Of all the (dozens) articles just one single French guy thinks the level scaling is like Oblivion (how many different areas did he have time to explore to feel how the scaling works?) and suddenly a lot of people freak out although Pete repeatedly said the scaling is NOT like in Oblivion.

It all depends on how powerful a monster that is +2 levels above you is in the game.

It's understandable that a +2 Wolf would be easier to fell than a +2 Giant, but if +2 is overwhelmingly more powerful despite the monster, you'll never know if you're getting killed by a monster that's only 2 levels higher than you or one that is more.

We need official answer asap, people are understandably jumpy after Oblivion.

Sorry, but the sense itself of exploration is danger, and the possibility of getting your ass pwned if you're not careful, or if you go to far, dangerous places. In Oblivion, because of the level scaling, the sense of exploration vanishes after 3 or 4 dungeons just because of that. Once I visited a dungeon, there wasn't any sense to explore another that is was going to be EXACTLY THE SAME with EXACTLY THE SAME loot.



That's worry enough for me.

In addition, I'm not trolling (or at least I don't intent this to sound like trolling), but I think that way of level scaling is nearly an insult to the intelligence of the players. In order to hush some "people" who doesn't get the concept that if a particular dungeon is dangerous, you can either change your tactics (I've make that myself once, when trying to get the spear of Bitter Mercy at lvl 1 in Morrowind, and I finally succeeded) in order to accomplish that, or that there's NOTHING wrong on leaving and returning when you're more powerful.

And now aged players have to pay for others' stupidity? Kewl.

Pretty bad way to ask this. Of course he will say 'no, it's not like Oblivion'. Which could mean more or less anything. Someone should ask specifically whether the player will be able to encounter static enemies above/far above the player's level in some areas of the game world and in dungeons.



Definitely.



Definitely not.

What's the point of exploring if all you find/see is the same crap? To see different types of trees? This system absolutely killed the fun in Oblivion, exploring the world was extremely boring and repetitive. I want to be afraid when I enter a remote mountain region or a dark forest far away from civilization, not knowing what kind of creatures will lurk there. And I want to be rewarded when my character hits level 30 and I'm finally able to defeat the evil monsters that prevented me from exploring an area I always wanted to have a look at. That's what makes RPGs fun, and that's how RPGs used to be before Bethesda decided to implement their silly level scaling system.

In Oblivion everything was set to be on your level. In Fallout 3 it was +- 8 levels. According to that article Skyrim will be +- 2 levels, not exactly like Oblivion but close, so Pete would still be right.

They've already stated enemies are scaled based on a template level range I.e. 17-25

Level scaling closer to Oblivion? Oh dear, all the cool arenas and spell making could not justify this god-awful mess yet again.

But, hey, Dark Souls is coming soon.

You'd change your opinion if you had your next 10+ encounters all result in a thorough [censored] whoomping. 1 strike and you fall. No inclination that the enemy that looked easy to slay was +30 levels above you. As I stated, if a +2 level monster still provides a massive challenge, but has less chance of insta-killing you like a +20 level monster would, then you'd still have the dangers of exploration. Things like enemy armour and loot could (should?) be scaled independent of the enemy HP and power, IMO.

Owe dear god not level scaling again. I liked Oblvion but that really like everyone else has said was a game killer. I kept getting sick and tired of not being able to go toe to toe with some of the Daedra no matter how many levels i got this one particular one would always be my bane.

Meanwhile good RPGs have progressively higher level creatures in their game to provide good challenge when you get there and feel like a god on the way out and that is the way I like it, because you can reflect on how hard you had to work and you remember that. The first time you killed such and such and how it wasn't such a smart ass anymore. Not so big and bad. That is gaming.

Please do not bring back Level Scaling. Also get rid of that loot scaling, what moron came up with that. Now there is no reason to explore. I would rather have a weapon I can't wield properly for 20 something levels than get constant weak crap.

Sorry to ask again, but where did they state this?

While I agree with you that a fixed system would be more fun, my point is that it was clear from the start that there would be some level scaling ala Fallout 3.

This article brings NOTHING new on the subject but everybody seem to freak out for no reason.

the article apprently says the level sclaiing is more like oblivion and not like fallout 3 as was stated. thats the problem here. get it?

No inclination ? I think common sense should be an inclination, if I had trouble with killing wolves and boars then I should think twice before moving to area inhabited by giants and minotaurs.

Morrowind worked because PART of it was levelled to the player, and PART of it was fixed. The fixed content put limits on what was "safe" for your character, but didn't absolutely forbid you from doing crazy things with the possibility of great reward. The levelled content insured a certain amount of challenge at most levels. The devs never expected the characters to hit the high levels that many actually reached, so a lot of the "high level" opponents ended up being inadequate.

Oblivion took away most of the risk, as well as most of the reward, for doing anything out of the ordinary. When EVERYTHING is levelled, there is no point in going anywhere other than back to the same handful of places over and over, because there's nothing new to be gained by doing otherwise.

Fallout 3 put a limited number of fixed items back into the game, and at least gave you some reason to explore. The game was still far too levelled and scaled, and the "safe" areas became notably "unsafe" as you reached high levels, until your mere presence in a settled area became a death sentence to the few fixed-level NPCs, as high-level monsters over-ran the settlements. The game badly needed "safer" and "tougher" regions, with maximums on some of the "settled" regions.

From all that I'm hearing about Skyrim, I keep getting the impression that the developers are trying to placate the long-time fans by promising a return to a "less scaled" world, while actually doing the opposite to try to grab more of the 10-15 year old "action game" market. After all of this, I'm not going to run out and buy the game when it comes out, at least until I've seen a few "informed" reviews of the gameplay by players whose opinions I trust. If the general concensus it that it's more like OB than FO3, MW, or DF, then it's a "no buy" for me.

:facepalm:

Did you read the original article (not an automated translation)?

I did!

Is french your first language?

It's mine


Stop propagating false notions!!

aegis......are you for serious bro O_O. i can;t belive im hearing you correctly. you actually want those things you talk of...woah. each to their own i guess :shakehead:

Following with my example, I got pwned my good 10 times or so when getting the spear. And still I had fun trying. And when I finally got it, I had a great sense of accomplishment: "OMG, the Spear of Bitter Mercy at lvl 1 finally MINE! I got pwned like hell to get it...now I'LL be the one PWNING THEM! AHAHAHAHAHHA!!!"

That feeling is just...amazing But well, if some people don't appreciate it, there's always an universal solution for that: Change your difficulty setting to Easy instead of Hard. I hope devs realize that and implement a Hard difficulty level that is how level scaling REALLY should be.



What people is so upset about is that paragraph that was technically translated from the article:



And that, if true, is worthy being upset about IMO.

There are so many ways to make sure the player doesn't constantly run into enemies 20 levels above his own level.

First of all you need to make sure that higher level enemies are farther away from civilization than lower level enemies. This is pretty obvious. If the area around a city would be populated by a horde of level 30 Daedra the city wouldn't exist. The player needs a bit of common sense to choose where he wants to go. If a level 1 character chooses to explore the most remote mountain regions of Skyrim then let him do it. And watch him die.

Secondly you can easily see how tough an enemy is in most cases. Big enemies like ogres, minotaurs etc are obviously more dangerous than small enemies like rats or mud crabs. Three marauders wearing orcish armor are more dangerous than a single bandit wearing fur armor.

Thirdly you always have the chance to run away if you are prepared. Either by using potions, spells or other means.

Finally it is sometimes nice if you actually die. It makes the game challenging. What is the point of all the gameplay mechanics, all the spells, all the weapons, armors etc if you're not going to die anyway because everything is more or less at your level? Dying should be part of the game's concept, as much as Pete Hines and his target audience may hate it.

Mods in Oblivion implemented static levels for enemies and the majority of mod users makes use of them without problems. It works and it has worked in other RPG as well.

Two levels above the player's level is not much, you won't even notice it. It's the same thing Oblivion did (not all enemies were exactly the same level as the player had, it was the same system as described in the OP). The game is laid out for a max level of 50, so two levels won't make a difference.

hello friend. seing as english isn't your first language maybe you havent learnt what "apparently" means :shakehead:

Yes. No inclination. You assume a wolf will be an easy mark because it's just a "lowly wolf". Without notification (outside of running up and confronting the thing) that the Wolf might be 30 levels higher than you and completely outclass you, killing you in a single bite, you had no inclination that the wolf was overwhelmingly powerful because with fixed enemy levels, you can't just look at the type of monster and assume whether you could win the fight.

Seriously?

Finally someone talking common sense....101% agree on everything.

what are u talking about....

fixed level and level scaling are different issues. id love fixed levels. all wolves would always be around the same levels. all giants would always be around the same levels which would be higher then that of wolves.

It won't be Oblivion style because it's been said over and over in interviews it is more inline with Fallout 3s level scaling system. They also say in the interviews they know it was a big complaint about Oblivion and if they did again they would get slaughtered in reviews.