Get a hint : level scaling is BAD. : V - Skyrim

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:55 pm

Yeah, I know, Skyrim is going to be "more like FO3 than Oblivion !".
So what ? FO3's level scaling was still horrible and prone to terrible metagaming.
New Vegas at least was able to hide its own much better.

Someone did it in a better way, Bethesda, can't you get a hint ? Can't you just take lessons ?

Let's say it again : level scaling is flawed by concept, by nature. It's just counter-productive in its entirety. There is no point in putting leveling, if you're going to counter it by putting level scaling. If you're going to put "partial" level scaling (like, if someone get 2 levels, then level scaling only goes up by 1), then you can do the EXACT same thing by simply halving the speed or power of leveling. No level scaling required whatsoever.
Level scaling is the exact same thing than giving more money to someone and ramping up inflation at the same time. Just diminish the money gain and remove inflation, same result, no stupid and pointless mechanism, much more believability and immersion.

Isn't "immersion" the point of a huge world open to exploration and of a RPG ? Isn't the POINT of leveling to get stronger ?
Why then use an inherently stupid mechanism that bring NOTHING (like said above, power curve can be adjusted to get the same "challenge" result without involving any amount of level scaling) and goes completely opposite to two of the pillars of the game ?

A world has much more personnality when it actually has a life by itself, with logical distributions of population - people and mosnters alike -, logical scales of power and not revolving around the level of the player in absurd's way. Level should affect how other creatures REACT to you, not how they EXIST.

Please Bethesda, understand this. ANY amount of level scaling is bad.
New Vegas was more successful than Fallout 3, and it had much less of it (still some, so still not perfect, but isn't it a sign when the less of something there is, the better it's for the game, invariably ?). Take the hint, and stop the lazyness of level scaling. Make your world unique, a world to explore and discover and enjoy, not some randomized crap where everything feels the same everywhere and reminds the player more of Diablo than a real world...

FO3 > FNV

/pointless thread.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:49 am

I take it you enjoy getting a unique item thats supposed to be powerful but isn't because your "level" is too low.

and that even if you are a superbadboy and the weapon is at its max potential, it is just as useless as you being a low levle because your enemies are just as strong with you, not to mention the HP multipliers. ala FO3 and Oblivion

Ogers at level 45......what some thousand hp? Remember Todd said the Level scaling is like FO3 http://www.gametrailers.com/user-movie/fallout-3-20-head-shots-to/282847

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:06 pm

I thought it was in all of them?

It is (in all five main games, thus far).

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:57 pm

bethesda should have asked you before they put level scaling in, you obviously know more than them

No of course, they just knew so much better themselves and gave us the marvel that was level-scaled Oblivion, massively celebrated everywhere and proving they can do no bad design choice !
:whistling:

All of you guys need to goto IGN.com and look at the video interview with todd howard (or at least I think that's where it is) It could have been a podcast

but I heard from Todd Howards lips that the world dosen't level with you - there are fixed levels that never change

If it's true, then it's good, but depending on how it was said and what he means, it can mean plenty of things, all widely different.
If it's "some set creatures have fixed level", then it doesn't mean a lot if everything else is leveled (Oblivion had some fixed-level creatures too, so...).
If it's "once you've entered a region, its level is fixed", then it's basically FO3 and it svcks barely less than Oblivion (ok, much less, but still a lot).
If it's "nothing is scaled but the random quests", then I guess it can be rather okay, depending on how they set the level everywhere.
Etc.

FO3 > FNV

/pointless thread.

I like posts like that.
Indirectly make my point looks better

Incorrect. I really wish you would read some of the posts people have been making. Instead you're just using the same argument over and over, which has already been proven to hold no water in a discussion of FO3 and, by extension, Skyrim.

I read the post of people, and I don't see how it disprove the fact that level scaling tends to make everywhere the same because regardless where you go, as the monsters and loot depends on you, things will be the same. FO3 is not exactly a good counter-point, just see the video posted above.
Of course, the less level scaling there is, the less it shows... which is kinda my point... So maybe you should apply your advices to yourself about reading other's posts ?

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:09 pm

I hope dragons don't level scale too much. I'll be very disappointed if I can beat a dragon at level 1. Or even level 2.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:12 am

I'll just quote myself from a other topic:

'It does not matter that you level up faster. Because the maximum level you can become has been doubled compared to fallout 3. So now you will level up twice as fast compared to fallout 3. It would take the same ammount of time to reach the maximum level.'

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:55 am

Level Scaling can be good when done right, it keeps the game challenging.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:45 am

Actually that's the opposite. LEVEL SCALING creates a world of constant. It makes everything the same everywhere. Where is the variety when things are adjusted to your level ? They are the same, and that's what made Oblivion huge world extremely repetitive : you would see the same thing in every caves/fort/ruins. There could be no special places, because everything was scaled.

Do you know what the words Constant and Dynamic mean?

I go to The Quarry in New Vegas at level 1, Deathclaws, I go there again at level 30, Deathclaws.

I go to Galaxy News Radio at level 1, Super Mutants. I go there again at level 20, Super Mutant Masters.

Explain to me how Scenario 1 is Dynamic, and Scenario 2 is static, if you would?

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:52 am

I think level scaling is terrible, a character that focuses on just 2h swords would have a massive advantage over someone who focuses on 1h axe, destruction, and daggers. if i want my character to learn something new i dont think i should be punished.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:45 am

Do you know what the words Constant and Dynamic mean?

I go to The Quarry in New Vegas at level 1, Deathclaws, I go there again at level 30, Deathclaws.

I go to Galaxy News Radio at level 1, Super Mutants. I go there again at level 20, Super Mutant Masters.

Explain to me how Scenario 1 is Dynamic, and Scenario 2 is static, if you would?

Super mutant masters are a hell of a lot stronger than normal super mutants.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:12 am

I read the post of people, and I don't see how it disprove the fact that level scaling tends to make everywhere the same because regardless where you go, as the monsters and loot depends on you, things will be the same. FO3 is not exactly a good counter-point, just see the video posted above.
Of course, the less level scaling there is, the less it shows... which is kinda my point... So maybe you should apply your advices to yourself about reading other's posts ?

Your argument:
Level scaling svcks because enemies everywhere are the same level as you so they'll all the same.

Level scaling in Skyrim:
Enemies in an area have a fixed range of levels, and the level is set to a number in that range once you enter the area. So one area will have levels between 10 and 15 and will never be lower or higher than that, enemies in another area might have levels between 25 and 35, and will never be lower or higher than that.

Ergo:
Enemies are not always the same level as you. Nor are they always the same level in more than one area. They ARE different, they are not homogeneous like you seem to imply.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:22 pm

When I played Oblivion, I often got my playing enjoyment spoiled, and litterally poisoned, by level-scaling, because I didn't even dare to take a quest by fear that its unique recompense could have its power and prestige truncated because I had not the highest posible level. Moreover, since I tried to gather a huge collection of enchanted weapons, and these were not location-related, but instead bound to my level, so i didn't want to raise it too fast by fear to miss interesting weapons. Were it not enough, level-scaling contributes to erode the feeling you aren't walking in a per se living world - rather in a solipsistic dreamt universe. This player-centered nature of the whole universe didn't allow for much credibility, and therefore to much immersion.

For these reasons, I hate level-scaling.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:04 am

No, I was just showing that level scaling has no point in a game because you can reproduct its effect without it being included.
The "locked once you enter" is yet another form of implementing level scaling, but it still is pointless.

No you weren't because the level scaling you described isn't the one that actually being implemented, and so your reproduction is a fix to a different level scaling system that isn't there.

Your reasoning makes no sense. "open exploration" doesn't mean "you can walk into the dragon's lair without risk". It means "you have a world to explore".
Where does "exploration" means "risk-free" ? And even, where does it say that "risk-free" is, in fact, desirable ?
Oblivion was HUGE. But it was pointless, because its size amounted for nothing because of level scaling, which made everything the same everywhere.

Open exploration means open exploration, if you can't get past somewhere because of a high unscaled enemy in open areas, than it is obviously not open exploration anymore. There's absolutely no correlation between levelscaling, and everything being the same everywhere, and on top of that you are still referencing Oblivion when it is not Oblivions Level scaling that is being implemented. Any references you make to Oblivion can be ignored.

Where is there more exploration ? In a "you can go everywhere, but everywhere is the same", or "you can go everywhere, you'll die if you try too much, but it means many unique places that will still be interesting to explore for the whole length of the game" ?
The answer is obvious, and it's not the first case.

The answer is biased and untrue, there's no correlation between levelscaling and everywhere being the same. There's no guarantee that no levelscaling produces unique places, this does not make any sense whatsoever, levelscaling is a regulation of enemy levels, and has nothing to do with the environment, or world design.

Which is exactly why I put the word "logically". The MMORPG method of putting arbitrary levels on monsters is just as bad as level scaling. The FO3 methods of having different levels of monsters and just putting them into the world as your level increase is just as bad too (which is why the "don't worry, Skyrim will have level scaling of FO3 !" doesn't reassure me in the slightest, and the very fact that Bethesda feels necessary to reassure people about level scaling should be a hint about how crappy a mechanism it is).
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.).

Bethesda reassures because it was done badly in the former game, saying the fact that they are reassuring is enough to condemn the mechanic is silly. So if a mayor is reassuring the populous of less car accidents, it's telling how crappy cars are? This is not a black and white scenario. Dangerous/normal/wild/powerful places can still exist with level scaling, especially when places have lower and upper limits. If a level 35-40 dungeon locks at 35 because you're level 5 when you enter, it is still gonna be a hard battle, and not a cakewalk.

A logical world with logically placed monsters is the best for immersion. Supermutants who are pushover because you encounter them in the first region you cross, and who are about fifty times tougher and with "master" adjective because it's the last region you see, are idiotic.

Upper and lower limits, you really need to grasp this concept. Do you understand that walking into an area with it's lower limit several levels higher than your level, at entry, is not gonna be a pushover.

You can have a better result without level scaling. Why bothering to put a broken mechanism and then partially fix it ?

You can go anywhere in New Vegas. You can die, but that's the risk of getting over your head. That's, in fact, exactly the POINT. See above : exploration doesn't, and precisely shouldn't, means "risk-free".

If you die, than you can't go anywhere can you? This is not about something being risk free, it's about somewhere being reasonably open yet challenging. What about the opposite end if this no level scaling concept, what if I've leveled up immensely, is everything now just a cakewalk because I spend time on my stats? Is there only a single place where I can get challenge? so now I've broken my game, combat will go boring as everything falls before me, and only a single enemy type can challenge me, and after that there's nothing to go after.

With no level scaling you will at best follow the neatly predetermined level path determined for you, at worst you will encounter either impossible odds or a game with no challenge.

EDIT: And we haven't even gone into the fact that an enemy with a level close to your level does not mean it's not powerful.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:06 am

Do you know what the words Constant and Dynamic mean?

Yes, but I was using them in the more abstract "how the world is feeling" sense.
When the world is scaled to you, it means every goblin lair will contain the same loot, the same foes and will be of the same challenge. It means you can not hope to barge into somewhere "special", where you'll see things that you'll see nowhere else.
It may be "dynamic" in a strict mathematical sense ("it changes"), but the effect on the perception is the opposite : "meh, it's like everywhere else".

I go to The Quarry in New Vegas at level 1, Deathclaws, I go there again at level 30, Deathclaws.

I go to Galaxy News Radio at level 1, Super Mutants. I go there again at level 20, Super Mutant Masters.

Explain to me how Scenario 1 is Dynamic, and Scenario 2 is static, if you would?

Scenario 1 means there are special places with special things. It means there if I go there at a low level I will be butchered. It means "this zone is dangerous". It means a designer took a particular care of it and I may find in it things that are special to it (quests, accomplishments, monsters, whatever).

Scenario 2 means that it's just the same place than any other that has supermutants in them, and regardless when I go or where I go, it will be the same challenge, I will have the same possibility to win, I will get the same things and the moment will not be special because it will be the same than any place with supermutants regardless of when or where.

Funny, I see scenario 1 much more interesting, and the world made with the first design being much more actually varied.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:38 am

Isn't there going to be some sort of 'perk cap' in Skyrim? As a lot of your power in Skyrim will come from perks, witch are capped I think it's very less likely to become as overpowered as Morrowind allowed you.

Extensive level scaling, therefore seems a bit unnecessary.

Who knows, it may even become redundant, the bane of all machanics! :biggrin:

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:08 am

Your argument:
Level scaling svcks because enemies everywhere are the same level as you so they'll all the same.

Level scaling in Skyrim:
Enemies in an area have a fixed range of levels, and the level is set to a number in that range once you enter the area. So one area will have levels between 10 and 15 and will never be lower or higher than that, enemies in another area might have levels between 25 and 35, and will never be lower or higher than that.

Ergo:
Enemies are not always the same level as you. Nor are they always the same level in more than one area. They ARE different, they are not homogeneous like you seem to imply.

Like someone said me : "I really wish you would read some of the posts people have been making. Instead you're just using the same argument over and over, which has already been proven to hold no water"

I'll refer you to the - several - answers I made about the "arbitrary level zones". Have fun with using your own advices about reading other's arguments.

Level Scaling can be good when done right, it keeps the game challenging.

Hello, first post answer, already quoted to someone who made the same false point :
"(like said above, power curve can be adjusted to get the same "challenge" result without involving any amount of level scaling) "

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:44 am

Yes, but I was using them in the more abstract "how the world is feeling" sense.
When the world is scaled to you, it means every goblin lair will contain the same loot, the same foes and will be of the same challenge. It means you can not hope to barge into somewhere "special", where you'll see things that you'll see nowhere else.
It may be "dynamic" in a strict mathematical sense ("it changes"), but the effect on the perception is the opposite : "meh, it's like everywhere else".

Apples and Oranges. Nobody here is saying that Oblivion's Scaling was good. Fallout 3 Had neither pervasively leveled enemies (And even if they were, they were different types) nor pervasively leveled Loot. It seems you've never even played the game.

Scenario 1 means there are special places with special things. It means there if I go there at a low level I will be butchered. It means "this zone is dangerous". It means a designer took a particular care of it and I may find in it things that are special to it (quests, accomplishments, monsters, whatever).

Scenario 2 means that it's just the same place than any other that has supermutants in them, and regardless when I go or where I go, it will be the same challenge, I will have the same possibility to win, I will get the same things and the moment will not be special because it will be the same than any place with supermutants regardless of when or where.

Funny, I see scenario 1 much more interesting, and the world made with the first design being much more actually varied.

Which you find more interesting is not the point. You neither explained how Scenario 1 is dynamic, nor explained how Scenario 2 is static. You can keep dodging the point with opinions, or you can accept the fact that you don't know how to fully explain your own idea.

Just for the record, I actually do know what you're trying to say, and I in part agree with you, but what you want is a form of scaling.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:36 am

Scenario 1 means there are special places with special things. It means there if I go there at a low level I will be butchered. It means "this zone is dangerous". It means a designer took a particular care of it and I may find in it things that are special to it (quests, accomplishments, monsters, whatever).

Scenario 2 means that it's just the same place than any other that has supermutants in them, and regardless when I go or where I go, it will be the same challenge, I will have the same possibility to win, I will get the same things and the moment will not be special because it will be the same than any place with supermutants regardless of when or where.

Funny, I see scenario 1 much more interesting, and the world made with the first design being much more actually varied.

I think you got scenario 1 and scenario 2 mixed up I've never even played FO3 and I know that a deathclaw at level 1 and a deathclaw at level 30 are the same things and a supermutant is a lot weaker than supermutant masters. Therefore, I'd much rather have scenario 2 where there is still some challenge presented to me as I level up so I don't become God.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:53 am

*snip*

You do realize that at least since Daggerfall they have used level-scaling in TES games right?

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:42 pm

Like someone said me : "I really wish you would read some of the posts people have been making. Instead you're just using the same argument over and over, which has already been proven to hold no water"

I'll refer you to the - several - answers I made about the "arbitrary level zones". Have fun with using your own advices about reading other's arguments.

You wrote this on Page 2:

"If you're going to put "partial" level scaling (like, if someone get 2 levels, then level scaling only goes up by 1), then you can do the EXACT same thing by simply halving the speed or power of leveling. No level scaling required whatsoever."

Either you have a "total" level scaling ("1:1" level scaling, that is each time you gain a level, monsters gain one), then you can just remove entirely the leveling system as it serves not purpose but to inflate number for nothing. Or you have a "partial" level scaling, in which case my quote above applies : just tone down the power you gain in leveling and voilà, same result without needing to make the whole world goes up with you.

Could you link me to the post in which you opened your mind to more possibilities?

» Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:53 pm

Open exploration means open exploration, if you can't get past somewhere because of a high unscaled enemy in open areas, than it is obviously not open exploration anymore.

...

I'm afraid you completely fail at understanding what "open world" means.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:55 am

Meh, I liked FO3 and New Vegas level scaling just fine. The perfect mix.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:16 am

"A world is not devoid of life, just because your level influence the level of creatures on first contact. Especially not when these creatures and dungeons have lower and upper limits. It won't matter if you enter a level 25-30 dungeon at level 5, sure it will lock at level 25, but you will still get your ass kicked."

Semantics aside, whatever this methodology is sounds ok to me. There should be places a low level should not go, but neither should the whole world be restricted, but rather, it should be challenging.

I do however, want to experience a sense of development in my character development, lol.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:25 am

.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:11 pm

level scaling is a good thing so the game wont ever get boring. it also tells teh game when to introduce certain enemies. certain enemies may only be in certain areas til ur stronger than they who up more commonly. so u dont fight rats all day. it also stops u from running into high level dragons outside of tutorial dungeons. its necessary. ur complaining. stop whining.