Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Virtz]

That has absolutely no relevance to the point I was making. The point I was making was about how game progression is approached.

Tell you what, I'll edit the post so you don't have to argue anymore, at least until you have a decent retort or something.

Yeah, you're making it out to be some sort of story creation tool. It ain't. In order to do what you've been talking about, they'd have to be replaying the game and actually care. You can't do any "creating your own story" using level scaling without knowing what you're about to face and most players don't care (and they shouldn't since it's a singleplayer game that should do the storytelling itself).

There's nothing to understand about level scaling, nor is there some secret objective behind it. It's a lazy balancing tool to make sure the player always encounters something around his level, never has to grind and can go anywhere he wants.

And in your post you said DF is an excellent example of level scaling. If by excellent example of level scaling you meant its utter abscence, then I'd agree. But apparently you don't mean that. You have some strange concept of what level scaling means, hence my post. Oh wait, you meant something else apparently.

[shadenight123]

level scaling in skyrim hasn't been changed? i read somewhere they intended to make areas where enemies were Stronger than the player, same level as player and areas where the enemies are weaker than player.
and dragons aren't they randomly generated? or are they also level scaled?

[3]

It is in the case of Oblivion, with results exactly as described by Leatra.

Oh I don't think it was incompetence. After all, they managed to do it perfectly well in Morrowind, so I think Oblivion's total scaling was a decision made entirely on purpose. The incompetence wasn't in their toolkit usage skills but rather in the underlying game design.

Those I concede. I guess I'm talking more about the potential, effective use of level scaling rather than what actually happened.

I don't see what metagaming the system like that has to do with open-world RPG gameplay. If anything, a system that can be abused in such a way is a bad one.

It doesn't need to have anything to do with metagaming. I think that ideally, the player wouldn't notice the scaling taking place. If other players play anything like I do, they'll follow the writing, have a rough awareness of when climactic moments are going to occur, and respond accordingly, getting an idea of which quests and actions have more or less weight than others. The player can - almost subconciously - balance the scaling of their own accord. It's obviously never going to be foolproof because people will undoubtedly figure out which rewards are best to go for first and such, but I think it would work for a while if there was enough synergy going on between the writers and designers. It's not all that different from how Oblivion was designed, just less artificial.

But then maybe that wouldn't work for most other people. I'm the odd sort who feels he can give (cheat) himself rewards appropriate to the challenge surmounted even if the game doesn't have anything in mind.

Yeah, you're making it out to be some sort of story creation tool. It ain't. In order to do what you've been talking about, they'd have to be replaying the game and actually care. You can't do any "creating your own story" using level scaling without knowing what you're about to face and most players don't care (and they shouldn't since it's a singleplayer game that should do the storytelling itself).

I think the rest of this post might go a way to responding to this.

[Virtz]

level scaling in skyrim hasn't been changed? i read somewhere they intended to make areas where enemies were Stronger than the player, same level as player and areas where the enemies are weaker than player.
and dragons aren't they randomly generated? or are they also level scaled?

From what I've heard, it's supposed to be like Fallout 3. Like there's areas with different level ranges and that these get locked to nearest the player's level possible once the player visits that area.

Which sounds different compared to Oblivion, but to me it felt the same since I never revisited areas after respawns occured and the level ranges were apparently lenient enough to throw end-game mutant overlords into the DC area.

EDIT: Also, I've heard something about unlimited number of dragons, so at least most of them are random, I think.

[shadenight123]

EDIT: Also, I've heard something about unlimited number of dragons, so at least most of them are random, I think.

randomized and randomly placed.

so it's like...

"finished tutorial yeahy!!!"
*ROAAARRRR*
"oh hell." *death by fireish doom.

[Felius]

EDIT: Also, I've heard something about unlimited number of dragons, so at least most of them are random, I think.

randomized and randomly placed.

so it's like...

"finished tutorial yeahy!!!"
*ROAAARRRR*
"oh hell." *death by fireish doom.

If I had to guess they're probably only going to start appearing after some point in the main quest. Similar to the Daedra invasion in Oblivion (although maybe later, as dragons are likely more dangerous than gates...)

[amjh]

Personally I think level scaling is counter-productive. I like to play RPG games because of the feel of progress they have, when things that used to be difficult become easy and what was impossible becomes possible. With level scaling, you don't get stronger than the challenges because the challenges too get stronger, effectively negating the progress, leaving only rising numbers I don't care about.
Another problem is that it tends to make games more meta-gamey. It makes the game actively punish inefficient choices by making the character effectively weaker, which might not be a big problem for more hardcore gamers but limits the viable playstyles in a way that annoys me.

[scriver]

You will start the game as a Dragonborn. That makes you someone, gives you a role. This is why I think we will be playing an action game and not a RPG.

I agree with the rest of what you said to a certain extent, but this is just silly. Were the Fallout games action games because you had a "role" in the storyline? Baldur's Gate? Planescape: Torment?

You didn't have a role at the Fallout 3 game. You were just a kid looking for his father. At Fallout:NW you are a guy who survived a shot to the head and seeking revenge. Sure it changes when you move further into the storyline. IF you choose to do so. What are you at Skyrim? Slaughter of Dragons. I'm not saying every RPG should be a sandbox but if you want to RP then you shouldn't have a strict role given to you by devs.

I was talking about the originals. And yeah, BG and PsT. The latter which is often considered among the best RPGs ever made, perhaps one of the best games ever made. It gave you a role. A definitive role. Having a role defined by the storyline has nothing to do with whether a game is an RPG or not, which was your original statement.

I wouldn't say anything about it if they were removing needless skills. Well, acrobatics can be exploited and athlzetics is difficult to train and both of them are RP-killers but seriously... Spears, "blunt" axes, no medium armor. Were these skills really trash? I saw a mod where axe became a "blade". Axe is not a blade nor a blunt weapon. This is just dumb. We used to have more variety.

Spears were not cut because they didn't think they needed the skill, it was cut because they didn't want to spend time implementing spears. Medium armour, however, was completely useless. It served no purpose at all, it just created a another line of armour that needed to be filled, often with armours that made no sense at all to have there. Many of them could easily have been fitted into light or heavy. Keep in mind, though, that I say this as a person who would rather see "Light Armour" be changed into a "Dodge" skill, and thought the concept of armour skills was overly gamey to begin with.

Spears were cut because Bethesda lacks the skills to make the animation. I don't even rembember the last game with good spear animations (Diablo II maybe?) I like variety in a game and I want to see varied armor too. Medium armors in Morrowind weren't "light" or "heavy" they were just "medium".

Thus, cut because Beth didn't want to "waste" time on them. And good spear animations?

And I don't think you really understood what I said about medium armours. On the other hand, I didn't say it to argue about it either so maybe I should just leave it like this.

In Oblivion you were only a witness to the Emperor's death. If you didn't follow the main story you would stay that way.
In Morrowind you were only a stranger who have arrived to Seyda Neen. If you didn't follow the main quests
In Skyrim even if you don't follow the main quest you are the guy who slaughters dragons.

In Oblivion you were prophesied to become to become the CoC, the Emperor saw you in his dreams. In Morrowind, regardless of whether or not you were the Nerevarine, you were never just "a stranger" but an important pawn in both the Empire's and Azura's power games from the start. Pretending something else required you to ignore this as well as break away from the main quest and the story that had been lined up for you.

First when I heard the whole "Dragonborn" thing. I thought races were getting removed too and be able to become only Nord. This is just too much. In Morrowind in the start you were just "a stranger" IF you didn't follow the main story. They just left you at Seyda Neen and told you to go meet the Blades guy. In Oblivion, well yeah you were something but you still didn't know what you were. You only had to deliver an amulet that you (your character) doesn't know much about. However, I didn't like how was it in Oblivion too. You were in Oblivion (Oblivion itself!) after 20 minutes from your prison if you only did main quests.

And in Skyrim you will be able to not do the main quest as well, just like any other TES game. It's exactly the same.

Level scaling cannot be done right in a RPG.

This is an absurd statement. Would you mind backing it up with something so I can better understand what you are saying?

Sure
You are level 1. You only have a iron mace and iron armor set. You encounter some bandits. They are equiped with leather armor, one of them with iron bow, captain with a two handed iron warhammer and others with iron maces/daggers.
You are level 35. You have a daedric armor set and an enchanted daedric claymore. You are going to the exactly same place where you were going when you were level 1. You encounter some bandits. They are equiped with glass armor, one of them with a glass bow, captain with a two handed glass warhammer and others with glass longswords/maces

You are level 1. You complete a quest and recieve a dagger which inflicts 10 damage with 3 fire damage as a reward
In another game you are level 35. You complete the same quest and recieve a dagger which inflicts 15 damage with 7 fire damage as a reward.

See what I mean? There won't be anyone stronger or weaker than you. You rewards and loot will always be "good enough" for you. After some quests you don't really care much about the reward. Even in the Fallout:New Vegas kind of scaling, "adjusting things for the player" is a bad idea.

And that is bad level scaling. I'm not going to say Oblivion did it good, it was ridiculously crappy and perhaps the worst part of a game I consider rather bad, bland and boring in general. But saying "Level scaling cannot be done right in a RPG" is silly as well. Most games, even RPGs, feature level scaling to some point. Beth's just gone overboard with the concept.

Axes fell under blunt weapons becouse they are used in a manor more similer to blunt weapons than blades

You don't swing an axe like you swing a club. It may seem same but it's different. A double axe is slightly similiar though.

You don't use long swords, sabres, short swords, katanas, or any other of the swords that fall under "Blade" the same way either. It's just an abstraction.

Still, axes aren't blunt.

Which is completely irrelevant. They are arbitrarily grouped together because they are weapons made (simplified) out of a shaft and a head. Swords are arbitrarily grouped together, regardless of how little sense it makes, because they have a hilt and a blade. Hell, though I admit I haven't got much knowledge on mace martial arts, I'd wager they were used in much more similar ways to axes than an arming sword and a katana were.

As for "Blunt Weapons", this was just what they named the category, not implying that "axes were blunt". It's just a bad name. "Helved Weapons" would have made much more sense in context of the attributes they based the grouping on, but it doesn't change that "axes aren't blunt" is irrelevant.

EDIT: Also, I've heard something about unlimited number of dragons, so at least most of them are random, I think.

randomized and randomly placed.

Which I personally don't believe at all. At most, pre-designed zones were there is a random chance of meeting dragons.

If I had to guess they're probably only going to start appearing after some point in the main quest. Similar to the Daedra invasion in Oblivion (although maybe later, as dragons are likely more dangerous than gates...)

God I hope so. But I don't think it's very likely. Third main questline quest at most, I'd wager. Player around level 2-5. Chosen Ones gonna Chose, dawg.

[Virtz]

It doesn't need to have anything to do with metagaming. I think that ideally, the player wouldn't notice the scaling taking place. If other players play anything like I do, they'll follow the writing, have a rough awareness of when climactic moments are going to occur, and respond accordingly, getting an idea of which quests and actions have more or less weight than others. The player can - almost subconciously - balance the scaling of their own accord. It's obviously never going to be foolproof because people will undoubtedly figure out which rewards are best to go for first and such, but I think it would work for a while if there was enough synergy going on between the writers and designers. It's not all that different from how Oblivion was designed, just less artificial.

But then maybe that wouldn't work for most other people. I'm the odd sort who feels he can give (cheat) himself rewards appropriate to the challenge surmounted even if the game doesn't have anything in mind.

Concerning the subconscious balancing, I think that has more to do with how players are used to RPGs where going in unprepared means getting screwed.

I know I initially played Oblivion thinking I might need some leveling to prepare for the next arena battles for example. But once my arrows stopped insta-killing the same looking enemies and instead made them mildly annoyed pin-cushions, I started to catch on that something about the leveling in this game is wrong. Though by then I kinda messed up by doing a stealthy archer build, which didn't really work that well at all in Oblivion, so I started to just use invisibility to get past everything. Had I known about how level-scaling in this works from the start, I would've tried to stay level 1 forever.

EDIT: Also, I've heard something about unlimited number of dragons, so at least most of them are random, I think.

randomized and randomly placed.

so it's like...

"finished tutorial yeahy!!!"
*ROAAARRRR*
"oh hell." *death by fireish doom.

I seriously doubt Bethesda would do that. Meant random more in the sense of non-unique and randomly (re)placed. They'll prolly be scaled like everything else, though. I can't help but expect that they'll turn out to be these more annoying but rewarding cliff racers after the first few times.

[shadenight123]

from what it was said, killing a dragon kind of "unlocks" points to "unlock" different degree of the "shout" mechanisms. (which is different from the magic i suppose)

[Rose]

Personally, I think infinite dragons means the same thing as infinite guns in borderlands.

Also, they should just have always the same enemies, but just multiply all numbers by your level.

[Sordid]

It doesn't need to have anything to do with metagaming. I think that ideally, the player wouldn't notice the scaling taking place.

That doesn't quite follow from what you said. You said that if you wanted one part of the game to be harder than another, you'd leave it till later. Making such a decision presupposes that you know the level scaling is in place. If, on the other hand, you think the game is static, you'd do the part that's supposed to be hard first, level up in the process, and then the second part would be easier.

If other players play anything like I do, they'll follow the writing, have a rough awareness of when climactic moments are going to occur, and respond accordingly, getting an idea of which quests and actions have more or less weight than others.

That hinges on good writing, which is another thing Bethsoft lacks. I think I've re-told the account of my first Oblivion playthrough several times already on these forums, so only briefly: I did all the boring fetch quests at the beginning of the storyline, then I got the quest to get the amulet from that Paradise place. I thought to myself: "Excellent, there's obviously going to be another plot twist once I return with it. Boromir won't be able to wear it, most likely, revealing that he's not really Uriel's son, and then this boring early part will be over and the proper TES plot thick with politics and intrigue will start. So I'll just do this one quest, then I'll go hit some of the side quests to level up some and prepare for all the goodness." And then the game just fucking ended! I just couldn't see that coming. At all. So forgive me if I take this "the player will subconsciously know" theory of yours with a grain of salt.

The player can - almost subconciously - balance the scaling of their own accord. It's obviously never going to be foolproof because people will undoubtedly figure out which rewards are best to go for first and such, but I think it would work for a while if there was enough synergy going on between the writers and designers. It's not all that different from how Oblivion was designed, just less artificial.

I can't quite wrap my head around how such a system might work. Could you provide a concrete example, even just hypothetical?

Also, they should just have always the same enemies, but just multiply all numbers by your level.

Yeah, they could do that if they were making the game for today's PCs. Sadly they're making it for six years old consoles, which couldn't handle massive numbers of NPCs.

[3]

If, on the other hand, you think the game is static, you'd do the part that's supposed to be hard first, level up in the process, and then the second part would be easier.

I wouldn't. That doesn't seem to me the logical way to do things. You do the easy part first (sidequests) in order to prepare for the challenging part later. That's a principal part of the entire thing, so if it turns out that most people play the way you do, then the theory obviously comes to nothing.

I can't quite wrap my head around how such a system might work. Could you provide a concrete example, even just hypothetical?

Virtz seems to have something of the right idea here. It's like I was saying earlier about how the player views the challenges they're given: Because the player's perception of the world ultimately dictates it, instead of giving quests set difficulty or level ranges, you can base the difficulty of the quests on, say, the order that the player completes them. Operating under the presumption that the player's going to do the easier stuff first - the aforementioned RPG/sidequest mentality - this should allow the player to do things their way. It isn't so different to what we saw with Oblivion, but I think Oblivion's content and entire setting just wasn't made for scaling. If Bethsoft had been braver in their approach, gone the whole way and thrown out most of the conventions it might've just worked, but what with the world being full of bandits and goblins and quests involving killing bandits and goblins and picking flowers the entire thing just made no sense. I'm beginning to think TES simply isn't the right series for the sort of approach Bethesda seem to be advocating.

[Leatra]

EDIT: Also, I've heard something about unlimited number of dragons, so at least most of them are random, I think.

randomized and randomly placed.

so it's like...

"finished tutorial yeahy!!!"
*ROAAARRRR*
"oh hell." *death by fireish doom.

If I had to guess they're probably only going to start appearing after some point in the main quest. Similar to the Daedra invasion in Oblivion (although maybe later, as dragons are likely more dangerous than gates...)

I guess you will face weak dragons at the start and face powerful dragons when your level gets higher. Thus no challenge or surprise you will face. That's the way how Bethesda does things

Oscura's mod (which removes the level scaling) wasn't done perfectly in Oblivion but it made the game a lot more difficult in the start and easier but still challenging at the end. I had to run away from bandits one time and I couldn't outrun them because I was a mage. So I had to load an earlier save.

Also, can somebody please describe me what is "good level scaling" because I didn't face one and I want to know.

[KaguroDraven]

"That's the way Bethesda does things" This statement makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever about the topic of level scaleing.
They did level scaleing the way you described, without any form of 'leveled' zones, for ONE game, one, Oblivon. Morrowind, Daggerfall, Arena, Fallout 3, they all had atleast to a small degree leveled zones. It is entirely possible in all of those games to run into something you're not supposed to run into for another 5 to 10 levels or so. Unlikely? Yes but possible. Saying that the way a company handled a single game is "the way they do things" when they have done things differently for games made before and after that game make no logical sense.