What would happen if there was no level scaling? : V - Skyrim

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:12 am

You're thinking of it in a "I'll be level 999 and kill everything instantly" way. Ironically, that is how Skryim is now, you can instantly kill anything easily.

With hard levels, it rewards exploration because you can find a high level dungeon at a low level, and make sneak in and steal some loot or just scope the place out. Then you can come back later and kill stuff at the right level and feel like, wow, I worked my way up and now I can kill dangerous things and get good loot.

For some reason people who want level scaling have the following 2 assumptions

They assume scaling somehow is a challenge
The assume everyone wants to be level 999 and kill everything instantly
They assume that Skyrim is not currently too easy

The fact is, with the scaling, Skyrim is currently very easy. The premise that scaling makes everything "a challenge" ignores the fact that the game is not challenging as it is. Because everything scales to your level, you are *always* ready to kill anything and everything.

I killed a giant at lvl 7 by using a bow and a rock.

In a Hard Level game, that would not be possible. At level 7 Giants would be level 50 or so. My archery would do so little damage that at level 50 their base health regen would offset any hide/bow kiting I could do at that level. A Flame Anti I summon would do pathetic Fire dmg and not pose any threat.

But that is NOT the case in Skrim. In skrim, a level 7 can kill the toughest mob in the game... because of scaling. That's not adventure. That's the game world BABYING the player

no it doesn't like another poster wrote no scaling will kill exploration
lets pressume there is no lvl scalling and you start a new character it means that 4/5 th of all locations are not accesible for you , so what you do you grind those 1/5 you can acces over and over again , combined this with some perk manipulation and as soon you have acces to the other 4/5 the become redundant because they offer no challenge anymore ,
is that really what you want , instant gratification , winning a game without having to work for it
if yes then sadly you have that disease most of the younger generation of gamers suffer from , instant gratification any other way and the game fails and isn't worth your time

sheesh i sometimes long to the days you needed a seperate spreadsheet and calculator and most of all your brains if you wanted to win in a game

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:45 am

See, the way I'd want to be would be a compromise. There would be certain areas that have enemies that are extremely powerful no matter what level you are. You find them at level 1 and they rip you apart in a second. Come back around level 30 and you might be able to take them down if you know your stuff.

But at the same time, the areas that don't have that kind of challenge automatically should continue to level up as you do.

Another good example of how scaling can be done correctly is Final Fantasy VIII. All of the enemies level up with you, so that there's always a level of challenge. There are the pathetically easy monsters that still go down in one hit, but there are still the enemies you can find even at the start of the game that can wipe the floor with you regardless of whether or not you're at level 1 or 100.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:48 am

It would have the interest of an MMO. Once your level cap only 1-2 places are even worth visiting, and the game becomes boring. I don't even think the game is big enough for it to make sense.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:52 am

The world seems far too tiny to support no level scaling.

» Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:34 pm

The problem with your argument here is that Giants do not level with the player. http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Giant So if you are at level 7, Giants are going to a lot tougher than you. By player level 50 Giants are going to be a lot weaker. The fact that you can kill a giant at level 7 with a bow has to do with the advantages of ranged combat over a Giant's relatively slow club attack. It has nothing to do with level scaling. Even if there were no level scaling in Skyrim you would have been able to kill the same Giant using the same technique just as easily. Not everything in Skyrim is level scaled. Giants are just one example of creatures that are not level scaled in Skyrim.

Ok, so Giants dont scale. Then they are designed poorly. And this speaks to the need for high level set mobs. Giants SHOULD be level 50-70 and giants SHOULD be able to brush off a level 7.

Just another example of not only how scaling is nerfed in Skyrim, but how the non-scaled content isn't even balanced in a meaningful way.

» Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:12 pm

@Hexpane:

When discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of scaling opponents, you have to look at it from the end-game point of view, because that's where the problems arise. One of, if not the, most common complaint(s) about Morrowind was the utter lack of challenge past about level 15-20 or so, because there was very little scaling and no high-end fixed-level encounters.

They sought to rectify this in Oblivion, but the implementation of scaling there was so ham-handed that it became the #1 complaint instead. Now, that does not necessarily mean that scaling is, in and of itself, a bad thing, since it enables the presentation of at least some challenge to high-level heavily-geared characters; rather, it means that poorly-done scaling is a bad thing.

As for the ease (or lack thereof) of Skyrim's combat, that has little or nothing to do with scaling and pretty much everything to do with the moronic, and therefore easily exploited, AI. That enemies telegraph their heavy attacks from two miles out doesn't help either, as anyone who's paying even a modicum of attention can, if they so choose, avoid ever being hit through timely dodging.

Since it seems to have been missed (again), I'll reiterate and paraphrase a previous point of mine: when debating the worth of scaling, it is important to note that even though those opponents that scale with the player may give a feeling of a lack of progression, the fact is that one is still progressing, as is made evident through the increasing ease with which previously difficult encounters are dispatched. It is also important to note that those who desire scaling do not wish it to be done across the board, but rather that it be done to a select group of foes that are meant to present a challenge to even the most top-end characters.

I agree with what you are saying. Morrowind mainland indeed go way easy too early. Bethesda went the Scaling route to address it.

Instead, they should have went the same route as Morrowind Tribunal, and just made set high level content. And made the content difficult, like Tribunal was (unless you had a glitched over powered character)

IMO Morrowind Tribunal was Bethesda's finest TES work. They abandoned that design, and went with the more casual and auto scaling Oblivion model, which I just find confusing.

The Skryim "Lets make it like Fallout 3" method is even more confusing. Putting Perks into a TES game and removing stats? What's next, removing the ability to customize gear and having a voiced protagonist that is human only?>

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:46 am

no it doesn't like another poster wrote no scaling will kill exploration
lets pressume there is no lvl scalling and you start a new character it means that 4/5 th of all locations are not accesible for you , so what you do you grind those 1/5 you can acces over and over again , combined this with some perk manipulation and as soon you have acces to the other 4/5 the become redundant because they offer no challenge anymore ,

is that really what you want , instant gratification , winning a game without having to work for it
if yes then sadly you have that disease most of the younger generation of gamers suffer from , instant gratification any other way and the game fails and isn't worth your time

sheesh i sometimes long to the days you needed a seperate spreadsheet and calculator and most of all your brains if you wanted to win in a game

As I've laid out in detail multiple times, Set levels would be the OPPOSITE of instant gratification. Level scaling IS instant gratification. You can basically go anywhere you want without having to work for it.

Not to mention this whole 'disease of the younger generation' cliche is so obnoxious, I'm not even a millenial and I'm already tired of everyone labeling millions of kids together in a generic stereotype, that's useless and trollish.

Furthermore, this scaling and action game focus IS designed for this 'younger generation' you like to insult.

» Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:25 pm

Instead of no lvl scaling how about infinite leveling and the enemies get stronger as you get stronger.

» Thu Jun 21, 2012 10:31 pm

Ok, so Giants dont scale. Then they are designed poorly. And this speaks to the need for high level set mobs. Giants SHOULD be level 50-70 and giants SHOULD be able to brush off a level 7.

I agree that Giants should be able to brush off a level 7, but making them level 50 or even level 100 is not going to solve that problem unless you give them some health regen like trolls. The reason you can take out a giant at low levels is because you can run and gun with a bow and never get hit by their powerful but slow attacks while slowly whittling away at their health with your puny 7th level bow. Upping giant's level is not going to solve this problem, but giving them enough health regen to offset the slow whittling would. Or, fixing their AI so that the giants would attack more intelligently, but that might be more difficult to do than merely giving them some health regen.

Just another example of not only how scaling is nerfed in Skyrim, but how the non-scaled content isn't even balanced in a meaningful way.

Brother, not much is "balanced" in TES. TES has always had "exploits" that let people achieve godlike powers without that much effort if they knew how. In Morrowind you had spellmaking that allowed you to temporarily fortify skills like Alchemy and Enchant into the stratosphere to make ubergear and uber potions, so you could be godlike at reletively low level with just a modicum of skill in the Restoration school of magic. In Oblivion you had enchanting to stack magic and elemental weaknesses and elemental damage on your weapons, so you could make a dagger that would kill any enemy in the game in four or five hits. In Skyrim you have alchemy/enchanting/smithing loops.

There are bigger balance issues in Skyrim than level scaling. It is not perfect, but Skyrim level scaling is better than proir TES games.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:12 am

He would have been far better served citing Draugr bosses, since those do level with the player and can be a tough fight throughout the game unless you optimize your character and/or play thereof. They're also vulnerable to ranged combat, for many of the same reasons that Giants are, however they do often have a ranged attack of their own with which to retaliate, which lessens the issue (considerably, in some cases).

@Hexpane:

When discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of scaling opponents, you have to look at it from the end-game point of view, because that's where the problems arise. One of, if not the, most common complaint(s) about Morrowind was the utter lack of challenge past about level 15-20 or so, because there was very little scaling and no high-end fixed-level encounters. They sought to rectify this in Oblivion, but the implementation of scaling there was so ham-handed that it became the #1 complaint instead. Now, that does not necessarily mean that scaling is, in and of itself, a bad thing, since it enables the presentation of at least some challenge to high-level heavily-geared characters; rather, it means that poorly-done scaling is a bad thing.

As for the ease (or lack thereof) of Skyrim's combat, that has little or nothing to do with scaling and pretty much everything to do with the moronic, and therefore easily exploited, AI. That enemies telegraph their heavy attacks from two miles out doesn't help either, as anyone who's paying even a modicum of attention can, if they so choose, avoid ever being hit through timely dodging.

Since it seems to have been missed (again), I'll reiterate and paraphrase a previous point of mine: when debating the worth of scaling, it is important to note that even though those opponents that scale with the player may give a feeling of a lack of progression, the fact is that one is still progressing, as is made evident through the increasing ease with which previously difficult encounters are dispatched. It is also important to note that those who desire scaling do not wish it to be done across the board, but rather that it be done to a select group of foes that are meant to present a challenge to even the most top-end characters.

Some very good points here. The only thing I would add is we need level scaling not only for a "select group" for a real challenge, but also some scaling for a broad number of opponents so they don't all become meaninglessly trivial. It is good to have some trivial opponents at high level but too many trivial opponents would not be fun.

I also think that a lot of the issues the "no level scaling" crowd has with level scaling could be addressed by including a mixture of opponents (maybe some of those draugr bosses) some of whom would start at a minimum level (20 or 30 or even 50) and then having those enemies scale upward as the player levels but not scaling them downward. That way such enemies would be very difficult at low levels but would never become easy, no matter how high a level the player got.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:40 am

The only thing I dislike about No Level Scalling is that my Low-Level Character will almost always go to the same low-level dungeons... Then my Medium-Level Character will almost always go to the same medium-level dungeons... And so on...
Apart from that, it's a fine system.

I think a better system would be a evolution from Skyrim's system, and not a "regress" to Morrowind's system.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:20 am

@Mousemage I remember that happening to me. I reloaded several times and finally gave up. A few levels later I came back and kicked that Nord's tuckus. Felt good. That's why those in favor of no scaling don't like scaling. I agree with their goal, but think it can be accomplished with a better scaling system.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:56 am

In Morrowind, it looked like this:

Walking from Seyda Neen to Balmora (or maybe Vivec, cant recall) you see a dungeon entrance on a cliff. You go inside. a Nord with a hammer charges, smashes you once with his big hammer, and you die.

» Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:01 pm

Giants are slow, so that's the main reason why you see somebody with a bow being able to take one out at lower levels. If you speed them up which is a double edge sword, you could fix the problems that they have although you would be introducing new problems as well. You don't see this problem with Deathclaws in New Vegas although with that game the Deathclaws have reach, speed, and Damage Threshold.

The only thing I dislike about No Level Scalling is that my Low-Level Character will almost always go to the same low-level dungeons... Then my Medium-Level Character will almost always go to the same medium-level dungeons... And so on...
Apart from that, it's a fine system.

I think a better system would be a evolution from Skyrim's system, and not a "regress" to Morrowind's system.

I agree, Skyrim's scaling is well done. There's a couple of problems that Skyrim has with the scaling but it's night and day better then what we had in the previous games. Morrowind's system isn't terrible but with all no level scaling systems, the difficulty at the end game is a joke.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:00 am

Scaling + Non-Scaling enemies are best.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 10:59 am

I agree, Skyrim's scaling is well done. There's a couple of problems that Skyrim has with the scaling but it's night and day better then what we had in the previous games. Morrowind's system isn't terrible but with all no level scaling systems, the difficulty at the end game is a joke.

This is something that seems to always get overlooked by some of those opposed to scaling, as they are examining the question from the ground up rather than the top down, from which vantage point there's a lot of things you can't see yet. On the other hand, you do see that there are milestones for a character to reach, in the form of specific level thresholds, that will allow you to beat what were formerly tough opponents. This is something that scaling alone cannot provide, since the better you get, the better they get. Thus the suggestion (which you reiterated) that only some opponents keep scaling, so as to preserve the feeling of having reached that next level of growth as more and more opponents become easier and easier to deal with.

Of course, non-scaling alone doesn't work either, because even if the static levels go all the way to the top the amount of challenge such opponents provide is also static. Thus, proper character and gear progression guarantees that by the time you reach the top opposition you've already surpassed it in power, and therefore will stomp it into the ground with little effort.

@Turija & Mousemage:
That sounds a lot like a design issue, since proper design theory indicates that you don't place heavily over-leveled encounters in the 'starter' area(s) in order to give new characters/players a chance to get acclimated. Of course, outside said area(s) all bets are off.

» Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:39 pm

The only thing I dislike about No Level Scalling is that my Low-Level Character will almost always go to the same low-level dungeons... Then my Medium-Level Character will almost always go to the same medium-level dungeons... And so on...
Apart from that, it's a fine system.

This could easily be dealt with by intelligent dungeon placement. Dungeons closer to towns/roads would generally be less challenging. This reflect the idea that most settlements are equipped to deal with larger threats in their domains. The further you travel into the wilderness, the more likely it is you encounter higher level creatures and more challenging dungeons. There might still be some regions that are more challenging, but town areas within those regions would still be relatively safe. Further distinctions between different dungeon types (bandit dens are more manageable, daedric ruins more challenging) and it'd be clear to the player where they can risk going and where will require greater preparation.

This greatly expands the number of "beginner dungeons" by spreading them out across the entirety of the game world instead of cramming them all in the first region the player happens to find themselves in.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:42 am

Then they would be Dark Souls wannabes.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:27 am

With no level scaling you'd get steamrolled the first half of the game then you'd be the steamroller from the middle to the end of the game.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:03 am

In Morrowind, it looked like this:

Walking from Seyda Neen to Balmora (or maybe Vivec, cant recall) you see a dungeon entrance on a cliff. You go inside. a Nord with a hammer charges, smashes you once with his big hammer, and you die.

lol .. yeah i know. Or maybe something like this. You have reached level 6. You get out of Telas Ancestral tomb just to find yourself surrounded by 3-4 Cliff Racers and a blight rat attacking you.

You die.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:46 am

@Turija & Mousemage:
That sounds a lot like a design issue, since proper design theory indicates that you don't place heavily over-leveled encounters in the 'starter' area(s) in order to give new characters/players a chance to get acclimated. Of course, outside said area(s) all bets are off.

That's just the way Morrowind was designed. There were plenty of places you were supposed to wander by but not tackle until you were higher level. Most of those places were fairly obvious by their sinister appearance. But the cave with the Nord Mousemage mentioned (Ulummusa) is a fairly non-descript bandit type cave between Seyda Neen and Balmora with a level 12 Nord, who did not look that intimidating but packed quite a wallop. The Nord was easily killed if you were maybe 10th level or so, but a lot of 1st and 2nd level characters make that journey from Seyda Neen to Balmora and would be well advised to pass by that particular cave.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:03 am

Level scaling is a must, but it have to "feel right" wrt what I remember from dice RPGs. Sure I want the occasional "impossible fight", but they should be further apart as you gain levels, and really never stop entirely (especially on higher difficulties). I think the mechanics should be a little more "human" and anolytical; study not only how long the player takes to take down enemies, but also if he roleplayed well (made use of his abilities). If fights are over in a second and the player didn't utilize anything, then up the (invisible) difficulty by leveling up the enemy for the next fight. If he struggles like hell, utilizing everything he's got, he'd be considered a "good role player" and be rewarded with slightly easier fight the next time around.

This is exactly what a good game master does (although the reward may sometimes come as XP as well for good role playing), and what I would like from a game who is supposed to be our game master. Scaling does not mean that everything is easy (far from it). It means the GM is trying to keep the game interesting. And I think Skyrim does a better job at it than Oblivion, except its hard to keep up the feeling of getting a challenge. Sure I run away from a lot of fights before level 10 (master difficulty), but at level 40 pretty much the only challenge left is ancient dragons. I shouldn't have to nerf everything about my character in order to get a good occasional challenge. The game should anolyze how well I play my character and "reward" me for it. Easy fights all the time should only happen as long as you utilize all the tricks you have in your sleeve, instead of never being used at all because it's simply not needed - all we have to do is level up and that's it. And it doesn't really take a lot of time to do either.

» Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:03 pm

Scaling + Non-Scaling enemies are best.

» Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:37 pm

If only...

Some of my best time with Oblivion (modded with OOO to remove scaling) was when my character was around level 5/6 - strong enough to start venturing into dungeons, doing quests, etc. but still so weak that I had to be ready to run at any time.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:15 am

Then Bethesda would make the game actually like what a real Skyrim would be like. Regular wolves won't really be much of a challenge and bandits will be a medium level enemy but if you see a Demora or a heavily trained swordmaster, you run, find a clever tactic, OR DIE.

I want a game where I need to bust my ass to try and beat a hard level enemy, even if I'm level 30. Can't do it? Just run and hope the enemy doesn't have ranged weaponry and can't outrun you. In reality, with this type of system of easy-medium-hard type enemies with variation on bosses, it will make the game much more immersive.

Really, how realistic is it that suddenly all bandits suddenly gain glass armor or in Skyrim: All bandits suddenly become super strong.

Especially bosses like Alduin. I want him to be a challenge. I want to be able to use all my cunning, weaponry, gear, and anything else I can scrounge up for the fight. I want it to feel like I accomplished something other than shouted at him a bit, whacked at him with a sword, rinse, and repeat.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some level scaling is good though. I see something like Fallout but improved. In Fallout 3, if you headed to Old Olney at Level 1, you're screwed. But at Level 30, you're a demi-God! Unless you fall from a great height, you're never going to die.

I want strong enemies to get stronger subtly but weak enemies to only get slightly stronger. You can still mow them down but you still feel like the weak enemies might get the upper hand if they swarm you and if you aren't paying attention, a weak enemy can still whittle down your health to the point where a medium level enemy you could've killed will kill you.