I’ve heard a lot of hate for Oblivions level scaling system, but I don’t think I’ve seen a poll about what people actually think. Do you hate the concept entirely? Do you think the idea is good, but oblivions implementation was flawed? Or even, did you like the way Oblivion handled it?

For all of you who don’t know what level scaling is, it’s a system where the enemies (and sometimes loot) in a game scale to your characters level. In Oblivion no enemy would ever be more than a couple of levels higher than you or a couple below you. This means that throughout the game you can go anywhere at any time and almost everything will be equally challenging.
In Fallout 3 there was still level scaling, but it was used less than in Oblivion. Enemies had set minimum and maximum levels and would scale to your character within those restraints, this meant if you went into a high level area at a low level the enemies would be slightly more forgiving (but still strong), but would remain a challenge to a slightly higher level.

Personally I do not like level scaling. I think it harms the central concept of RPG's, progression. RPG's, for me at least, are about seeing an insurmountable challenge far ahead of you, and a difficult challenge right infront of you, you complete the difficult challenge, and you get better, once you reach that insurmountable challenge it looks small to you, this gives you a great feeling of progression and character development. By making all challenges equally surmountable it retracts from that feeling of progression.

Thanks, Pygmy =)

Seeing as my first mini-mod for FO3 was to remove level scaling from all lists, I guess my vote is "no, I don't want it". Though this will also be my first mini-mod for TESV before I even start playing the game for the first time, so I'm not too concerned.

None, maybe a little for less significant enemies like goblins.

I gave this example a while ago. When your character serves time in prison, some of the skills decrease while some increase. This is because you don't get the chance to train those skills. Well, I just can't think the reason why this isn't the leveling system for the whole game. Why always go UP?! Creatures, races and NPCs will have different limits and only some might go all the way like you. Always varying. Always a weak spot. Specialization matters inside the game not just start. And all this completely not according to you.

PS. I want to stumble upon even already injured creatures. I can't get enough variety.

Maybe only skills that are under 50 should go down?

i completely agree with OP

i think level scaling takes away the core of the RPG. people were less fearful of what lay ahead of them. with level scaling nothing stopped the player from just charging in and slaughtering everything in there path without a thought on strategy or anything else.

maybe minor level scaling wouldnt be such a bad idea though, some people have trouble strating off a new character on certain RPG's

Fallout 3 kind of level scaling, but no particular loot level scaling.

I would be happy with a game that had almost no level scaling at all. Gothic II had no level scaling at all that I can think of, and one thing that I recall from that game was how "cool" it was that there were areas I couldn't venture into at low levels. If you went to certain areas when you were too weak you would get trounced easily. One might think that it made the game frustrating, but it actually made you look forward to a point when you could explore that area, and when you did it was an achievement.

I've been pretty harsh with my criticism of Oblivion's level scaling, as I think it was by far the biggest flaw in the game. Everything seemed bland at low levels when a bandit ringleader wore fur armor. When you were at a high level, having daedric armor wasn't significant when you could find a full suit of it in just about any marauder hide out. Oblivion's level scaling really took away from the sense of achievement in having good equipment.

I am confident that Bethesda will have a better level scaling system if they made TES:V.

Levelled lists and scaled adversaries (two different things, but they keep getting lumped together) prevent the game from becoming too easy after the character starts to become powerful. They are both useful tools "in moderation", but were used pretty much "across the board" in OB, which made it pointless to level your own character.

Between regionalized levelled lists, limited scaling of a few specific adversaries and items, occasional "static" placements, and a "nested" approach of lists within lists, it's possible to get a much more diverse, yet "believable" mix of opponents, creatures, and loot. "Safer" areas would be "safe", and "Dangerous" areas would be difficult to survive with a low-level character. That should help maintain a sense of challenge throughout the game, allowing the character to become noticably more powerful, since you could easily guage your progress against previously unbeatable or difficult creatures or areas. Having them vanish from the game world, or be replaced by "scaled" stronger versions, just because the character got stronger, makes no sense. Having a gradually increasing possibility to encounter stronger variants, but without removing the basic version from the list, allows a more subtle yet real boost in game difficulty. Some areas around the major towns should NEVER have high-level adversaries (outside of quest-related incidents), because they're "pacified" or well-patrolled. Other areas, in the more inhospitable wastelands, should have the potential to spawn high-level critters at ANY level, making those areas unsafe for poorly-prepared travellers.

In the supposedly "improved" FO3, I found it ridiculous how it was relatively easy to visit even fairly dangerous areas at low level, but if I went there with a high-level character, they were "difficult". At high levels, the creatures again changed into stronger versions of the same basic creature type, entirely replacing the "standard" version with the new one. If Bethesda learned from OB, they didn't learn it soon enough to fix FO3.

Yes agreed, nearly no level scaling at all.

Any minimal level scaling is to relegated to some X circumference centered on the starting point. This 'starter area' should not exceed 25% of the contiguous outdoor map.

Outside of this area, all creatures should range 10-20 levels above max level.

It would be nice if somehow a system could be implemented to take into account your gear and further increase the levels of the mobs based on that as well. This would help with the re-playability factor of the game immensely.

Nice poll question!

I'd definitely go with the last option -- Although it takes the most time from a development stand-point, having specifically set levels works best because then the game feels like it has more soul and isn't just being merely generically altered to suit your needs. My first experiences playing Morrowind (as a newbie to TES) was superb; I loved that there was some dude on a bridge near Caldera who could WTFPWN me because I was a nab and needed to progress and learn the game. It feels good when you know there is stuff out there that is dangerous; it's more atmospheric. Of course this is off-set once you level high enough and all foes are laughably easy, but that can be easily fixed.

Alternatively, in Oblivion I could easily over-power any random crap without much fuss, and the game felt completely soulless for that. It feels lazy to have stuff and NPCs level along with you. It's like the most artificial way of trying to keep a game interesting, yet at the same time sapping any form of uniqueness and life the game could have.

No scaling.

That's what Gothic 1 is like. It was a great feeling later in the game. At first, you are running away from nearly everything because you are so weak. But then you get stronger and by the end of the game you are swatting down the monsters you had fled from earlier as if they were gnats.

It made me feel like my character was getting stronger in the world, and that learning skills and getting better equipment was actually helping my character.

The problem for bethesda is that they need non-combat heavy quests that somehow level up your skills (Gothic 1 uses an experience-based system for leveling up, and thus gave Xp for completing quests).

I am fine with the way Fallout 3 handles level scaling. It does it job without getting ridiculous (not counting Reavers and Albino RadScropions :swear:). High level raiders don't have Advanced Power Armors and Fatmans Except that one guy...

Another usable system could be similar ot Dragon Age, each area has minimum and maximum level, between those the enemies scale to player. With good implementation you would have the best of level-scaling and non-level scaling.

http://nooooooooooooooo.com/

It depends entirely on the kind of level scaling.
Oblivions kind: No.
Morrowinds kind: Much rather.

Morrowind didn't give normal bandits heavy armour, but instead it simply made dangerous enemies spawn more, and weak enemies less often, which is a better approach.

Generally, I'm all for making it depending on the area. Secured roads and towns should be safe for any character. Roads further off might be bandit-infested, forests can contain dangerous animals, and far away from civilisation things of course become very risky. Old ruins far out in the woods would be something low-level characters would better stay away from.

Important is that the game is not too combat-focussed. A thief-kind of character should have just as much fun as a fighter-type, without having to fight much, in my opinion. Add many quests that require thinking instead of fighting, quests that require non-combat magic to solve, quests that require decisions and talking to people. Make these quests just as common as combat quests; or rather, make many quests have many ways to solve them. A political intrigue could be solved by stealing important documents, by talking to the right people, by letting things simply come to a showdown and killing the bad guys, or by using magic to manipulate others. A dungeon raid could be done by sneaking through it without combat, by rushing in and killing everyone, or by using magic to solve a riddle that will result in the exorcism of the daedra in the dungeon without having to directly fight them.

As long as avoiding combat is a serious possibility, one can do without weakening enemies for thief-characters or increasing their power against fighters, which means level scaling wouldn't have to be done.

One could say that guards would have to be level-scaled, but here I'd also disagree. Don't scale them relative to the level, but relative to the bounty. A high level character might easily kill the guard that found him breaking into a house at night, but the next day the guards in the area will be more careful and better equipped. And if the player goes on a rampage, he'll eventually find himself facing well equipped, tactically acting, magic-supported armies of guards - simply because the logic of the world works that way. If I'd break into a house in real life, and had a gun, and a police officer saw me, I might be able to injure him and get away. But if I went to the city shooting at everything I see, I'd eventually be taken out by specialized police units.

So: Give guards ranks, make high-rank guards appear when the palyer is being dangerous. That could even be used for political quests: If the player made himself a powerful enemy, he might face more dangerous guards in this enemies' town, that would arrest him as soon as he only picked up an apple. In the town the player saved earlier however, the guards would welcome him and might let him get away with theft because they are so thankful. And in the town the player openly attacked, there'd be archers on the walls shooting him before he even comes close.

I agree one hundred percent.

I see no real benefit to scaling. While it can be argued that it prevents the game from becoming too easy (and this complaint about Morrowind is the likely culprit as to why Oblivion has it), scaling in itself is not the only solution to that any more than a lack of scaling guarantees it. If you want to avoid that, the game simply needs better balancing. Make the character's increases less dramatic, the dangerous enemies more dangerous. I found little danger in Morrowind by level 15, and my hitpoints just kept getting higher. By roughly 50 in a weapon skill it was easy to defeat most anything, and there was still tons of improvement to go. A couple things could change this, stuff that's been suggested before. Such as, make hitpoint increases tied to stats instead of level, which would make them increase more slowly, have an upper limit, and as an added bonus remove the need to powerlevel endurance-raising skills at the beginning to have more health later on. Make combat deadlier instead of being the basic equation of hitpoints + defense - enemy attack; being stabbed in the liver is going to hurt regardless of whether your attacker is "really good" with a sword. You'd still become more durable and power, weaker enemies would become relative fodder, but there would still be a threat if you get swarmed and extremely dangerous enemies aren't going to become obsolete with a few days of in-game training. That's only two things, but just those two alone would almost remove the issue of rapidly becoming too powerful.

I am filled with warmth and happiness at the fact that nobody has voted for the first option yet, and that everyone seems to have strong feelings on this subject.

Hopefully Beth will notice our pleas!

There is no such thing as "level scaling."

When people refer to "level scaling" they are referring to one or more separate game mechanics:

Loot Leveling - controls when loot appears
Enemy Leveling - controls when enemies appear
Loot Scaling - controls the strength of loot once it has appeared
Enemy Scaling - controls the strength of enemies once they have appeared

Examples: when players say that they don't like bandits in Daedric armor, for instance, they are talking about loot leveling. When they complain about putting off a Daedric quest to get the best version of a weapon they are talking about loot scaling. When they complain about the landscape suddenly populated by Minotaurs that weren't there a half hour ago they are talking about enemy leveling. When they say they don't like level 50 rats they are talking about enemy scaling.

I like it. I wouldn't like if it was at a rapid rate or so. Maybe once every 3-4 weeks skills not used would drop a level or two. Would make classes matter and would also discourage waiting all the time.

Level scaling refers to any or all of these. As the player advances in level, yada yada yada.

I thought only a handful of enemies actually level with you in Oblivion and the rest have set levels....(someone had it in their signature with the enemies that leveled). Either way once you figured out how to manipulate weakness spells and how to level properly you're pretty much set and won't have any problems.

Personally I think it adds a degree of difficulty if the enemies get stronger as you do but I would much prefer regional difficulty-some areas have super strong enemies while other areas have weaker enemies.

I don't like the loot scaling as I think it's silly.

No level scaling period. If you MUST put it in, make it "half scaling", that is an enemy gains no more than half a level per level you gain.

I think that the system used in Oblivion was terrible. It made levelling your character useless, if not counterproductive, and levelled loot was horrendous. Bandits were sporting full glass and daedric armor suits at high levels, which just seems wrong. Maybe a couple pieces, and only to the leader and upper members of the group, but not EVERY bandit.

However, scaling is not a terrible thing. It keeps the game from turning into a WoW-type "here are the tough guys, here are the easy guys" type RPG, and also provides the player with a challenge later on in the game. But plain vanilla levelling just doesn't work, as it makes me feel like my character never got any stronger as I trained his skills.

I think I have a good fix to this: Have some enemies begin the game with the same level as the character (like goblins), some start at level 3 or 4 (bandits), some at level 6 or 7 (bandit leaders, goblin leaders), and so on. As the PC levels, the enemies level as well, but at a reduced rate. This way, the player gradually gains ground on enemies while levelling, eventually becoming stronger than some of the enemies in the game. Thus, there is a noticeable difference when a player levels. Having some static spawns would be good too, possibly as bosses that the player can guage his (or her) skill on. Have some spawns more common in certain areas (low level spawns where the player begins), based on the difficulty that the area is supposed to provide.

It would also be great if there were some (small) areas which are only accessible if, say, you have a destruction skill of 90, or a sneak skill of 90, etc., where the best gear in the game is kept (magic gear in the destruction area that increases your spell damage, and so on), which is guarded by some of the highest levelled (start levels of, say, 20) so that high level characters still have something to do later in the game that is challenging.

Finally, make the best weapons and armor (and hopefully spells that can only be obtained through tomes or books) difficult to get and really the BEST out there. Make the loot appear in level appropriate places and on level appropriate enemies (low level bandits should not have full ebony armor and glass sword). That way, getting new armor is something more of an accomplishment.

Hey.. that was my idea!