http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/perk.htm




I.E? REWARD FOR WORK......

sleign's "explanation" holds as much water as me saying the same thing, Nothing, we haven't played it yet, and the argument FOR attributes has weight, perks are enver stated to replace attributes, all the GI and recent articles said was magick stamina and health are all that exist, Perks are for skills, and skills are everything and peple are harping on that PR damage control talk from Todd about how he says "you raised intelligence for Magicka right?"

sleign's "explanation" holds as much water as me saying the same thing, Nothing, we haven't played it yet, and the argument FOR attributes has weight, perks are enver stated to replace attributes, all the GI and recent articles said was magick stamina and health are all that exist, Perks are for skills, and skills are everything and peple are harping on that PR damage control talk from Todd about how he says "you raised intelligence for Magicka right?"

sleign's "explanation" holds as much water as me saying the same thing, Nothing, we haven't played it yet, and the argument FOR attributes has weight, perks are enver stated to replace attributes, all the GI and recent articles said was magick stamina and health are all that exist, Perks are for skills, and skills are everything and peple are harping on that PR damage control talk from Todd about how he says "you raised intelligence for Magicka right?"

But.... You did raise intelligence for magicka...why else would you.

The problem is that attributes as a system are designed for a distinctly different mechanical background than the one you're finding in recent TES games, by which I mostly mean Oblivion since Skyrim isn't out yet. RNG still exists in Oblivion, I guess, but it's of limited influence and that robs attributes of a lot of what they were meant to do previously - namely, affect the chance of success. I'll grant you that not all of them were supposed to do that - Strength never really helped you do anything better, but things like Agility, Willpower, Luck, Intelligence, Personality - those were the things that made it more likely you'd succeed, and ergo more likely you'd succeed in a better way (if degrees of success were possible).

Skyrim, however, is looking to be like Oblivion - that is, a game in which player actions determine the likelihood of success, rather than some random number generator. In this case, all attributes can do (as they're merely metagame concepts, numbers without context) is give you flat bonuses without any versatility. If I increase my Intelligence, my magicka pool increases and I the spells I cast aren't more likely to succeed - they don't fail - they just work a bit better. I increase Agility and I get some bonuses to bow damage and such. Personality just means people like me more at the opening of conversations, though it probably has more success-determining potential than others simply due to being tied to bartering.

But attributes in a game designed around player action as a conflict resolution mechanic are out of their element and awkward. Better to replace them with something able to do the job better than try to shoehorn them in where they don't fit.

Sleign


Fair enough, my words don't hold any weight, however Todd's does. He said explicitly that attributes and what they do are still in the game, just not for you to tweak. Does that hold water?

Why would they cause out of control stat bonuses? Because you say so?
Just lower how effective a single point of an attribute is. Its true that some were ridiculous, with 100 speed and athletics you could run ridiculously fast, that should be reduced.

And they work perfectly together. We could even have perks that are "+10 pts to strength." Sure its not the most exciting, but its an example of how they work together.
And they are by no means redundant. And its not like I only want it because they were in the old system. Maybe I want them because they model your character better than perks can. It was always a superior system to what other games used.

sleign's "explanation" holds as much water as me saying the same thing, Nothing, we haven't played it yet, and the argument FOR attributes has weight, perks are enver stated to replace attributes, all the GI and recent articles said was magick stamina and health are all that exist, Perks are for skills, and skills are everything and peple are harping on that PR damage control talk from Todd about how he says "you raised intelligence for Magicka right?"

To make my character smarter? Or maybe to make better potions. There are plenty of reasons, intelligence didn't do one thing.
And attributes should do more. Certianly we could all think of at least 3 uses for each previous attribute, except maybe luck (it does everything with one use)

I'll start off by saying yes, and please direct me where I can see this as well.

The problem is that attributes as a system are designed for a distinctly different mechanical background than the one you're finding in recent TES games, by which I mostly mean Oblivion since Skyrim isn't out yet. RNG still exists in Oblivion, I guess, but it's of limited influence and that robs attributes of a lot of what they were meant to do previously - namely, affect the chance of success. I'll grant you that not all of them were supposed to do that - Strength never really helped you do anything better, but things like Agility, Willpower, Luck, Intelligence, Personality - those were the things that made it more likely you'd succeed, and ergo more likely you'd succeed in a better way (if degrees of success were possible).

Skyrim, however, is looking to be like Oblivion - that is, a game in which player actions determine the likelihood of success, rather than some random number generator. In this case, all attributes can do (as they're merely metagame concepts, numbers without context) is give you flat bonuses without any versatility. If I increase my Intelligence, my magicka pool increases and I the spells I cast aren't more likely to succeed - they don't fail - they just work a bit better. I increase Agility and I get some bonuses to bow damage and such. Personality just means people like me more at the opening of conversations, though it probably has more success-determining potential than others simply due to being tied to bartering.

But attributes in a game designed around player action as a conflict resolution mechanic are out of their element and awkward. Better to replace them with something able to do the job better than try to shoehorn them in where they don't fit.

Sorry I RP'd Knight with high int, he didnt delve into magicka that much, That is something worthwhile changing and making it matter, not taking perks which have been around in Daggerfall and Oblivion, slapping tags on them and calling them innovation. they are exactly the same, all the prerequisites, what they do, they just aren't automatic anymore, and people seem to glaze over in the eyes when they see the number 280 and instantly think variety.

) claiming that removing attributes harms immersion or makes it harder to roleplay is downright silly - they're a metagame concept and roleplaying has always been about your imagination filling in the blanks the game does not or can not fill in itself.

If attributes are weakened to make room for perks, then all the more reason to remove them completely and let skills take over.

How do they model your character better?

To make my character smarter? Or maybe to make better potions. There are plenty of reasons, intelligence didn't do one thing.
And attributes should do more. Certianly we could all think of at least 3 uses for each previous attribute, except maybe luck (it does everything with one use)

Except intelligence didn't make your character smarter and you shouldn't need some number with no meaning to decide if your character is smart when you can decide it for yourself ( I always have decided it for myself) Also, skills really governed attributes, not the other way around. Skills decided your attributes fate. Like I said, attributes are doing more now since attributes were upgraded to Health, Magicka, Stamina and 280 perks. Bethesda fixed attributes like everyone wanted.

I agree. The new Oblivon system makes attributes a little clunky and outdated but not useless. They worked in Fallout they can work In Skyrim.

How are picking perks anyless metagaming? :ermm:

Sorry I RP'd Knight with high int, he didnt delve into magicka that much, That is something worthwhile changing and making it matter, not taking perks which have been around in Daggerfall and Oblivion, slapping tags on them and calling them innovation. they are exactly the same, all the prerequisites, what they do, they just aren't automatic anymore, and people seem to glaze over in the eyes when they see the number 280 and instantly think variety.





I'll start off by saying yes, and please direct me where I can see this as well.

What skill do I raise to make an agile swordsman? Give me a build with nothing but skills and tell me how its different from a hulking barbarian?

So super potions in Morrowind was all a lie? Because intelligence doesn't affect my potion making at all?
Its not like I can't make a fortify spell, the only way to improve attributes are through skills? Not to mention I can choose my attributes.
I can use a sword all day long, then when I rest choose to increase intelligence by just 1 point.

What skill do I raise to make an agile swordsman? Give me a build with nothing but skills and tell me how its different from a hulking barbarian?
Keep in mind barbarians use light armor too, if thats even still a skill.

And there isn't going to be a magic perk for, "agile swordsman, click this." There may be some perks that cause some differentiation, but its not likely enough to completely define a character.
And the bilnd trust in bethesda that perks are enough to fully define a character is saddening, I had that with Oblivion, I learned (not my favorite TES game)

That... wasn't what I said at all, though. I said the attributes were clunky, outdated, and it made more sense to remove them than leave them in, where they'd just be an awkward relic.

The difference isn't going to be in the skills. It will be in the perks you choose. A Barbarian would likely use the Two-handed weapon skill while the agile swordsman uses Block and One-handed and that's the largest difference in skills. The agile swordsman would pick Light Armor perks that improve his mobility if there are such things, and would pick One-handed perks which increase the speed of his attacks, the critical chance, etc. The Barbarian would pick perks to reduce damage taken on hits, bleeds and raw damage increases for his two-handed axes.

Once information on the complete skill list and perk lists is out, I'd be happy to make a more accurate build.

What would be the difference with attributes? Is your swordsman not going to increase Strength? How are you increasing Agility, by grinding Security and Sneak? The difference between the two classes here is in two attributes. The difference between the two classes with perks is in potentially dozens of perks.

"not likely enough to completely define a character." How do you know that? There are 280 of them! There's plenty of opportunity to choose different perks with different characters. I don't see why they would make 280 perks but make any 10 of them the exact same. If there's 280, there's a lot of variety, and by extension characters will have a lot of variety.

You write about our blind trust, what about your blind dismissal of the new system?

Ah yes, and we do still have three "attributes". The agile swordsman would level Stamina more often than the barbarian, who would focus on Health.

You do realize, that attributes gave bonuses to skills (not big bonuses but bonuses still) but skills decided how your attributes raised. Thus in reality, attributes were slaves to skills, not the other way around. Besides, the effectiveness of your potions shouldn't be affected by your intelligence, it should be affected by your alchemy skill.