Would SV be better if it had level scaling? - /vp/ (#58008560) [Archived: 607 hours ago]

Anonymous
7/18/2025, 12:54:38 AM No.58008560
GwA9jCPW0AErwjG
GwA9jCPW0AErwjG
md5: 082a165f725d11d05f0e8a234528b7b8🔍
Replies: >>58008572 >>58008575 >>58008593 >>58008596 >>58009296 >>58009359
Anonymous
7/18/2025, 1:03:30 AM No.58008572
>>58008560 (OP)
How'd you get this pic of me?
Anonymous
7/18/2025, 1:06:27 AM No.58008575
>>58008560 (OP)
A coomer thread died for this
Replies: >>58008593
Anonymous
7/18/2025, 1:14:07 AM No.58008593
>>58008560 (OP)
Wild? No. In fact, we need level 80 wild Pokémon in beginner zones to crush newbies.
Random trainers? No.
Bosses? Yes, though progression scaling would be the correct term (e.g. Same leader same leader has 3 Pokémon at level 15 if fought first and a full team of stronger Pokémon at 50 if fought last.). Not against the idea of level scaling either, it worked for Gym Leader Castle.
>>58008575
Good.
Anonymous
7/18/2025, 1:15:19 AM No.58008596
>>58008560 (OP)
Yes, but realistically I don't think it matters that much. You have to go out of your way to make a pokemon game hard, level scaling would basically just make it harder on little kids who have no idea what they're doing
Replies: >>58008610
Anonymous
7/18/2025, 1:24:52 AM No.58008610
>>58008596
SV revolves around a SCHOOL, it should be teaching the clueless on what to do!
Anonymous
7/18/2025, 6:30:48 AM No.58009296
>>58008560 (OP)
Yes
Anonymous
7/18/2025, 7:11:36 AM No.58009359
>>58008560 (OP)
Scale boss encounters, and only scale upward. That way you're not trivializing a large portion of the game by just exploring.
Anonymous
7/18/2025, 7:12:23 AM No.58009361
All of my daydreaming is spent preparing for the scenario of lolis falling in love with me though.