stat to grow). It's good because it auto-balances the difficulty a little and even if you aren't so good (aka need longer to win a battle), the speed at which your stats grow stays the same.
I once had a simple yet curious idea for exp "penalty" :
exp, depending on how long it takes you to kill the enemy unit ; P
that would work somewhat like this, you simple get 10 exp / hit, no matter what enemy. if you need 10 hits to kill the enemy it's 100 exp - on the other hand when you are strong enough to kill the enemy with 1 hit, it's only 10 exp. something like that.
author=NebelSoft
I once had a simple yet curious idea for exp "penalty" :
exp, depending on how long it takes you to kill the enemy unit ; P
that would work somewhat like this, you simple get 10 exp / hit, no matter what enemy. if you need 10 hits to kill the enemy it's 100 exp - on the other hand when you are strong enough to kill the enemy with 1 hit, it's only 10 exp. something like that.
I think something like this would probably end with players doing grinding sessions by finding singular or not offensive-oriented enemies and smacking them with max-def gear but hitting with their pinkie toe or a twig or something. I'd be curious how it turns out though.
author=Liberty
It may be an annoyment to lost progress, but you won't make the same mistake again, I'm sure. (Keep in mind I'm referring mainly to things like going where you're not supposed to and getting wiped because your party isn't strong enough or not bothering to level up a bit and fighting a boss that you knew was coming because every other dungeon before this one had a boss at the end.)
I don't see exploring and seeing how a boss fares as mistakes but the player experimenting. Experimenting is good and I want to promote that while still having consequences when an experiment fails (and even in failure an experiment can still be a resounding success!).
Desertopa
775
author=GreatRedSpiritauthor=NebelSoftI think something like this would probably end with players doing grinding sessions by finding singular or not offensive-oriented enemies and smacking them with max-def gear but hitting with their pinkie toe or a twig or something. I'd be curious how it turns out though.
I once had a simple yet curious idea for exp "penalty" :
exp, depending on how long it takes you to kill the enemy unit ; P
that would work somewhat like this, you simple get 10 exp / hit, no matter what enemy. if you need 10 hits to kill the enemy it's 100 exp - on the other hand when you are strong enough to kill the enemy with 1 hit, it's only 10 exp. something like that.
Probably; that or they'd use status effects or other non-harmful moves to string out the battle indefinitely.
If you make it so that only damaging attacks give experience, you avoid this exploit, but you also disincentivize players from using more diverse tactics in combat when they're actually useful.
Also, this doesn't sound likely to scale very well in terms of rewarding the player according to challenge. Rather, you would probably tend to level up faster, or at least more easily, against weak enemies that you can kill in one hit than against strong enemies which can challenge your party, because you don't lose turns on the weak enemies attacking you, or healing, buffing, or anything of that sort.
Final Fantasy Tactics used a system a bit like this, and the result was that the most effective way to level up was not fighting challenging enemies, but rather finding a way to disable the enemy, and then having your party spend long periods of time using costless self-targeting skills or attacking each other.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I mean you could just make enemies give twice as much XP if they have twice as much (HP * Def) and you'd get the same result but without the abuse potential.
But as Desertopa said, an enemy that takes twice as many hits to kill is also forcing you to spend more rounds doing things other than hit it. And you don't really don't want grinding against harmless enemies to be exactly as fast as fighting challenging foes - you want the latter to be more rewarding. So you certainly want the enemy that's twice as tough to give more than twice as much XP.
The original idea of the topic was games that penalize your fighting capability as you gain XP, though. What you're talking about is the opposite: a game penalizing your XP as you gain fighting capability. It's definitely related though, so it's worth discussing! It has the same primary potential problem of "Man, I was supposed to be getting stronger by doing this, but instead the game got harder in some aspects. That's sort of bullshit."
There was some talk about games earlier, especially open-world games, where all the enemies in the game scale with your level. Obviously this is most problematic in games like Skyrim where gaining levels and becoming stronger aren't actually linked. But even in games where the enemy scaling does approximately match your strength, like Diablo 3, SaGa Frontier, and FF8, the whole idea of it just reeks of the designer thinking levels are intrinsically problematic, and makes me wonder why some of those games have levels at all. If you think that the player becoming stronger over time will mess up your game, then... don't make the player become stronger over time, duh.
But as Desertopa said, an enemy that takes twice as many hits to kill is also forcing you to spend more rounds doing things other than hit it. And you don't really don't want grinding against harmless enemies to be exactly as fast as fighting challenging foes - you want the latter to be more rewarding. So you certainly want the enemy that's twice as tough to give more than twice as much XP.
The original idea of the topic was games that penalize your fighting capability as you gain XP, though. What you're talking about is the opposite: a game penalizing your XP as you gain fighting capability. It's definitely related though, so it's worth discussing! It has the same primary potential problem of "Man, I was supposed to be getting stronger by doing this, but instead the game got harder in some aspects. That's sort of bullshit."
There was some talk about games earlier, especially open-world games, where all the enemies in the game scale with your level. Obviously this is most problematic in games like Skyrim where gaining levels and becoming stronger aren't actually linked. But even in games where the enemy scaling does approximately match your strength, like Diablo 3, SaGa Frontier, and FF8, the whole idea of it just reeks of the designer thinking levels are intrinsically problematic, and makes me wonder why some of those games have levels at all. If you think that the player becoming stronger over time will mess up your game, then... don't make the player become stronger over time, duh.
NebelSoft
33
ugh, as far as i remember some developers did that, but just with the BOSSES... XD very annoying.... can't remember which game that was tho...
as for "games that penalize your fighting capability as you gain XP", yeah i could imagine that exists... i mean many games penalize your fighting capability as you equip stronger weapons, because the weapons are too heavy / too big / etc ^^; so they make the character slower or carry less other equipment...
as for "games that penalize your fighting capability as you gain XP", yeah i could imagine that exists... i mean many games penalize your fighting capability as you equip stronger weapons, because the weapons are too heavy / too big / etc ^^; so they make the character slower or carry less other equipment...
author=NebelSoft
as for "games that penalize your fighting capability as you gain XP", yeah i could imagine that exists... i mean many games penalize your fighting capability as you equip stronger weapons, because the weapons are too heavy / too big / etc ^^; so they make the character slower or carry less other equipment...
That's not exactly the same thing though. Gear that slows you down or gives you less space to carry things can be worked around, with, skill timing or managing you equipment in such a way you don't need that extra inventory space. And even then you could just not use that weapon.
There's not much you can do when the game makes things harder by doing the thing the game expected to do to gain your power. Except for maybe not level up, and that takes away a lot of the fun. Who wants to spend all game running away from things. It's counter-productive.
NebelSoft
33
Well, action based role-play games like "Monster Hunter" or "Gods Eater" - (even that poor Ragnarokonline on PSVita ) manage to work without exp/leveling up and focus on having the player craft better equipment (up upgrade it) only.
The player can do this by collecting items from beaten monsters and make the new armor or weapon that raise his stats. : )
And depending on what you equip, of course some stats might be decreased, too, or there are other drawbacks.
Just throwing this in. : P
The player can do this by collecting items from beaten monsters and make the new armor or weapon that raise his stats. : )
And depending on what you equip, of course some stats might be decreased, too, or there are other drawbacks.
Just throwing this in. : P
I found the technical terms for, this sort of behavior in games. Parabolic Power Curve and Empty Levels. Once again TV Tropes explains it all.
Crystalgate
694
If you're making a free roaming game, you should probably keep the power growth much lower than in an average JRPG. Let's say you level up from 1 to 2 and both your survivability and damage output increases by 10%, that makes you 121% as strong right there. That's very little compared to the average JRPG, but two or so additional levels is enough to trivialize the starting area assuming the same growth.
