This may have already been brought up...

I'm glad they've raised the Cap with the DLCs. However, it pisses me off to no-end when I complete a DLC side quest or main quest and get 20,000 XP or some rediculous amount.

I like playing, not just the game but playing for something like the next level so I can add a perk or skill points.

Personally, I think they should consider instituting a slider that will allow you to lower the XP recieved in-game. I'd drop it 50% once I'm at 17 or around there. That would increase the life of your player and make a new level something you actually work towards proactively instead of just going through the motions.

Flame on!

More skills. (16 at minimum)
Better skill point distribution system with varying ratios. (Like in FO1/2)
Unlimited level cap.
Exp requirement for each level is far greater than in NV/FO3.

They do that and it's fixed.

Since there are no dicerolls anymore (at least not any of worth -- which basically makes the current method of skillprogress with the current gameplay too subtle for the player to really notice), I'd favor a system where once you raise your skills, you raise them point by point (from, say, 1 to 10) with a cumulative increase in cost. This would basically cover the need for higher skillcap and less skillpoints per level issues, and would also help with the level cap due to the inherent need for more skillpoints to reach any level of general competence (if done right, that is).

On topic... Yes, they should. But not by letting the player choose when and where ever he wishes level up faster or slower.

Problem with that UnDeCafIndeed is that that completely changes the current system, while decreasing total skillpoints you get and having a few more skills would also do.
I for one like the incremental increase.

@OP: I'm relaying on mods like Project Nevada to decrease my experience gain and as I progressed I have felt the need to continually decrease the percentage of XP I gain.
Overall a decreasing line in experience granted would probably a good solution, as you gain in levels the xp gained becomes a fraction of what you would normally get.

Is changing it (or... rearranging, more like) a bad thing when considering that with the current gameplay the incremental increses do not provide feedback up until one reaches a threshold anyway. The thing I was going for was to get more from less. Think about how VtMB handles skills and stats, or Risen -- not to copy those, but having a similiar idea since the gameplay we have now more than supports that kind of system.

I would rather stick with the current 1/100 scale of skills, but because of the afore mentioned reasons, I don't see it as too viable method of presenting character progression (too subtle).

Having only a few skill points (like VtMB) makes things very blunt. The whole point of having 1-300 scale of the originals was the ability to make small changes to skills if so desired. I hate games where you put points in and think, 'I have reached threshold #1 and can not wait for threshold #2" (*cough* TES *cough*) where skill progress is measured at plateaus. Too few points or too many and the game feels too much like playing by the numbers instead of evolving the character.

I can guarantee you that if gamesas green-lighted 1-300 they would put in a way to easily get 300 in every skill.... which defeats the whole purpose of that system. I think they like to cater to the crowd who wants to be jack-of-all-trades-master-of-every-one. As immature as that philosophy is I do not see it changing. They make action games, not subtle RPGs with an emphasis on giving characters personality.

The best I can hope for is that they keep the 1-100 skill scale, but decrease the awarded XP and potency of books/magazines. It won't happen because like I said they cater to the master of all trades.

Exactly. Especially for quest completions and other story related XP.

If you kill a Gecko and get 50 xp that's fine. But finishing the 4 achievements in Lonely Hearts (per the wiki) net you 4,000 (I'm not sure if that increases with level attainment), and that's just the achievments. Which is the equivalent of killing 80 Geckos... Just a bit uneven.

The 1-300 scale was useless, though. You never needed to even get 200. Or even 150. Increasing them over 100 offered small bonuses here and there, but for all intents and purposes, they did nohing the player actually needed. The "bluntness" would be the point of the system I suggested. Once you increase your skill, you will know and feel you just got better --- which, imo, would now be better than rising skill X to 57 from 55, which does nothing in practice (or like with FO3 rising the small guns from 10 to 100 and only then noticing a subtle difference if you remembered how it felt in the beginning). And I don't really know how you got a TES reference from anything I suggested (which was basically slower progress with higher rewards, both of which TES lacks).

Bethesda does what it does, like it was said in a recent IGN article (paraphrasing) "RPG's for people who do not like RPG's", but I'm not going to stop suggesting more complex things because Todd seems to want all-access in everything for everyone.

Then the problem you are referring to is their inability to properly scale effects to skills. They could work on making skill changes to be noticeable... but then players would probably whine about how their characters svck using skills they never put points in. That may be the major flaw of the combat system, making it more player based than character.

PS: the TES plateaus I was referring to was how the skills did almost nothing different in Oblivion except at 25,50,75,100. This was especially true for spells as they were unusable until you reached the proper thresholds.

That shouldn't be a problem for anyone but the player who feels that kind of whining is warranted.



I don't remember the perks (at the quarter points) doing anything really significant since you reached them inevitably if they were on the progressive path of your character, and not by choosing whether or not to invest in them.

The quarter points (25, 50, 75, 100) is where major changes would occur. Repair for instance you would be able to use the hammer much more at each quarter point before it broke, until at 100 you never had it break and would only need one the rest of the game. The spells were the same way, you had to be atleast at 25, 50, 75, 100 befpre you could even use them. Each point was significant.

I wouldn't necessarily suggest that exact solution though, because there were inherent flaws in that you could manipulate the system (running or sneaking) for no reason to boost levels or just casting spells for no reason to boost levels.

There is something simliar in Vegas already, but not exactly. The perks act the same way, where if you have like 70 Repair Skill you can get the Jury Rig perk. So it was similiar in that regard.

If anything the guns need to be split into more categories for skill pts... one handed, two handed, sniper, etc. Switching to another gun regardless of type gives you the same ability? That doesn't make sense, just like Unarmed and Melee are different because each or unique types of attacks and need separate skills. Of course at this point we're adding quite a bit of complexity...

I'd argue that killing XP doesn't need to be very large either, since you tend to do it a lot and I loath mob grinding for xp, but yeah, 4000 xp for 4 achievements is insane.


But like Gurkog said that's Bethesda's flaw for sticking to thresholds.
Locks and computers could just as easily require 67 or 31 in their respective skill. Though rounded at 5, speech checks also need not be so restrictive. In fact it would be nice if these had a random factor to them per playthrough (a random number in a range).
Further more things like combat skills, repair, barter, medicine and survival do get incremental effects and with some tweaking that could easily be made to show it.