I don't know if I understand it or not, but isn't the point of it so as you get stronger, so do the enemies you can encounter?

If so, doesn't that maintain a challenge in the game?

Or have I got it wrong?

That's half of it. The other half is that you're able to go in whichever direction you choose from the beginning, and won't be immediately hit over the head by a demi-god wielding a "Go East" sign.

Yes, but taken to the extreme, like Oblivion, it kills a sense of Progression.


Taken to the opposite end of the spectrum, and you have New Vegas, which is predictable and Dull.


Using just an arbitrary scale, with Oblivion as 100% and New Vegas as 0%, Fallout 3 was about 60%. Far from perfect, but a respectable compromise between Character Progression and challenge relevance.


Morrowind, was about at 15%. The world was mostly static, occasional Daedra would spawn as higher castes.


I prefer my scaling at about 35%.

Precisely, it's not an either/or case.

There are many routes, but some routes are simply harder. If there are more and less challenging areas, it doesn't mean that it's not an open world.

I'm sorry I have an opinion? Level scaling can be good if implemented correctly. I don't want Skyrim to become like Azeroth in WoW, where this zone is level 1-10.... 10-20.... Etc.

Yeah, linear much? I prefer my TES to be open world. After all, that's the theme

Actually, yes there is, and you can perfectly goes past the Deathclaws (hard, but not requiring any exploits and totally feasable) and still continue the game without breaking it. The Deathclaws just push the player to go south in the direction of the investigation, but that's just a "hot point" and not a gamebreaking one.

Yes it's better, and I explained why. A dynamic scaling world tends to break the lore and inner consistency of the world, a somehow static one, not. Saying it's a "mechanically dead one" is just void of useful meaning - what, because Ogres only go from level 20 to 30 then the world is dead, while having powerful monsters sprouting out of nowhere is respecting the lore and is somehow making the world alive ? That's just absurd and broken reasoning.
You may be glad I'm not a game designer, but considering how broken this whole of reasoning you shown here is, I'm not sure your opinion on game design is any better...

You know, I've actually answered your questions, several times. If you're still not able to get simple concepts and sentences, maybe you've more pressing matters than to try to take a jab at my supposed game design deficiencies.

Let me requote myself :

"Normal places should house normal people, with the occasionnal strong guy. Normal wild place should have normal wildlife, with the occasionnal dangerous monster.
Dangerous places should have a reason to exist (Ogre/Troll/Dragon lairs are reasonable, they live in after all ; abandonned crypts can reasonnably have some powerful undead with lots of weaker ones, etc.)."

If you can't understand something as simple as this, then the problem is your basic reading or thinking abilities, because I doubt there is anything hard to understand in that.

I saw the word "metagaming" and I understood. If there is no level scaling then wont you allways end up in the SAME areas at high levels? That works in MMOs and things, but I would despise it in Skyrim. There should be some generally higher level areas, but still scaled. Just like the new system they have I think is it fine, the 10-15 level dungeon that locks and dungeon locking. Like in Morrowind Red Mountain would obviously be a higher level area, but that shouldn't mean enemies just as strong cant be found outside of it. Which I know they can in Morrowind, because it has level scaling. So no level scaling I vote=BAD.

sorry for english

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.

From a Design standpoint, it is not. The World was designed with a logical progression. It is linear.

Nobody said Magically. There's no rule that says a Deathclaw in Old Olney, does not break from the pack and head west. The fact that you know it happens at level 20, is actually irrelevant. All the enemies of the game should be Hard-Programmed and in the game, but they shouldn't be confined to a single, or couple of Areas, like they are in New Vegas. There is No lore reason that says a Deathclaw shouldn't appear 20 feet from where they are already.

The fact that I acknowledge a Challenge Curve, is leaps and bounds above your Dead World scenario.


That's just a bull face lie. I'm still waiting.



That's the form of scaling we understand is in Skyrim and Fallout 3. In a Raider camp, you have normal Raiders, dispatched in a shot or two, and the occasional Veteran that takes a bit more effort. You obviously lack comprehension and observational ability if you missed that.

Quote about Level Scaling in Skyrim: "Lower Level Enemies are not written out of the system, just as the player levels up, they will encounter stronger enemies in the wild more frequently."

That SO needs to be a mod. :rofl:

Then don't fight them, avoid them. Or flee. Adapt to what's happening, THAT is the point of not having everything the same everywhere.
Now sure, if you just want to be able to tackle everything you encounter regardless of logic, right from the start, you may like level scaling, but in this case why are you bothering with immersion-based games ?

Specialized in a different set of skill, different time and different level have nothing to do with different routes. All these depends on your character. The point of having several routes is about difference in the settings, not difference in your characters. I can't believe I have to actually explain this one 0_o


Man, you're the one complaining that if something will kill you, even if it's pretty logical, then it's not "open exploration". Like if exploring was a guaranteed success. So of course I mock the idea.
You seem unable to accept that not all dangers should be able to be overcome by a character which is not strong enough. That is the kind of logical absurdity that I hate level scaling for - the POINT of leveling is to show progress, and if I can already do everything from the start, then what's the point of progress ?


Level scaling is just the lazy answer to difficulty tuning. It doesn't require to make the game system functionnal for a large difference in levels, or to actually design logical challenges for low-level and high-level characters. Just add level scaling and voilà !

I, for one, dont have anything against level scaling. I actually think it's better to have level scaling, and that it's more like the Fallout 3 way. I mean, surely there are others than you who trains to get stronger, therefor a level scaling system might seem more reasonable.

Are you running off the assumption that Scaling means it absolutely has to match the Players level at all times? No real evidence has shown that a scenario can't be accomplished (Better) in a scaled setting. It just depends on how aggressive the developer is with it.

The World can be written as static, much like New Vegas, but you can have variables sprinkled in, leveled against the player, not necessarily to the player. It all depends on what the designer intends for a given area.

A single hot point that is hard to pass make the game linear ?
You overdo it here. By far. The whole world is totally open, with just danger to be aware of, and it's "linear" ?


If it's some few monsters that are a bit randomized and have a logical reason from being here, no problem.
Though out of principle : NO it is not irrelevant if it happens at level X. "immersion", again, a world that has its own life is more immersive. And NO, "a world having its own life" does NOT mean "level scaling".

No problem with that. A bit of randomization is good as long as it makes sense, and some surprises like a wandering baddies are welcome. Not a "level scaling" thing though.


Your retort is meaningless and irrelevant. I've often answered the deeply flawed "level scaling is more challenging" absurdity. Level scaling and challenge are totally separate, trying to link them is just an obvious display of bad faith - or broken reasoning ability.

And your clinging to "dead world" naming for the obvious emotionnally charged name is just ridiculous. Please, it's childish here, especially considering how you try to make it appear out of thin air, how I countered it in the very post you were answering - but you somehow ignored these points, and you have the nerve to tell me *I* don't answer ?

Wow. You just tell me "you lie, you don't answer" the VERY LINE BEFORE making a quote with my answers in them ?
How hypocrite can you be ?

No, because there is no scaling at all. For all your condescending "you don't answer my questions", it seems that you just don't bother to properly read the answers.

It can be okay or not, depending on the actual frequency and real levels we encounter.
Let me quote myself about something quite close to this :

"But this difference must always be true, and not be dependant of the player level. If creature X can go from level 5 to level 10, then I should always be able to encounter level 5 to level 10 of them (in the appropriate circumstances, of course, like maybe their strongest members are usually the chieftain of the tribes/broodmothers/etc.).
But if I only encounter level 5 of the creature X when I'm level 4, and only level 10 when I'm level 15... Then it's not about the variance in the same race, it's just dumb, raw scaling"

Considering your paternalistic tone and you "I'm-better-than-you-at-judging-game-design" comment, all the while pretending I'm not making points while I have to constantly repeat them to you and quote myself, you should really refrain from such comments unless you school your own behaviour.

Especially when your comment on this seems to completely ignore yet another point I made in the previous post - about how "static" is only a word used in this context to describe "non-player-level-scaled", and it can include lots of variety through randomization, just not based on player level.

You seem to ignore an awful lot of points when it's convenient to you - and then accuse me of not answering. And then try to give lessons of behaviour. That's not a pretty sight.

Op, you keep falling back on Oblivion's failings as a proof of why level scaling should be axed altogether. I got bad news for you bro, Bethesda has gone the other way with it.

Prior to Skyrim Level scaling could only be based on two static factors, location and PC level. With Skyrim Bethesda has created something that allows for dynamics to be achieved as never seen before. They have Raidiant Story that watches absolutely everything you and all of the npcs do (not just where you go and what level your currently at) and catalogs it all to a database. This opens a new possibility in gaming for a truley dynamic world with complex character/npc interaction, dynamic economies AND most importantly a linear character progression(lvl1-100) that is not locked to a preordained path making no two paths alike(taking the same physical path in game will be different depending on your character). The end result is unpredictable and therefor has mondo replay value. This has been attempted before with randomness but never on a character specific tailor made level like this. This is history in the making, mark my words.

I don't know what all the complainers are complaining about, when I was level 50 in OB, I had little trouble, but still had a challenge. Same with FO3
I like level scaling for the fact that it keeps the challenge in games and keeps it from getting boring. You should definitley feel stronger, but not OP instakill TGM

It's a necessity of RPGs period. It's no different than playing a game like Neverwinter Nights and going into an area where the creatures are more powerful than the ones in the previous area. That's just level-scaling according to location, but it amounts to the same thing.

So...you guys are going to blatantly ignore this instance of level scaling....and dont give me that slider garbage either.

Actually I used several times the problems of FO3, not just Oblivion, and I explained in the first post why the very principle of level scaling is absurd.
The first post damnit...

I keep a healthy doubtful eye on supposedly revolutionary redesign. I can remember much more "it will be great !" thing that ended up crappy than the opposite.
Especially about level scaling, where every game using it promises "yeah, it will be great this time, we've taken lessons of the past", and nearly always ends up failing hard.


You should hurry and notify Fallout 1 & 2, Risen, Gothics 1 & 2 and countless other games that they are not RPG then, considering they lacked something that you declare to be a "necessity".

The game is designed to be played from Point A,B,C,D. The Game is linear, the environment is not.


Randomized is OKay, but Scaling is not. That makes perfect sense. Look up "Difficulty Curve" Please, before commenting, and then ask a designer how it's an integral part of any game experience.



You're right, I'm talking about how New Vegas' Exploration is dull and predictable, because there is no scaling, or even randomization of spawns. It's a static, dead, dull, and boring world.

And you cling to poorly constructed arguments and logical fallacies. But at least I get paid to be emotionally charged.


You still haven't answered several of my questions to put a context into what you're after. You just haven't. You dodge it with Re-quotes of incoherent rubbish.




I agree, the level range of a particular creature, no matter where it is(Generally) should be consistant. I shouldn't see a Wolf at level 5, and he's level 5, then come back a few days later level 20, and a Wolf there is Level 20.(Or whatever their cap is) Ideally, they should naturally fluctuate in their level range.

But that doesn't mean that, at level 20, in order to maintain a proper difficulty curve, there shouldn't be a Minotaur in the same Area now. How do you know he didn't naturally wander there?


You really don't make any sense or Valid points against Level scaling. You keep citing Worst-case Scenarios, and then call other people out for doing the same to counter-point your stance. It's a battle of the slippery slopes.


Again, Look up Difficulty Curve. In a True Open-world game, it's not good design to create large gaps of obsolete territory because the player leveled up. Every player is going to level at a different rate, and Scaling addresses that to maintain a balanced difficulty curve for as many people as possible.




That's just it though, you don't have a point to all this. There's no reason why Level scaling and your suggestions have to be mutually exclusive.

I actually agree, the Game would basically Metagame the player, it knows your every strenght and weakness and dispite the fact the location your heading too SHOULDN'T be equipped to handle what your bringing to the table, it already knows lol this is just another instance of the world revolving around the player, Had they made it where the game Shuffles everything you meet when you start a new game, so that which each game something new happens then yeah sure excellent. otherwise, this "sounds" iffy the more you think about it.

its already in so you may as well just get over it
just saw what the mod posted
if it wernt in the game would be extraordinarily dull, once you get up to a high enough level to mow everything down the game would get boring and even if you replay you would know exactly what to expect, it just wouldnt be fun

Oh, so in all those games, while you may have reached level 10, all your opponents were still only level 1? Sounds boring. One way or another, you need to add creatures that will provide a high level character with a challenge. That's all that level scaling really is. In an open world like Bethesda's games, the most practical way of doing this is through leveled lists.

No.