Ok so the theme we always see repeating in the Ideas and suggestions for TES V is leveling, so this poll is supposed to show everybody including myself and possibly even Bethesda where exactly we gamers stand on this issue.

The question is pretty much self-explanatory... so vote and feel free to leave a comment

PS MUST READ: If you want to vote other and only change a tiny little thing about one of the first 3 answers please dont, the purpouse of this is to see what kind of system the gamers want, not for you guys to express every single detail you want in the leveling system, so just try to pick one of the first three that is closest to what you want as a gamer!

Cheers :foodndrink:

voted regional. completely static (which MW was not, btw - different enemies or more enemies spawned depending on level) makes you too powerful too quick, completely dynamic gives you no sense of progress. keeping some areas static while leveling other areas to make them more difficult for higher level characters sounds perfect.

[edit] this refers primarily to enemy level, not equipment level. at no point should everyone be running around in daedric

Regional seemed like to me better than MW and Oblivion's was god awful in my opinion so... Regional it is.

Personally, I want to see a touch of each of them, although mostly regional, depending on circumstances. They all have their uses and places; many of the problems in the past games arose when they were over-used.

Statement but no explaination... elaborate please

Morrowind style ftw! And it is sort of regional, the deeper in quests you get the higher leveled the mobs start to become. (in areas that those quests are leading you)

Static spawn points give you no decent challenge at higher levels, while scaled and levelled spawns tend to make the whole point of levelling moot. Regional placement as an overall design philosophy, with some static, some levelled, and a few specific levelled and scaled antagonists or friendly guildmates would keep the game "interesting" at all levels. The levelled opponents or friends could represent "the competition", who learn and improve like the PC as the game goes, and would be "special cases".

The use of multiple mechanisms, used where they work best, seems like it would be far more effective than any one of them applied across the board.

Other. There are significant benefits to doing some of each, as well as good reasons none are adequate.

For example, it would be good if spawns could be affected by plot events, which none of the options provides.

None of the options cover "making enemies exist in variety", so we wind up with cookie cutter rats, clone mudcrabs, and xeroxed nix hounds.

That said, there should be static spawns, dynamic leveled spawns, and regions where spawns scale differently than normal. Example: near cities should be 100% unleveled, but the spawns themselves could be dynamic (choose one creature from LL0SafeCitySolitude). Roads should likewise be generally safe: no Ogres on the road to kill NPCs unless story demands it. Once you get off the roads, to paths and trails, you should see stronger creatures and begin to see some scaling available. Distant places that have along walk time from civilization should be relatively static and high level. However, some enemies need to continue to gain some HP (nothing like the 30 HP a Goblin Warlord does) AND increase their stats a bit. They need NOT level 1-1 with the player (FO3 has this mechanic), they simply need to prevent the character from "achieving overwhelming mastery plus ten levels". Because remedying that has led us to werewolves that are stronger than a god and Super Mutant Overlords.

In short:
1. multiple variations of each creature (not all rats are level 1 weaklings. Some are slower and hit harder, some are level 2, 3, and even 5. Because there's always a dominant animal of a species...)
2. More lists of enemies. ("safe" lists, "dangerous" lists, rat lists, etc)
3. Not every list is scaled. Some spawn the same at all levels.
4. plateau scaling, so enemies are a challenge longer, but not forever. (Want to avoid an enemy being really hard -> really easy in 3 levels. extend it out so it takes 6 to 10 levels to go from barely able to kill it to kill three at once without healing)
5. make sure content isn't cakewalk material at high levels.
6. make sure enemies don't gain excessive HP (goblin warlords, SMOs, Albino scorpions...)

I disagree, I think you just proved with what you wrote in your post that regional is the way to go - generally - in some cases ofcourse static and dynamic systems are needed without a doubt, but we are looking at the general perspective at this time

Mostly MW-style which as has been stated was a mixture of static and regional

All the problems that you listed can be solved with a well tuned regional system, you did exactly what wasnt needed, your opinion designates a regional leveling system but your brain wanted to write a long detailed list of tweaks on the regional system

the exact thing i predicted people who will choose other will do

Also starting to think putting the line (Morrowind style) was a mistake with the obvious fan-boy effect most morrowind players just choose the first option like a reflex...

Maybe they picked it cause it WORKED. Leveled lists did nothing but make things more like a play box in oblivion.

Morrowind HAD leveled lists. And used them extensively. Compare the actual game data, and you'd see that Morrowind is 90%+ as reliant on leveled lists as Oblivion. The main difference is that the lists in Morrowind were very diverse, and in Oblivion, they looked more like "copies of a master list with stuff deleted" than "custom-built lists". I'll give Morrowind credit for having well-designed lists, but not for being "static", because it ain't.

And to n0d!, no, I don't want a well-tuned regional system, because such a system can't go far enough to suit me. It doesn't cover scripted changes in what spawns, nor do ANY of the options even begin to imply addressing the cookie-cutter creature problem. Nor do the options as stated address the massive HP enemies Bethesda seems addicted to adding for "high level players". So I'm stating exactly what parameters need to be included in a system that goes far beyond simply tailoring lists to regions (we had THAT way back in Morrowind). Simply put, just tuning lists to different regions isn't enough. There needs to be a mechanism for scripted changes to lists, as well as scripted enable/disables of specific creature types. That is covered by precisely NO listed options other than "Other". That's why I have no choice but to choose "Other": nothing listed realistically covers one of the more important facets of what is needed.

An Oblivion/Morrowind hybrid. Like some people top difficult but regulars level with you, eventually though, being "godly" like in Morrowind would be nice. But having a choice would be very interesting, to be "godly" like Nereverine, or "manly" like The Champ. Now there should be seperate acheivements/trophies depending on which you choose.

i like how TIE did it. beginner areas and roadsides were relatively safe. outside of those areas it was entirely unlevelled. the first time you visit a place there might be level 40 lich that whoop your noob ass..........and the next time you visit there might be low level bandits. it keeps you on your toes and keeps all areas of the game fresh since it different everytime you go there.

Morrowind had a leveling system.

The poll doesn't make sense.

Regional is closest to what i think is best.

It's not so simple a question as to be boiled into 3 simple answers though. There's a lot of potential to stuff it up, and indeed, i've never played a game with a regional type levelling system that didn't stuff it up in some form or another. Sacred and Dungeon Siege stand as perfect examples of badly implemented regional levelling. Nothing worse than defeating massive, seemingly invincible stone elementals, only to face pixie sprites with more damage and hit points a few areas later...

In order for Beth to get it right, i think they'd need to put a lot more thought into the dynamic of the game world. It needs to be a viable, functioning, believable place before the player even takes the first step into it. If it is not a believable world, it doesn't matter what system they go with; it will fail.

What?

In response to everyone claiming the 3 basic options aren't enough, ofcourse they're not!
But for the love of simplicity and actually getting some results out of the poll I stated that voters should idealy pick one of the 3 basic options so that once we know what most of us want we can start building on it, also for all of you who are crying over how morrowind was way more complex in leveling and had leveling lists, spawn points all that stuff; I did not state a system exactly like the one in Morrowind I only used it for comparison for the voter to more easily imagine such a system and make the optimal choice when voting.

The problem is the options as given aren't accurate. MW didn't have a static system so if people vote for that option we don't know if they're actually voting for a static system or a mixture of static and levelled lists like MW had.

I just got 2 questions about this levelling...

1) Is the spawn point locations of Oblivion handplaced, or are the spawn points generated randomly?

2) Is the number of enemies of each point scripted or is it random?

Look I'm not proposing any leveling systems of my own, I'm only asking you guys which general direction you find the best

Spawn points are hand-placed. The number of enemies is neither scripted or random, IIRC. The vanilla game chooses one enemy per spawn point from a list of possible enemies.

I don't really like any of the poll options.

Purely static leveling is acceptable but unless the power curve in future TES games is toned down, it'll be fairly difficult to find an enemy that's close to your power level if leveling is fully static.

Pure level scaling is garbage. "Regional scaling" is also garbage if enemies in all regions gain 1 level per level you gain, because that's pure level scaling with tweaks. I'm not sure how regional scaling would work.. are different regions capped in difficulty? Or is it just the plains are (your level - 5) and the forest is (your level) and the badlands are (your level + 5)?

Good solution: Have different areas level within a range. So that bandit camp at Vilverin might level with you up to 10 but then stop, so you'll eventually outpace them. That dangerous fort might have undead between levels 15-25 depending on your level.. so you'll be crushed if you go in at level 1.

Better solution: Give different areas a "base" level and then "half" scale them, awarding them one level per two the player gains. So say the Vilverin bandits have a base level of 3. When I first get out of the sewers they'll be level 3, tough but doable. When I get to level 5 (a gain of 4 levels) they'll have gained half as many levels (2) and be 5 themselves, so it'll be easier, but the challenge won't fade too quickly.

Dead on in effect. Technically, it chooses one spawn per point that might contain multiple enemies. It only uses that feature for deer, making your response strangely more correct than the truth. (Short answer: Oblivion has a largely unused ability to spawn multiple enemies with a single list lookup, and only uses it for three packs of deer)