I do want dungeons to be much more random, with the ability to run into max level enemies as early as level 1. I modded my OB game to do just that. However, for quest-related dungeons, even I bothered to level that according to the stage in the multi-quest progression of the MQ and guild quests for example. Basically, if you have no specific business in a place, there's no telling what you might find... rats, or max level daedra, or a fun mix of both. But if you are a new initiate to a guild, and the quest giver wasn't trying to murder you, that quest giver isn't going to send you to a place that is likely filled with Liches or Storm Atronachs to cut your teeth. So, yes, random dungeons I walk into of my own random accord that aren't tied to a specific tier of a questline should be able to have anything and everything in them. If they can swing it, the location (type of terrain and distance from civilization) should play a role, but it should still be possible to find a real nasty in a dungeon that is near (or under) a city too.

So, poking around where you have no real business poking around could be a lot more random, but when given a specific job to do, your skills are sized up by the person giving you that job and you are handed one accordingly.

...assuming that the difference between Lv.1 monsters and Lv.50 monsters are as high as you seem to think. I'm pretty sure Skyrim isn't WoW, for starters (the thought being that a Lv.50 is ridiculously stronger than a Lv.1 in WoW).

Furthermore, games are typically designed so that you don't just "stumble upon" creatures way above your level. If you meet OP creatures, it's because you made a conscious effort to look them up OR you went way off the beaten path. World design is all about designing a world around the way you expect the player to behave if s/he followed the beaten path. The exceptions (explorers) are (or should be) pretty aware of the potential dangers and thus aren't taken into consideration when designing this aspect of the game.

strange as it seem thats how it works but i dont think it will be as horrendous as your imagining it to be

Of course you might find a quest dungeon that is too weak, because it is a low level quest for beginners. It wouldn't make sense to have an archmage quest for a level 5 character, that is a super powerful position, with super powerful benefits. I'd say you could become king or queen at level 1, but certainly not arch mage!

Technically all dungeons are quest dungeons.

The dungeon system that is described for Skyrim is ok but not perfect. I'm hoping it's a level range which is ok but then again you'll be god at high levels. Nothing wrong with being god at high levels and Oblivion got that right to a degree, although the overuse of level scaling partially ruined dungeon exploration at high levels (Goblin Warlords with 1million HP's,). :facepalm:

What I would do is have the dungeons have minimum levels for enemies. The Grunts would be low levels but they would rise in levels up to 10+ their original level. The dungeon bosses would be level scaled but they would have a minimum level that they start off with like for example you visit a bandit dungeon expect the grunts to be level 5-15 or 15-25 with the Dungeon boss being level scaled +5 or in some cases +10 your level with a level range of 15-50, Level 15 is his minimum level, that'll probably be the minimum starting level for all bosses. If you enter the dungeon at level 1 the boss will always be level 15 but if you go back at level 11 the boss will be level 16 or level 21 and start to go up for every level you gain. I put 50 as the max level so that we don't have 1 million hp Goblin warlords (It's not 1 million HP's but you get the point, it was way too high). Boss LT.s could also be consider and those will always be +3 your current level with a minimum starting level -3 their bosses level.

This would be fantastic, is there a source for this?

Hehe, I'm having that exact problem with Ogres. I'm currently Lv.40+, got the Goldbrand (30 damage (100 Blade and 125% durability) + 22 Fire Damage) and when I Sneak attack I kill Minotaur Lords, Spriggans, Humans, Valkynaz and more in just 1 or 2 hits (1 hit then stand up and unleash a flurry of blows to finish them off).

But Ogres?!! Noooo, an Ogre has a billion hit points. :down:

I dont' mind if they are predetermined, so long as they aren't fixed. Likewise I wouldn't mind if they were fixed, so long as they aren't also predetermined.

In other words, I want the experience to be different for each unique character that I make. As long as each play-through is different, then the exact method doesn't matter so much.

Who cares if a dungeon locks in when you first visit it? If you assume that it will be different next time because you visit it at a different time, then that's still variety. Likewise, who cares if the game preloads the same variety every time, if it levels and adjusts it every time you come back? Same thing, variety.

If I could take my pick, the best option is the one that I see for skyrim. The game doesn't know ahead of time what each dungeon will be like, exactly, but once it does generate the dungeon, it leaves it that way. That would be my preference.

I'm not sure but I think those people are wanting a system more like OOO, where the devs choose the level that each dungeon will be, based on factors like how far into the wilderness they are. Not like every single dungeon has some random level assignment that changes with each playthrough.

Anyway, I like how the system sounds, but I hope they have a good selection of level ranges, up to maybe a lv60-70 range. That way even the most experienced character will have difficulty clearing out the most extreme, isolated dungeons. Also I hope that there are actually unique, ultra powerful enemies that aren't just regular enemies with better stats and equipment. Something like a huge monster that if you see, you immediately know you have no chance against it, and if you're below level 40 or so and stand your ground, it will come up and destroy you in one hit. This is something that has been in RPGs for a long time, and it works. There simply should be enemies that you can encounter at low levels, but you don't have any chance to kill them until you get much stronger. I think it was Todd who said something like "you have to have some level scaling in a game like this, because it's hard to tell a player that you're not strong enough, come back later." It's really not that hard, you just have to make some more enemy types and make it clear to the player that "this enemy looks a lot bigger and tougher than those other enemies I usually find, maybe I should run away."

That was the main flaw with Oblivion's level scaling. It was overdone, majorly overdone. They should have had level ranges for the regular enemies and with Bosses being leveled Scaled to a certain point. I believe Skyrim will fix most of Oblivion's flaw but I do worry that Beth will try something new with the dungeon setup instead of fixing the main problems that Oblivion had with Dungeons/Level Scaling.

so would it ever change, like maybe in an in game year unvisited or something, because you could completely break your game by visiting every dungeon at level 1?

Yeah this is actually one of Bethesda's flaws and Todd Howard has mentioned it. They always try to overdo things and get these wild ideas, then they regulate it. But the question is, will they moderate themselves enough? I actually applaud Blizzard for their philosophy of being highly conservative. I don't think everyone should be like them, but I think Bethesda can learn a few things from Blizzard. Things that are tried and true shouldn't be messed around with too much, so Skyrim should be very similar (if not identical) to Fallout 3 - because that system was rock solid. New Vegas added just a little bit of locational scaling as well, maybe to a slight fault. But taking the best from Fallout 3 and being just a little bit more conservative than Obsidian at scaling the various areas in the game, seems to me like a very good combo.

I think Skyrim will be very good. Bethesda does learn from their mistakes too.



Well, for obvious reasons, you're not gonna be able to visit every dungeon at level 1. Dungeons have monsters, monsters need to be defeated, combat increases your skills, your skills increase your level. After just 2-3 dungeons you're at level 2+.

Absolutely Not. No.

Talented devs can get away with a complete overhaul of everything. Keeping the same features is fine for some games and game companies, but Beth is the polar opposite of Blizzard. If the innovation of basic features slows or stops, I am going to be leaving.

IMO making a system run perfectly means you are ready to go to the next level. This is true in all things.

Rebuilding from square one every time sounds a lot like never making any progress.

They don't ever *actually* rebuild from square 1. There are principles of the previous game that carry over, design decisions that only need a bit of tweaking or a bit of rolling-back to games even older than the last one, etc, etc.
What gets torn down and rebuilt from square 1 are things like how the world feels, what theme Skyrim is to present as compared to its predecessor, what new systems to add in, etc, etc. And those things are exactly what makes each game stand alone as its own game.

lol, why put the cart in front of the horse? Don't you care about the actual features themselves? If the feature is good, you want it regardless of it being old or new. If it's bad, you don't. What I'm talking about is the idea that you don't reinvent something that already works, instead you try to improve on it if you can. That's what is meant by being conservative. But to me, it seems like Bethesda is scrapping old ideas that worked perfectly (e.g. the inventory system in Morrowind changed into the dreadful and redundant scrollfest of Oblivion) and trying out new things that they should've known by now are gonna fail. A lot of the bad features in Oblivion could've been better or prevented if Bethesda had sat down and thought things a little more through. Instead, they seem to do that only after the project is half-way done. Not always, but the results show that they have a tendency to do that.

Imagine todays cars and other major inventions if the developers only reinvented things all the time, instead of finding those great templates and gradually improving on them. That's why smaller and surgical reforms generally work better than full-blown revolutions.

Uh, yea, I agree with you. I was stating that as a sarcastic comment to the person above me. I think that some things need to be rebuilt, but I also agree that much can carry over. The guy above me didn't seem to think that.

Gotcha. Apologies, missed whom you were quoting.

I feel so relieved that this will, without question, be one of the first things fixed by modders.

Hardly; (and why would it be random, instead of hand picked?)

Fallout 1 & 2 worked like this, and they are two of (if not the two best) RPG's , made in the last 13-14 years.

What I don't want is an arbitrary mc-dungeon that gets set to my PC's level ~period.

This is my Fallout PC (Norbert) at level 1... http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/proof-1.gif

That is right, and it's a great thing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a realism nut, but c'mon, this is just basic! The world should not level with you! (Okay, maybe a little to keep it interesting, but the dungeons are fine in Skyrim.)

Really? On a TES forum? Morrowind kicked both of their a... buts.

He basically says every dungeon has a level scale i.e lv5-10 dungeon...if ur lv three when u first enter then its a lv 5 dungeon...if u first visit it at level 11 its a lv10 dungeon..if u first visit it at lv7 its a lv7 dungeon so on and so on..and these dungeons u visit stay locked at that level after visiting

Reading a post in its entirety usually does the trick :grad: