Did Bethesda screw up with level scaling or is it necessary?

[Dormir Con Las Arañas]

In NV there are some low level dungeons (the one near Goodsprings), mid level dungeons (the one with the Ratsleyer inside) and high level dungeons (Deathcalws' cave); you also have a few high-leveled areas (with cazadores and deathclaws) and mid-levels too (I think fire geckos are kinda mid-level, just like ghouls).

And nothing game-brteaking there (even if you get ratsleyer on low level, which is hard, but doable), pretty fun, without silly game scalling (except for Legons', Fiends' and Rnagers' loot). So... yes, Bethesda sucks old, ugly,hairy, onion-tasting balls badly.

In New Vegas you go from the lowest level (goodsprings) to the highest level (deathclaws + cazadores) areas by making a counter-clockwise circle around the map, with invisible walls in the center to prevent you from going to mid-level areas too fast. It's a great way to get around level scaling and still get published by Bethesda, but isn't as open as some would like.

 

[rezaf]

I wonder why some gated off areas are such a big deal to some people. Almost every open world game I can think of has invisible borders of some kind, and those that don't ... well, what is this topic about?
In Oblivion, you could go to that besieged city right away and every enemy (and ally) there was like lvl1 and this made things utterly ridiculous.

I for one really prefer gating. Have a sign with a virtual line at some character level - you have to be this tall to pass. Done.

An RPG where you climb up character levels is kinda like a sports league. Of course you have to win out in the local league before you can move up to the, say state league, and only after becoming good there you'll be allowed to play in the national league. Makes total sense.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't play a game that does away with character leveling in a RPG typical fashion ... but then, chances are it's no longer an RPG. Even so ... the GTA games have gating too, no?
_____
rezaf

 

[Ninjerk]

A very strange world is one whose peril radiates from the beginning of the player's quest.

 

[RK47]

A very strange world is one whose peril radiates from the beginning of the player's quest.

get raped > pregnant > abortion > kill impregnator > the end.

 

[Cadmus]

I can't understand why people still think that the level scaling is some necessary evil. It's total bullshit. I hated it in every game I've played, even in Wizardry 8. Just fucking indicate the power level of the enemies in the given area, gate some areas by plot, whatever the fuck. Level scaling defeats the purpose of leveling up. There's something to be said about games where the level up improves your character's uhmmm breadth instead of giving you +dmg, +HP + mana. Then the level scaling doesn't suck as bad but it's still complete shit. For example I think it would not hurt Div:OS as much as it hurt Oblivion because the characters mostly just get more tools instead of more power, but it would still suck ass.

There's million options how to solve those few excuses for level scaling
1) OMG WHAT IF I DIE CUZ IM LOW LVL, WHY CANT I GO ANYWHERE I LIKE?
solution: fuck you
2) OMG I GET BORED IF EVERYBODY'S LVL IS TOO LOW
solution: don't put a retarded amount of trash combat in the game and improve the combat system so that fighting is more dangerous whenever

is there anything else?

The Gothics got it right of course. Did Fallout have level scaled enemies? Why didn't you get bored in this almost-open world?
With level scaled enemies, the character level matters less. With additional level scaled content, the game is totally fucked, see Skyrim, Oblivion. It didn't help Wizardry 8 either.

 

[Bleed the Man]

In NV there are some low level dungeons (the one near Goodsprings), mid level dungeons (the one with the Ratsleyer inside) and high level dungeons (Deathcalws' cave); you also have a few high-leveled areas (with cazadores and deathclaws) and mid-levels too (I think fire geckos are kinda mid-level, just like ghouls).

And nothing game-brteaking there (even if you get ratsleyer on low level, which is hard, but doable), pretty fun, without silly game scalling (except for Legons', Fiends' and Rnagers' loot). So... yes, Bethesda sucks old, ugly,hairy, onion-tasting balls badly.

In New Vegas you go from the lowest level (goodsprings) to the highest level (deathclaws + cazadores) areas by making a counter-clockwise circle around the map, with invisible walls in the center to prevent you from going to mid-level areas too fast. It's a great way to get around level scaling and still get published by Bethesda, but isn't as open as some would like.

That's not true. Most invisible walls in New Vegas are in mountains and high terrains. You could argue that that's not a good design decision, but going north from Goodsprings is perfectly feesable, and you don't need any meta-knowlegde to do so.

If you decide to follow the story from bottom to finish, then it takes you in a fairly linear progression of difficulty, but there's nothing preventing you from going north to New Vegas, unless you believe that facing/evading challenges above your capabilities is inherently harmful to "freedom of exploration", with it's just retarded. If there's no sense of danger, if there's no interesting loot (because it's level scaled), then there's no sense of surprise, making the whole exploration meaningless. It's, simply put it, bad design in a nutshell, and the only reason is there and it is so popular these days is because now RPGs are aimed to people that don't like RPGs, and it's a cheap way to make the game more accesible to these people.

Level scaling, in my opinion, only has place in the main path, to avoid too much overleveling or too much underleveling, but it would still have to be fairly minimal. In the rest of situations, at best it can be barely annoying, but I'll never see it as something good in this cases IMO.

 

[Grunker]

My opinion about LS:
Never have i seen it done good in practice, therefore there is a lack of prove that it can be good. But that does not mean that it is utter nonsense. If it is very limited, it can provide some challenge to the player at least in theory.

Also in practice. The BGs were level scaled in this way. No level scaling except for key- and random encounters were the level scaling was handled by changing amount and position of enemies.

 

[Krivol]

In NV there are some low level dungeons (the one near Goodsprings), mid level dungeons (the one with the Ratsleyer inside) and high level dungeons (Deathcalws' cave); you also have a few high-leveled areas (with cazadores and deathclaws) and mid-levels too (I think fire geckos are kinda mid-level, just like ghouls).

And nothing game-brteaking there (even if you get ratsleyer on low level, which is hard, but doable), pretty fun, without silly game scalling (except for Legons', Fiends' and Rnagers' loot). So... yes, Bethesda sucks old, ugly,hairy, onion-tasting balls badly.

In New Vegas you go from the lowest level (goodsprings) to the highest level (deathclaws + cazadores) areas by making a counter-clockwise circle around the map, with invisible walls in the center to prevent you from going to mid-level areas too fast. It's a great way to get around level scaling and still get published by Bethesda, but isn't as open as some would like.

The main point in open world is the possibility. You can go wherever you want - is there a problem with going through the cazadores' nests? Just prepare, take some fast shooting weapons and drug yourself - it is doable. Same thing with deathclaws. There are also few guides how to get to the NV clinic as fast as possible (and Gunrunners are just few steps from there). Also, south/south-east part of the map is pretty hard (night stalkers, feral ghouls, giant radscorpions, robots), but I allways try to get some exp from this area (all depends of character build). And, even if you are going "counter-clockwise circle" you can hit the Gunrunners without any (or low) encounter when you get to the Nipton. Pump all skill points in guns, buy some decent weapon and have a fun with totally open world (to be honest, it's not the way I would play this game - but it's possible).

 

[laclongquan]

In FNV, players are repeatedly warned to not go north of the starting town. If you persist in doing so, ignoring the warnings, and complain when you gettting poisoned to death, you just prove your being a retard.

 

[Keldryn]

I can't understand why people still think that the level scaling is some necessary evil. It's total bullshit. I hated it in every game I've played, even in Wizardry 8. Just fucking indicate the power level of the enemies in the given area, gate some areas by plot, whatever the fuck. Level scaling defeats the purpose of leveling up.

I didn't mind the level scaling in the KOTOR games, as it didn't feel too intrusive or immersion-breaking to me.

I agree that level scaling defeats the purpose of leveling up. I'll take the way that most JRPGs handle it (cross a bridge into a new area, now the monsters are twice as powerful!) to Oblivion's method of level scaling. Despite the fact that the JRPG way makes absolutely no sense within the fiction of the game.

For an open-world game (or really any RPG), I think the best solution is to put the more powerful enemies in specific areas and telegraph that information to the player. There aren't very many circumstances where getting ambushed by a group of high-powered monsters while walking down the road between towns makes any sense whatsoever.

There's something to be said about games where the level up improves your character's uhmmm breadth instead of giving you +dmg, +HP + mana.

That's the other key part of this. A flatter power curve means that the player still experiences the reward of leveling up, but without having enemies quickly becoming trivial. An RPG progression doesn't have to follow that of D&D. I'm trying to think of some CRPGs that have a relatively flat power curve, but not many examples spring to mind. The Fire Emblem games on various Nintendo consoles come to mind. I seem to remember Dragon Wars having a much flatter power curve than its contemporaries, but it's been 20+ years since I've played it. Ultima VII lets you double your HP at best by the end (without The Forge of Virtue, which breaks the game on a ridiculous level).

Crap, my CRPG knowledge is failing me here. I'm sure there are probably many others, but my gaming has been pretty limited over the past 5 years (parenthood will do that), and I haven't revisited the classics in a very long time.

There's million options how to solve those few excuses for level scaling
1) OMG WHAT IF I DIE CUZ IM LOW LVL, WHY CANT I GO ANYWHERE I LIKE?
solution: fuck you
2) OMG I GET BORED IF EVERYBODY'S LVL IS TOO LOW
solution: don't put a retarded amount of trash combat in the game and improve the combat system so that fighting is more dangerous whenever

The answer to both is NOT THE DEVELOPER'S PROBLEM. If the game pretty much flat-out states that "you can go anywhere you like, but don't go North of the river unless you have a small army on your side, and don't enter the Swamps of Madness unless you have magical protections" and then the player goes North of the river anyway, well, too fucking bad. Go somewhere else until his character can handle the encounters there, or find a way to sneak through undetected. And once he is powerful enough to wander the North freely, then he can just not spend a lot of time walking around the starting area if he's bored with it.

When did RPGs start needing a fucking guided tour? Stick to where it's relatively safe for the first while, then cautiously explore further and further outward until you find something you can't handle, then retreat for a while. It's a pretty logical approach, and that's how all of us have done it for decades.

Even better: if you do this, the game could then reward your perseverance in doing a tougher area earlier by making it possible for you to set up a trap for Foozle. Once whatever other actions have been taken that get Foozle Jr back to his lair (these need not be different in both "paths"), instead of Foozle going there and us having to fight through to get to him, he instead springs the trap, which could result in any number of variations in the more traditional outcome (easier boss fight, better loot because he hasn't had time to put away something that could help the party, or even a narrative variation opens up that could affect the way some of the plot unfolds.

That would be awesome as well, but it gets into that issue of having to do a lot of work for something that many/most players might never see. It's the kind of stuff I do when I'm DMing a tabletop D&D game that typically throws my raised-on-CRPG-players completely off. Why they assume that they can leave the dungeon, rest overnight, and everything will be exactly the same as it was when they left is beyond me.

There's just so many different ways to do this interestingly and without level scaling.

Absolutely. It might need some better AI though, as the traditional method of scripting would probably be both buggy and easily broken. Also, spending the time to create variations of the villain's lair to account for half a dozen different scenarios would inevitably mean either fewer unique areas in the game, or several underdeveloped areas. I'd love to see it happen, but I can already hear the complaints of all the players who don't care about reactivity and who just follow the linear path through the game complaining that it is too short.

 

[rezaf]

When did RPGs start needing a fucking guided tour? Stick to where it's relatively safe for the first while, then cautiously explore further and further outward until you find something you can't handle, then retreat for a while. It's a pretty logical approach, and that's how all of us have done it for decades.

Couldn't agree more, and Divinity: Original Sin proved you can still use that approach today without major issues.
Some folks had to rely on those maps where people spelled out the level/power progression of enemies, but I'd assume most players found a way on their own.
I'll admit that I was a little annoyed by D:OS for doing it this way for a short time - specifically early on where you had few choices on where to go and the wrong choice would result in a quick and painful death. But I got used to it.
Later on, they even have invincible enemies you cannot even harm ... that was a bit much (if you accidentally triggered combat, you basically HAD to reload), but by and large, I think D:OS did a fine job.
_____
rezaf

 

[Darkzone]

My opinion about LS:
Never have i seen it done good in practice, therefore there is a lack of prove that it can be good. But that does not mean that it is utter nonsense. If it is very limited, it can provide some challenge to the player at least in theory.

Also in practice. The BGs were level scaled in this way. No level scaling except for key- and random encounters were the level scaling was handled by changing amount and position of enemies.

Was it? I didn't knew this fact. So we do have a prove, that it can be good. Thank you Grunker, for this example.

 

[Niektory]

Later on, they even have invincible enemies you cannot even harm ... that was a bit much (if you accidentally triggered combat, you basically HAD to reload), but by and large, I think D:OS did a fine job.

Did you try the magical run away button? Worked quite well for me.

 

[NotAGolfer]

Yawn, this thread declined into an endless circle jerk. Let's spice things up.

When did RPGs start needing a fucking guided tour? Stick to where it's relatively safe for the first while, then cautiously explore further and further outward until you find something you can't handle, then retreat for a while. It's a pretty logical approach, and that's how all of us have done it for decades.

Who? Me certainly not. Most CRPGs I played are in some way linear (either linear paths or the gameworld divided into zones that unlock as the story progresses - exceptions at the end of the post) and their designers took good care that the experience the PC gained so far and the challenges he encounters are somewhat at balance. So in the end this is just another sort of level scaling and the challenge for the player is not that different from completely levelscaled games like Oblivion or if they wanna cater to the hardcore (TM) crowd like Oblivion + RNG{1,...,10} levels. Prove me wrong. In Oblivion you can also screw up your build by leveling the wrong stats, same argument which is always used against levelscaling.
Also basically there's nothing wrong with levelscaling as long as you don't let the players know that you're doing it (or ignore the butthurt you get if they do). Very linear games could even be improved by it, because if done intelligently you could take care of powergamers destroying their gaming experience with their uber-builds that make the entirety of the other game mechanics besides char building a snorefest. These guys could have to face much harder challenges and later they can even brag about it: "Wut?! You fought a dragon?! There was no dragon in my game!" ... ok, dragons are lame by now.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but levelscaling is very PnP btw, gamemasters do it all the time to cater to their popamole player crowd.

Not that I would claim that levelscaling is superior but I somewhat doubt that it's such a lazy and counterproductive tool as Codex makes it sound. It just has to be finetuned and balanced instead of the indeed boring bulldozer hack job they did with Oblivion.
So yeah, I hate Oblivion, but the reason was more the boring-ass NPCs (still there in Skyrim) and worldbuilding. The levelscaling just irritated me, because instead of easy vermin encounter x you suddenly faced some Daedra for no good reason at all. Very immersion-breaking. Also loot scaling is cancer (so in that case I'm on your side, guise).

ps: Nonlinear games I played include
the Gothics (well, semi-nonlinear, levelscaling was present, scaling by chapters, unlocking previously closed paths and spawning harder enemies)
Realms of Arkania (no levelscaling in the first game, somewhat flat progression curve to make up for that, later games had scaling by story progress, but in case of the 2. part you could ignore the story and do suicide by wizard/wood elves/war ogres etc early on)
Ultima VII (Unimpressive game combat-wise though, wouldn't care either way)
Fallout 1&2 (great examples of no levelscaling at all being fun if you're given pointers)
Teh new shiat (well, it's brown and smells, except for D:OS)

 

[zero29]

bs, with such a broad definition only games with multiple pcs and storylines and the option to freely switch between them during the course of the game would be truly non-linear. cause in a game with a single protagonist your way through the game always describes a line from start to finish. reminds me of the argument that all games where you play a role could be regarded as rpgs.

but even worlds with gated zones that open up one after another are still very different from levelscaled worlds ala bethesda: in the former you can be under/overlevelled for the current zone, in the latter not. and i know that you can be underskilled for a certain level in skyrim by focussing on noncombat skills, but that's what you get when you tie the scaling of the game's enemies in a classless skillbased system to an artificial character level calculated from your progression of all skills and not only the combat related ones. sounds quite lazy and counterproductive to me.

...
Not that I would claim that socialism is superior but I somewhat doubt that it's such an inefficient and counterproductive system as the west makes it sound. It just has to be finetuned and balanced instead of the indeed totalitarian hack job they did with the eastern bloc countries.
...

it's never the system that's wrong, it's always the implementation...

 

[DragoFireheart]

In NV there are some low level dungeons (the one near Goodsprings), mid level dungeons (the one with the Ratsleyer inside) and high level dungeons (Deathcalws' cave); you also have a few high-leveled areas (with cazadores and deathclaws) and mid-levels too (I think fire geckos are kinda mid-level, just like ghouls).

And nothing game-brteaking there (even if you get ratsleyer on low level, which is hard, but doable), pretty fun, without silly game scalling (except for Legons', Fiends' and Rnagers' loot). So... yes, Bethesda sucks old, ugly,hairy, onion-tasting balls badly.

In New Vegas you go from the lowest level (goodsprings) to the highest level (deathclaws + cazadores) areas by making a counter-clockwise circle around the map, with invisible walls in the center to prevent you from going to mid-level areas too fast. It's a great way to get around level scaling and still get published by Bethesda, but isn't as open as some would like.

There's actually a couple of shortcuts one can take to circumvent some of the circling.

There's the infamous shortcut through Deathclaw territory north of the Hidden Valley Bunker via hugging the cliff walls like your life depends on it.

You can also follow the rail tracks (near the Powder Ganger fort) to bypass Primm and some other misc areas to reach Nipton right away.

You can always go through the Primm pass that's near the rail tracks as well and skip the Nipton area, though there's a good chance you'll get eaten by a Deathclaw.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

My opinion about LS:
Never have i seen it done good in practice, therefore there is a lack of prove that it can be good. But that does not mean that it is utter nonsense. If it is very limited, it can provide some challenge to the player at least in theory.

Also in practice. The BGs were level scaled in this way. No level scaling except for key- and random encounters were the level scaling was handled by changing amount and position of enemies.

Well, the BGs were not truly level scaled as we have come to know the term. Yes, there were changes to encounters depending on player level, but true level scaling like simply increasing or decreasing the level, hp, etc of monsters and npcs is absent. Instead, you'd face more or different enemies. A troll is always a troll, Firkraag was always the same level no matter what you did and the differences were clearly made to challenge higher level players rather than keep battles winnable for lower level players.

In contrast, if BG was remade with Bethesda style level scaling, you'd be able to kill Demigorgon at level 1.

Also, Irenicus would be voiced by Liam Neeson, but that's neither here nor there...

 

[Grunker]

true level scaling like simply increasing or decreasing the level, hp

That's a very narrow definition of level scaling. The term itself just indicates direct changes in challenge level dependant on character level. Just because the norm has become to blindly throw stats as a means of level scaling doesn't mean that's all the term can hold

Anyway the point was that I think there's room for sparingly used instances of some scaling, like in the BGs.

Irenicus would be voiced by Liam Neeson

*shiver*

David Warner is half of what makes Irenicus one of the best villains of gaming history.

 

[Lhynn]

Anyway the point was that I think there's room for sparingly used instances of some scaling, like in the BGs.

Even in the BGs it was unnecesary. level scaling is something that needs to fucking disappear.

 

[rezaf]

Even in the BGs it was unnecesary. level scaling is something that needs to fucking disappear.

That type of scaling is sorta different, though. And while maybe not strictly neccessary either, it's much easier to justify, imo.

It's also a LONG used practice. They had this kind of scaling in Pool of Radiance.
I guess there ARE better ways to handle this, but I thought it was more reasonable if in PoR 50 Orcs ganged up on dangerous looking adventurers when flimsy ones were only attacked by half a dozen Orcs than if highwaymen in Oblivion in Glass Armor would ambush me to ask for 50 gold.

I mentioned Armalur earlier - reviews I read regularly pointed out that it was possible for your character to "outlevel" the content in an area so everything was too easy. Well, they appearently patched that, in the version I played this was almost never a problem. Instead, fighting some times of enemies always remained an excercise in tedium.
Anyway, my point is, without any scaling whatsoever, making a game like Armalur is probably not even possible. I guess that's a bad example as this probably would not be a big loss...

What was I saying?
_____
rezaf

 

[Norfleet]

In FNV, players are repeatedly warned to not go north of the starting town. If you persist in doing so, ignoring the warnings, and complain when you gettting poisoned to death, you just prove your being a retard.

Well, you can't blame players for doing it. The RPG Perversity Principle applies: If you are strongly urged to do something, you must go and do that thing. If you are strongly warned not to do something, you must go and do that thing.

I guess there ARE better ways to handle this, but I thought it was more reasonable if in PoR 50 Orcs ganged up on dangerous looking adventurers when flimsy ones were only attacked by half a dozen Orcs than if highwaymen in Oblivion in Glass Armor would ambush me to ask for 50 gold.

Nah, what it should be is that if you are a regular hobo bum adventurer, you are ambushed by a band of bandits that ask you for 50 gold. If you are a wealthy-looking adventurer in Daedric armor, you are ambushed by a band of TAX COLLECTORS that ask you for 20%. They might not be as tough as the bandits, but fighting your way out of this encounter is probably not the best move. Then you can wonder who the real bandits here are.

 

[Lhynn]

That type of scaling is sorta different, though. And while maybe not strictly neccessary either, it's much easier to justify, imo.

It's also a LONG used practice. They had this kind of scaling in Pool of Radiance.
I guess there ARE better ways to handle this, but I thought it was more reasonable if in PoR 50 Orcs ganged up on dangerous looking adventurers when flimsy ones were only attacked by half a dozen Orcs than if highwaymen in Oblivion in Glass Armor would ambush me to ask for 50 gold.

I mentioned Armalur earlier - reviews I read regularly pointed out that it was possible for your character to "outlevel" the content in an area so everything was too easy. Well, they appearently patched that, in the version I played this was almost never a problem. Instead, fighting some times of enemies always remained an excercise in tedium.
Anyway, my point is, without any scaling whatsoever, making a game like Armalur is probably not even possible. I guess that's a bad example as this probably would not be a big loss...

What was I saying?
_____
rezaf

What you think you are saying is that level scaling is a necessary evil. What you actually want is a ruleset that doesnt make level scaling necessary and leveling in itself pointless. If amalur offered a flatter progression where you didnt grow to have more hp and damage than a stone giant easily even at low levels, then fighting them would remain challenging all the way to the end.

 

[rezaf]

Nah, what it should be is that if you are a regular hobo bum adventurer, you are ambushed by a band of bandits that ask you for 50 gold. If you are a wealthy-looking adventurer in Daedric armor, you are ambushed by a band of TAX COLLECTORS that ask you for 20%. They might not be as tough as the bandits, but fighting your way out of this encounter is probably not the best move. Then you can wonder who the real bandits here are.

Heh, there was actually something like this in Darklands. You could encounter a tithe collector from the church, accompanied by a number of well armed and seasoned guards and asking for an outrageous "donation". Still, it was fairly easy to take them on and refuse to pay with a reasonably advanced party - but this would come at a price, as your faith and fame would suffer for it. Man, Darklands was one great game...

What you think you are saying is that level scaling is a necessary evil. What you actually want is a ruleset that doesnt make level scaling necessary and leveling in itself pointless. If amalur offered a flatter progression where you didnt grow to have more hp and damage than a stone giant easily even at low levels, then fighting them would remain challenging all the way to the end.

No, I don't think it's neccessary - but that depends on the rest of how the game is designed. Since I just mentioned Darklands, I think it's a great example on how to get by without level scaling of any sort. If you fought street thugs at night, they were still the same street thugs in basic leather armor with clubs for late-game adventurers in heavy armor and with maxed out weapon skill. They were no challlenge whatsoever. But that's how it should be.
Darklands had a system where leveling up (there were no actual levels, but skill advancements) made sense and was very useful, but didn't turn you into superman. But I understand not every game can have such design - sometimes a game wants the player to be superman.

Still, level scaling is silly when it's just about providing artificial challenge, in spite of the circumstances.
It's ok to me if more Orcs gang together to attack me if my party looks dangerous. It's ridiculous if I just single-handedly defeated the demon invading from hell that previously dispatched the entire army of the king, only to waltz out of the victory celebration, be waylaid by a handful of thugs and ... these are actually more challenging than said demon, because level scaling.
_____
rezaf

 

[laclongquan]

In FNV, players are repeatedly warned to not go north of the starting town. If you persist in doing so, ignoring the warnings, and complain when you gettting poisoned to death, you just prove your being a retard.

Well, you can't blame players for doing it. The RPG Perversity Principle applies: If you are strongly urged to do something, you must go and do that thing. If you are strongly warned not to do something, you must go and do that thing.

This is not a matter of forbidden or not. The game inform players of the dangers, but otherwise allow gamers to do whatever the hell they want. Players ARE making an informed decision, so if they go north, that's their prerogative. BUT go north knowingly THEN complain about it... You see my problem with it? Whiney and spoiled bastards~

 

[NotAGolfer]

bs, with such a broad definition only games with multiple pcs and storylines and the option to freely switch between them during the course of the game would be truly non-linear. cause in a game with a single protagonist your way through the game always describes a line from start to finish. reminds me of the argument that all games where you play a role could be regarded as rpgs.

Huh? What are you refering to? What definition? I only listed some more or less nonlinear games. I never use story C&C as a means to measure nonlinearity, I always just compare how many different things you can do at a single point in the game to gain XP and level you char/party (in my view developing your char/party and using his/their aweshum newly gained powers afterwards is the true purpose of RPGs).
So:
Mass Effect, PS:T (not sure about this, could also be classified as somewhat linear) or Eye of the Beholder: Very linear
Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, Betrayal at Krondor, RoA 3: somewhat linear, still some choices where to go and what to kill at most points in the game
RoA 1 and 2, Gothics: somewhat nonlinear, but not truly, since you can't go everywhere and fight every (nonunique) enemy from the start
Fallouts, Ultima VII, TES series: nonlinear, go wherever you want and do whatever

So the Gothics are not truly nonlinear and for me nonlinearity is very important when discussing levelscaling and the need or advantages/disadvantages of it.
A truly linear game wouldn't suffer from smartly done levelscaling. Just don't set the bar too low, because idiots still need to be punished.
A game with many different paths you could follow simultaneously doesn't need it, sure, but it could still help. The game "just" has to watch the player development like a gamemaster in a PnP game would do and finetune these paths accordingly, making one easier and hinting at that, but letting the player decide.
But why shouldn't it be allowed to raise all the bars? After all lots of guys here are defining CRPGs as an attempt to recreate PnP RPGs. So why take out one of their core elements? Because computers are still too dumb to replace a GM? I don't believe that this applies to levelscaling mechanics. It's just that no nonretarded developer seems to have really tried it yet.
Of course it wouldn't hurt if designers weren't lazy and prebalanced every encounter in the game for the average build, then the computer doesn't even need to be that smart.
As long as the game still gives the player the possibility to fail if he doesn't understand the systems I don't see anything wrong with the concept of levelscaling per se.

The only real problem appears with true open world games like the TES series. There you get immersion breaking galore when you levelscale the content because the player can always just reload an earlier save and see that the gameworld changed extremely just because he leveled up. That's not possible in a more linear game so there that problem disappears automatically.

but even worlds with gated zones that open up one after another are still very different from levelscaled worlds ala bethesda: in the former you can be under/overlevelled for the current zone, in the latter not.

Technicalities. Just raise some content above player level or make it lower and still keep all the scaling and you have the same effect in a TES game.

and i know that you can be underskilled for a certain level in skyrim by focussing on noncombat skills, but that's what you get when you tie the scaling of the game's enemies in a classless skillbased system to an artificial character level calculated from your progression of all skills and not only the combat related ones. sounds quite lazy and counterproductive to me.

It is lazy, but not because of the reasons you mentioned. If you only take into account the combat skills the game becomes even more braindead because the difficulty is always the same for all builds. Take into account all skills so players can screw up their chars just like in nonpopamole RPGs (and people can still cheese by abusing unbalanced parts of the leveling systems) AND tie the scaling to the lore.
Explain where the new enemies come from.
Trigger certain quests containing harder encounters only at certain skill levels.
Randomize it a bit.
Make some zones more difficult than others and tie that to the lore too ....
It still would irritate many players because the gameworld revolves around the player character development (just like in nearly every CRPG ever produced, but there it doesn't break your immersion that much because most are more linear) but it would help against the game getting too easy too fast.

To make it perfect developers could use systems that don't rely on HP bloat and allow even very strong characters/NPCs/monsters to be oneshot even in the endgame (see Fallout), therefore a system that always conveys that fighting is deadly business.