Skyrim becomes ridiculously easy on Master at around lvl 25. (Even when you're not abusing smithing/enchanting)

thesblah-

absolutely. due to this forum, from the beginning, i haven't abused anything and the easiness of this game is beyond stupid ridiculous.

No, I like it when they mix in scaled and static enemies because if someone chooses to underlevel their character they shouldn't be precluded from exploring 90% of Skyrim. Conversely if someone wants to grind to level 50 while in Whiterun for the first time they should be able to have scaled creatures.

i should be able to play skyrim at level 30 and be challenged.

at least give me the, already been implemented before, damn slider option.

before level five dude are you being serious....you are just kind of proving the point that once you reach the 40's (w/out enchanting/alchemy buffed equipment) the game becomes trivial and just walk from point A to B grab/interact with C and go back to A. I always make a new character now once i reach between 25-30 on my character because it gets so boring.

Is this an either/or question? Because I don't see the problem with scaling in a main quest--at least, with the later battles--but think there's much to be said for unscaled general locations and sidequests with enemies. As long as the game provides a sense of what you might reasonably expect from a given area. ("Watch out for yourself in the Veldt, stranger. Heard from Old Ardvare that a Giant Leapus was swarmed on by a group o' them small beatwers. Had it dead and eaten in under 30 minutes.") Or the game might provide increasingly challenging monsters the further you are from the starting post, along with travel access opening up to higher risk zones (the Might and Magic series). What I find problematic is a game that's either all scaled, as vanilla Oblivion is (with only small deviations), or a game that offers no scaling and no hints about what to expect anywhere, s Oscuro's Oblivion is.

And yes, they're both excellent. They're just not my cup of tea.

I believe most things should scale, all the way to the maximum level the player can... and maybe beyond.

There should also be quite a few static enemies, or enemies that are permanently X levels above the player.

I was sooo disappointed by the hidden fight in Blackreach...

Personally, I think they are going after the whole scaling of enemies thing wrong. Enemies should be scaled according to the skills/spells/perks a player uses, and not necessarily levels. If player uses One handed, enemy has higher armor rating... If player uses Magic, enemy has higher magic resistance.... etc.

As most of these Skyrim debates go, it's a combination answer and not a simple up or down vote. So, essentially, yes there should be scaled enemies and static enemies.

an albino radscorpion in fallout 3 is a negative example of level scaling. but skyrim did the job quite good i think

The only way not to have scaling is to confine the PC to a set series of zones...to unfold the world and the game in a semi linear corridor manner. This is how many games do it. But if you want to give a player a truly open world experience you have to implement some kind of scaling system...it seems to me. I'm not certain about it, but I believe dungeons in Skyrim are scaled; and the scaling level is set the first time you enter the dungeon. Perhaps others know more about that and how the scaling works. At the moment I encounter some fights that are a push-over and others that are a real challenge to survive; and everything in between; in other words variety; and I think that's the way it should be. I rememer using OOO in Oblivion but abandoning it because I became weary with every fight (even with rats and goblins) being a life or death struggle. Thus far I like the balance I am experiencing in Skyrim. Of course I'm not abusing smithing and enchanting etc.

an albino radscorpion is exactly what needs to be done, plus, other things.

are you seriously advocating a position of, less, enemies?

No scaling wouldn't fit with the TES "Go wherever you want, do whatever you want" paradigm. If an area is filled with enemies that are far too powerful for a low-level character, then that area is just as closed off as if there was a locked door that only opened once the character got to the "proper" level.

There IS a sense of progression in Skyrim, too. Not all of the enemies in an area are "leveled up" as the character levels. Go into any nadit fort at level 1, and all but probably one of them will be a plain old, level 1 bandit. Go into that same bandit fort at level 30, and there will be a few Bandit Marauders, some Bandit Plunderers, and so on, but there will also still be some plain old, level 1 Bandits. So, at level 1, the fort will be much more difficult to clear than it is at level 30. Same with Draugr ruins. At low levels it's mostly plain old Draugr, which are still a challenge at that level. At higher levels, there will be much tougher Draugr, but there will still be a few of those whimpy ones around, which has the effect of making you feel more powerful.

Some monsters should scale. Some should never scale. And some should always spawn some levels higher than you.

That's how it should go.

If I design a game, I would shoot for that. The key word is "eventually". If someone makes a "most inefficient build", they will get to that point later than your super efficient build. So past 50 is optional, generally for those with non-efficient builds(or those who are after demigods). But this doesn't change how people play the game, just that it is different for everyone when they feel right with their power. This is different for everyone but leaving that post 50 gap can make sure everyone gets the power they want, eventually. (A different way might be no cap at easy and a level 50 cap at hard.)

The problem is not when level scaling stops(post 50), it is when it starts which is level 24. So if you have an efficient build, it will get easy from there.(with an inefficient build the opposite) http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Leveling#The_Leveling_Problem

Making different characters for different chunks of the game. That seems to be the design for this game. There really is 300 hours of content. But this isn't a content problem, believe me. Skyrim has no world mechanics whatsoever, this is the real problem. Minecraft has like no content but world mechanics give it infinite playability. Wars in Skyrim mod is an example of missed potential. Who doesn't want the freedom of starting a war between factions? That kind of agency is exactly what's missing from Elder Scrolls worlds.

I understand your position. I believe in common sense. Sometimes devs/modders add things that seem to be realistic but actually they don't make sense. In Skyrim, Labyrinthian is a dangerous place. And you know that, it is hinted in the loading screens and those frost trolls must mean something. See, we can have place centric models and it works. There are no closed zones or railroading, it is just the reality of the world, it makes sense.

Is it an attempt at being politically correct? The answer is getting rid of the bad design which is causing problems on all accounts and addressing the balance problems of people like Davian and fable2.

The only way? I think that is an absolute, don't you think? Can we at least try it differently than those other zoned games or "hard for just because" mods? We can do it.

In your case, you are at the middle of efficient build and inefficient build and it feels right. Not everyone is lucky as you.

There is this false belief that level scaling adds challenge or makes games easy, at the same freaking time! Or that only alternative is zones where Skyrim already plays like a non-scaled world until level 24 and I don't think Labyrinthian qualifies as the same with these other unrealistic/gamey zones. Ideally, these kinds of places are few and far between. Not entire zones that open up to you at later levels or railroad you. Right? Does it make sense?

I am perfectly happy with embracing the world of Skyrim as a level 26 world. There is no need of inflating it to support 50 levels. Content is enough, just believe in it Bethesda.

There are no politics in Bethesda's forums, correct or otherwise.

To allow for exploration, scaled enemies are necessary. That is to say that some lesser enemies should have a cap, but others should have no level cap and should scale at a rate equal or higher than the player.

I said the scaling system that TES has been using is a little too simple, it should be based on skills used rather than levels gained. That is not to say that specializing in any profession should cripple the player, but rather provide the enemy enhanced options against a player of a certain skillset.

To allow for a challenge, or placement of rewards such as equipment, or just to make certain enemies seem more brutal... some enemies should have static levels or permanently be X amount of levels above the player. Bosses seem the best fit for this, or dragons... hell maybe even Trolls.

If scaling was handled in the manner I referred to, then the slider could add extra abilities to enemies... not just becoming sponges with a sharp weapon.

So, as I said previously, the answer is an all of the above approach... just like many other questions regarding Skyrim or TES. None of this is going to happen though, as Skyrim has already launched. This conversation started with 'should' and has progressed into 'how to improve it'.

Those of us that want to should be able to.

I don't want to improve level scaling, scaling monsters must be gone forever. So it is a no from me.

Also I don't believe one moment that scaling is absolutely needed for an open world. Skyrim's first 25 levels are very good, better than Morrowind actually.

I think world consistency is a delicate matter, if devs directly interfere like that, this can be disastrous. We have radiant story which can change variables according to player. That makes sense as it comes as an ingame plot which you can choose to follow or not. But when exploring, I want the world to make sense, like it is a living breathing world, not something that is scaled to me.

If you have enemies who are always above you, that kills progression.
If you mix scaling and static, it is possible that a scaling monster will surpass a static one breaking consistency.
Just efficient leveling problem is enough to abandon scaling. Some people experience the game as getting harder, for some it is too easy. They would be constantly changing difficulty. But if the world was static in challenge(but dynamic in itself), people could solely rely on progression or just change difficulty once.

You can make it so caps are all around consistent but then it will only lead to sudden jumps in progression. Ranges are OK with me, I feel like it would be better if they were just random or weighted between ranges instead of scaling.

I dont have a balance problem! But I have not got a character to levels like 50 and beyond yet. Also, as I said...I dont abuse the game mechanics to over-power my character.
However...I think that your issues are not really relevant to the general release game...which is what we have at this point. It is designed for the average gamer...not for hardcoe gamers. Bethesda is a business after all...and if they were not a sucessfull business we wouldnt even have the base game. So lets be grateful Bethesda manage to combine business success and excellent game crafting....and lets also not forget that Bethesda give us the tools to craft a hardcoe game mode...or any kind of game mode you'd like...and that no doubt this will be done by very bright and positive and creative modders.

A completely static world inhibits exploration through difficulty, its basically a giant Do-Not-Enter sign.

A completely scaled world as Skyrim implements it makes exploration relatively effortless after a certain point.

It would still seem to me that the best answer is a combination of smart scaling and strategically placed static enemies to reach some sort of consistency.

Just my opinion, I defer to a logistic impasse then.

I've said it before, I'll say it again:

Wild animals, basic and lower end Bandits, etc die whenever you are within 100 miles of them once you reach a certain level.

Wild monsters, higher end Bandits, etc all give you a challenge when fighting, basically you could die while fighting them, but probably won't, no matter what level you are.

Higher level monsters, dragons, etc all make you fight for every point of damage you inflict on them no matter what level you are.

Should monsters scale with your character? The best answer IMO is yes AND no.

I referred to your problem with a static world. I am also not hardcoe at all. I tried expert and went back immediately. I just want some consistency. I want to rely on raw progression to handle my challenge problems. Scaling takes that away.

I wish I could see smartness in scaling. As you said scaling combat skills would be a better approach("if you're gonna do it, do it right?"). I still think the whole concept is very arcade like, rubber band AI. I hate that. In an open world game, players can choose their experience. Do you want to go back to that dungeon you couldn't beat earlier? Do you want to try Labyrinthian? This stuff is already in Skyrim. It works, it is part of exploration.



There are many encounter zones, up to level 24. And I felt that part of the game felt the best, as you approach and pass level 24... There is this sense of pride. It lasts for very short though. I am sure almost everyone had similar experiences around level 24-30? That's the power of place centric approach for you.

I think the biggest problem with scaling is that it trivializes the game too much. You had cloth armor and a low iron dagger, and it took you some time to kill that npc. years later with dragonbone armor set and legendary sword and maxed out sword skill, the npc wearing the same armor and using the same weapon is still kicking your ass. Why did I go through all that smithing and leveling and hunting for good weapons for? The npc is using a lowly armor and weapon, and I still have the same difficulty killing it. I should just stop trying to max out smiting or weapons or skills because that npc will hit and damage me the same percentage of my health anyways, and same with my damaging his health. Should have just stopped leveling, cause I'm making the npc harder to deal with. (especially if I remove my dragonbone and legendary sword).

What the game should focus on is, the higher the level, the more attack skillset needed to conquer the monsters. You should start to have to look for weakspots for certain enemies to kill them. For example, a high level npc would start having fire resistance, or frost resistance, or have steel armor plating that makes slashing him with a sword ineffective. You would need to run to his backside and attack his weak point. or only aim for the neck, etc. In other words, don't scale the npc, but make you adapt to harder npc.

So... for example, a lowly bandit wearing only cloth armor and a weapon, and you are a lowly level 5. It takes you 20 slashes and running around to kill him. Fine. Later in the game, that bandit is still wearing only cloth armor and a weapon, you have chainmail armor and steel sword and have level 10 skill. It takes you 5 slashes to kill him. That is fine. Even later in the game, you meet a bandit that you kill in one swipe with your dragonbone armor and legendary sword. However, there is another bandit wearing the same armor and weapon, but he can dodge really fast. Each time you try to hit him, he moves away, and he hits you after you have initiated a move (like infinity blade). It takes a different skillset to kill him because he is fast. But once you connect he is dead too. You meet another thief, low skill but have better armor, and you need to hit only certain weak spots in his armor to weaken him. (but he still has same health). Later, a higher level bandit (more muscular, and requires more hits to kill, and this bandit may also be varied, sometimes with good armor, sometimes with low armor). So before a fight, you can judge (by looking at his muscles, or what armor he is wearing) whether that bandit will be hard or easy. If it is scaled. it is trivialized. You know it will damage a percentage of your health no matter what armor you wear or what weapon you use. That makes the game unrealistic, inhibits need for progression, cheats the players out of their effort.

In each scenario in the last paragraph, no npc was scaled. But the armor and skillset was changed. You don't feel cheated out of your effort in leveling up your armor and smithing skills, you don't feel cheated out of your time trying to forge that weapon.

sorry, deleted

Bethesda shouldn't make enemies become automatically stronger just because they can't be bothered to create enough enemies to cover all difficulty required throughout the game.

Static level enemies make the game linear. This means you will only have certain content available as you explore with other areas being "off limits". In TES, generally there are never any "off limits" areas or boundaries besides the entire map board itself. I think you can however have a better sense of progression with a better scaling system that works off of the difficulty setting to determine the enemy level offset from the player's level. Further, scaling would not STOP at 50 like it does currently but continue to 81. For those saying "I liked to feel overpowered though!", you WILL still feel overpowered. You can adjust the difficulty setting to get an even larger sense of this. An even level enemy for example at level 5 more than likely will not be the same as an even level enemy at like 50 in terms of difficulty. More often than not in RPGs, the further along the journey you are the STRONGER you are in relation to enemies. You would have to fight a HIGHER LEVEL enemy to be an even match later on, especially in games like TES due almost entirely to how scaling works.