Hell, if there was a level cap it might be nice to reach it earlier than expected, so that there's still enough "game" left for me to enjoy my completed character. Not that I'd want to master everything and play the game like that, but let me reach an "endgame" point with my character where I've got the coolest perks and time to use them.

Being a master of everything on first playthrough would be detrimental to future playthroughs....

If my initial guess about our characters getting maxed out after minimum 112 levels or so, I think I would like it best if the endgame was designed around reach level 40-50ish and that's when the game expects us to "finish" our character development... and that would be the point our leveling curve gets disproportionately steep. Even if the curve went vertical as early as level 20-30, I don't think I'd have too much a problem with that.

i think you'll get one perk per level, in fallout 3 1 perk per level was too much because the skills could be raised a lot not even counting perks but in fallout 4 perks might be the only way to increase skills so i think they'll be a perk per level, otherwise you'll only be able to pick 25 perks in 50 level and thats not a lot if the only way to customize your character's skills is by perks.

A picture to illustrate:

http://imgur.com/BoCRzUi

Edit:

Left side: Specialization
Right side: Can get everything

I voted no, being able to grab every perk and max every attribute makes choosing said perks and attributes pointless to me. If you're able to get them all anyways, whatever perk or attribute value you choose in the early game has little consequence associated with it. It also deminishes replayability because more of the game's content can be experienced through fewer (single?) playthroughs and leads to more homogeneous and uninteresting character development.

Actually, Steam just implemented a "no questions asked" refund policy. As long as you have owned it for less than 2 weeks from release and have played it for less than 2 hours then you can get your money back simply for not liking it.

If you want to specialize, specilize.

If someone wants to build a character in a way that is fully capable of doing everything, what has that got to do with me as a player?

Claiming it should be behind some long, arduous process just harms one playstyle because someone else lacks the mental capacity to not care how I play.

If you want to RP eating and sleeping 8 hours a day, slowly walking through every ruin, and only using suboptimal perks and weapons, I'll call that a boring playstyle, but I could careless that you're doing it.

You shouldn't be forced to make a god tier character, nor should the opposite be true.

I guess I haven't got a big enough ego to care if someone wants to power game? Such things come with maturity I think.

That kind of logical thinking has no place in this forum. /sarcasm

I will likely do multiple plays of this game with my first PC being the one that does it all, and after "figuring things out", I will go back and do things different with subsequent PCs. I will make different choices in both perks I take, and sides I choose in quests. Heck, even after 7 years with FO3 I still find new things to do, and change my decisions in regards to NPCs. I don't see Fallout 4 being any different and I plan to play for YEARS!

Well I hated that Skyrim had this option, but at the same time I never used it so it didn't affect me ... except it did. See I fully developed all my characters by the time they were level 45, so I NEVER got to see those high level dragon and missed out on some other added stuff simply because I liked to have my role-plays be realistic.

So if the option is there to max everything, fine I'll just not use it, but don't penalize me for playing the game as (IMO) is intended.

Not Gar....

A picture really is worth a thousand words.

With over 92.5% of the vote going to No MOAT or it should be take a huge amount of time and effort, I'm surprised just how lopsided the vote is among the hard core fan base.

But I know we all deeply appreciate the high replay value the Fallout series has.

All we are asking is that in a normal play though, doing all the DLC, our Specialized Sole Survivor will still have room to grow and not be MOAT.

And the sighs look good.

What would such a Specialized Sole Survivor, who has done it all, look like?

I'll try to WAG it and we can go on from there.

I figure he or she would have 3 stats maxed with above average ratings in the other 4 (say a 5).

So three at Olympic level is thirty and the rest above average is twenty for a total of 50 points of Special stats.

Assuming a Sole Survivor can find bobbleheads, cyberware, and quest rewards to raise his stats 14 points more.

The Sole Survivor starts with 28 skill points.
That means he would need to use Intensive Training 8 times to get a total of 50 Special stat points.

That gives access to 50 perks out the 70 total out there.

And say there are 10 we want to raise to rating 4.

Or another 30 perks for a total of 80 perks.

So 80 plus 8 is a total of 88 perks.

So we figure he will be around level 88.

Now this is an incredibly powerful character with 3 stats maxed, and the rest above average plus every perks he can get.

Especially important is he has all the upper level perks for three of the Special stats.

He doesn't have the DLC perks but with 88 points of perks, he has plenty to pick and choose the ones he wants.

And this Sole Survivor will still play very differently than a MOAT Sole Survivor.

Even if the level cap was 60 (if there is one), that would still leave him with 60 perks to spend.

Finally to max a Sole Survivor from this points would take 20 more special stat points,

Plus 20 more to get rating one in all the perks.

Plus any perks from the DLC.

Say 62 more perks for a total level of 150.

That would put the Specialized Sole Survivor about 2/3 of the way to being MOAT.

So while I still think the experience points required for the next level should increase each time, it doesn't need to increase much.

And while a total WAG, this does feel right.

And there will be mods to add new content or adjust the advancement rate so a MOAT character is totally doable.

The Non MOAT players get extreme replay value, while the MOAT players get a good challenge plus extreme replay value.

I do believe we should be able to become a Master of All Trades if we put the time and effort into it. For example, to do so in FO 3, you needed to find ALL of the skill books and bobble heads to boost your skills up high enough to max them all out. You also needed to strategically distribute your skill points intelligently so the leveling would carry the skills up to a specific point and the skill books (with the comprehension perk) would carry the skills the rest of the way to 100. It was difficult, time consuming and you had to go into high level areas at low levels, but it was ultimately worth it to see your skills up to 100 or at the least the 90's or 80's.

The same principle should be employed here where the more work we put into our character, the more they can do in terms of abilities. Even the original Vault Dweller eventually became a Master of All Trades. Why should the Lone Survivor be any different?

Remember, this is OUR personal experience in Fallout 4. The game should be what WE make of it, no one else should have a say over that. They say player freedom is the keystone of Fallout. We should have the FREEDOM to make a charater that is a master of all trades IF we so choose. You want to limit your game play to where you're guy is some smooth talking thief who can't fire a gun to save his life, fine, that's great for you. Me, I want a guy who became the ultimate survivor and master of the wasteland. Are either of us wrong? No, because we are playing the way WE want to individually play.

But I did; specifically this one: "Not everyone plays games for challenge, some do to relax, some do for escapism, some find fun in steamrolling all opposition, some want to explore and not bother much with combat".

Not every game is designed for that audience.

Making it optional breaks credibility, and compromises the mechanics. Players should be restricted from so called 'MOAT' PCs because of an impossibility for it to occur in the game, not because they don't feel like it that day, or with that PC.

That wouldn't affect me.

*I despise Steam, and that return policy is reason enough for me by itself not use it as a vendor. Quite a few businesses don't accept AMEX card for the same reason.

**An interesting side note: If Steam had been around in the 90's, and had that return policy available; and had I been using Steam... I might not be a fan of Fallout, or Diablo, or Disciples, or Homeworld, or Ground Control, or Giant's Citizen Kobuto; or Planescape. I recall not being too fond of either of those games in the first half hour.

Allowing arbitrary returns for no reason is something I see as hellishly abusive to vendors; and something that sadly keeps customers only in their narrow comfort zones. The mere fact that Valve now offers this practically ensures the death knell of experimental gaming and divergent titles in the main stream; for now the developer doesn't even have 20 minutes to unfold their masterpiece to an unfamiliar audience ~before they return it with insult.

This will dictate the path of future gaming, and the depth and range of what's on offer by commercial studios.

I think the point is, that good limits make the game more challenging.

If you want to be MOAT then you should have to earn it, not automatically get it for exploring the map and doing a one or two of the DLCs.

The best option would be for Bethesda to gives us options to fine tune the advancement rate.

It could even be a part of hard core mode.

I'm hoping there will be some options with hard core so we can fine tune it as well.

Project Nevada did that and it was an incredibly popular mod for FONV

This may be being hopelessly optimistic, but I hope the Devs are at least glancing at the debates going on here and other boards.

The game is mostly done so the next four months is mostly play testing and fine tuning.

I know they will take it all with a grain a salt since you have to be pretty hard core to be discussing a game not due out for 4 more months.

That makes us a small but vocal percentage of the total gamer base (SO VOCAL).

On the other hand, we are the hardcoe Fallout players and this is the first time they have had to hear from us after we have actually seen some of Fallout 4.

So maybe we will have some impact on them while they fine tune the game.

Pete Hines said "We'll let you know when the team is ready to talk about modes and difficulty levels. Pass it on." on Twitter.

I expect they will be fine tuning it for a couple of more months, but we should hear about it once they decide on the majority of it.

No. I think being more forced to focus on a build you priotize should be given more support. Being a master of everything not only feels unrealistic, it also feels unsatisfying for replay value. I'd rather they branch out more ways you can improve on your focus, personality type and combat specialitie through augmenting speficic traits beyond SPECIAL.

-> Those are all different audiences, plus combinations of them

-> Fallout 3 and TES are, as will Fallout 4 most likely

-> If you don't choose to be a MoaT your character will stay believable. Also not having "credibility" is something you want prioritized, I think it's important too but that player freedom trumps all, because doing whatever you want is fun, and that's what games are for.

I'm not against the ability to respec a character for a good amount of caps, in order to have different playstyles for the same character. I think this would be better then having a MOAT which just kills balance and choice.

No it doesn't, since it's a choice and balance is maintained if you don't choose it.

What's the point of having statistics and perks to choose from, when you can get them all at some point ?

What's the point of replaying the game ?

What's the point of having 10 differents armors, why can't I wear them all at the same time ??? (weapons too, and spells please.)

Seriously, why bother ? Get the skills and levels out too. 44% actually agree.

Effort... what... is this some kind of esport.

But they are one audience in this case, they are several sets in one group.


(waaaay down)





Myself, I'm entirely against respec of character. To change a character mid-game, is to not only undo their past [commitments], but also introduces the possibility of undoing what enabled them to complete certain quests, or access certain areas ~and yet keep the rewards from those.

That's an exploitive cheat.

I would support respec only if the PC's XP, and obtained loot from the retroactively undone adventures were revoked; and the game treat any quest that hinged on removed ability, as either failed, or perhaps never begun. (It'd be nice if the game gave a warning of this before the player commited the Respec.)

There is a difference between choosing to handicap yourself and beating the game DESPITE the challenge.

I'm not talking about choosing to not use cheats and loopholes, but actually testing yourself against the game the Developers created the way it was meant to be played.

One of my worries is that Bethesda has a history of MOAT character.

My reasons are that MOAT character can throw off game balance, reduce the challenge, reduce replay value, and give less reasons for the Developers to make sure that there are multiple ways to accomplish the mission.

I'm certainly not saying MOAT players are bad gamers and I'm all for playing the game any way you want to (provided it is a single player game ).

First thing I did playing Witcher 3 was to use a console command to add 12 points of abilities to Geralt and add a mod to increase his carry weight.

Why? Because a first level Geralt felt stupid to me and I didn't have time for the carry weight busy work.

But you have to admit that it is much easier to have a game that lets a PC become a MOAT half way through the game plus DLC than to provide enough limits to keep it challenging all the way through.

There is a small percentage of the gamers out there that want any insects in Fallout 4 removed or replaced.

I understand why they want that and don't mind them asking the Devs, but figure the Dev have better things to do and they can fix it once someone creates a mod for it like in Skyrim.

Skyrim has several mods to replace insects with bears including No Spiders mod by Luthien and Insects Begone - Modularly Removing Spiders and Chaurus by yroc1234.

Hopefully the difficulty settings will include advancement options that make everyone happy..

But if 9 out of 10 players want some thing to be more challenging then they should be listen too.

I can understand major concerns before Fallout 4 because the majority of players were on consoles and had no means to mod their gaming experience.

But now there will be mods that everyone will eventually have access to, that will let the player set up the perfect advancement level for them.

In most cases, it's hardly arbitrary as the refund policy has a game-play time limit (if you play above a certain amount of hours you can't refund it). Steam refund had to happen because shovelware is one of the "bad apples" that comes with allowing early-access.

If anything, it's abusive to users to get shafted by games like air control. So no, it's not a death knell - that's overly dramatic for the situation.

What if the game is two hours long? (...or four; that's half the game.)
What if the game is a puzzle title?

What if it's not a game? A software utility... Someone buys an Undelete utility, undeletes their files, and demands a refund.

There has to be more than a blanket policy at work; while that may make things simpler and cheaper for Valve... it screws over the vendors.
The customers should be sensible enough to find out what they are buying before they buy it; and any return policy should have enough hoops in it to discourage all but the adamant ~those who have a real issue, and are not just using the refund system simply because they can, or they want to buy another game to try and return. Buying something is a two way street, and the seller should have rights too.

If (to stick with example) one buys an undelete utility, it should be returnable if it doesn't work... not if the buyer wants to reclaim the money to use on a DLC.

***Speaking of DLC: How many DLCs are over two hours long?
(Honest question; because I do not recall ever playing any for more than a few minutes tops.)

The way I see it, Valve only really had two options: Actually install a refund policy in place to allow consumers a way to get their money back when they're sold bad, broken, or misleading games, or actually execute some damn quality control and purge about 80% of the games that are listed on Steam. Seriously, so much of what gets published on Steam now is garbage, because Valve tried to be super inclusive and give indie developers a chance, while doing nothing to stop all the hacks and frauds from coming in and dragging the whole thing down.

It's silly to me that electronic media (games, movies, and software mostly) seem to be the one thing where people have been given almost no recourse for refunds if they open the box. If the game is broken, or isn't what was advertised, or just plain horrible, the consumer should be given a refund if they pursue it. The threat of refunds actually puts pressure on developers to make something worth buying now. Just a few months ago, WB would be laughing it up about how awful their PC version of Arkham Knight was because customers couldn't get refunds. Now? They've actually taken it down from Steam and are (claiming anyway) that they're working on turning it into a game could actually be released by somebody with pride in there work, rather than something just shoved out there because the publisher didn't give a damn.

As for the whole comfort zone argument, now that I know that I could get my money back if I don't like a game, I'm more inclined to get out of my comfort zone and try new things. I can see a game trailer or hear people talking about it and go "Well, that got my attention. Not sure if it's for me, but let's give it a shot." I wouldn't be willing to the roll the dice with 20 or 60 bucks to check out games and risk being left holding the bag.

Finally, if a game can't do anything to make you think it might be worth keeping in the first two hours, it probably isn't worth keeping.