What about my post Akka? What do you think is wrong(or right) with my arguments?

Yes because that has absolutely nothing to do with level scaling.

That guy is level two with 60 small guns and a 10mm pistol, in a game where it was proved that headshots are worthless.

I don't even think caravan guards level up with you...

I'd rather talk to someone who can create a coherent post, so I'll talk to you.

And that's a good point, Again, I've made no argument that Fallout 3 was even close to perfect, and I've made it quite clear, that I'll prefer a Non-scaled world to an Overscaled world any day.

But that doesn't mean Level Scaling is completely without merit. It just has to be used very responsibly and in a logical, believable way.

I'd prefer a world that starts like New Vegas. Fairly static, and all the spawns and levels have their appropriate presets. But within the world, exists, I guess you could call them Placeholders and/or Variables. In the Beginning, the variables are not in play, however, as the player levels, first we see the variables occupied by "Dynamic Placeholders" In addition to the already existing static content. When you kill a "Dynamic Placeholder" when the time comes for it's next re spawn, it may, or may not, depending on level, be a new caste of enemy. The Same enemy will never spawn in a non-appropriate level range. (IE, Basic Raider won't spawn the same level as an Elite Viper Marauder or whatever). Sprinkling in Dynamic Placeholders will keep the game's exploration fresh, while preserving logical progression and reasonable challenge.

One thing I have to point out though; using things like Human and Super Mutans as examples against level scaling. If anything, Human-type enemies logically should scale (With time, more so than the players level, but let's not hang on the details) given their nature.

Why can't we just have a dynamic system, where levels are capped in proximity to other things? For instance, enemies around cities will only scale from levels 1-10, and then the minimum and maximum level start to fan out as you get further from civilization. 1-10, then 1-15, then 5-20, then 5-25, then 10-30, and so forth. For additional challenge, you can force a player offset in the scaling too. So, the level 10-30 zone can have creatures at level 10, but the requirement is that the creatures always be 5 levels higher than you. So if you visit at level 1, they will be level 10, while if you actually go there at level 10 you'll see level 15 minimum. Then just make dungeons that are located in these zones about 5-10 levels more difficult than the zones outside, except for special dungeons. These numbers aren't a recommendation, but just an idea of how the system could work. It has a lot of possibility, and it'd be perfect if it's fine tuned.

They aren't. HA!

Role Playing Game is an ambiguous term if there ever was one.

Generally, character development has to be a focal point, in order to qualify as an "RPG", but many "Action" Games are incorporating character development in, at greater levels.

Boy is this true. Todd was right when saying you can do anything in an rpg, you can have all types of gameplay and still be an rpg.

i would also prefer no level scaling at all, but at least they are going the way of fallout which was worlds better than oblivions. i used two mods for oblivion TIE and WAC and they completely removeds level scaling altogether. every dungeon and cave could spawn anything from a level 1 rat all the way to the level 40 lich. it made teh game seem much more organic and real. you could no longer assume what was going to be in each cave simply based on your current level and its impossible to go back to any other system. did that mean there were areas off limits........you betcha and that is a good thing. you shouldnt be able to go every in the game at low levels. thankfully it sounds like some dungeons will still lock at super high levels so im not to worried about skyrim.

Level scaling should be reserved to the overworld anyway. I fully support random or even locked dungeons. I think I'd prefer more static dungeons though, for sake of the world-builders to put more detail.

This (points down)



This ^^

And as some have said already everything in the game (most) have a min & max level scale, so a wolf or what have you will start at level 1 but max may only hit level 5 as example. Not everything levels up with your character after a certain point, if you already know this and don't comprehend or disagree with what I quoted above then there isn't much else to say.

And fyi Fallout 3 is a easy game along with one of my favorite games as you've stated in comparisons F: New Vegas, there both easy games by design the level scaling has little to nothing to do with the difficulty (my opinion anyway). Games now days that are released on multiple platforms cannot be too difficult as they use to be because of dare I say it but mainstream. So that's just how it goes, if you don't understand that then you don't understand nothin im done talkin - T.I.

Level-scaling can be a good thing in moderation, and I'd like to see at least some spawn points more randomized, or have the ability to reset rather than be locked. It's reasonable and realistic to assume that creatures are wandering around, or were otherwise not spotted on a previous pass. Leveled lists should match the local environment, though, and dungeons should be more sticky, because it just doesn't make sense for one to be entirely repopulated during the course of a game.

One thing about sandbox play and freedom is that people often want (and confuse) both freedom to roam and freedom from consequences. Those are two very distinct issues, and IMO, the second one is extremely undesirable. You're free to walk out into the middle of a highway at any time, but nobody's going to feel sorry for you if you get hit by car.

Aye and as you saw by my Post I didn't axe Level scaling, just make it less pervasive, people go on about immersion and balance, what exactly is immersive and balanced about an Omnicient Game engine throwing things at you based on your percieved strenghts and weaknesses? last I checked there are only skills and perks, how do you derive strenght and weakness even more so based on Skills? why can't the game at the beginning of every new game shuffle that Radiant story and give a new experience each game? and DON'T touch Items or spells? Dungeons are preset already 15-20, they don't change outside that bounds, why is this not applied to opponents.

Here's a better question. Why are you assuming it's not?

LOL. You know, when the dungeons locks, it's not the damn walls that lock, in's THE OPONENTS INSIDE IT.

But you know, I highly doubt we're gonna se a Timber Wolf with the health bar on Zeus on steroids. I also think that there will be presets based on where you are on the map too, only these will more likely be wider ranges

I was fine with FO3's level scaling. But the new system seems even better, being a mix of Morrowind and FO3. I think people should at least give it a chance, because in the end, you know you're going to play the game and love it anyway.

Just one more thing I want to comment on. OP, you say level scaling makes the world boring because everything will be the same difficulty everywhere. But no level scaling means there is less exploration. It is just as effective a barrier as an invisible wall. And I'll explain why. Your claim is that with LS cave X will always pose the same threat at level 1 if you were to go there at level 50. (This BTW, is a strawman argument because you are describing the old LS system and not the new one.) But without LS, the minute you enter cave X and get your ass handed to you, you will be forced to leave because you cannot defeat the opponents inside. How is this "dangerous" place MORE open to exploration? You wont be able to actually EXPLORE it until you reach a higher level, so it acts as a barrier to you until such time has arrived. I also fail to see how this would make the world seem more alive just because the enemies are impossible to defeat in certain areas at certain levels. Another thing you forget, or intentionally ignore, is the fact that the new LS system will have high level areas scaled to crush low level players. Again, it is a combination of both Morrowind and FO3's LS systems. Honestly, I think you are either a clever troll, or just incredibly stubborn. No offense.

Is it implied that all Opponents match the players level though? Like a Mole Rat will spawn level 20 if the player is 18-22 or whatever? I don't necessarily think it's about perceived strengths and weaknesses so much as it was originally a "Fix all" Key to the difficulty curve, but they got lazy and used it as a crutch in design.

It's already stated, there's areas intended as "Peaks" and "Valleys", and while they say you'll be introduced to dragons fairly early, they never actually say you can take it on. They don't strike me as something that is designed to be fought at every chance, though they're not going to stop you I'd imagine. I think that's one of the biggest concerns by the Anti-Scale crowd. They're taking an assumption that Dragons can be fought from the word "Go", I really don't see that being the case, but again, that's an assumption too.

Leveled loot, and rewards are almost always a bad idea. Actually, I think I'll go the extra mile and just say It's Always a bad idea. Morrowind had some, and it was pretty noninvasive. While some of the random loot was leveled and random, I don't recall an instance where rewards actually were, and for every Leveled weapon or armor, there was ten or more static ones in the game. The ratio was so overwhelming, that random leveled loot actually came off as kind of interesting, especially because they implemented them in context.



I'm not entirely sure what that means. Was 15-20 just an example? If so, I'm pretty sure most enemies have preset levels to spawn as. I know Morrowind did, as did Fallout 3 (IE, A Super Mutant Brute wouldn't be over level 14, and never under level 9), they just set many more of the enemy slots to level, than was necessary. Combine that with a relatively lame "HP sink" based approach to combat, and the game seemed like it was worse than it was. Though, there were a few instances (Near Germantown Police for example) where the exact same nametype of enemy (Standard Super Mutant) was leveled directly against the player, and that is universally bad.

While I'll admit that the thought of any kind of level scaling in Skyrim has scared me a bit, this thread has convinced me that it's nothing to worry about.

I liked how New Vegas distributed enemies based on geography instead of player level, subsequent playthroughs have been far less enjoyable than they were in Fallout 3. The game just surprises you less and less when you realize that "on this route you'll fight Cazadors, then Mantises, then Bighorners" or "this area always has Deathclaws, but you never have to worry about them anywhere else."

I feel like level ranges might just be the best way to approach the issue. I do remember Broken Steel totally breaking Fallout 3 by having Deathclaws and those godawful Albino Radscorpions spawning everywhere and slaughtering everything, so as long as Bethesda doesn't tinker with the system too much and allow extremely strong enemies in low-level zones, I'll like this system.

Those Cazadors reminded me of Cliff racers, in the sense that they just were not fun to fight. They moved fast so it was hard for snipers to hit them and worse they annoyingly posien you, thus having to waste time going in to you menu to find a cure or just spaming stims to deal with it.

Let me refresh your memories with Rohugh's post earlier in the thread. Read it, learn it, love it.




I'd prefer not to come back in the thread, because if I do, it gets locked. If you find yourself getting worked up over the topic, take a deep breath, walk away and think happy thoughts until the urge to try and stomp down a discussion instead of civilly discussing it goes away.

Oh mine Gott guys. Really?

Level scaling actually makes sense to me. Why should I be able to run across Tamriel and kill bandits and brigands by the thousands and NOT expect them to upgrade their equipment?

Why should I not use My imagination and figure out that all these oblivion gates that have been opening and closing have allowed some bad guys access to daedric equipment later on?

If news reached *me* that some crazy guy is running about shouting at dragons and killing everyone, I'd step up my training and buy better weapons. Hurrr.

Alright, hold on..........



DUH :spotted owl:

Im talking about enemies outside dungeons, you know, the ones not governed by anything but the game spawning. I got the Implied Opponents scale with you from the statement Todd made about FO3 style scaling, and his elaboration on Radiant story's Omnicient method of throwing things at you that are your percieved weaknesses, what good are weaknesses if they are not remotely as strong as you are?

I'm hoping its not as pervasive as it sounds and doesn't apply to every knoock and cranny of the game, does one not find it strange the world woudl literally spin around you in an effort to undermine -you-? I thought a civil war was being fought do factions not have their own things to worry about as well as strenghts and weaknesses? it would be as if the quest giver sent a messenger bird to my destination giving a full detail of what I can and cannot do and magically outfitting everyone to take me under.

Would this not be in a sense static? if my weaknesses do not change will my enemies stay the same? what happened to being hilariously strong and requiring some thinking to defeat instead of what could be thought of as a sense of helplessness that no matter what I do to address my own flaws, the game warps and opens another hole?

I understand wanting challanges and all that, but I'd rather the challange Tie in with the opponents rather than being based soley against me.

Dragons appearing early are the only instance of Independent "gonna F you up because I can" that I've heard so far in the game.

Thoughts?

Exactly, both are totally imperfect solutions, and we'll never really have a perfect compromise I think. Broken steel itself was pretty poorly implemented though. Vanilla Fallout 3 was much better.

I went on a rant about "Threat Zone" Distribution, the general rule was, the closer to main roads and high-population density areas, the lower the general level of enemies. (To protect both player and NPC). Going deeper into the wilderness where you really don't know what to expect, is where the bulk of Leveled and/or High-threat enemies would appear. It was all a very complex rant, I don't particularly care to repeat.



I have many concerns regarding Radiant Story. That's just one of them. It's too ambiguous to really attack and dissect.


Yes it would, but really, the whole subject is if Level scaling itself, is universally bad. I think the name of the game here, is contrast within combat. There should be a variety of enemies. Some enemies you steamroll, even if they are "Stronger" Than you, and others give you a run for your money, even if they are arbitrarily weaker than you in level.



It's been said in an interview or two, that the game is designed with Peaks and Valleys in difficulty, not really pertaining to dragons. Also, just because dragons appear early, does not mean they are killable at the same time, though it could, I don't have the game.

Both sides bring out some good points but bottom line for me is that there was no level scaling in Morrowind and I liked it just fine. I didn`t, however, like Oblivion`s level scaling as I needed to first level to level 25 to get decent quest rewards (They were leveled) and fighting overly strong monsters was more annoying than fun (Slashing them for 5 minutes? Come on).

Strangely I`m enthusiastic about Skyrim`s scaling. I think it will be fine BUT we will see when the game comes out.

why not have restricted scaling like the starting area all the creatures start at level one then stop scaling at five then the areas around the world that have starting creatures as level 5 start scaling even if your not there then they would stop after 5 levels again (level 10) then areas with level ten starting creatures start scaling when you reach lvl ten and so on so forth. so if you venture to far from cities or roads to early you wont stand a chance but if you stay at cities and roads all the time you'll never level your combat skills up. so that my opinion of a god scaling system. also im not saying it has to be in 5's just so everyone know just using 5 times as a basis.

I've heard all the arguments on this so many times, but still I can not see a single positive thing about level scaling in a game based around character levelling. I agree with the OP.