There's plenty more to do after you have maxed out your character, but very little that will give your character a sense of progression, so I'm not really clear on the point you're making when you take some words out of context and give such a short reply. I'm saying that Bethesda should think about removing skill and attribute caps because they don't have any obvious merits, other than to place limitations on one's character in an effort to make the game feel more balanced (I'm guessing). Even if that is what caps are for, then the system still fails, IMO. Are you suggesting that it is better to retain skill and attribute caps? If so, why? If not, then what other system/mechanic would you propose?

BTW, I never suggested that all players have the same attitude towards leveling, or that leveling was anyone's main/sole motivation to play. I only recognize the fact that leveling (i.e. character building) is a major aspect that makes RPGs so appealing, and helps to define the genre. The fact that many people end up with a jack-of-all-trades character towards the end , regardless of what 'specialization' they chose in the beginning, suggests that many players want to keep progressing their characters beyond the limitations set by Bethesda's system. I think removing the caps is one way to help correct this 'problem'. Just my 2 septims.



I would like this kind of system better than the attribute multipliers and the level-upon-resting system Bethesda currently uses.

At the very least, endurance needs to be brought back on par with the other attributes in importance. As it stands, it's the only one that really matters in the long term. It's the only one that you pretty much have to pay attention to. The only difference between two capped out characters will be the HP. Max endurance ASAP shouldn't be so mandatory. If it is, all other attributes should affect a stat in a nonretroactive way. The most powerful mage in the game is the one who begins the game with warrior stats. MP will cap at 3x int regardless, or whatever you set it at. Why can't INT be the same as END? Make it so even warriors have to make a sacrifice. They get their cake and eat it too. Start as warrior. Put every effort into endurance. Maximize every multiplier. I want TESV to reward playing it like a game, if only because it's a personality flaw of mine that if there IS a way to achieve an obviously superior result, I can't ignore it. If every character build ended up drastically different, that'd be one thing, but the only difference is HP, and it seems silly not getting it. Master of trades with HP. Master of trades without HP. That's the only difference between the three archtypes. Shouldn't be that way.

My point, in a nutshell, was this: a 'sense of progression', as defined by stats, levels, level caps, ...it's meaningless to me. I don't use or need these things to give my character a 'sense of progression.' My character's sense of progression comes from the narrative of my character's journey and the changes in her personality that is a result of that journey. I'm composing a kind of story as I play. That story is what gives my character a sense of progression.

"But, the problem with the Elder Scrolls' current system is that once you hit the skill and attribute cap, there's nothing left to do to progress your character except work on those skills that haven't been maxed out. Thus, having skill and attribute caps encourages players to increase/max-out skills that they probably wouldn't if those caps were removed, which all but forces players to create a jack-of-all-trades later in the game, regardless of whether they meant to or not."

This type of thinking - what my character's skills are, what my character's level is, whether my character is level-capped - is alien to me. I play solely to create a character and to roleplay as that character. I cannot lose a sense of progression if my character is level-capped because I was never keeping track of my character's stats to begin with.

Sounds like getting a point of luck for an achievement(although harder in some cases). I Like it. _b

The real problem is leveled and scaled loot, in oblivion I would grind to 25 and stop leveling before I even did 1 quest. Why would my wood elf ranger want a level 4 Shadowhunt when hes gonna be level 15 in no time?

Yea they shouldn't do leveled loot anymore, at least not basing EVERYTHING on your level.
It was also quite rewarding in Morrowind to find some neat stuff while you where still low level. I remember the first time I managed to get a daedric short sword at a early level by managing to defeat a dremora.

Personally I even wouldn't make the level matter that much anymore. I'd rather have a game you can just play and get better AS you play, after all the G in RPG stands for GAME not GRINDING.

IMHO the best way to keep the sense of progression in open world games, like TES, is to make a world that has a different danger levels in different areas, and there should be always places that are too dangerous for the players to venture into, not that they should level up with the players, but are too dangerous from the start.

Let's say that, half of the entire playable area of the game should be for newbie to low level players, and half of the remaining areas should be for the medium to higher level players, and the rest should be too dangerous for even the higher level players.

There should be no level cap for the players and their skill progression, but the progression should become slower and more time consuming as they advance in their skills, and their levels should be based on their skill progression, visibly or invisibly.

The rate of slowing of the skill progression should be different for each skill for each type of character, so for a barbarian orc, the rate of advancing his magical skills should slow sooner than his physical skills, but as I said before, there should not be a hard cap on any skill progression, and the progression should be visible.

So for any character we should have places that are too dangerous for us to go into, but as we progress our characters, we should be able to conquer more places, by advancing our characters and their gear, finding new strategies, or strategic items, or better companions, and so on...

Those hard to conquer places should not be related to any main quests, but some side quests should require us to be able to survive them, thus the sense of progression would be immense as we can finally complete those quests, by any means, even by running through those areas and be lucky enough to survive the attacks and do the required tasks item and run out.

Because of this, the invisibility spells should not be absolute, and should be removed in favor of chameleon spells that should not have a 100 percent effect, but they should have a power magnitude that would be countered by monsters with higher "Sight" power.

In those higher level places we should also find higher level loots with effects and perks that would give us more strategic options, and help us conquer the even higher level places, but in the end there should remain some areas that would require characters develop for months if we want to conquer them without cheats.

This way the game would keep the sense of progression for any character, for ever.

Does this need higher level content?

Just like Diablo, recycle monsters and items, with new textures, and scales, stats, names, and new http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1107940-perks-they-can-make-each-play-through-a-unique-experience, and so on...

Those item perks can be unique, and items with those perks can be super unique, and could only be found in those super dangerous places, and should add strategic advantage to help with even higher level places, but if cleverly designed, they should have limited use for lower level places, and do not affect the game-play experience too much in those places.

OK, that was my two Septims.

Edit: corrections.

I like in Fo3 how you can reach the max level, lvl 20? long before the end of the game. That means you've built your character and can concentrate on the story and game play.

Another thing I liked about Fo3 was when you leveld up, your stats didnt increase. At level 20 you were still just a guy with a gun. Not some kind of god or anything.

No...do not have the elder scrolls level system like fallout...no way ever....oblivions is way better.
But it does need to be worked on better.

6. “True mastery”:
With the fluent level caps I'd also change what mastery of a skill is. Reaching 100% is not mastery, it's reaching a very well trained level. True mastery would be closer to reach 150%.
With the different flexibility for different character types reaching mastery in certain fields is easier than to others. Additionally since skills over the 100% cap can drop again over time it means you CAN reach well trained in all fields (which is realistically possible) but only mastery in those you can really push and HOLD above 100%.
Think of it as the difference between a well trained track runner and a Olympics sprinter, the Olympics sprinter is clearly faster but if he starts slacking and doesn't train he will not be able to hold his old record, but he could likely still keep up with the track runner.

I like this idea alot.
You could have a good jack of all trades,but maybe not a true master of all trades. A mage /wizard would be a true master of magic because thats his/her main focus,where a jack of all trades has to put his/her energy & time in many...therefore,not being a true master,that makes sense to me.
Going past 100 to be a master is also a good idea...say you want to be a true master at blade,you put all the points into that,but those extra points you put into that master skill,leaves less for other skills etc...meaning you cant be a master at everything.
If i've understud you right....this is a great idea

I haven't read many posts here, so apologies if some like this has already been suggested.
I'd prefer a levelling system where attribute points are abolished completely and attributes work exactly like skills, but all the xp for them is gained through the skills that the said attribute governs.
For example, if you succesfully cast a spell and gained 50xp in Conjuration then a proportionate amount of xp would be added to the Intelligence attribute.
To increase a level, you would have to gain a certain amount of total xp across all skills and/or attributes.
In my opinion, system like this would feel much more 'natural', flowing, and unobtrusive.

Another suggestion I have regarding skills is a 'branching skill levelling system' where skills branch out into increasingly more specialised sub-skills when a certain skill level is reached.
For example, when reaching level 20 in 'Swordsmanship' (I've made up the skills here) that skill would branch out into the sub-skills 'Backsword' (single-edged swords) and 'Broadsword' (double-edged).
When using broadswords before reaching level 20 (or the skill divide) in Swordsmanship the full amount of xp gained would go to the Swordsmanship skill, but after reaching level 20 the full amount of xp would go to the Broadsword skill with a proportionate but smaller amount going to the Backsword skill.
The amount of xp that goes from one sub-skill to another under the same skill class (Swordsmanship in this case) would depend on how many skill divides apart the skill is from the one that xp is directly gained in (1 divide in the case of the Broadsword and Backsword skills)

Ugh I hope that made sense, I can't think properly when i'm this tired :snoring:

There is an assumption by the OP (and maybe others) that "major" skills = "skills the character uses the most." That's the problem - this is an incorrect assumption. There is no reason to make such an assumption. Instead, "major" skills only means the skills related to a character's progression in overall health. Nothing more, nothing less. The term "major" has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual skills that are character uses most or specializes in.

In other words, change your perception of the meaning of the various terms used to define the characters within the game setting rather than ask that the developers change the game to fit your ideas of what the meanings are. That's important because your ideas and someone else's such as mine are different.

Stats? We don't need no stinkin' stats!

Sorry. That was the first thing that came to my mind after reading your reply, and I couldn't resist.

I understand what you're saying, and I think it's cool that you simply *become* your character without worrying about skill increases, stat multipliers, and other such game mechanics. I think an ideal system would allow more people to play this way, as all of the number crunching that gives one's character that sense of progression would all be done in the background. As I understand it, there is a mod that does just that. The system the game ships with, however, tends to encourage many players to monitor their character's skill increases, else they might create a character that is underpowered, or not realizing their 'maximum potential'. But that wasn't exactly my main point. I was talking more specifically about eliminating skill and attribute caps. I had asked how you feel about them, and/or what kind of system would work better. Given your response, I take it that you don't think about them at all, or, to put it more bluntly, couldn't care less. :shrug: That's fine, but such a perspective only ignores this particular 'problem', and does nothing to suggest a better alternative. Perhaps you are of the opinion that if the system 'ain't broke, why fix it?'. IMHO, I believe that the system is good, but definitely has room for improvement.

I don't disagree with a thing you say. My only point was that what you did say is not necessarily the end of the story. One can also find a sense of progression in roleplaying as well. I was attempting to add to what you said, not criticize it. If you felt that I was criticizing your position you're either reading too much into my posts or I did not express myself clearly enough.

I'd love to see skill and attribute caps eliminated. I use mods to eliminate skill and attribute caps when I play Morrowind and Oblivion. I use character leveling mods to get rid of Attribute bonuses at level-up. As I mentioned earlier, I think Attribute bonuses were a mistake. A skill-based, classless, leveling system along the lines used by EVE or Fallen Earth would be my preference.

In response to the sentence in bold, I think maybe it was both. I may have read too much into what you were saying, AND I was unclear about the point you were making. I don't really feel that you are criticizing my point, and even if you were, I don't mind a rational, civil debate or discussion. It's just that, in my mind, I was talking about apples (skill and attribute caps), and you were talking about oranges (roleplaying your character's progression rather than relying on stats). While I understand the relation in the grand scheme of things, they seem to be two different topics of discussion. That's my humble opinion, at least.

Anyway, let us shake hands and be done with it. :foodndrink:

I think that we fundamentally agree that the whole leveling system would be better if it ran in the background, and there were no caps for any skill, attribute, or character level.

I don't agree with "major" skills = "skills the character uses the most.". But I don't know about "major" skills only means the skills related to a character's progression in overall health either. For health, it is only some skills that govern endurance ergo indirectly health. Although you may be talking about that health only increases when leveled up but that isn't directly related to skills. Also if we get rid of the level up menu than this will also become irrelevant. Other than this, are you thinking some other game?

I see them as skills your character has a natural/genetic ability. So they level faster. But I never talked to the devs, so I am just commenting on what I see.


My first play through, I noticed I only looked those stats to understand what I was doing works. Once I was certain that my actions were truly working then I stopped monitoring those stats and enjoyed the game. So it is something I don't care at all but if it is missing than I will be looking for it. I want them to be hidden under some interface layers so they don't come up often.

I like to see the level up menu once in a while so I can further tweak the direction of my attributes' progress. But I guess it won't be that much a loss except a traditional thing.

As you hint, the issue is how much time you're going to spend per character. There's really nothing preventing you from setting goals like getting as far as you can in the Thieves Guild by level 15. Setting a relatively low level cap for yourself would allow you to play several specialist characters in the time it would take to achieve maximum level on a jack of all trades character. If you would find that more fun, just do it!

I'd like a GCD style. With skill and attributes but no accumulating points, chasing endurance points etc. Also no more Jack of all trades.

Good point. Hit points shouldn't go up from 50 to 500, to begin with. 100+END would make a lot more sense.

Roleplaying a godlike killing machine is not fun. I play games like Doom and Quake if I want that. Roleplaying is about weaknesses, too.

I'd like to see luck removed from the attribute list and added to the character creation, with penalties to something if you get good luck and adds to something if you take bad luck.

Luck could be sort of like karma in Fallout 3? That could work I guess. There could be another thing that goes up for being evil and adds bonuses.

I'd rather have luck as a purely psychological thing, it does have influence on your skills but more because it represents your characters mental state, pain, pleasure, hunger, satisfaction, humiliation, gratification, all those can dynamically raise or lower your luck. Pretty much what makes your char feel better or reassured raises your luck, what makes him feel bad reduces it.

However you could very well play with this too if you can have character traits and have a character who actually enjoys pain to a certain degree, getting hit a few times only makes him get active.


No... sorry but, just no... nothing against you but the "Good and Evil" mechanics should DIE.
however to me it's always kinda amusing when it says "Karma gained" and claims that's a good thing, in Buddhism and Hinduism where the original concept comes from gaining Karma actually is a BAD thing :rolleyes:

Guess the better wording would be "Your Karma improved" and "Your Karma worsened".

I have not played Fallout 3, but no, it should not be like Karma. You pick it in the beginning and it does not change. On a scale of one to ten you pick it, and it affects calculations throughout the game and character creation. Picking a luck of ten might mean that you can't get any attribute higher than fifty to start out, or any skill above thirty five. Something a little harsh, because things will be going your way constantly with that kind of luck.

Thats one of the reasons why I keep calling the TES rulesystem the worst RPG rulesystem I've ever seen anywhere.

Even trivialistic systems like the one of 'Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines' or the one of 'Star Wars: The Knights of the Old Republic' are extremely much more fun, because you have full control over your levelups.

In TES, you have to study closely how skills operate, which ones are you planning to use, how to train them, and so on, to find a reasonable selection of major skills.

You have to keep close track of where your skills are and how they have progressed, so you train in time to get your 5x multiplier twice or three times, depending upon your level scheme.

The best way to handle it is to either use a mod for this crap of a rulesystem, or to levelup by the console. However, normal levelup is either for the lazy (who dont care if their character isnt optimal) or for real masochists.

I think this kind of system would be closer to the way luck works in real life. Luck, in my experience, has much to do with your attitude/disposition at a point in time. If I'm well-rested, fed, feeling confident, and personable, I notice my attitude/disposition towards other people and things improves a great deal. That positive energy is often reciprocated in turn, which seems to have some sort of influence on the way people perceive you and react to you, and how you perceive and react to others. If the devs could create an algorithm that would adequately represent this kind of system, then I'd be interested in seeing how it would be implemented. Otherwise, I'd be fine with what Shades suggested. In a general sense, though, I don't think that Luck should be an attribute that one can manipulate 'at will', as it seems to be more of an intangible, omnipresent force of its own with too many variables to really have any chance of controlling, let alone, 'mastering'.

1 million % Agree, no more levels, we want more skill and action, not numbers and percentages.

let D&D die in peace, we have computers now lets use them. :user: :user: :user: