after reading it all, i still think that proper scaling is better then non scalinjg. whether or not you consider skyrim to have gotten it right is a different matter. i thnk it got parts right and other parts wrong, but is teh best so far in that regard.

First of all: thank you for taking the time to provide thoughtful responses to my posts. Now to address a couple of things:


TBH, I'm not sure what you mean by that. All arguments are constructed to reach conclusions. If you're implying that I haven't thought about those conclusions because of my blind idolatry of Bethesda, then I'm afraid I have to disagree. I have thought about them a great deal. Of course, I'm happy to admit that those conclusions may be wrong, and I certainly haven't exhausted these ideas so I'm happy to explore them further with you.


Yes, an unfortunate consequence of my tendency to play the devil's advocate. It was done to counterbalance the prevailing current of the discussion, which is, by and large, an uneducated emotional rant about a subject most people have given little thought to. I'm glad to be speaking to someone who has given it some thought. Of course, I also believe what I wrote.


Actually, I haven't made that assumption. In fact, I want the same thing. You're confusing the mechanic with the result. You can achieve either effect through static or dynamic leveling. Dynamic leveling was created in part to accommodate the loss of linearity that open worlds impose on developers. It allows them to scale the difficulty and reward to the player's current level to maintain gameplay balance no matter where they go or what they do. It's a way of controlling the player's experience. In Oblivion it resulted in too much control. Of course you can create balance statically as well by implementing zones and leave it up to the player to find the right sort of experience. I don't object to that. I think that's a good thing. But I think that a mixed system of static and dynamic content is the best solution.


Well, I wouldn't assume everybody wants to play the same way. One of the biggest complaints against Morrowind was that at the higher levels it was too easy to faceroll and the game became dull. Oblivion's mechanic was designed precisely to address this complaint but most people (myself included) think it swung too far in the opposite direction. To address the static respawns: if you respawn anything but the same thing that spawned the first time, you have, by definition, dynamic scaling. (Unless its entirely random.) If you increase the power, you have to decide by how much. You have to create a table for that. That's table is a leveled list. So your choices are: respawn the same thing (ie. repeat the player's experience) or use dynamic scaling. If your scaling is done well, and you use encounter zones, the result is identical to the player. You'll only know its dynamic if you compare notes with other players (or other characters you play).


I don't disagree with either of those statements, though I don't think it's necessary for respawns to get smarter. Why not replace them with weaker creatures for variety? Maybe the abandoned tower that used to be occupied by bandits is now overrun by rats. To your second point, I agree completely: here is a situation where static respawns make perfect sense. That's the way I'd do it, too. Of course, you'd want the occasional random spawn for variety.


Perhaps linear is too strong a term. Personally, I don't think it is. If all of the creatures and rewards are the same every time you play the game (ie. static) then it stands to reason that your experience will be more or less the same. The fact that on one playthrough the enemies beat you and on another you beat them doesn't change the fact that they are the same enemies in the same location dropping the same loot. That's what statically placed means. Maybe you can go through it in different ways and it has a lot of replayability if there is a lot of content, but it's still not going to give you as much mileage as a dynamically leveled game. I guess it's just personal preference. I prefer not to have the exact same experience every time I go into a dungeon. Dynamic leveling doesn't even do much to address this in any case. The next step is dynamically evolving dungeons and wilderness zones. By the by, I haven't refused to consider any alternative. I might not have thought of it, or I might not have mentioned it, but I haven't rejected anything. I'm not trying to win anything, just trying to understand how the mechanic works. I've already mentioned in http://www.truancyfactory.com/articles/levelScaling.html the relative merits and deficiencies of both systems. In that article I said that static designed systems are the best system to use for 95% of the games that get made: the linear ones.


I'm sorry you're unwilling to consider the possibility that the developers might know more about game design than the people on the forums. Clearly I'm unaware of the august company I keep! To your point about only considering two extremes: for starters, those are generally the only options people put forward so they are the options I address; secondly, there are probably only one or two people reading my posts, and the longer I make it, the less likely someone is to read it. You're probably the only person who is going to make it all the way through this post. Thanks for taking the time to read it. I'm not adverse to discussing any design.


It's funny that you mention this, as I've just written an article about it. I'd love to get your feedback once I've posted it. I address some of these points in the article. I'm surprised you don't see a problem with your own suggestion however. Why should a person who put points into combat perks be penalized because someone else wants to put points into lockpicking and speech? It's the same argument from the other side. Obviously the mechanic needs work, but I don't think scaling mobs to your perk choices is the answer. I would prefer that they add more opportunities for me to use those skills in ways that allow me to avoid combat without cheapening the combat experience for everyone else.


Nothing is more apparent to me than the limitations of language and the insufficiency of time to fully elaborate concepts. In spite of everything I've said, I do, truly appreciate your feedback and I'm very glad that you replied. You've made some excellent points and given me several things to think about. Please take this opportunity to prove me wrong. I would love to understand this concept better!

I shall state my true and honest opinion in this thread for once.

Fallout scaling is perfect. Lock an area in to your current level. However, force areas to be higher level than normal the closer you get to exploring all the areas. This should only start with the last 10-30% of areas.


Other ideas:
-scale areas stylistically (when playing in a certain way, areas meant for that play style transform to more static-area scaling while differing styles stay about the same as you)
-Randomized static scaling ( ROGUELIKE! So basically, static scaling, but areas are randomized level except the main quest areas which would scale gradually and possibly only up to level 14 or 15 since the quest line lasts about that long)
-Expanding randomized static scaling (ERSS? sure. So basically, the level of areas increases little-by-little as an invisible marker jumps from area-to-adjacent-area until it has covered the whole map. It'll be like a marker starts on the starting area of helgen then it spawns a second marker as it expands outward to nearby areas which are then a higher level. Next, those two split into two more and expand outward to even more areas. As this infectious level-scaling spreads, everytime it does it increases the level of that area that it has randomly chosen to move into. how much it's scaled is slightly randomized too but always goes up. Alternatively, the "infection" could have markers starting in random locations on the map and spreading from there.)
-Linear static scaling ( like the infection example before but the marker does not split into more markers, it simply moves randomly to nearby areas and spawns randomly to a new one if it corners itself between already-marked ones. This will end up funneling the player through a mazelike structure flowing through the whole game world)

Sorry, you're right. What I meant was that it seemed like you were playing devil's advocate, and trying your best to reach a conclusion of "Bethesda made the right decision" without having considered all the possible alternatives. There are also many people that think about the issue as they argue for one position or another, rather than thinking about it beforehand. So while all arguments are made to reach conclusions, for many the line between an argument and a thought is very blurry indeed and that's probably why that came out sounding redundant. As for fanboyism, I wasn't thinking that really, more that you might have a natural tendency to make reactionary conclusions. After your reply, I take it back, since now I understand your reasons for not including all possible solutions in various examples. Brevity is an issue and sometimes "fake it till you make it" can be a decent strategy, at least for stirring up debate.



Well, I said that because you said "If you want loot to match the challenge presented by the enemy, then you have to scale it just like you scale them." I realize it's slightly different, but I would maintain that the loot matches the difficulty without scaling (though it certainly does with scaling as well). If something is faceroll easy, it's going to be low level and won't drop much useful for your character. If it's much higher level, and the loot isn't leveled, it will be extremely difficult and offer an extremely powerful reward for your level. To me, that's maintaining gameplay balance. Scaling maintains it as well, I suppose, but not in a way that makes sense. The risk/reward is just as appropriate, there are just more extremes in a static game.



Except doing them by hand and making intelligent, lore-informed decisions about what they respawn into is to me not the same thing as a leveled list. I actually like the idea you mentioned below, and an abandoned tower previously overrun by bandits that turns into a tower overrun by rats sounds fantastic. It doesn't lend much to replayability of that area (though it could if you wanted to hand-place a quest associated with the rat infestation). So yeah, I don't think my solution for respawns is the same thing as a leveled list as you claim. In most cases, the leveled lists are formulaic upgrades of existing mobs. What I'm suggesting are hand-placed respawns that make sense for the encounter. Obviously, some might eventually run out or some might just keep spawning animals once intelligent mobs are cleared out. This isn't a problem for me: who really enjoys going back to that same fort to fight bandits again? I don't, and I really don't redo content on one character ever. You don't have to have infinite respawns for every single spawn to prevent the game from "ending," though it is necessary to have some work that way, and I would suggest they choose the most lore appropriate mobs for that purpose.



I guess this depends on how you define sameness. Is it the same experience simply because the mobs are the same level? It may seem right on the surface, but when you think about it, the scaling is actually creating more "sameness" than the alternative. With scaling, every time you go to that dungeon, things are roughly equal to you and you will be "adequately challenged." You do acknowledge that dynamic leveling doesn't help much with sameness when replaying a dungeon, but I would go further: I think it adds more repetition insofar as the player experiences it. While the math behind the mobs is the same every time a player runs through a dungeon in a static game, the experience varies wildly. If the player is much lower level, it will be very difficult. If the player is much higher level, it will be very easy. Contrast this to a level scaled dungeon where, again, the difficulty is the same every time.

I would argue similarly for loot: in a leveled dungeon, the loot is always "about right" relative to the player, and this relative experience of the loot is what counts. The fact that it is all different mathematically is irrelevant, it is the experience of it. In a static game, the loot might be nigh worthless or godly if the player manages to overcome the immense odds. Again, in a game where the player is always changing and progressing, a static world will paradoxically provide the most change and novelty in that player's experience of the world. Try to kill a giant at level 1? Death, novelty! Try to kill a giant at level 10? Death, but excitingly close and a novel experience for that mob! Level 20? Victory, novelty, and amazing loot made all the more satisfying by the fact that you're getting revenge on that giant that killed you twice before.



It's not that I'm unwilling to consider the possibility, it's just that I'm unwilling to accept it as fact like so many do (not saying you, at least anymore heh). If you look at the forums, yes, you have the emotional uneducated posts blasting the game but you have almost as many emotional uneducated posts defending it. "The devs do this for a living and know better than you" is not a very good argument, and is in fact a common logical fallacy (appeal to authority). If you follow that fallacy to its logical conclusion, you get "devs don't make mistakes" or at the very least "devs are the only ones capable of recognizing their mistakes." Experience in and of itself isn't good or bad, sometimes it leads to narrow thinking patterns and blind spots concerning flaws. I think players are often able to provide unique and valid critiques simply because they approach the game from a different perspective. I certainly don't mean to say that playing games makes you an expert on design either, as in and of itself it doesn't and often it obscures issues and creates blind spots the same way designing them can.



Well, I guess I don't really view it as being penalized at all. Obviously, I am philosophically against such a broad usage of leveled lists. However, I don't see it as being any different than the concept of leveled lists in the first place. I could ask the same question: "why should a person who progresses their character be penalized (mobs get stronger) because someone else wants to be able to complete any content at any level of the game?" I wouldn't ask that question, though, because I understand that functionally it is not really a penalty in a strict sense. It's the same case here: it's just the logical extension of the goal of leveled lists: maintaining accessibility of all content to all players.

Warriors aren't penalized at all, it's just that thieving diplomats get a handicap . (I know, I know... two sides of the same coin) Really though, the warrior isn't penalized: he would be facing the same amount of challenge the pickpocketer would which I thought was the point of leveled lists. If the game is molding your play experience to fit perfectly for your character, why would you complain or compare yourself to others? Seems to me that's just a leveled game working perfectly, and that's my problem.



For what its worth, I do apologize for the antagonistic nature of my first posts, it's just that I can become very easily perturbed by status quo apologists (I realize now you're not one) because there is always a better way. Always.

Phew. *wipes brow* (I'll get to your recent essay later haha)

this fallout 3 and new vegas especially were a [censored] for me on the highest difficulty setting :cold: i still tremble at the sight of a preatorian guard damn ballistic fist

An excellent post. Thank you. You've given me much to think about.

Wonderful review. I wholeheartedly agree.

What is this word "shotted" I keep seeing?


Isn't this you?

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1208390-i-have-no-intention-of-buying-this-game-whatsoever/page__p__18061614#entry18061614

I prefer dynamic scaling combined with static level ranges. That is, some creatures and NPC's should level with you but only up to a certain point where they stop leveling. For instance, Vampires should be hard to kill, they should have a minimum level of about 20 and range up to the 60's, completely random though and not based on your own character level. It should be possible to run into a randomly generated, high level creature at ANY level. Likewise, it should be possible to run into a randomly generated low level creatures/NPC at ANY level. This way, you're never sure what to expect and every playthrough is completely unique.

Personally, my main problem with open world games that are entirely static is that you feel like you're being funneled through the game by invisible hand and it takes away from the immersion and random aspects of combat. Once you reach a certain level you know that combat will be trivial based on where you are geographically. This is archaic gaming, legend of Zelda style. Once you play the game and beat the game once, you have little need to make a new character and playthrough it again.

"completely random though and not based on your own character level".
That would be an improvement, I would like to see.

Hello all,

I didn't read everything in the thread (it's getting quite long), but I did read a good bit and just feel the need to add my two Septims...

Many folks mentioned that a non-scaling game wouldn't hold interest for as long. I have to disagree. Just head over to the Morrowind forum section and see for yourself. Scaling was added with Oblivion, and yet Morrowind, for all its dated graphics and gameplay, is still going quite strong with a very active and vibrant community.

I think the basic divide here is between whether TES is a fantasy world simulator or a game. In the first three, it was more of a simulator. Oblivion started a strong shift away from that and into a more "gamey" game. Skyrim continues that trend. In fact, across the spectrum of video games as a whole this is a strong trend. It's great for folks who want to pick up a game, play it for all it's worth for a while and then move on to the next fun new game, which is most players. However, for the smaller number (as far as I can tell) who are wanting a more sandboxy world simulation experience, it's quite disappointing. There's certainly room for both types of games, but it seems the overwhelming majority of the money comes from the more gamey games (I really need a better word here), and so that's the shift. Like most players, I like a bit of both. Unlike most, I lean heavily toward wanting the simulator type of world. Ah well. That's why I reinstalled Morrowind.

Now, my hope is that they eventually split off a side game series that's more of a simulator like the earlier games....

I diagree with this anolysis that Morrowind was a simulator. Morrowind was easy, predictable and very bland once you figured out the level ranges of creatures in the game. It funneled you through areas based on the geographic strength of the area, this is what I call "Linear" gameplay, Legend of Zelda style. This is not simulation, this is just plain old linear.

A simulation game would have all encounters completely random and no matter the geographic location. Maybe you run into a level 60 bandit in the starting area, maybe you run into a level 4 rat on the opposite side of the map. THATS SIMULATION.

If you can memorize a game then you have linearity. There is nothing more un-simulation like than a linear experience, by very definition.

Futhermore, simulation games would require that you actually eat, drink, sleep and if you get shot with an arrow in your head that means you would die instantly. Obviously, Skyrim isn't a simulation game and neither was Morrowind, they're RPG games.

The OP is right.

The problem he has stated so eloquently is exponentially worse here because their is in no way shape or form a dynamic loot system. The entire loot/reward system is botched.

The developers want a player to find items, disenchant, and enchant themselves. After you have all of the categories disenchanted and your daedric set fully enchanted then its game over. You have nothing else to look forward to because the game will never randomly generate a higher tier for you to strive for.

Can't believe I'm saying this but at least in oblivion, with all that scaling, I had something to look forward to at the end of it. Here it's half naked bandits that swing for 40% lifebar per hit with rusty daggers that don't give you anything for beating them.

I understand your argument about scaling, but I haven't been one shotted by a vagrant in riften yet..

Actually what I find is that many things don't scale. All the wildlife, skeevers, wolves, etc. do not scale. A wolf used to take a few strokes, now they are dead instantly.

In dungeons and/or side quests, the enemies get upgrades of type. Draugers become restless draugers, so on and so on...


My experience with the game is that it is one of danger. Some combats end up being trivial, yet other foes, in the same dungeon or area are very difficult. So I have to stay on my toes.

If there was no scaling, there would be no incentive to travel in the low level lands. It would be like WOW, where you start in a starting zone and then progress through the zones, like stringing beads onto a thread. Once thye are done, you never go back. And then ending up playing the endgame in orgrimmar, waiting for raids to assemble. Thats not how I want skyrim to be.

Also, I love how Skyrim is not dumbed down visually. You dont see name tags with bars showing the creatures level. Nothing has tags, you have to use your eyes. My experience on the road is that sometimes bandits are trivial, but I have also been rolled by others. I like it this way.

You are asking for something that is fundamental to Skyrim gameplay to change. I like the fact that I can hang out in Whiterun and have quest sites recycled,that new quests handed out by the barkeep are scaled to my level. Otherwise I would be forced to go to higher level zones and that is not what skyrim is about. Its about freedom.

If that beggar in Riften ever one shots me, I will have to remember it is for the greater good.

Look OP if i wanted to play a game that placed me on rails some linear experience subjecting me to developer imposed limits on freedom i would play WoW. The level scaling is important in game like Skyrim, Fallout 3, Oblivion, New Vegas as they allow the player the choice to go east as opposed to west, north as opposed to south, left as opposed to right. They allow me to wander, explore, and uncover the rich world where the only limitations i am subject to are my own. While i am a level 2 mage with flames as my only spell a cave bear is difficult to kill with out a doubt. As i level and tailor my spells getting firebolt, adding impact to my magic, I still get the feeling of leetness as the cave bear is still a challange to kill, and requires me to refine my tactics, and lets not forget the addition of impact that now has the ability to stun the target for a sec or two, I still have to treat a cave bear with respect it is still tricky to kill i just have a few more choices as to how i kill it as i enhance my magical abilities.

I would rather play the games i mentioned because they allow me to play as i want as opposed to a WoW type experience where the game play is going to be the same everytime or directed arbitrarily from some bunch of developers sitting around in an office somewhere trying to figure out ways to control my experience, to limit my experience, to direct me with subtle and sometime not so subtle reminders that they had/have the final say on how I will play. Getting killed by a mob you can not even identify in levels because i went right at the fork as opposed to left, because i chose to explore the area as opposed to following the linear scripted path where i can feel the developer looking over my shoulder and the understanding being that even in the next play with a different build i will still have to go left because IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN that way......BORING.

The success of these games is built around player choice, i applaud Bethesda for publishing games that still make player choice king. It has to create more work, it sure complecates the design but in the end, unlike Dragon Age 2 where i played for a few weeks and got bored becaues every play is the same, with Bethesda titles i will probably be playing Skyrim next November and still uncovering mysteries, using different builds, trying different approaches to the same problems, content on the knowledge that i am the boss. I love the set up as it is because in a sense Bethesda has decided to get the hell out of my way and let me play, that is just too awesome and in too short of supply. If you OP want a linear experience i am sure WoW or some other cookie cutter game will appeal and i am sorry that Skyrim is not to your satisfaction. This argument has been raised tme and again since i arrived on these boards with Oblivion years ago, just because there is a choice does not mean that what you would choose is amongst the selections, player choice is king to Bethesda and for that they have my money and my loyalty until such a time as they cave to the ideas you present.

Asai

Considering on how many levels Skyrim is broken, that's one hell of hit and a miss.

Anyone who imagines Skyrim without some sort of level scaling doesn't know what he's talking about. Skyrim gives player complete freedom the moment you leave Helgen. The world, the quests itself support this. If you're a warrior you'll probably want to go to Whiterun, but if you're a mage you will want to go to Winterhold and if you're a thief you'll want Riften. If you engage in a drinking game with a seemingly random dude in a tavern you will end up in Markarth which is the opposite end of the world from the three.

If you can't reliably predict where the player will go at what level, it's impossible to create fixed level zones in the game. Period.

Furthermore, 90% of Skyrim is filler. That is, 90% of locations in Skyrim don't need to be visited to finish the game. Level scaling does make the filler worth exploring(loot-wise) no matter what your level is. Without scaling, half of the locations in the game would become pointless the moment you reach level 30. That's [censored].

All the counterexamples people come up with are nonsense. Morrowind did have level scaling. All random encounters are level scaled, and most "fixed"(quest-related) encounters are not. This is the best way to do level scaling, of course, and the path Bethesda should've taken with Skyrim. But alas, they are not very good at that videogame thing.

You are aware that unique items in Fallout 3 & New Vegas did not follow this trend yes? Their stats were static. The only things that increased their damage was your actual proficiency with said weapon type & perks. That is not the case in Skyrim or Oblivion. If I rush to grab Nightgale Armor at level 10, it will be completely gimped compared to if I had waited to acquire it at level 78+. How does this promote exploration or participation in factions? It doesn't. Instead it actually discourages & ruins gameplay. Poor design

also how it dumbed down aspects of the game,
Stopped reading.
Also WoW has no scaling, if skyrim would have none.. They would have to create leveled zones, making the world less open and extremely guided like "go there" and go here! Cause you reached the certain level to actually survive in that place

I haven't noticed the level scaling for enemies that you're referring to. I've been running around [censored] the hell out of all the weak little monsters that are locked at the same level wherever I go.

I have noticed however that there is pretty bad level scaling for loot, which completely takes the fun out of finding loot.

Just to get that right: Scaling was never removed completely in any greater mod.

The main difference between TES and all those other RPGs is exactly that: A huge sandbox that tries to give you as much freedom as you want to. Which brings us directly to the point why scaling makes sense. It gives the player freedom. You want to go to that castle on the hill there? Sure, go ahead and find out what's in there! In Oblivion it was exaggerated to a point where it got ridiculous (yeah, I remember the first bandit in full daedric armor).
I think they did a good job in Skyrim. No, you can't take on vampires on lvl 1. You can't take on a dragon either. Same goes for normal trolls, frost trolls, ice wraiths, mammoths, giants, saber cats, most higher mages, dwemer consturctions, falmer, ....that is all I can think off in the 10 seconds I needed to write this list. It is just not true that you can do this. The scaling gives level ranges. Meaning that for a vampire (just an example, don't know if these are the actual values) you should at least be level 10, after lvl 30 they won't level with you anymore. This is the case for every creature in the game. Messing around with a frost troll at level 5 is probably not a good idea. On level 15 though you have a good chance of beating him. This doesn't really change til level 20, from there on it gets easier etc.
I got your point that you want some places you know you shouldn't visit right now and that give some incentive to level on and grow stronger so you can actually take it on. To me this sounds like you want some handcrafted dungeon/castle/whatever with enemies given a specific level so you will never get there on an early stage of the game. I think, a mix of the scaling + some of these would be the best solution, still I am pretty happy with what they did - not copying Oblivion but taking the same approach and making it better.

Now item scaling is something completely different. That the supply of merchants changes over time is rather silly. That quest rewards depend on your level is utterly stupid since this really constrains you in your game.

Anecdotal evidence is always a straw crutch. So what if some insane 'red bulled' up chap has practiced for days of their life at completing speed runs. It means bugger all to the normal end user like me, and probably you. If someone sets out to play the game properly then it works properly. Bethesda games since Oblivion don't, because scaling svcks and its still svck in Skyrim (albeit to a lesser extent).

As an aside, someone has done the same type of speed run with Dark Souls, so what? It's still the hardest game released in a generation. And to support the poster you're responding to, it also allows you to go more or less anywhere from the start and get utterly battered by high end opposition.

It's brilliant!

I love this line because its soo true. People wonder why some of us get so worked up over a game but its like seeing the Mona Lisa without color. A beautiful work of art that is this close >< to being perfect but instead of adding color (Fixing bugs/Addressing bad gameplay mechanics/skill trees) the artist gets up & moves onto another project.

Quite sad really

All games get bland and old. Linear games I play once. Twice if it's really good. I've played Oblivion for hundreds of hours over the years with vanilla scaling and I still enjoy the game. I love Half-life 2. I think it's one of the greatest games of all time. I've played it exactly once.

I know leveled quest items is a sore point for many people but please remember you only have so many options:

1. Bethesda gives the item a static level but it's too low. Players complain.
2. Bethesda gives the item a static level but it's too high. Players love it for a few levels. Then they complain that it's OP and makes the game too easy.
3. Bethesda scales the item to the player's level at the time he or she acquires it. Present case. People complain.
4. Bethesda scales the item level along with the player's level and it keeps getting better. Players love it for a few levels before they realize that they have nothing left to look forward to since they already have the best item in the game. People complain.

Pick your poison.

I do wish merchant inventories were more or less static with only small variations to simulate the change of supply and demand. I'm sure the developers use leveled lists to prevent players from buying OP items too early in the game, but they could have solved this in other ways.