Well, except for being the exact same argument applied to something you don't want rather than something you do want. "Don't like it, you don't have to use it" is the same argument no matter what it's applied to.

Re assigning perk points is honestly the stupidest idea I've ever heard. You spend countless hours learning how to slit peoples throats and make poisons... and then forget how to do it and magically learn to make really wicked frost spells without ever casting one.

Have they confirmed whether there will be levels or not? If so I don't think it would be too outrageous if you could change whatever perk you chose for the current level, until you leveled up and chose the next one. I'm pretty sure that it won't be unheard of for some perks to have issues, such as being worthless at upper levels, ineffective against certain targets which happen to be more common as you level up, not working as described, outright bugged, or better on paper as someone else said.

Overall, I don't see how having something like this, though obviously not to an extreme degree would hurt the game. What would in fact hurt it more I believe would be the frustration of "OMG my character is ruined and I have to make a new one because of some non-optimal perk choice I made at level 1." That only promotes save-scumming and could very well kill all enjoyment of the game for some people when they discover that they have unintentionally gimped their character.

^ this

@re123 You asked if levels are confirmed. Are you asking about perk levels, skill levels, or an overall level?

edit: nvm

Numerical or character level. I haven't exactly been up-to-date on the mechanics so I am unsure if perks are granted upon a standard level up or some other method. If it is "other" then what I suggested would not exactly work out.

There's no cap on the character level, but we stop gaining perks at level 50.

Do you know if you will be able to see the full lists/trees of perks at once or will they become available for viewing as you level

What I am seeing is this. You want to play the game "for real" once. Then you want to screw around with other powers. You're in luck! In the console you will be able to cheat your stats and perks, no problem, unless the console is removed for some reason after having it for the last 3 games. A respec system is not necessary or desirable for the main game, for the reasons that the other 20 posters have been trying to get through to you. Just use the console, hack the game, even use a mod if you have to, and you can look at the other powers for a few hours and then quit.

Since you are a fringe player who refuses to make more than one character, it makes sense to me that you should be willing to hack the game to add in the feature that you want but that the devs' target audience actively and emphatically do not want.


Exactly. It is this lack of understanding that makes your arguments so hard to take seriously.

Perk trees are available to see from the beginning.

No it won't be. It's been mentioned that leveling will take place very quickly, with 50 levels taking as long as 30 in Oblivion. So that will not make for a slow change at all. You'll be able to rapidly alter your character over the course of a game.

It would have been 100% anologous if in Sarusas' perspective aliens were not-reassigning perks as how in oppositions' perspective aliens were reassigning perks and for both aliens were bad but he/she is actually thinking good about oppositions' not reassigning perks stance. The key is opposition can continue to do so, with not reassigning perks and nothing would change if all we do is adding this very simple perk reassign mechanic.

Console is there but if I don't like cheating, I don't have to use it. If he likes it, he will use it. Fast travel is in Skyrim, if I don't like it, I can use a carriage. If you don't like iron weapons, you don't have to use it... If he likes it, he will use it. If we wanted the removal of things we don't want, there would be no game.

I have read books where escaped convicts turned into mayors. Sticking to a pure class is an extra restriction which should be roleplayed, sorry.

We should approach the subject from game balance perspective instead. If the game balance is catered to opposition and there are significant downsides to his/her approach then it is all good. We're responsible for our character, not switching professions if it is possible in game would be something we should roleplay ourself, off course game balance will aid us in this. He/she must endure the challenge of changing professions mid game(and likely not succeed in a pure to pure switch) if game balance is correctly designed for a feature like that. I would like it personally.

In defense and favor of the 4th edition D&D rules when it comes to feats/perks, I′d like to add my 2cents.

When I was a kid I took the warrior (jock) path, I did a lot of sports and trained in freestyle athletics, gymnastics and football, cycled many hours a day and played around a lot putting great strain on my body.

Around the age of 10-12 I got osgood schlatter, I won′t get into it in detail but it is a symptom that happens when you put too much strain on your knees during your years of growth (puberty) where the knees can′t take that much pressure as some kids put on them, it makes you feel a lot of pain if you keep doing stuff like sports and can ruin your knees to a point of no return if ignored. So I took a different path, I put down all of my hobbies and had to get new ones (since pretty much the only hobbies I had were sport related ones...)

The path of the mage. I started to read more, got more academic and saw my grades rise and my general intellect grow more than it did in the previous years by a long shot. Now I′m 18 and while I′m not much older I can finally start to do any good amount of sports again since my skeletal growth should be about to stop but over those years I′ve allowed myself the occasional game of football since I can handle it in small amount and I′ve found out that my skills keep dropping while my academic skills rise. I′m not as bad at sports as my brother who never even liked sports as a kid but I′m worse than my 12 year old self and worse than most of my peers that share my birth-year, the same people I used to be a lot better than at those same sports as a kid.

What we are seeing here is exactly what is described, a transaction of sorts from one type of lifestyle to another, I got worse at my previous lifestyle and better at my current one, in very much the same way it could be that way in Skyrim but of course the transaction should be a slow one, one that could represent a good 5 years or more in game. But if we are going for realism that is the way to go, I look at myself as a proof of that, however it wouldn′t be realistic for it to happen fast, so keep it slow and I′m all in for re-assigning perk points.

Maybe you would enjoy playing through the game again and making different decisions that lead to different outcomes/take you on different paths etc? Seems like that would be like saying im gonna stop going to the movies because ive walked through that theater before, you dont have to do the exact same thing all over again or else the replay value wouldnt be there.

edit: i appologize if that comes across as arguing, its not meant to. curious you dont enjoy replaying games in general or you go through it once and then its shelved.

It wouldn't exactly make sense, however they have said multiple times that their new leveling system was put in place so that players could change their minds. That being said, if my character is a total [censored] who barely understands the concept of swinging an axe, he shouldn't be able to have some sudden change that made him smart enough to use uber advanced spells.

Fine, make it that you are only able to change one perk if you haven't done that last level. That way, it is really slow, but you can change few perks if you misunderstood them and would like some other (WHICH DON'T HAVE TO BE TOTALLY OPPOSITE OF YOUR CHARACTER BY THE WAY)

Or you can make retrained perks to be available from the same perk tree.

Or you can use both of the suggestions.

Balancing can do wonders.

No it's not anologous inserting in world content is different to putting another option in the options menu.



Unless they make the console available on xbox 360 then no I'm not in luck. And before you suggest I should get it for pc the one i'm typing on now won't run Oblivion and I'm unlikley to be getting a new one for quite some time.



Then enlighten me?
How exactly does the addition of an option that doesn't effect the main game in any way until it is utilised effect those who do not utilise?

My wish to walk/ride everywhere in oblivion was in no way impeded by fast travel nor was my wish to stick with my quest failures scuppered by the ability to reload a previous save.




I think you'd stopp going to the moives if the movie on show was a slightly different version of the really long one you saw last time.

I can play shorter games more then once , but another 200 plus hours in the exact same setting with the same story just to build another character with different abilities doesn't appeal to me. And I have tried it my second character is about level 10 in Oblivion i give him a whirl every now and then but I can barely manage an hour before I get bored and move on to something else, the sense of discovery and wonder simply isn't there.

Then do different stories. Make different decisions, do different quests, etc. If you don't do everything with one character, you leave more stuff to discover with other characters.

Then i take it youve never been able to sit through a movie that was a remake of another movie or even sequals of movies for that matter(sequals basically being the same with a slightly different plot ie: replaying the game making different chocies). Like for me 80% of the movies coming out the general story/setup has been done before many times but i still am entertained and enjoy watching them... even the same movie several times because i enjoyed it but that might be just me being an odd, boring, easily entertained person and you could find your entertainment harder to come by.



I already asked above and huleed brings it up again



You dont have to do everything exactly the same way you did the first time. They give you choices for a reason, so one playthrough isnt exactly the same as everyone elses. Also im pretty sure many choices you make the first way through lock out other things that you could do differently, such as in morrowind you could only pick one of the three great houses to join, but you could go back and choose a different one.

edit: seems like this type of game may just not be casual oriented enough for you since you find replaying it any amount after the first go (an exercise in tedium)

I was afraid you'd say that Sorry to hear it.




OK! Thanks for asking. Forgive me if my explanation is long-winded. I'll try to keep it interesting.

My contention is that it's bad to add features to a game that allow it to be played in an unintended way, because it screws things up for those who wish to play it as intended.

-----

I will start off by talking about a totally different game, since we are very close to the conflict on this one. There's a great looking isometric party-based RPG called Dead State in development right now. It's a zombie apocalypse game, and the intention is that, as you play it, you arbitrarily lose people along the way. Just like in a zombie movie, not everyone will survive. However, no deaths are pre-scripted; it's just expected that you'll lose people from time to time. Make sense so far? OK.

Now, what kind of save system should this game have? Right now it's looking like the base game will allow you to save once per game day, only when you are back at your secure shelter, to keep tension high in the field. But wait! What if some people want a quicksave system, where they can save in the middle of combat, and even reload every time they don't like a particular result?

Obviously that's not the way the game was meant to be played, but why not include it? If people don't want to use it, they just don't have to, right?

OK. Now suppose I am playing this game, and I'm trying to play it as intended. Now I have a party of characters I like, and one character in particular who's just awesome. Now suppose that character gets killed, and I'm like, aw, man. Now. If there's no quickload function, I'm sad that I lost the character, and I ruminate on the tragedy of the zombie apocalypse, all as intended. No conflict there. But if there IS a quickload function, suddenly I have an unpleasant decision to make. Do I choose, deliberately, to kill off that character I like? Or do I choose, deliberately, to soften the edge of zombie tragedy? Either way, I have good reason to feel bad about what I'm doing. The game should not put me in that position.

Does that make sense?

-----

I admit that the lasers and cowboys were silly exaggerations and not really anologous to your more "meta" options, but I contend that the big red kill anything instantly button is exactly anologous. Again, it puts me in a position it shouldn't. Every time I meet a tough monster, I'm going to be tempted to use it. If the button isn't there, I either fight brilliantly and triumph honorably or die and reload. If the button is there, I have to decide whether to (probably) die and reload ... or just kill the monster instantly and keep playing. That's not a decision I should be making, and it's obviously not how the game is intended to be played. This is another case where adding an option is subtracting from my fun.

-----

Gotta go, but I leave it to the reader to draw comparisons between these examples and the ability to respec one's character in a long term RPG.

If the perk trees are visible from the beginning that really mitigates the need to reset anything. That said, hopefully it's graceful enough to not fall into the +5 multiplier problem, that in my opinion greatly detracted from the enjoyment of playing by forcing you into limited skill challenging each level just to level well. Once I modded that out and just enjoyed playing with the skills I wanted to use I enjoyed it much more.

I agree completely with this and also would like to add that knowing right from the start that this was possible really sort of ruins any feeling of having to make a decision about something if you can just swap it later.

No. Skyrim will have a quicksave mechanic. So for reviving your "team member" locked perk option, one can still load and change that. So, it is already like your worse case scenario.

Changing class is possible in real life. Tell us what you want to see as disadvantages and consequences for taking that road. Tell us how sticking to a pure class could be rewarding...

advantages id like to see for sticking to a purer class - a far greater advantage in any way shape or form than someone who is fine just being halfway decent at everything be it through damage alone or cooler moves like slowing down time with ur bow perk

sticking to a pure class would be rewarding because at some point youd go up against an enemy/quest that your particular skillset is not as efficient at as another skill....thus making your personal fight/trial w/e u wanna call it at this point more difficult than another. So say it would be extremely easy and you could knock out a quest in two seconds if you were proficient in magic because of the situation, but alas you only know the way of the sword so you have to be more resourceful/think up more difficult strats(this is where some would want to switch their perk set because they think oh [censored] this other perk would be very convenient to have right now)....but youd feel as though you accomplished something by triumphing as the sort of class underdog