Skyrim, level-scaling, and you.

[WolfThomas]

I'm not a fan of level-scaling. I like in games via clever tactics beating an enemy when I'm dangerously underleveled to get their awesome loot or later on carving my way effortlessly through stuff that gave me grief earlier on.

I also likeed in Morrowind that from level one you could get the best armour and weapons if you were smart enough to find them.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

It'll do.

But if I feel rail-roaded to certain areas at any point...I'll fucking gut someone.

I want to be able to go anywhere in the world without running into something way out of my league.

Fucking Daedric Ruins in Morrowind.

Oh hey, you're level 3!

STORM ATRONACH, DAEDROTH.

That's not a challenge, that's a massacre. At that point, the player is likely carrying less than 10 healing potions, and iron weapons.

Or the Deathclaws in New Vegas at the start. Can be done, but not without a considerable hurting on the inventory and much reloading.

Honestly? I really liked the way it worked in Morrowind. I don't remember running into places I couldn't survive very often, and when I did I just went "Well shit, better not go there until I'm a bit better." That's the whole point of leveling in RPGs, to get better and do things you couldn't previously. If the game makes all enemies beatable at the very beginning, what's the point of leveling up?

Oblivion's level scaling was bullshit. It should die in a fire.

/thread

oblivion's syetem (while i spent too much time playing oblivion) was broken it just didnt give me a sense of victory

I remember in morrowind, at level 1 when treking to balmora (sp) i walked instead of fast travelling and along the way i found a highwayman, i refused to pay but i couldnt ever defeat him at level 1, after 3 tries i had to pay him the money which made me feel like a failiure, 3 levels later i went back and chopped his head off!
i felt like i had achieved something, that i was now actually strong and was able to take on the world (as long as it wasnt a dungeon). oblivion lacked this. i really wish that the next one doesnt or at least the level scaling is much more improved.

Exactly, I remember how scary it was sleeping outside Balmora on the way there and getting woken up by a Nixhound. That was fucking scary, man.

 

[Mystify]

Here is my take on the level scaling:
I want places that I can't walk into at level 1 and expect to live. If I am exploring the deepest, darkest mine in the world at level 1, I want a Balrog to eat me, not goblins to slaughter. Of course, this mine should not be something you randomly wander into at level 1 either. Conversely, If I go into the sylvan forest outside of the starting town at level 20, I should laugh at the little puny wolves, not run in fear from the storm giants.

Part of what makes this work is level appropriate loot, for the monsters/dungeon. Sure, a level 20 can wade through the rats in the sewer no problem, but there is nothing there worth his time. On the other hand, tackling the dungeon thats fairly challenging will net you better loot, making it worth the effort.

Coupled with this is how you get quests. Basically, the higher level you are, the more prestigious people who will try to give you quests. At low levels, you operate off of the beggar's rumors, at high levels you get summons from the king. The various levels of people will have knowledge of different types of challenges. The beggar knows about the rats in the sewer, while the king is concerned about the dragon raiding villages.

As for the people who say that it discourages exploration to have above-level dungeons, that is a very odd stance to take. "Oh, I'm a level 1 character, but I really want to go and tackle the hell world now. Why should I need to be powerful before entering hell?" If you don't have any relative progression, why bother having a leveling system at all? Just make everything a mostly stable power, and you can go wherever you want without a problem? Why bother with the whole charade of leveling, but not increasing, or sometimes decreasing, in relative power? If you are leveling up, then it should mean something. Gaining access to new areas is one of the most satisfying achievements for me in a game. I have now made progress, I have a new area to explore, and my boundaries have expanded. This occurs in all sorts of well-known and popular games: Zelda, Pokemon, Metroid...

This can also be designed for improved replay much more than the level scaling would. If there are 10 level 6 dungeons and 2 dungeons is enough for me to level to 7, I will not be exploring 8 of the dungeons on this play-through, since I have moved past them. Or I could be tackling dungeons that are a bit harder or easier, depending on my preference. Next time I play through the game, I can explore a different set of dungeons, and still be exploring, instead of running to my favorite dungeon.

This is not to say there can't be places where level scaling is used. If you have a rival, they can be level-scaled appropriately. Or an Arena-challenge, like oblivion had after you finished the normal tournaments. There can also be directed battles where someone is attacked you because of your power level. You don't get directed battles that are too weak, because they wouldn't think they could take you, or too strong, because then you are not worth their time. Some possible directed battles include bounty hunters, bandits, assassins, etc.

There should also be dungeons above the level of the main plotline (like the unkown dungeon in pokemon) to provide a further challenge to those who want it.

I feel a game structure like this would work out very well. You have a clear progression of power, rewards for taking on harder dungeons, lots of replay value, lots of freedom of exploration, clear accomplishments and benefits of leveling, no issues with underpowering yourself from leveling, no issue with the level 1 fish one-shotting you, no enemies leveling past your combat cap, a clear sense of becoming more powerful in relation to the world, and the ability to maintain a consistent level of challenge.

 

[Critical_Sneeze]

...
Whatever, if you're not going to tell me what the bigger complaint is in a way more specific than "poor level design" then I don't have time for this crap

I only skim read your conversation and even I know what his complaint is. I like to sum it up like this.

By the game's definitions, someone who is an "apprentice" of near enough everything (like, say, sword fighting) should not be able to swing said sword and save the world. Surely it makes sense that someone who's crap at fighting can't defeat those heavily armoured, highly skilled fellas from the hell pit.

And how is that somehow a grander more involved complain then "you shouldn't beat the game at level 2"

That's just rephrasing the exact same complaint, he said I "ignored" the larger complant.

If you don't know how it's relevant then by all means, keep ignoring it.

 

[Savagezion]

Anyone who can't see that Oblivion's level system was broken all the way around needs to take off their fanboy glasses. The fact is Oblivion punishes you for not playing their game like a meticulous OCD on your skills and have a dose of ADD when exploring the map or playing the campaign.
I'll ignore the other faults I personally have with the game. But to not admit that the level system (both player leveling and level scaling) is just blatant fanboy blinders. It was way too easy to fall into a situation where you had all your levels in the crapper because you got TOO HIGH a level. This all to avoid the problem of being TOO LOW a level to fight things prematurely. It honestly makes no sense and is self defeating.

As for the "I can't go anywhere" at level 1 without level scaling argument, well "yeah". Since you have no training, how about you go to the South American Jungles tomorrow? Then the a week later go fight some Taliban in Baghdad. Then a week later head on down to Antarctica. What makes you think you should be able to? THAT is being "overpowered" in the beginning of the game. Or it means that the game is not challenging.

Apparently, RPGs shouldn't give the player a consistent challenge, and you should be an over-powered bastard at the end game, or something. Grinding through tough spots should also totally be an option, too. And Bandits look silly in Glass Armor or whatever.

In the beginning you say this provides the player with challenge. But then say that you should be able to skip "the tough spots". What sense does that make? You managed to contradict your very point in the sentence immediately after you state your point.

The only way to beat it at level two is to specifically try to avoid growing levels, if you're that stupid you shouldn't blame the game for it

Actually, you should. This shows a flaw in the system which is something that should be covered in the BETA. That's what BETAs are for, trying to break the game. This is an exploit that made it past the dev team. Probably better said as a flaw in the mechanic though instead of using the word "exploit" which I personally refer to more as a verb rather than a noun. As it is also a flaw that anyone who waits until being above level 30 has a harder time beating the game. The system would be better off if you were required to sleep (via hardcore mode in FO:NV) or better yet, if skills were capped. And having a max level could easily avoid this problem of leveling up to fast or taking your time.

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!

Explore doesn't mean go walk on every blade of grass. When you discover that bad ass mobs are roaming an area, you have explored there. If you want to explore deeper, then enter at your own risk. I will use your Fallout: New Vegas reference. You are advised not to go north. They warn you multiple times before you can even get there. You can even run into Radscorpions on the way north which lets you know how hard THEY are to kill so imagine the Deathclaws. But say you push on anyways. You can manage to actually get your sneak up high enough in 1 or 2 levels so that you can sneak right past the deathclaws provided you keep distance and maybe use a stealthboy (like the one you found in the schoolhouse) to get by any questionable moments. Vuala, you just snuck into Vegas at level 2-3.
In the traditional world creating (non level scaled worlds) where there is a will, there is a way. It isn't easy, but a *ahem* true challenge never is. But freedom is still there. It just requires the player to think and not run around the map willy-nilly not fearing anything.

Having mentioned the "sneak by the deathclaws" method now, look at all the directions they do offer. You can explore anywhere between south and east. (West is a mountain range [wall]) The southern half of the map is just as large as the northern part. Why do you fell you HAVE to discover that first? There is a lot to explore south too and you can pretty much do it in whatever order you want. Or you can head to Vegas ASAP - all you have to do is choose a smart route and don't just set it as a waypoint on your compass and run straight for it. Don't try to fight something that is bad ass when you couldn't even deal with the thugs that shot you in the beginning when the game started 30 minutes ago.

I could pick holes in these arguments throughout this thread all day but this is already a pretty long thread so here is what I have so far.

 

[Nocta-Aeterna]

snip

snip

Oh right, I get it. Enemies all scale to your own level, so you get a challenge throughout. I can't yet decide if this is good or bad.

On one hand there is a nice challenge all the way through the game, so that makes it a bit more fun I guess. But on the other hand you can go anywhere at any level, without levelling up and kill whatever is in your way (still a challenge but can also leave you with a bit of disappointment because you feel as if your character still has the same amount of power as he/she/it did 6 levels ago.

At least that is what I think it is about, is there anything more than it than that? I'm sort of on the line with this one.

You summarized, perfectly, the main argument between the "for and against" enemy scaling crowds.

Generally, enemy scaling works really well for repeat playthroughs, when you already know your favorite dungeons and quests.

And having to grind up to a certain level of ability again, just makes repeat playthroughs a hassle at times.

This is the reason I played Oblivion so many times, with the full enemy scaling, there is nothing stopping me from running to my favorite haunts with a new character. I can head there right away, without being bothered by anything I can't handle. You still get a challenge from the boss enemies of dungeons.

The only real issue starts at higher levels of around 30. You combat skills cap at 100, and enemies will still get stronger with more health, even when you level through your Speechcraft skill, and you're still doing the same amount of damage.

For people who play one character, scaling can suck really bad and make the game into a wall that requires glitch/exploit abuse to make it through at higher levels.

Evenso, it's still feels rather incongruous to enter the Palace of Greater Undead, throne to the mightiest Lich to ever unlive, and find something barely more than a shambling skeleton with a robe. Then, a week later you delve into a random anonymous crypt to find an onslaught of reality shattering undead mages.

 

[Danpascooch]

...
Whatever, if you're not going to tell me what the bigger complaint is in a way more specific than "poor level design" then I don't have time for this crap

I only skim read your conversation and even I know what his complaint is. I like to sum it up like this.

By the game's definitions, someone who is an "apprentice" of near enough everything (like, say, sword fighting) should not be able to swing said sword and save the world. Surely it makes sense that someone who's crap at fighting can't defeat those heavily armoured, highly skilled fellas from the hell pit.

And how is that somehow a grander more involved complain then "you shouldn't beat the game at level 2"

That's just rephrasing the exact same complaint, he said I "ignored" the larger complant.

If you don't know how it's relevant then by all means, keep ignoring it.

I didn't say it wasn't relevant, I'm saying I've been addressing that the entire time since it's the exact same complaint as "you shouldn't be able to beat the game at level 2" which is the complaint I've been addressing the entire time!

(I just noticed I accidentally left out the words "be able" in my last post, perhaps that's the reason for the confusion?)

 

[Danpascooch]

Anyone who can't see that Oblivion's level system was broken all the way around needs to take off their fanboy glasses. The fact is Oblivion punishes you for not playing their game like a meticulous OCD on your skills and have a dose of ADD when exploring the map or playing the campaign.
I'll ignore the other faults I personally have with the game. But to not admit that the level system (both player leveling and level scaling) is just blatant fanboy blinders. It was way too easy to fall into a situation where you had all your levels in the crapper because you got TOO HIGH a level. This all to avoid the problem of being TOO LOW a level to fight things prematurely. It honestly makes no sense and is self defeating.

As for the "I can't go anywhere" at level 1 without level scaling argument, well "yeah". Since you have no training, how about you go to the South American Jungles tomorrow? Then the a week later go fight some Taliban in Baghdad. Then a week later head on down to Antarctica. What makes you think you should be able to? THAT is being "overpowered" in the beginning of the game. Or it means that the game is not challenging.

Apparently, RPGs shouldn't give the player a consistent challenge, and you should be an over-powered bastard at the end game, or something. Grinding through tough spots should also totally be an option, too. And Bandits look silly in Glass Armor or whatever.

In the beginning you say this provides the player with challenge. But then say that you should be able to skip "the tough spots". What sense does that make? You managed to contradict your very point in the sentence immediately after you state your point.

The only way to beat it at level two is to specifically try to avoid growing levels, if you're that stupid you shouldn't blame the game for it

Actually, you should. This shows a flaw in the system which is something that should be covered in the BETA. That's what BETAs are for, trying to break the game. This is an exploit that made it past the dev team. Probably better said as a flaw in the mechanic though instead of using the word "exploit" which I personally refer to more as a verb rather than a noun. As it is also a flaw that anyone who waits until being above level 30 has a harder time beating the game. The system would be better off if you were required to sleep (via hardcore mode in FO:NV) or better yet, if skills were capped. And having a max level could easily avoid this problem of leveling up to fast or taking your time.

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!

Explore doesn't mean go walk on every blade of grass. When you discover that bad ass mobs are roaming an area, you have explored there. If you want to explore deeper, then enter at your own risk. I will use your Fallout: New Vegas reference. You are advised not to go north. They warn you multiple times before you can even get there. You can even run into Radscorpions on the way north which lets you know how hard THEY are to kill so imagine the Deathclaws. But say you push on anyways. You can manage to actually get your sneak up high enough in 1 or 2 levels so that you can sneak right past the deathclaws provided you keep distance and maybe use a stealthboy (like the one you found in the schoolhouse) to get by any questionable moments. Vuala, you just snuck into Vegas at level 2-3.
In the traditional world creating (non level scaled worlds) where there is a will, there is a way. It isn't easy, but a *ahem* true challenge never is. But freedom is still there. It just requires the player to think and not run around the map willy-nilly not fearing anything.

Having mentioned the "sneak by the deathclaws" method now, look at all the directions they do offer. You can explore anywhere between south and east. (West is a mountain range [wall]) The southern half of the map is just as large as the northern part. Why do you fell you HAVE to discover that first? There is a lot to explore south too and you can pretty much do it in whatever order you want. Or you can head to Vegas ASAP - all you have to do is choose a smart route and don't just set it as a waypoint on your compass and run straight for it. Don't try to fight something that is bad ass when you couldn't even deal with the thugs that shot you in the beginning when the game started 30 minutes ago.

I could pick holes in these arguments throughout this thread all day but this is already a pretty long thread so here is what I have so far.

I honestly don't think it would be worth it to force sleep upon players.

It would fix the problem for the 0.5% of people who are trying to break the game anyway, and just be annoying to the 99.5% of players who aren't dicks.

 

[Critical_Sneeze]

...
Whatever, if you're not going to tell me what the bigger complaint is in a way more specific than "poor level design" then I don't have time for this crap

I only skim read your conversation and even I know what his complaint is. I like to sum it up like this.

By the game's definitions, someone who is an "apprentice" of near enough everything (like, say, sword fighting) should not be able to swing said sword and save the world. Surely it makes sense that someone who's crap at fighting can't defeat those heavily armoured, highly skilled fellas from the hell pit.

And how is that somehow a grander more involved complain then "you shouldn't beat the game at level 2"

That's just rephrasing the exact same complaint, he said I "ignored" the larger complant.

If you don't know how it's relevant then by all means, keep ignoring it.

I didn't say it wasn't relevant, I'm saying I've been addressing that the entire time since it's the exact same complaint as "you shouldn't be able to beat the game at level 2" which is the complaint I've been addressing the entire time!

(I just noticed I accidentally left out the words "be able" in my last post, perhaps that's the reason for the confusion?)

I don't see why you wouldn't already see this as a "grand and involved" complaint. It's a deal breaker as far as the game is concerned. If I get to the end of the game at level 10 just as easily as beating it at level 30, then that is poor design. Imagine playing a space combat sim. You upgrade your ship to fire lasers instead of missiles. As soon as you do, everyone in the galaxy gets laser shields that they didn't have before. That's poor game design.

 

[Danpascooch]

...
Whatever, if you're not going to tell me what the bigger complaint is in a way more specific than "poor level design" then I don't have time for this crap

I only skim read your conversation and even I know what his complaint is. I like to sum it up like this.

By the game's definitions, someone who is an "apprentice" of near enough everything (like, say, sword fighting) should not be able to swing said sword and save the world. Surely it makes sense that someone who's crap at fighting can't defeat those heavily armoured, highly skilled fellas from the hell pit.

And how is that somehow a grander more involved complain then "you shouldn't beat the game at level 2"

That's just rephrasing the exact same complaint, he said I "ignored" the larger complant.

If you don't know how it's relevant then by all means, keep ignoring it.

I didn't say it wasn't relevant, I'm saying I've been addressing that the entire time since it's the exact same complaint as "you shouldn't be able to beat the game at level 2" which is the complaint I've been addressing the entire time!

(I just noticed I accidentally left out the words "be able" in my last post, perhaps that's the reason for the confusion?)

I don't see why you wouldn't already see this as a "grand and involved" complaint. It's a deal breaker as far as the game is concerned. If I get to the end of the game at level 10 just as easily as beating it at level 30, then that is poor design. Imagine playing a space combat sim. You upgrade your ship to fire lasers instead of missiles. As soon as you do, everyone in the galaxy gets laser shields that they didn't have before. That's poor game design.

If you want to see why I don't think it's a problem, see my other 15,000 posts responding to that guy, this latest little quote line is about how I've been ignoring the "larger problem". Whether or not it's a grand complaint is irrelevant, the point is it's the same complaint I've been addressing the entire time, I didn't ignore anything.

 

[Critical_Sneeze]

...
Whatever, if you're not going to tell me what the bigger complaint is in a way more specific than "poor level design" then I don't have time for this crap

I only skim read your conversation and even I know what his complaint is. I like to sum it up like this.

By the game's definitions, someone who is an "apprentice" of near enough everything (like, say, sword fighting) should not be able to swing said sword and save the world. Surely it makes sense that someone who's crap at fighting can't defeat those heavily armoured, highly skilled fellas from the hell pit.

And how is that somehow a grander more involved complain then "you shouldn't beat the game at level 2"

That's just rephrasing the exact same complaint, he said I "ignored" the larger complant.

If you don't know how it's relevant then by all means, keep ignoring it.

I didn't say it wasn't relevant, I'm saying I've been addressing that the entire time since it's the exact same complaint as "you shouldn't be able to beat the game at level 2" which is the complaint I've been addressing the entire time!

(I just noticed I accidentally left out the words "be able" in my last post, perhaps that's the reason for the confusion?)

I don't see why you wouldn't already see this as a "grand and involved" complaint. It's a deal breaker as far as the game is concerned. If I get to the end of the game at level 10 just as easily as beating it at level 30, then that is poor design. Imagine playing a space combat sim. You upgrade your ship to fire lasers instead of missiles. As soon as you do, everyone in the galaxy gets laser shields that they didn't have before. That's poor game design.

If you want to see why I don't think it's a problem, see my other 15,000 posts responding to that guy, this latest little quote line is about how I've been ignoring the "larger problem". Whether or not it's a grand complaint is irrelevant, the point is it's the same complaint I've been addressing the entire time, I didn't ignore anything.

Ok, snappy answer then.

"Everyone in Cyrodil getting a brand new magical shipment of skills, armour and weaponry while my character is asleep is good because... [your opinion here]"

 

[Xaositect]

I could start to wonder too much about the whole levelling implications, but my main concern isnt that aspect, but what it does to the economy/loot.

Oblivion was fucking awful for littering the "best" gear throughout the land. That means its not the best, its fucking average.

Deadric armour was legendary in Morrowind. In Oblivion, its like its passed down from every bandits fecking granny!

 

[Danpascooch]

...
Whatever, if you're not going to tell me what the bigger complaint is in a way more specific than "poor level design" then I don't have time for this crap

I only skim read your conversation and even I know what his complaint is. I like to sum it up like this.

By the game's definitions, someone who is an "apprentice" of near enough everything (like, say, sword fighting) should not be able to swing said sword and save the world. Surely it makes sense that someone who's crap at fighting can't defeat those heavily armoured, highly skilled fellas from the hell pit.

And how is that somehow a grander more involved complain then "you shouldn't beat the game at level 2"

That's just rephrasing the exact same complaint, he said I "ignored" the larger complant.

If you don't know how it's relevant then by all means, keep ignoring it.

I didn't say it wasn't relevant, I'm saying I've been addressing that the entire time since it's the exact same complaint as "you shouldn't be able to beat the game at level 2" which is the complaint I've been addressing the entire time!

(I just noticed I accidentally left out the words "be able" in my last post, perhaps that's the reason for the confusion?)

I don't see why you wouldn't already see this as a "grand and involved" complaint. It's a deal breaker as far as the game is concerned. If I get to the end of the game at level 10 just as easily as beating it at level 30, then that is poor design. Imagine playing a space combat sim. You upgrade your ship to fire lasers instead of missiles. As soon as you do, everyone in the galaxy gets laser shields that they didn't have before. That's poor game design.

If you want to see why I don't think it's a problem, see my other 15,000 posts responding to that guy, this latest little quote line is about how I've been ignoring the "larger problem". Whether or not it's a grand complaint is irrelevant, the point is it's the same complaint I've been addressing the entire time, I didn't ignore anything.

Ok, snappy answer then.

"Everyone in Cyrodil getting a brand new magical shipment of skills, armour and weaponry while my character is asleep is good because... [your opinion here]"

You're talking about the lore implications of why it happened? I thought it was about gameplay.

Yeah, as for the implications of how everyone suddenly got stronger, I have no idea, but then again, is that not the same problem in almost every game? Look at something like World of Warcraft, why is it that the guards at Goldshire are like level 10, when the guards out in Northrend are level 80, does it make sense that one of the Northrend guards could kill 400 of the Goldshire guards? No, it makes no sense that one guy could arbitrarily kill 400 of the earlier guys just because he's in a higher level zone, that's just how video games are.

 

[Critical_Sneeze]

...
Whatever, if you're not going to tell me what the bigger complaint is in a way more specific than "poor level design" then I don't have time for this crap

I only skim read your conversation and even I know what his complaint is. I like to sum it up like this.

By the game's definitions, someone who is an "apprentice" of near enough everything (like, say, sword fighting) should not be able to swing said sword and save the world. Surely it makes sense that someone who's crap at fighting can't defeat those heavily armoured, highly skilled fellas from the hell pit.

And how is that somehow a grander more involved complain then "you shouldn't beat the game at level 2"

That's just rephrasing the exact same complaint, he said I "ignored" the larger complant.

If you don't know how it's relevant then by all means, keep ignoring it.

I didn't say it wasn't relevant, I'm saying I've been addressing that the entire time since it's the exact same complaint as "you shouldn't be able to beat the game at level 2" which is the complaint I've been addressing the entire time!

(I just noticed I accidentally left out the words "be able" in my last post, perhaps that's the reason for the confusion?)

I don't see why you wouldn't already see this as a "grand and involved" complaint. It's a deal breaker as far as the game is concerned. If I get to the end of the game at level 10 just as easily as beating it at level 30, then that is poor design. Imagine playing a space combat sim. You upgrade your ship to fire lasers instead of missiles. As soon as you do, everyone in the galaxy gets laser shields that they didn't have before. That's poor game design.

If you want to see why I don't think it's a problem, see my other 15,000 posts responding to that guy, this latest little quote line is about how I've been ignoring the "larger problem". Whether or not it's a grand complaint is irrelevant, the point is it's the same complaint I've been addressing the entire time, I didn't ignore anything.

Ok, snappy answer then.

"Everyone in Cyrodil getting a brand new magical shipment of skills, armour and weaponry while my character is asleep is good because... [your opinion here]"

You're talking about the lore implications of why it happened? I thought it was about gameplay.

Yeah, as for the implications of how everyone suddenly got stronger, I have no idea, but then again, is that not the same problem in almost every game? Look at something like World of Warcraft, why is it that the guards at Goldshire are like level 10, when the guards out in Northrend are level 80, does it make sense that one of the Northrend guards could kill 400 of the Goldshire guards? No, it makes no sense that one guy could arbitrarily kill 400 of the earlier guys just because he's in a higher level zone, that's just how video games are.

Having not played WoW I couldn't comment. I'm assuming that the level 10 guards stay at level 10 and the level 80 guards stay at level 80, despite what your character does?
The difference is, that if a cougar was kicking your ass earlier, why does it not get easier to kill once you've levelled and trained 10 times over? A hardier breed evolved in the last 3 days?

 

[Danpascooch]

...
Whatever, if you're not going to tell me what the bigger complaint is in a way more specific than "poor level design" then I don't have time for this crap

I only skim read your conversation and even I know what his complaint is. I like to sum it up like this.

By the game's definitions, someone who is an "apprentice" of near enough everything (like, say, sword fighting) should not be able to swing said sword and save the world. Surely it makes sense that someone who's crap at fighting can't defeat those heavily armoured, highly skilled fellas from the hell pit.

And how is that somehow a grander more involved complain then "you shouldn't beat the game at level 2"

That's just rephrasing the exact same complaint, he said I "ignored" the larger complant.

If you don't know how it's relevant then by all means, keep ignoring it.

I didn't say it wasn't relevant, I'm saying I've been addressing that the entire time since it's the exact same complaint as "you shouldn't be able to beat the game at level 2" which is the complaint I've been addressing the entire time!

(I just noticed I accidentally left out the words "be able" in my last post, perhaps that's the reason for the confusion?)

I don't see why you wouldn't already see this as a "grand and involved" complaint. It's a deal breaker as far as the game is concerned. If I get to the end of the game at level 10 just as easily as beating it at level 30, then that is poor design. Imagine playing a space combat sim. You upgrade your ship to fire lasers instead of missiles. As soon as you do, everyone in the galaxy gets laser shields that they didn't have before. That's poor game design.

If you want to see why I don't think it's a problem, see my other 15,000 posts responding to that guy, this latest little quote line is about how I've been ignoring the "larger problem". Whether or not it's a grand complaint is irrelevant, the point is it's the same complaint I've been addressing the entire time, I didn't ignore anything.

Ok, snappy answer then.

"Everyone in Cyrodil getting a brand new magical shipment of skills, armour and weaponry while my character is asleep is good because... [your opinion here]"

You're talking about the lore implications of why it happened? I thought it was about gameplay.

Yeah, as for the implications of how everyone suddenly got stronger, I have no idea, but then again, is that not the same problem in almost every game? Look at something like World of Warcraft, why is it that the guards at Goldshire are like level 10, when the guards out in Northrend are level 80, does it make sense that one of the Northrend guards could kill 400 of the Goldshire guards? No, it makes no sense that one guy could arbitrarily kill 400 of the earlier guys just because he's in a higher level zone, that's just how video games are.

Having not played WoW I couldn't comment. I'm assuming that the level 10 guards stay at level 10 and the level 80 guards stay at level 80, despite what your character does?
The difference is, that if a cougar was kicking your ass earlier, why does it not get easier to kill once you've levelled and trained 10 times over? A hardier breed evolved in the last 3 days?

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.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[psivamp]

I don't really care how I level up, I just like to play the game. What do people not like about Level Scaling though??

Who wants to spend a whole minute taking down a troll using enchanted arrows poisoned with the best poison you can make?

Level scaling in Oblivion was outrageous. You'd peak your damage output and have the best weapons and if you keep leveling from there you're wasting your time because you just make yourself weaker. I'd rather feel a sense of accomplishment when I level up than facepalm because I accidentally slept in a bed and leveled up the enemies.

 

[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?

 

[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.