Silkworms also don't exist in the wild.

@BattleMage: Then perhaps it'd be better to go back to a system where regions are leveled.

As for the lion bit, I highly recommend the The Ghost and the Darkness, if you haven't already seen it.

Dont forget, sharks only attack because they think youre a seal, usually they let you go after they realize you taste like crap. Dolphins on the other hand kill just because, well F*** you.

I could live with that. So there would be maybe one Minotaur Lord in an entire area early on (you could even have local legends spring up about him--"Don't go into that cave!"), but they become more common as you become more powerful... yet never completely replace the other fauna in the area.

Hmm. Yes, I think you might be on to something there.

Not true, pubic lice. They have evolved specifically to cling to the diameter of human hairs. If we went extinct, they would probably follow.

What? Dogs aren't stronger than humans. Most humans can pick up a great majority of dog species but I've never seen a dog that was able to lift a human. The only thing stronger on a dog is its neck and jaws, which isn't that huge of an advantage when you realize a human can gouge a dogs eyes out or stomp on its throat fairly easily

I actually said this in more detail on the first page but everyone ignored it to discuss "hurr durr, animals never attack humans (especially if they're low/high level humans)". The only issue with it is having dependable methods of escape if it happens on you while you are unawares (or efficient auto-save systems)

A little kid defeated a rottweiler/pitt bull mix by using a rear naked choke he learned while taking Brazilian jiujitsu.

http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/37069754.html

lol HUMAN POWER!!!!

Now, a baboon, on the other hand...

What about if all creatures and monsters were on the map at all times and in the same ratios. However, you can easily kill things like a rat or mudcrab at level 1 (no challenge), have trouble with wolves, and have no chance of taking on a troll or higher. Then as you level up, you still regularly stomp through dumb low level creatures (perhaps wolves will flee as I like that idea and they're somewhat intelligent) and you have a much easier time with the higher level monsters. When you're a low level you can simply flee from monsters and after a certain distance, they quit chasing you. Fighters with more fatigue can sprint longer, rogues can sneak past, and mages will have command creature and demoralize spells (and hopefully levitate). Of course, unlike Oblivion, I also expect most creatures to not be chilling on the sides of roads. As for dungeons, those are already confirmed to have level ranges, so low level characters are already basically prohibited from exploring some early on unless they're very good in sneak (or use invisibility spells), which ironically I guess puts fighter characters at a disadvantage early on.

Didn't they say something about giants for example not attacking you unless provoked? And dragons flying over your head would also ignore you unless you start shooting fire balls or something. ?

Yea, that's completely different. Considering they live a far less sedentary lifestyle and have rationality that is too poorly developed to contemplate the ethics of eye gouging or biting they could beat a human in hand-to-hand quite easily

I had an Anthropology professor who had a baboon he taught to box. He said that if you got too close to it's cage, it'd punch you three times through a chain-link fence before you even knew what hit you.

I read your post as talking about enemy leveling, not enemy rarity. I just reread and see that you did use the word "rarity," but it still seems like you were talking about the same enemies being of varying difficulties. At least, that's my impression. Perhaps I read it wrong.

Rarity was a single cog in the leveling system I proposed. I think it is important for you to still run into rats at high level or trolls at low level but the chances of them spawning should vary depending on your level. When I was talking about the leveling part I was adding that while their encounter chances vary their strength should as well to a point, this extends the period during which the enemy is still a challenge while making it easier on low level characters and harder for high level characters. If you have enemies that level within a certain range then you can have them be more powerful than you at low level but not impossible and easy at higher levels but not pushovers.

Suppose you take a goblin, a relatively low level monster. If you have them at a static level (lets say 10) you can imagine them taking 10 hits to kill for a level 1 character but 1 hit to kill for a level 30 character. If you give them a sliding level within a limited range as per my argument (say 5-15) you can imagine them taking 7 hits to kill at when you are level 1, 2-3 hits to kill at level 30, and about 5 hits to kill at level 5-15. This makes it so they are not overpowering when you encounter them at low levels, not something to shrug off when you get marginally more powerful (they'd still end up turning into a 1 hit kill down the road), and makes them a steady challenge for a longer period of time. It increases accessibility of the game, decreases the strength of power leveling, but keeps the feeling of progress alive. Inputting the rarity mechanic into this example would mean that the goblin was common for a longer period but once you get x2 and above their max level they would begin becoming far less frequent while stronger monsters would become more frequent at their lowest levels.

EDIT: You can also add "encounter bonuses". Say there are 3 goblins and a goblin chieftain, you can make it so that the chieftain is always +2 levels above the goblins or other "less powerful creatures" around it up to its cap. So supposing the chieftain has a level range of 10-20, if you are level 10 the goblins would all be at their level 10 difficulty and the chieftain would be at the level 12 difficulty. If you are level 15 it'd be 15,17. And at 20 it'd be 15,20.

My personal opinion is that we should have zones of hard monsters and zones of easy monsters. That way if you stumble into a dungeon with mammoths and spiders you will most likely die until you are a higher level.

I voted other, likely for reasons already stated.

There should be numerous creatures that punk you if you go near them or their turf both early and mid game. The player just steers clear. The devs should make these areas obvious by having the most used entry points having visual clues of danger and characters in pubs telling tales of places of great danger in the vacinity of each town.

I agree, it's not like a mammoth can tell just by looking at you if your good at fighting with a sword or not, so why would it leave you alone if you're at a low level but attack you when your stronger? And if enemies could tell, I'd argue that for some types, at least, it might make more sense for them to attack you at low levels and leave you alone at higher ones, because at low levels, you're easy prey, whereas at a higher level, you might be able to kill them. In the end, when I think realism, what comes to mind is NOT being able to walk safely in a dungeon full of hostile undead because I'm not high enough level for them to decide they should attack me.

And also, one of the points of criticisms of Oblivion's level scaling is in fact that it allows you to safely go ALMOST everywhere in the world at level 1 because all enemies are scaled down to a point where you can handle them. Having high level enemies just ignore low level characters would not adress that, it would only be a different way to ensure that no place is too dangerous for the player no matter what level.

Not sure if this was brought up....but this has albeit already been confirmed for Skyrim. In an interview or confirmed features somewhere it was mentioned that certain animals, enemies, creatures, etc will NOT attack you simply upon site, but only if you attack first or invade their 'private space'. This goes as far to include GIANTS, which from the screenshots certainly look like hostile creatures.

Im assuming this will apply to many animals/creatures in Skyrim, in most encounters anyway. Simply put, the grizzly might not attack as soon as it sees you, but get to close to its cubs on the other hand and your in for a mauling.

If that clears up any confusion...

Just keeping the nasty ones off the roads could be a big help. Further the effect by adding groves and canyons where you simply don't go at a low level.

Quest lines and rumors are the best way to introduce dungeons anyways. It'll give a good reason to talk to NPCs, and listen to their dialogue.

In an ideal world I would prefer that all creatures inhabit the world and if you get too close to a dangerous one, too bad, so sad, you're dead.

However, given the choice between the other options, I prefer by far the one that is winning in the voting. Only around 14% of voters like the current system. I say it's time to do away with it, one way or another.

@BattleMage - Maybe you just need to change the name of the thread to "Alternative" instead of "Realism" because as has been discussed to death, realism has no part in your proposal.

That is bs. Creatures do not go out of their way trying to kill flies, rodents or other harmless creatures, but if a dangerous creature approaches their territory, they will either fight or flee. In THIS respect, it is realistic.


Now, nothing in this world has any meaning apart from comparison to something else. The trick is this: Which is CLOSER to reality?

Enemies who generally leave alone humans who appear to be no threat (assuming the enemy does not EAT humans), or enemies that just somehow APPEAR on a continent out of nowhere?


One is at least PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE. One violates every known law of physics.

I'm in. :celebration:

All levels of enemies exist on the continent at all times and will attack you at any level (if they would attack anyways). Save often.