Why do you like or dislike level scaling?

Hate it because it makes the player feel impotent. Facing harder enemies should imply that somewhere there are weaker ones. If all enemies are relatively evenly matched to the player, it makes this impossible. The feeling I have as a player then is futility, frustration, and ultimately boredom.

bah

One of the greatest moments in my entire life (no lie) was finding one of the best swords ever in one of the first caves I went into in Morrowind.

I moved this to CD, as it really is a general purpose RPG mechanic question.

As to your question, I think it needs to be a mix. Areas need to have a certain level of enemies, this way your character only goes where it should go until it's ready to.

Then certain places have a enemy scaled to your level when you first get there, then other places need enemies scaled to your character level. How this is mixed up in the game is up for debate. The idea of being able to poke your head in a dungeon at level one to come back at level 20 is not good, for a variety of reasons. But, at the same time, always having enemies that are just as strong as me gets old. I made my character powerful, let me enjoy it, at least some times.

I enjoy level scaling because it created a far more dynamic and adaptive world, in terms of what enemies you face.

Non-level scaled RPG have arbitrary monster walls, and level locks, simply to force players to have to grind in order to advance in the game, instead of just letting player s play the game's content.

Level scaling also greatly improves re-playability, by offering different level of enemies based on when you chose to visit a local.

Now, I dont think level scaling as it is now is perfect, but is a FAR better then games without, even at this basic stage.

What degree of level scaling?

I don't like Oblivion style level scaling where the whole world levels with you. It makes content stale and predictable, and if poorly implemented can make leveling a burden, when it should make the player feel stronger.

I do like Skyrim style level scaling where regions have a specific range of levels and can still be too easy or too difficult. It maintains most of the non-scaled sense of progression while actually enhancing replay value, because doing things in a different order can present new challenges.

Hate it.

I want to have to actually fear going into a ruin or whatever and I should be rewarded for doing so.

Level and loot scaling killed dungeon diving.

Well, it depends.

Take Fallout 3 for example.

If I am level 1 and I take on very basic "level 1 type" enemies like molerats and cockroaches, that makes sense. But if I am level 30 and I take on the same enemies, I should be able to take them out with a single punch considering how powerful I have begun in comparison. In other words, these creatures should not scale.

This is where I make an exception.

I think that in a video game, only certain enemies should scale with you. If I go and take on a Deathclaw (supposedly the strongest enemy in the game) at level 20, and it's a level 30 enemy, I might have a hard time. But if I am level 40 and the Deathclaw remains a level 30 enemy, it may be a bit too easy. I think that the "main enemies" or the enemies that the game idealizes as boss battles and things of the like, should scale with you so that the battle will have the same complexity and difficulty as it would at any other level. So that these boss battles don't become too easy.

However, this is where I make yet another exception.

Scaling only certain enemies can also make their levels too low. If I take on a boss enemy in a game at a low level, and they scale with me -- at a low level -- then the entire battle is only a low level battle. So I think that boss enemies should be the ONLY enemies that scale with you, but only after a certain point. So, if I am level 10, it should be so that the boss enemy only starts to scale with you after you reach a certain level.

I made this overly complicated didn't I?

I say it should have mixed, mostly no level scaling though. The only level scaling that I like is if there is a level 20 deathclaw and you are level 5, then you decide to level up to 25, the deathclaw should perhaps go up to level 21 or 22 to in a way match your leveling. But, generally, level scaling butchers gameplay and removes a lot of the fun from a game. Most of the time in a game like Skyrim, you don't run away from your enemy. Also, when you can go wherever you want at level 1, it takes away from later exploration. Looking at a game like Dark Souls, where Anor Londo was amazing when you first went to it. I didn't get that feel late in a game like Skyrim, I got that at the beginning and then it didn't really happen again.

I also don't like grinding but I love the idea of focusing on goals to make oneself more powerful. In a game like Witcher, you would simply try to get better armor and weaponry to fight some harder enemies. I would just like to do that.

The one thing I hate the most about RPGs is level scaled loot. I just can't stand it, there was no exploration for me in a game like Skyrim (exploration as in exploring to find powerful weaponry). I also didn't look at things the same if they weren't special.

I actually found my sword in the sewers of Vivic, once I found it there I never needed an enchanted weapon ever again....plus it kills anything it swings at.

As for the question at hand...I like my RPG's to mix it up a bit, I don't like enemies leveling up with you, they should at least be either 10 levels above you or below you of your current level...and maybe throw in some even higher monsters in a random cave somewhere for good measure.

I like region-based difficulty. It's pretty old school, but certain places and locations should be more difficult to explore than others. I dislike level scaling, because it makes progressing feel strange, but with region specific difficulty you'd at least feel some kind of achievement when you finally become able to explore a region that once used to be too dangerous for you.

Yes and no. That ultimate dragon of supreme badassness should obliterate you at level 1-30, hey it's your fault your went past those three signs [ya know the 1. DOOM AWAITS THEE! 2. STOP HITHER IF YE NOT WISH TO WITHER and then 3. WTF U R SURIOUSLY GONNA GET PWNED!!!] but come back as a lvl 45 Paladin knight of holiness and that dragons [censored] is yours! (it's a good alchemy ingredient btw)

Similarly common enemies should Atleast match you without making feel like Larry Loser, while not being Garry the God all of a sudden. You should see yourself impproving as 1. You get better at the game and 2. You level up and get badass.

Open-World RPGs need some kind of threat/item scaling, I really don't see how anyone could come to any other conclusion if you look at the old school RPGs where 2/3 of the game become entirely pointless.

Skyrim does an admirable, but far from perfect job. Beasts scale reasonable well in Skyrim, but NPCs have way too sharp an increase, and their artificially powerful (More HP than is reasonable, no Armor, General damage boosts) instead of naturally more powerful. This problem is even worse when you throw in higher difficulties.

My golden rules of Enemy Scaling are as follows. Skyrim does a wonderful job here.

1. With exceedingly rare exceptions, instances of every enemy should exist in the world regardless of what Level you are. Areas with greater "Threat" start at higher levels and don't downscale.

2. With Exceedingly rare exceptions, instances of low-level enemies should still appear in proper context. Wolves in the woods at level 99, that sort of thing.

3. Scaling should always be done with new varieties of (Contextually relevant) enemies, instead of Oblivion-Style "Make the Minotaur stronger".

4. Numbers before Scaling! Try larger groups of weaker enemies before one stronger enemy. It generally feels more natural, especially on revisits.

5. Weighted Random variety. Especially true with NPC equipment, make Common items common, and rare items rare.

Golden rules of Item Scaling: Skyrim messes most of these up, in my opinion. Morrowind and Fallout 3 do a pretty good job. Fallout 3 suffers from a lack of variety though.

1. With exceedingly rare exceptions, examples of any item should be available regardless of level.

2. Weighted Random distribution: With shops and loot, common items should be common, and rare items (Glass, Ebony, Daedric) should be much, much rarer, regardless of level.

3. Unique items need to be unique. Stop with the "Leveled List" for a single item, tie the reward difficulty more in line with intended challenge difficulty. This rule can be waived for enchantments in some circumstances. (But not base items)

4. Variety in the Middle: If you subscribe to "Weighted Random" idealism (See: Morrowind) your players will probably be stuck in "Middle Tier" gear for a long time. So diversify.

5. Variety in the End: This is where players are actually going to spend most of their game time, at endgame level, so you better make sure they don't see "Everything" within an hour of reaching it.

I'm indifferent

I agree with Criminal_Scum. I'd like to see an RPG that uses Skyrim's NPC scaling and also Morrowind's item scaling.

Oh Morrowind how I miss that game...The good old days where beating a real hard area meant something...I loved breaking into the vaults it was supper hard witch made it so much fun and the loot was always worth the effort.

Aside from a few really annoying enemies at higher levels (albino radscorpions) Fallout 3's level scaling was a real improvement over Oblivion's system. You didn't get raiders in power armor at level 30.

Don't like it. I'm always staying as powerful in comparasion to enemies, never feelind like i'm getting stronger. Never any enemy that laughed it's ass off and squashed me like a bug that i could take revenge on later And if i did manage to kill him, get all his awesomely powerful stuff for myself.