It will be the ever ongoing argument - challenge (auto-leveling) VS a sense of progression (no auto-leveling).

at level 1 i can encounter bandits that are, say, level 5 , and even a single bandit is a danger to me existence.
as i approach a bandit camp i see 3 bandits so i stay away.
as i level up to level 10 i can squish an average level 5 bandit with a single blow. visiting this camp later i can see these 3 bandits and i smash their face in in 10 seconds.
if the game doesnt auto scale than encountering and defeating bandits is no longer a challenge and fun affair therefor killing them is more of a chore than satisfaction. auto leveling bandits will keep the tension but won't make that much sense and wont give me the sense i progressed.

what would u think if , when visiting the camp at level 10, the bandits remain at level 5 but instead of 3 of them there will be 8? u can still feel powerful enough to kill a single bandit with ease but their increased number will drive the challenge.

i dont mean that if at level 10 i encounter 10 bandits at that camp so at level 25 i will encounter 20. doesnt make sense and will look weird. if there are 20 bandits in one place they might as well start a town.
i mean that there will be a limit to how many bandits are in that camp (say 10 is max) so once 10 bandits, according to the game's calculations, are too easy for the player, THEN there will be slight auto-scaling to the 1 bandits will be of higher levels but still weak compared to the player. a slight leveling up for NPC does make sense IMO since ppl tend to find\buy better equipment and keep it or improve their own.


in the poll:
option 1 - means that it's the same idea as i depicted here.
option 2 - same idea but the enemies never level up. they increase in number to a threshold that makes sense for that kind of enemy (maybe 10 bandits makes sense but not 10 giants. giants can be limited to 2) but there enemies never change their intended level.
option 3 - kinda like oblivion. always challenging and every fight is tense, but not enough sense of progression.
option 4 - like MW - a good sense of progression and power but too easy.
option 5 - my solution to this is more complicated than that. ( i hope ppl will avoid this option, frankly).

I wish this thread will be kinda dedicated to the idea i brought forth and not to a debate about auto-scaling since we have enough of these

I think some things shouldn't be scaled. Have some dungeons with big ogres or something in it from the beginning and then if you try to take them on at a too low level, you probably die. Have others with leveled creatures. There are pros and cons either way, which is why I think the best solution would be to make a healthy mix of leveled and non-leveled enemies.

Some areas should be too challenging for low level character. A level 1 shouldn't be able to roam from one end of Skyrim to another without getting mollywhopped.

please, lets try and keep the discussion about the notion of scaling by numbers and not just by level instead of making it a discussion about auto-scaling in general.

Im pretty sure something like this is already being implemented in Skyrim.

Somewhere....as usual I cannot find where....something was said along the lines of...

Where there may be 1 goblin at level 10, there may be 2 goblins and a wraith at level 30 at the same location. That isnt exactly what was said but that should give you an idea of what to look forward to.

The higher the level the stronger the opponents you will see, and in numbers. It seems somewhat like Oblivion but improved.

I think that the general idea this time around is that there WILL be level scaling, however there will also be higher level and lower level creatures at all times. So no matter what level you are there are challenges, and then there are things you can just 'nerf' like deer. So just because level scaling is present, doesnt mean that EVERY battle is going to feel like a challenge.

I personally want certain npcs and creatures to scale according to my own level. But like said in the previous statement there should always be things in the world you can slaughter, and always things that can slaughter you. (Commence the dragons)

I'm for no scaling at all. At level one when I see that giant, I want to wet myself then run the other way before I get crushed and wet myself. There's a difference...

Im not sure I understand what you mean?

I think the way they have it set up is fine - once you visit an area it sets the levels, so if you come back later and tougher it will be easier but they never want to make it impossible to visit an area - just very difficult.

Exactly. Scaling will still exist but it has been more properly implemented.

With the new system, you technically should see the entire range of creatures available, and there will always be variety throughout the world.

The reality is that we get tougher opponents instead of much more opponents. Why? Limited computing power. The more characters in a scene the less calculation power there is left for things like AI. If you really want much more enemies, you get a high end PC and get a "more enemies" mod.

This but some places should have very high levels, even if you lock it at a low level. I want to see a few places that have a level range of something like 60-70 so even if you visit at level 20 there will be level 60 enemies and loot. Make it so there's a reason to really get to those high levels. I don't mind an "overpowered" character as long as there are some ultimate dungeons that are still challenging.

I agree with the idea to some degree. Wolf packs, bandit gangs and goblin war parties all make sense. Some creatures wouldn't appear in gangs though. Bears might be a mated couple or a mother and cubs but no bear packs.

When I first played Oblivion I had to mod it as I did not like the scaling, I thought MW static approach was much better. But after playing Fallout 3, I realized that scaling was good if used properly. OB overdid. In MW after level 20 something the challenge ended. But I still did not think it was a must, now after playing Fallout New Vegas, I think scaling is a must for open world rpgs. In linear rpgs there is scaling by default, as you progress the weapons/armor get better, the beast get harder,etc But with the open world design you lose that with out scaling(level range scaling) that sense of progression.

Also encounters are less fun because there either too hard or too easy. In Morrowind the battle system was not great so it mattered less but as combat gets better is matters more and more. Take Oblivion for example, I recently tried playing Nerhim(?). When I started out the monsters were easy and I just bashed the attack button as fast as I could, I thought to myself well I guess Oblivions combat has not aged well I use to think it was the best rpg combat out there, oh well. Then later on I fought some stronger guys and suddenly things changed, no longer was I spamming the attack button but now I was using the block button, dodging attacks, trying to figure out the best time to use a strong attack or perhaps some quick weak attack spamming is enough to finish this guy off. Skyrim will use an even more elborate system than Oblivion, I don't want to spend my time spamming the weak attack in Skyrim because I have reached x level and everything is a joke, nor do I want to be confined to a small area of the world because if I go any were else I will die in one hit.

Now as I said at the start Oblivion did not do scaling well(I used frans mod). Total scaling is bad, but I think the way Skyrim is going, using a level range scaling system like Fallout 3 is good.

These are my main reasons for scaling:

-Surprise factor during replay, if all chest are static you learn whats in them and you lose a lot of the fun factor in finding them.

-Better challenge curve, things don't become lame when you reach x level. Even the best combat system is lame if everything is a pushover. And you don't get overly frustrated by everything being to hard.

-Better loot curve, as you get better you get better stuff, long ago when I was a console player I was really into the Final Fantasy games, and it was great the steady progression of better and better stuff. This was lost in MW, great more crap, oh whats this, more crap,etc

But we don't want to go overboard like Oblivion, I want a system that still does stuff similar to more static systems like:

-Sense of getting more powerful, its always a lot of fun squashing some beast that a few hours earlier you had to run for your life from.

-It adds a great dynamic of risk/reward, you take a risk and get rewarded appropriately. Like in MW were you managed to sneak past tons of powerful beasts, then found a cool new sword for all your trouble.

-Realism/immersion makes me feel more like this is a living world that would function whether I am there or not.(though when I was younger I never understood why as I went through a linear rpg each new area always had stronger beasts and better loot)

So to get all this a level ranged scaling system like Skyrim will use seems best. Fallout 3 had hand placed loot and tough encounters & places yet gave you a lot of freedom from the start.

And NO scaled unique items, which is absurd.

In past games, it seemed to me that the game really didn't handle large amounts of enemies on screen at one time. The engine could start to get slow when large amounts of enemies were on screen at one time, though that MAY have been improved on with Skyrim's new engine, and the combat system was also clearly not designed with fighting large amounts of enemies in mind, and fighting against large amounts of enemies became annoying, the only way to really effectively fight them was area effect spells, otherwise, it was just stand in place and kill one while all the others attacked you from behind or to the sides. I generally end up prefering fights against one or a few stronger foes, though that can get annoying if it's overdone as well. Of course, Skyrim may have improved on this, but if it hasn't, than I'd much rather enemies scale in stats or type rather than numbers. To adress the issue of Oblivion's over-scaling, I'd say that there should be some places that are not scaled, or have a cetain minimum level. The Fallout 3-style level scaling should help to return a sense of progression to the game because you can leave a dungeon and come back later and find that the enemies haven't gotten stronger, but if you can't occassionally find places that are just too strong for you, there would be no reason to take advantage of that.

the oblivion fighting system is a locked-camera system where the camera is always facing the direction of attack. while this system allows some combos by pressing direction+attack (since directions are absolute) and it is immersive since the camera doesnt have to pull out and it emplifies the real problem of combat , which is being surrounded, but it has a great limitation where it's problematic when fighting larger groups of enemies. in OB i also prefered fighting tougher single enemies rather than a few weak ones.
in order for the combat system of skyrim to be fun when fighting multiple enemies there should be a way to tell if u r being attack from off-screen (enemy behind you or to your side) and also an ability to QUICKTURN 180 degrees. if there was an arrow pointing at an incoming attack , even if it's coming behind u, than the player can quickly do 180 turn and block, or simple rotate 90 degrees to block attack from the side. this way melee combat works with multiple enemies. if fighting multiple enemies is fun and the engine supports more enemies this time around (I've never seen an engine the handles a few caracters on screen so poorly like oblivion's) than i think giving an advanced player more creatures is a good way to do auto-leveling.


i was just toying with a way to do this. if enemies remain slightly weaker as u get stronger than u still feel powerful, but if they are at greater numbers than the challenge remains. the need to evolve and improve in tactics remains.


@Kefka - wise words. liked your post. wish it had anything to do with "scaling by numbers" but good post.
i just think that praying for a great auto-scaling system from bethesda is useless since they are trying. it's something that has so much to do with balancing and testing and even playing style that i think it's something that is absolutley impossible to get perfectly right for everyone.

and this is something that has to do with what Selbeth_The_Winged_One said -
i havent played MW (blasphemy) but i remember in the game two worlds 2, after half the game passed by i had 50% of it's map only filled with really easy creatures and i literally lost all interest into adventuring that part of the game world.
if there is no auto-scaling in areas where i've been to than i will not go adventuring in that area once it's too easy and boring. meaning - as i play more and more i have less and less fun and less and less places i care to be in.
this is why im thinking that there has to be a way to re-populate areas that the player has been to without making it feel cheap.
with oblivion's system i found it always entertaining to explore. it was always fun. yeah, i never felt strong, but it was always tense. so yeah, it was cheap auto-leveling, but fun.

OP:
I understand where you're coming from. I remember a cave in Baldur's Gate 2 where there was a swarm of kobolds coming after you. Made for a fierce fight!

But, that's a party based game, where one can play from CnC helicopter and better control the actions and observe what's going on. It also has a pause button I think in TES, adding a couple more baddies makes sense as one gets higher, but I'm not sure that the AI, nor framerates, could keep up with adding many more. I guess theplus side would be that I'd be surrounded, so I could just click click click and not have to worry about the correct button mashing for the block timing or special moves But in reality, I'd find a perch and reign down death from above...rinse and repeat


Dunno 'bout that. I'm the kind of person who would go back to a cave for resupplying items, like arrows. But really, I never have any interest in going back to a conqured cave simply because of the been there done that feeling.

However, being harassed by low level characters might mean that you'd need to develop different magic items to avoid detection. Or, heaven forbid, have soem well written quests or stories that open up in those conquered lands as you get to a higher level. Could thinking or acting differently present a different kind of fun?

I believe that their should be some form of Level Scaling but only for the toughest of enemies and only for a certain amount of levels. Have grunt enemies go from 1-15 or 15-25 and have the bosses go from level 15-50, 15 is the minimum starting level and it's always +5 or +10 your level or have some of the bosses start at Level 21-50 in a harder dungeon.

Fallout 3's scaling is fine as you had weak enemies early on but you still could be killed by them if you weren't careful and there were also tough enemies out there like Yao Guai's.

Don't just scale by numbers. Make it that some camps alreadyhave 8, so, like with the situation of meeting 3 at a low level, you just stay away until you can beat them.

''Just leveling enemies?'' reward from the knights of the nine were leveled if i understand correctly.
Or i misunderstood the question, Well when it comes to level scaling i prefer fallout style.
And when it comes to item scaling, if the items wont level up with me in my bag please dont use it in loot rewards or quest rewards or so...

Item Level Scaling is stupid and needs to be kept in the past. Other forms of level scaling are ok to a certain point like Fallout 3 but Cruelty's Heart should always have been +10 Strength +10 Willpower instead of "Oh I got it at level 1 and it's only 3 Strength and 3 Willpower". Heck there was no point in doing a quest at low levels in Oblivion because you always got the worst reward. Fallout 3 got it right, you go do the Blood Ties quest you always get the same rewards unlike Oblivion's item scaling system where you would've gotten a certain item at level 5 but at level 20 I would've gotten the Shiskhebab.

I think you have some great ideas there :goodjob:

I don′t like the first option too much because then you are just delaying the problem we had in Oblivion, so instead of there being level scaling all the way from level 1 you start getting it maybe at level 15, making you not feel much more powerful from 15+ even though levels 1-14 were great. I′m honestly a bit suprised how many votes there are for the first option seeing how many people disliked level scaling.

I′d rather just the bandit camp stay a easy thing to purge and then I turn around and get squished by two bears. Then later on I can squish the bears but oh no look! An ogre! And so on.

frankly i think that humanoid enemies are much more fun to fight since their AI tends to be a lot more sophisticated (they block, cast spells, turn away etc) so i think it's important that a player will have the enemies he likes fighting against still be around and fun to fight when u level up. also i think there SHOULD be some limitation to the numbers+skill scaling. so bandints will increase in numbers to a threshold (say up to 2 bandits at start and 7 bandits at a later levels) and once they grow to a certain number than some of the bandits will become more powerful.
i think it makes perfect sense that animals won't become more powerful , instead new more powerful animals (and creatures) show up, as u said, but for humanoid enemies it DOES make sense that they will grow slightly in their numbers, expertise and equipment.
i think that at first, when u r level 2 character, u can encounter 3 level 2 bandits and much later in the game , when u r a level 20 character, u encounter 6 level 5 bandits than it still feels realistic and fun. it makes sense the bandits will gather together and be slightly better. individually they are weak compared to the player's character, but as a group they are challenging.

it's just weird to me thinking that a game becomes easier as u progress instead of harder. i want a game to become harder as i play and get better at it. i want it to make sense as well. this is why i think some sort of progressive challenge SHOULD be included.
i read that ppl assume that there will always be weaker enemies in the world while new more powerful ones appear as u progress. that's a good way to do it, i believe, but i am a little afraid that the newer enemies that come out later will mostly be monsters that are usually shallow in their behavior (they chase, they attack.... that's it) while i believe enemies that block parry and use tactics are much more fun to fight and might not appear later. but that's just assumptions.

Opps, I posted my standard scaling reply and then got distracted and forgot to address your question at the end! I personal would prefer they just keep doing basically what they did in FO3, the problem with what you are proposing is they it great increases the burden on the system its running. Lower fps,etc. If that were not an issue I would still think its simpler to just do what they did with FO3 with some tweaks perhaps than implement this.

i tend to have faith in that bethesda will resolve the FPS issues from OB. with so many other games that populate your screen with dozens of enemies from open world games like GTAIV or Assassins screed, to linear shooters like COD, i assume the new iteration of their engine will handle more than 3 characters on screen at the same time with descent AI.

whoever i didnt play FO3 for longer than 5 hours or even a bit less so im not sure how it was done there. i heard it was a good middle ground between MW and OB.