Hyperbole

I am not sure how you got "nothing requires skill" by me jesting at the idea of "skill" in TES combat. Especially martial combat. There are games out there that require a lot of concentration and yes, even skill to play, and games out there where higher skill allows for a dramatic difference in what a player can do. TES is not one of those games. It's possible future releases may move closer to that type of skill based combat, but that would dramatically alter what TES games are- fantasy role playing/exploration/story telling games. Twitch combat would be out of place IMO.

Hyperbole? I don't think I exaggerated anything in my reply. You claimed playing TES is just pressing buttons at the right time, which it is, but that it requires no skill. However driving's also just pushing pedals and turning a wheel at the right time. That's the only thing I said which compares the two.

I've never played a game that requires as much skill and concentration as you're claiming however.

Actually, in Morrowind combat was not just "click a mouse". There was careful calculation on what type of weapon to use, what type of swing to use, how long to hold the button for (longer time held=more damage). The range on weapons represents the minimum (just click and not hold) to the maximum (wait until the animation has your arm all the way back). Also, there were the faster and slower opponents. I remember facing an Ogrim (still pissed about them being taken out) and not taking any damage because I could run back, hold down my weapon button, charge in, strike, and get out before it could attack me. And about the weapons: Heavier weapons can stagger opponents when used properly, while some weapons will have a smaller range (such as a dagger), so it is more advantageous to click rapidly. Try telling me that this is unrealistic.
Just because it doesn't have stunning visual effects does not mean that it doesn't have a sophisticated system.

Really, the "hate" for the combat system (by some) is nothing new for either Morrowind or Oblivion. That's why people made mods like "Deadly Reflexes" for both games - and they will probably make it for Skyrim too, although maybe not for all the same reasons. I've never used any combat mods for it, though, so I couldn't really say anything about them.

Many new players that hate the combat system probably use "Always use best attack" toggle set to "On". The combat seems pretty repetitive when you do this, because you always do the same swing/thrust each time. Part of the fun of the combat is varying your swings depending on whether you have time to take a full swing, or just a quick thrust, etc.

Combat in TES went through a gradual evolution from Arena to Daggerfall, then Morrowind. Morrowind took the rpg combat style about as far as it could go in that direction, then they shifted gears - compared to the sequels, Morrowind's combat feels a little more fiddly and less intuitive than it does in Oblivion or Skyrim, which means you have to put more thought into it. I think they were trying to make the combat feel a bit more natural and immersive in later games, but in the process, they got away from some of the hard core rpg elements like attack rolls...and the last two installments of TES have taken a progressively more "action-oriented" rpg approach.

Compared to the sequels, Morrowind is the more of the cerebral, "old school" rpg experience, I'm not saying one game is necessarily better than the other, because it depends on the player, but Morrowind is probably my "all time favorite" game of the series, where they got the mix of all the elements *just about* right... even though the combat is still a little weird. At least they tried to do something different with it than all the other FPS games or RPG strategy-style games that had come before.

I like most of your post.. but a shield doesnt stop all the damage. Think about the force that a heavy sword.. or massive warhammer are going to transfer to the shield.. now think about who is holding it. Your arm hurts like a [censored] after taking a few hits. I mean, even with a riot shield vs a tree branch you get a sore arm..

I can understand taking Fatigue damage through a shield, but not "injury". With increased skill, you would gradually learn how to divert the strike, rather than just absorb the brunt of it. Normally, shields have a hard metal "boss" at the center, which protects the hand and forearm, while the rest of the shield is lighter.

All in all, most of the ideas behind the combat system were sound, but it wasn't "finished". I really think that Bethesda could implement a reasonably good combat system based on Morrowind's, but with a little more interesting user input in terms of timing and attack type (with high-risk/high-damage or low-risk/low-damage alternatives), manual "attempts" at blocking with a (moderate) "chance" to fail at low skill, and a few other compromises between "die roll" and "twitch" gameplay. I don't think it would be quite what either "side" wanted, but it might be something that nearly all could accept.

You appear to have forgotten your own football example also.

And you have never played a game that takes a lot of concentration, or even "skill" to play? But yet in your first post you want TES to make a combat system that requires such? How do you know you would like it better then what exists? How do you know such a system even exists, or is possible to make then?

I begin to think I am being trolled. Regardless if this is so, our conversation is over now as you don't appear to have made up your mind fully yet. I hope Bethesda can create whatever it is you are after.

Haha, you're clearly not understanding what I'm saying. Let's just end it here.

Part of the reason I disliked Morrowind's comat was the dice-roll system that it employed. Not that dice-roll is bad, it works brilliantly for isometric RPGs like BG2 and Fallout but for a first-person RPG, not so much. If I see my weapon make contact it should damage the opponent.

In addition to the above, No strategy was required in combat. All I was ever required to do was click my mouse-button until the enemy was dead. The opponents used no tactics and mindlessly charged towards the PC.

Fatigue added zilch to the combat experience. Granted the damage taken by an opponent was reduced if you were low on fatigue but that hardly mattered if all I was ever going to do was "click my enemy to death."

I agree with all this. For a first person RPG the dice roll system does not work so well as far as immersion goes. I also didn′t like that blocking was automatic, I can cope more with that however. But you are not able to use any tactics in Morrowind; raise shield and wait for the blow, and then return with your own weapon.
If Morrowind had been another kind of game and not a first person, then I wouldn′t have a problem at all, but it′s just too immersion breaking for me.

Actually, you do full damage even with low fatigue. Get lucky and you can still crush the enemy's face on first try.

Bit harsh methinks. The game is nearly a decade old now.

The biggest complaint that I have about Morrowind's combat system is the choppy, blocky, clunky animations. I hope in time with mods and engine rewrites that that obstacle can be overcome.

And if not, mods.

I agree with half of this, but not all. As you say, if I see my weapon make contact, it SHOULD damage the enemy, unless they block it. I don't mind (and would PREFER) the modified die-roll deciding whether the opponent is still standing where I'm aiming, or whether or not my weapon goes exactly where I want it to, but if it does hit them, then it should do damage. If I do manage to connect with a solid hit, then I'd expect it to do serious damage as it did in Morrowind, unlike in Oblivion where your damage was nerfed according to your skill. Each game got it half-right....and half wrong.

I feel that combat in a RPG should be based on an "opposed roll", not an absolute. If I'm trying to hit a totally unskilled opponent, or one that's neither blocking nor evading, then it should be almost impossible to miss, unless my own attacking skills are equally horrendous (even in that case it should still be a fairly decent chance). If they're an experienced fighter, then I'd be disappointed if they didn't dodge, block, parry, or otherwise make it very difficult to hit them, unless I'm similarly skilled.

Also, strategy WAS required in MW's combat, at least to a limited degree. Depending on how long you held the attack before releasing the button, you either did minimum damage for that type of attack, the maximum damage, or something in between. For an Axe or Hammer, waiting for the full strength of the attack to develop was important, and led to greater instances of stuns and knockdowns, along with the obviously higher damage. For an enchanted dagger with very little difference between min and max, it was beneficial to "spam" the button to deliver as much damage as possible over time. Compare that to the simplistic "always does x points of damage" in Oblivion, at least until you gained the "automatic" perks that affected every character in the same way when they reached that skill level (Blade and Blunt had essentially identical perks, just named differently). Granted, Morrowind could (and should) have used its 3 different forms of attack (which you had right from the start) much more effectively than it did, but the core mechanics of a solid combat system were there, just not fully implemented.

There was a variant rule in D&D 3.5 that had you roll AC each turn, and it also said that the normal system was essentially "taking ten" on the roll.
Agreed on the "could have used three forms of attack better". I would have preferred something more like Daggerfall or at least different buttons, instead of the whole "direction of moving" thing.

This is a good point. I've always liked having a "defending roll" of sorts: if I swing a bat at someone's head, my chance of hitting them should depend just as much on their ability to avoid the attack, as on my competence at hitting the target. That way, if a target is immobile or helpless, you just remove the defending roll, so there is much less chance of missing a defenseless target.

Good examples, I remember many times when I was using the quicker minimum damage attack style when I just wanted an enchanted weapon's effect to hit, like paralyze, fear, or high damage effect, etc. Sometimes I even carried a separate "soul trap" weapon like a dagger or short sword that I only used for the "coup de grace" or to finish an opponent off.

Amen to that. I much preferred the Daggerfall style of directional slashing, etc. than the Morrowind directional attack thing. In Daggerfall it felt much more natural and intuitive. I just "swing" my mouse how I want to swing the sword (or whatever) instead of having to "run forward" to thrust, or "jog backward" to do the overhead or whatever attack that was. I always found the backwards attack was the hardest one to use, almost impossible to hit someone who's running away with that. Not to mention, why shouldn't I be able to "thrust" at someone while circling around their flanks? Strafing, of course, would cause the "side slash" attack in MW.

wasn't there a way to change that functionality in Morrowind? I haven't played it in a bit, but it seems like I remember fiddling around with some settings for awhile before finding something that I felt comfortable with...

There was 'always use best attack", though I'd like to know how it calculated that.

Probably whichever one had the highest damage ceiling.

Part of my problem with it is that very few of the weapons have a high enough minimum on any of their attacks to be worth spamming it without an enchantment. I would have liked to have seen something like a steel longsword deal, for instance, 1-22 chop, 8-14 slash, 2-10 thrust, with thrust attacks giving a mild range bonus. That way one attack has the greatest potential, one is more consistent, and one sacrifices damage potential for reach.

It uses the sum of minimum and maximum, from what I can figure. There are several cases where "best attack" uses a slightly lower maximum, when its minimum is considerably better than for the other attack. If tied (which happens on several weapons), I don't know how it determines which is "primary", but I've never seen the "sum" higher for a "not-best" attack.

C4B4L makes a valid point about using different attacks for different purposes, as was done in DF with its tradeoffs between to-hit chance and damage. MW could have offered its 3 different forms as tradeoffs between odds, damage, and either speed or distance, depending on the weapon, with each attack type maximizing one function at some expense to the others.

Note that daggers and shortswords were about the only weapons that reliably had high enough minimums compared to their maximums to make "spamming" with an unenchanted weapon viable. Some Spears came close, so you could "stun lock" an opponent repeatedly with rapid jabs and still do respectable damage. Hammers and Axes had large differences, making it counter-productive to rush the attack. Crossbows were seriously "broken", with identical mins and maxes, so you could fire them at full power after less than a second of reloading time. They should not have been allowed to fire at all until fully "charged", or at least have a long reload time with a 0 minimum.

Yes, even if there was a weapon with Thrust 1-2, Chop 19-20 and Slash 1-21, the "Always Use Best Attack" feature would still go for Slash. The highest maximum counts. With some weapons, Chop and Slash can be identical, but it still always uses... I think Chop. Don't know why. Alphabetical order?

And luckily just now I viewed Kovacius' reply that just arrived. Really? The sum of the lowest and highest? I thought it was only the highest maximum.

Crafting uber-weapon and uber-armor in Skyrim is only good if you wanna get bored fast and ruin whole game. If you want to have FUN play Skyrim without overpowered abilities like enchanting,smithing,conjuration,1h, and shield.

It's still a dice roll though, wether you're rolling one to connect or the damage you do. Like Oblivion you're still rolling a 20 sided dice about the damage you do just instead of hit chance like Morrowind. the only difference is every time you roll the d20 when you're stamina goes down you can take 20,19,18,17 ect off the top of what you're going to roll.
Personally Morrowinds hit system annoyed me a bit the first time I picked it up until I put in some time and got the hang of it and trained my skills a bit. I enjoyed being able to add a lot of passive enchantments and stuff to my character, just don't have the buttons or it takes too much fumbling for active skills/magic on a console. Computer games it's no problem I'd expect to have to use 20+ hotkeys to play a character on computer but on consoles it's not really possible and switching between stuff usually isn't very seemless it takes a lot of time.

I'm only maybe 10 or 8 hours into this game, and the combat doesn't feel that bad. I'm aware of the dice rolling, but maybe the fact that I have the difficulty at the lowest setting might explain why the combat doesn't seem that bad. I love how sharp the daggers look, too. I might be too busy enjoying hitting mudcrabs with a beautifully sharp looking dagger.

Sorry, but this is incorrect. In Oblivion's combat, you ALWAYS do the same amount of damage with a given weapon at a particular level of skill and Strength, unless it's reduced for low Fatigue. There is no D20 roll, or any other random element to damage, in OB, or in Morrowind (which varied weapon damage linearly between minimum and maximum for the weapon according to how long you "charged" the attack before releasing, NOT randomly).