I personally think most enemies should not be leveled, but bosses, such as Bandit Ringleaders and Marauder Warlords, should be leveled, with leveled gear. That way they're challenging yet rewarding to kill.

It was always a pain in the ass for me to complete sets of low-level armor, as I usually jumped into the Arena at level one and after it and a few Fighters Guild quests, I'd be level 12. Also, when Daedric started popping up, I was never able to find any ebony shields. I never seem to get an ebony shield in any of my playthroughs.

Well then why not start the player off in a room that contains every weapon and piece of armor in the game? If he wants to be godly upon starting the game then he can choose it and if he wants a challenge he can just move on.

The reason is that this is a game, balance and challenge are important even if it's single player. How far does the "optional" argument go exactly? Yeah, it's your choice to wear 20 rings and glide through the game without even trying but how am I supposed to know what is balanced and what is not if I'm not the developer? I would personally like to have a professionally crafted and balanced gameplay experience, I shouldn't have to handicap myself in order to enjoy it.

If somebody wants to be unstoppable there's always god mode.

There's a difference between "no limit how many magical items you can wear" and "Getting all the good stuff from the very start".
It COULD be handeled this way, first off magical items are less powerfull, some might even be constructed in a way that they need to drain magica so wearing a lot of magical items stunns your magic regeneration. For layering clothes it could depend on which layer the clothes are on, the lowest layer is most effective while the outermost has less effect.

For rings, this is a bit artificial though so i'm not sure about that myself, it could depend on which finger the ring is on. Wearing them on the ring finger is most effective, the others are less effective.

As I recall, in TES IV, you couldn't repair magical items until your armor skill was 50.

Yes there is a difference. One that is irrelevant to the point. The point being that having the player directly impose his own game balance is not a good gameplay mechanic.

The idea of weakening the effects of magical items while allowing you to wear an unlimited amount of them really accomplishes nothing. It's not like there is a significant aesthetic consideration when it comes to how many rings you can wear, but there is a practical consideration, it's just inconvenient. Having to manage two dozen crappy rings is a lot more tedious than having to manage two good rings.

I think that limitation was silly, i generally didn't like the skill perks system.

To hell with balance!

I say i KINDA have to agree there.
While balance is important artifically ENFORCED balance can ruin the games fun simply by stretching the http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief and http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AcceptableBreaksFromReality too far. Why can't i wear a ring on every finger or more than one neclace, is there some divine force preventing that?
Not being able to wear clothes under armor was already quite a stretch, why wheren't you able to push chairs around, how can a waist high wall be a obstacle just because you cant JUMP over it?

That's a big problem there but both directions, balance and beliveability have to be adressed, sure being able to kill anyone could make things to easy but nobody like psychic guards.

I think it was a bit of a stretch (literally) to wear certain clothes under armor. Like the Exquisite Shirt, for example.

Actually seeing how armors are hollow and not form fitting on your body and the shirt can be compressed (the puffy shoulders are not FILLED) i can see how that can fit under armors.
Though it could be said that certain clothes can not be worn under armors like very thick jackets, however that can be fixed by simply putting them on the "cover" layer, that way they're always on the outside... which kind makes sense too.

and the neckguards, dont forget the neckguards!

Well, I most definitely hope that we will have more slots this time. Definitely more then Oblivion and hopefully more then Morrowind. To add to Morrowind's list, I would add cloaks (we need those!), separate glvoes/gauntlets, more rings, I think 8 would be a good number, belt and then ear rings and for the beast races some items that can be put on tails - like special tail armour or tail jewelery. This could ballace out the fact that the beast races cannot wear certain armours (as in Morrowind). The fact that you can wear clothes under armour (and that the clothigs shows under certain armours) goes without saying.
But the true potential of layered clothins adn armour would come if the clothing actually ment something. In TES your clothes have no impact whatsoever. You can wear the prisoner's clothes of the Arch-mage's robe and there is no differece. People around do not care. Why to put your armour under a robe if noone cares whether you are armoured or not?

And definitely separate skirts and pants. I want my male samurai to wear a skirt and my female rogue would far more appreciate pants.

As far as ballancing magic items goes, In Morrowind this was not so much a problem. If I remember right, only quest itmes you had to find (and even not all of them) had a constant enchantment effect and to create your own, you had to kill a pretty strong enemies. So even if you could have 10 rings, most of them would only be "cast when used" items, which is not that much overpowering.

Unfortuantely I fear that Beth will continue the course set by Oblivion. If it is not tied with more advanced sword bashing and if it does not push the graphics to a new level, it is not important. And such minor and inferior things as role playing (which also contains the customization of your character to your liking be it his appearance or his attire) are being mostly pushed aside. It is pretty obvious even in the fact that it is ecpected in Oblivion that you will use armour no metter what. That is why all clothing is uselss, robes are (for some very few exceptions) totally uselss and it is obvious that the devs paid very little attention to them (in vanilla game being only four robe meshes, one of them being unique, another semi-unique and one specific and only one ONE!!!! with a female version).



Well, in Morrowind, there were many armour pieces that did show the clothing underneath. In Oblivion your cuirass covers you from nect to waist and to wrists. In Morrowind it only went to the shoulders instead of wrists, so if your pauldros did not have elbow caps you could see your clothes there, same goes for greaves.

The pauldrons are generally attached to cuirass, yes, but why do they have to attached to a cuirass made from the same material? Why I cannot attach steel pauldron to iron cuirass? And what the pauldrons look like is not decided yet. For all we know, they may all look the way they could be used without cuirass.

And as far as tediousness of the job goes, I have to points to make. Firstly, this is an important part of the game, or so it seems as these threads do appear every now and then, and if it is important, then the devs should spent a lot of time on it. And secondly, making a model is one thing. separating it so several parts (i.e. dividing pauldrons from cuirasses, ets.) is not so difficult. Sure the devs would have to "pre-make" the slots, but that does not effect the individual armour pieces much. As the armours are in Oblivion, it would be very easy (and I have seen about all of the armours in the 3D editing programmes)to separaet them in a Morrowind fashion if the number of slots would be made higher.

There's the issue of fitting; steel pauldrons are made to fit onto steel armor, and daedric pauldrons are made to fit on daedric armor. Still, we could have some sort of penalty for cuirasses being mismatched with pauldrons. The other issue is that chainmail doesn't come in seperate chest and arm segments; it comes as a shirt or tunic. For regular chainmail armor, I don't think pauldrons could be reliably attached. At the same time, a lot of the heavy armors have chainmail underneath; if pauldrons are re-introduced, I think they should retain the chainmail sleeves while giving the option to attach pauldrons.

I think MW did a good job of how many and what kind of items you can equip. Daggerfall was maybe too much on the jewelry?

Even if I couldn't visually see my pants under my greaves, I still want them equipped. What about In The Old Days when you never got to see your character's gear change? Can't see it, but it was still 'there.'

I liked being able to equip clothing underneath, but I didn't like when it stuck out underneath the armor. Such as the knees and elbows in Daedric and Dwemer armors. For fur and chitin armors it made sense, but I found it downright depressing when heavy armors, especially high-quality ones, didn't protect the body's major joints.

That is true. With SOME armours it would be nice if the cuirass had chainmail sleeves and the pauldrons would fit on these.



Not ot mention the fact that there were no good looking shirts and pants to go under these armors. I hated having my nice black daedric armour marred by yellow trousers and shirt underneath.

I think it should be the same as in Morrowind, but with gloves/gauntlets and pauldrons/shoulder wear sold together. I mean you buy boots together, In real life people wouldn't just sell you one glove, right?

I don't think we're really arguing here. I'm not suggesting that a person be able to gain an unbalancing amount of magical power by wearing 10 rings. I was suggesting from an asthetic viewpoint having a lot of rings should be allowed. Anyway they would like to balance the magical abilities gained from having that many rings is fine. Like I said, wearing more than perhaps one ring on each hand or something, would create diminishing returns on the extra rings so they're not nearly as powerful as they would be by themselves. Perhaps if rings have opposite powers they would cancel each other out, or if they have similar powers they don't stack. Also, they could maybe make rings more rare to begin with so it's not as likely a person will have tons of rings at least at first. I think there are ways to allow people a gaudy number of rings on their hands if they so choose without it imbalancing the game. I'm not the kind of player either who wishes to handicap themselves to make a game more balanced.

Not one boot, but one glove would be more useful, maybe if you have a shielt on one hand, you don't need a glove on that one normally, or there are artifact gloves(like wraithguard) that don't exist in pairs.

like every1 else, id like the amount a armour slots as there were in MW, and just as much variety in the weapons and armour as there was in MW. Also, i think it would be sweet if they made things like belts and rings more noticeable, which was kind of done in OB, so if you could mix and match things in E5 including clothing and shiny belts, u could make a pretty bad ass looking character.

One thing about the MW system, in morrowind you were disadvantaged in late game for not wearing armour, and I don't mean the obvious things like less protection, but for enchantment, armour had 5 bodys slots of its own in MW(Cuirass, greaves, shield and 2 pauldrons) that is 5 more powerful enchantments. That needs to be fixed some way.

That's what I was thinking, and voiced in a previous post a few pages back. One way to 'fix' this would be to have clothing items that took up the pauldron, greaves, helmet, cuirass, and gauntlet slots - as in, worn over regular clothing, too (shirt, pants).

If gloves can be worn under gauntlets, then we need a new item to be the 'gauntlet equivalent' of clothing. Perhaps something like a big old bracelet or simple metal wrist bands? A pauldron equivalent might be something like an armlet. A cuirass anolog: vest, coat, jacket, or a tabard. Greaves equivalent... maybe riding chaps? Or just extra pouches and bags or something. A hood would be the obvious replacement for a helmet, or a kerchief, bandana, or a hat.

this is relevent to my interests.......