Skyrim, level-scaling, and you.

[psivamp]

I went over the fact that progression does actually occur because combat becomes more complicated and abilities become more varied, but we're at a big disadvantage here since this argument originally was between me and someone else.

There was variation in the combat? I maxed out Bows, Alchemy, Sneak and Long Blades. When I tried to finish the game I was level 41 (I think), and from level 20 on I was just getting weaker. The combat became LESS varied as the enemies had health bars the length of the map and all I could do was start the fight with a sneak attack poisoned arrow and then run backwards shooting more arrows until I ran out and had to strap on a different quiver of arrows and KEEP SHOOTING MORE ARROWS while backpedaling.

 

[Danpascooch]

I went over the fact that progression does actually occur because combat becomes more complicated and abilities become more varied, but we're at a big disadvantage here since this argument originally was between me and someone else.

There was variation in the combat? I maxed out Bows, Alchemy, Sneak and Long Blades. When I tried to finish the game I was level 41 (I think), and from level 20 on I was just getting weaker. The combat became LESS varied as the enemies had health bars the length of the map and all I could do was start the fight with a sneak attack poisoned arrow and then run backwards shooting more arrows until I ran out and had to strap on a different quiver of arrows and KEEP SHOOTING MORE ARROWS while backpedaling.

The game isn't really meant to function after a point (around level 30), I mean, if you are saying "it started to not work properly after like 50 hours" isn't that really a point in the games favor that it kept you properly challenged for 50 hours? (again that is just a random number, I'm assuming it took you a long time to hit 41) Most RPG's would run out of enemies that post any sort of challenge long before then.

 

[psivamp]

I went over the fact that progression does actually occur because combat becomes more complicated and abilities become more varied, but we're at a big disadvantage here since this argument originally was between me and someone else.

There was variation in the combat? I maxed out Bows, Alchemy, Sneak and Long Blades. When I tried to finish the game I was level 41 (I think), and from level 20 on I was just getting weaker. The combat became LESS varied as the enemies had health bars the length of the map and all I could do was start the fight with a sneak attack poisoned arrow and then run backwards shooting more arrows until I ran out and had to strap on a different quiver of arrows and KEEP SHOOTING MORE ARROWS while backpedaling.

The game isn't really meant to function after a point (around level 30), I mean, if you are saying "it started to not work properly after like 50 hours" isn't that really a point in the games favor that it kept you properly challenged for 50 hours? (again that is just a random number, I'm assuming it took you a long time to hit 41) Most RPG's would run out of enemies that post any sort of challenge long before then.

I was a god at level 20 and that felt pretty good. I continued to level up because I thought that there would be more/better loot and I would gain more abilities. When leveling up means crippling yourself, something is wrong.

The level-scaling doesn't provide a proper challenge. If you level up based on your core combat abilities (and maybe Alchemy), then you can be practically invincible at level 15 or 20. And then that same character gets weaker if he continues to level because he's already got top-end gear and maxed out combat skills. That sucks.

I obsessively play RPGs. I played the bejeezus out of every offering in the Fallout franchise (except the console title). I don't even know how many times I replayed the Baldur's Gate games. The fact that I spent 50 hours in Oblivion said more about my determination than the games leveling mechanic.

 

[Critical_Sneeze]

I don't know, it makes no sense.

I agree with that, the thing I don't agree with is that anyone, anywhere, should care about it.

So if a game is nonsensical and offers a levelling system where you don't actually ever progress, you figure nobody should care. Okie doke.

I figure that if it doesn't negatively impact gameplay, and is just a tweaked version of what we see in virtually every RPG (level progression by zone) then why should we care?

I went over the fact that progression does actually occur because combat becomes more complicated and abilities become more varied, but we're at a big disadvantage here since this argument originally was between me and someone else.

By your argument, no RPG gives any sort of progression, since you move to the zone appropriate to your level, sure you could spend all of the time in the zone 20 levels below you, but NOBODY DOES THAT, so who cares?

Actually they do. Even if a zone has a higher level, simple enemies that show up are far easier to take down. The higher zones also throw more enemies at you because, you know, you can actually take on far more now. You don't get the same enemies from earlier becoming stronger. And don't kid that the combat in Oblivion got that much more complicated. Three extra moves for your sword/hammer over 100 levels that had a 5% chance of working? And even less variation for the bow?

I just think it's pretty much equivalent to traditional leveling, but with the added bonus of you CHOOSING which zones come before other zones. No matter what RPG you play, you're going to end up fighting enemies around your own level, so why not allow you choose where to go and what to explore first? Even if it does mean that a little thing or two might not make sense.

The assertion that traditional RPG's start throwing more enemies at you is not something I agree with, it seems like the enemies just get stronger, you also don't usually see lower enemies come into higher level areas like you seem to think.

Choice is very good yes. Choose wherever you want to explore. But if an area is narratively more dangerous, then make that area more challenging. That's just basic. As for lower enemies not showing up in later areas in traditional RPGs, just off the top of my head, Diablo 1 & 2, Divine Divinity, the first two Fallout games, Neverwinter Nights...

 

[Private Custard]

It just don't feel right being presented with a giant world, told by the game to explore it, and then having certain areas fenced in until hours later.

The game sends mixed signals. Explore, but NOT HERE!

It just doesn't feel right becoming the Fighter's and Mages's guild Leader, being told to by the game that you became a hero and then having all the bandits wear almost the same gear (-enchants) that you worked your ass off for.

The game sends mixed signals. BE GOD, but everyone else WILL BE AS WELL.


I don't want everything to be fenced off, which has nice loot. Only a few areas with designated mobs (which will scale or not scale, depending on what kind of area it should be.)

Thing is, you DIDN'T work your ass off of for the Daedric Armor. It is merely leveled loot, unlike Morrowind, there is no set locations for any powerful artifacts.

You can just start at level 1, and then travel to the location of kick-ass armor.

If you had worked for the armor, then we'd be in agreement, but it's not like you ventured through an incredibly challenging gauntlet of trials for it.

Go on then, I dare you to travel to Tel Fyr as a level one character and start a fight with Divayth Fyr.......unless you want to travel to the farthest region of Solstheim, through all of the werewolves, reiklings, barbarians, wolves, bears etc to get to the castle turret to find the random Daedric left pauldron that's hiding in a corner of the tower on top.

Then maybe at level one you could take on a dremora lord, hoping he'd be carrying a decent Daedric weapon. Then you can try to find a Golden saint, so you can try and get hold of one of those lovely Daedric tower shield......although the only golden saint you'll find at level 1 is Staada, right up north......and you'll get massacred!

I love the way morrowind worked as you really felt like you'd achieved something. When playing Oblivion, nothing felt like it was changing, no matter how many times I levelled up. Enemies were dull to fight and dungeons were dull to explore.

I'd much rather play a game that fucked me over because I got too bold, leaving running away as the only option, rather than a game that is merely varying shades of gray on the excitement scale.

Maybe it's because I had/have a lot of time to spare that I feel that a thousand Oblivions don't come anywhere close to one Morrowind. But Oblivion was a lightweight game, and due to idiotic scaling, barely even worthy of the title of RPG.

 

[Danpascooch]

I went over the fact that progression does actually occur because combat becomes more complicated and abilities become more varied, but we're at a big disadvantage here since this argument originally was between me and someone else.

There was variation in the combat? I maxed out Bows, Alchemy, Sneak and Long Blades. When I tried to finish the game I was level 41 (I think), and from level 20 on I was just getting weaker. The combat became LESS varied as the enemies had health bars the length of the map and all I could do was start the fight with a sneak attack poisoned arrow and then run backwards shooting more arrows until I ran out and had to strap on a different quiver of arrows and KEEP SHOOTING MORE ARROWS while backpedaling.

The game isn't really meant to function after a point (around level 30), I mean, if you are saying "it started to not work properly after like 50 hours" isn't that really a point in the games favor that it kept you properly challenged for 50 hours? (again that is just a random number, I'm assuming it took you a long time to hit 41) Most RPG's would run out of enemies that post any sort of challenge long before then.

I was a god at level 20 and that felt pretty good. I continued to level up because I thought that there would be more/better loot and I would gain more abilities. When leveling up means crippling yourself, something is wrong.

The level-scaling doesn't provide a proper challenge. If you level up based on your core combat abilities (and maybe Alchemy), then you can be practically invincible at level 15 or 20. And then that same character gets weaker if he continues to level because he's already got top-end gear and maxed out combat skills. That sucks.

I obsessively play RPGs. I played the bejeezus out of every offering in the Fallout franchise (except the console title). I don't even know how many times I replayed the Baldur's Gate games. The fact that I spent 50 hours in Oblivion said more about my determination than the games leveling mechanic.

If you can find a reasonable level system that isn't impossible to implement and still allows exploration freedom I'm all ears, but I don't think enduring these cons for the sake of being able to explore freely is a developmental error, rather than a judgement call.

 

[Danpascooch]

I don't know, it makes no sense.

I agree with that, the thing I don't agree with is that anyone, anywhere, should care about it.

So if a game is nonsensical and offers a levelling system where you don't actually ever progress, you figure nobody should care. Okie doke.

I figure that if it doesn't negatively impact gameplay, and is just a tweaked version of what we see in virtually every RPG (level progression by zone) then why should we care?

I went over the fact that progression does actually occur because combat becomes more complicated and abilities become more varied, but we're at a big disadvantage here since this argument originally was between me and someone else.

By your argument, no RPG gives any sort of progression, since you move to the zone appropriate to your level, sure you could spend all of the time in the zone 20 levels below you, but NOBODY DOES THAT, so who cares?

Actually they do. Even if a zone has a higher level, simple enemies that show up are far easier to take down. The higher zones also throw more enemies at you because, you know, you can actually take on far more now. You don't get the same enemies from earlier becoming stronger. And don't kid that the combat in Oblivion got that much more complicated. Three extra moves for your sword/hammer over 100 levels that had a 5% chance of working? And even less variation for the bow?

I just think it's pretty much equivalent to traditional leveling, but with the added bonus of you CHOOSING which zones come before other zones. No matter what RPG you play, you're going to end up fighting enemies around your own level, so why not allow you choose where to go and what to explore first? Even if it does mean that a little thing or two might not make sense.

The assertion that traditional RPG's start throwing more enemies at you is not something I agree with, it seems like the enemies just get stronger, you also don't usually see lower enemies come into higher level areas like you seem to think.

Choice is very good yes. Choose wherever you want to explore. But if an area is narratively more dangerous, then make that area more challenging. That's just basic. As for lower enemies not showing up in later areas in traditional RPGs, just off the top of my head, Diablo 1 & 2, Divine Divinity, the first two Fallout games, Neverwinter Nights...

You found low level enemies hanging out in high level areas in Fallout 1 and 2? I sure as hell didn't, where did you find them?

Anyway, I think these cons are worth the fact that this system allows you ultimate choice in freedom to explore and visit areas in whatever order you want. If you know of another system that offers such extreme flexibility do tell.

As for areas being dangerous that are portrayed as dangerous in narrative, I thought they handled that quite well, I mean, at any given level, I found a deadric gate much more dangerous than your average run in with bandits.

 

[thiosk]

Even open world games should have some places a new char cant get to. You shouldn't be able to penetrate the depths of the darkest ruins from level 1, and by the same token, bandits shouldn't be in full glass and daedric armor by level 15.

 

[Critical_Sneeze]

I don't know, it makes no sense.

I agree with that, the thing I don't agree with is that anyone, anywhere, should care about it.

So if a game is nonsensical and offers a levelling system where you don't actually ever progress, you figure nobody should care. Okie doke.

I figure that if it doesn't negatively impact gameplay, and is just a tweaked version of what we see in virtually every RPG (level progression by zone) then why should we care?

I went over the fact that progression does actually occur because combat becomes more complicated and abilities become more varied, but we're at a big disadvantage here since this argument originally was between me and someone else.

By your argument, no RPG gives any sort of progression, since you move to the zone appropriate to your level, sure you could spend all of the time in the zone 20 levels below you, but NOBODY DOES THAT, so who cares?

Actually they do. Even if a zone has a higher level, simple enemies that show up are far easier to take down. The higher zones also throw more enemies at you because, you know, you can actually take on far more now. You don't get the same enemies from earlier becoming stronger. And don't kid that the combat in Oblivion got that much more complicated. Three extra moves for your sword/hammer over 100 levels that had a 5% chance of working? And even less variation for the bow?

I just think it's pretty much equivalent to traditional leveling, but with the added bonus of you CHOOSING which zones come before other zones. No matter what RPG you play, you're going to end up fighting enemies around your own level, so why not allow you choose where to go and what to explore first? Even if it does mean that a little thing or two might not make sense.

The assertion that traditional RPG's start throwing more enemies at you is not something I agree with, it seems like the enemies just get stronger, you also don't usually see lower enemies come into higher level areas like you seem to think.

Choice is very good yes. Choose wherever you want to explore. But if an area is narratively more dangerous, then make that area more challenging. That's just basic. As for lower enemies not showing up in later areas in traditional RPGs, just off the top of my head, Diablo 1 & 2, Divine Divinity, the first two Fallout games, Neverwinter Nights...

You found low level enemies hanging out in high level areas in Fallout 1 and 2? I sure as hell didn't, where did you find them?

Anyway, I think these cons are worth the fact that this system allows you ultimate choice in freedom to explore and visit areas in whatever order you want. If you know of another system that offers such extreme flexibility do tell.

As for areas being dangerous that are portrayed as dangerous in narrative, I thought they handled that quite well, I mean, at any given level, I found a deadric gate much more dangerous than your average run in with bandits.

And yet, a daedric gate's difficulty failed to change when you levelled.

The point you made about flexibility is correct, but "extreme" flexibility isn't a good thing. Being as flexible as possible is giving someone unlimited ammo and all weapons on level 1 of a shooter. There's a reason they build progression into these things.

As for Fallout, radscorpions, rats, unarmoured/lightly armoured civilians with pistols, raiders.

 

[Danpascooch]

I don't know, it makes no sense.

I agree with that, the thing I don't agree with is that anyone, anywhere, should care about it.

So if a game is nonsensical and offers a levelling system where you don't actually ever progress, you figure nobody should care. Okie doke.

I figure that if it doesn't negatively impact gameplay, and is just a tweaked version of what we see in virtually every RPG (level progression by zone) then why should we care?

I went over the fact that progression does actually occur because combat becomes more complicated and abilities become more varied, but we're at a big disadvantage here since this argument originally was between me and someone else.

By your argument, no RPG gives any sort of progression, since you move to the zone appropriate to your level, sure you could spend all of the time in the zone 20 levels below you, but NOBODY DOES THAT, so who cares?

Actually they do. Even if a zone has a higher level, simple enemies that show up are far easier to take down. The higher zones also throw more enemies at you because, you know, you can actually take on far more now. You don't get the same enemies from earlier becoming stronger. And don't kid that the combat in Oblivion got that much more complicated. Three extra moves for your sword/hammer over 100 levels that had a 5% chance of working? And even less variation for the bow?

I just think it's pretty much equivalent to traditional leveling, but with the added bonus of you CHOOSING which zones come before other zones. No matter what RPG you play, you're going to end up fighting enemies around your own level, so why not allow you choose where to go and what to explore first? Even if it does mean that a little thing or two might not make sense.

The assertion that traditional RPG's start throwing more enemies at you is not something I agree with, it seems like the enemies just get stronger, you also don't usually see lower enemies come into higher level areas like you seem to think.

Choice is very good yes. Choose wherever you want to explore. But if an area is narratively more dangerous, then make that area more challenging. That's just basic. As for lower enemies not showing up in later areas in traditional RPGs, just off the top of my head, Diablo 1 & 2, Divine Divinity, the first two Fallout games, Neverwinter Nights...

You found low level enemies hanging out in high level areas in Fallout 1 and 2? I sure as hell didn't, where did you find them?

Anyway, I think these cons are worth the fact that this system allows you ultimate choice in freedom to explore and visit areas in whatever order you want. If you know of another system that offers such extreme flexibility do tell.

As for areas being dangerous that are portrayed as dangerous in narrative, I thought they handled that quite well, I mean, at any given level, I found a deadric gate much more dangerous than your average run in with bandits.

And yet, a daedric gate's difficulty failed to change when you levelled.

The point you made about flexibility is correct, but "extreme" flexibility isn't a good thing. Being as flexible as possible is giving someone unlimited ammo and all weapons on level 1 of a shooter. There's a reason they build progression into these things.

As for Fallout, radscorpions, rats, unarmoured/lightly armoured civilians with pistols, raiders.

That example you gave of extreme flexibility is hardly fair, as the main problem with that example is one that is not present in Oblivion at all. The game still poses difficulty, so I fail to see the problem, unless someone really is such a roleplayer that the idea that the guards and such get stronger is totally gamebreaking.