What? That doesn't even make sense. If what I wanted to do from the beginning is to make a super powerful item then I will. And if later I want a less powerful item then it's within my power to do so.

The only difference in what you are saying is that I don't even have the choice of becoming to powerful. Instead of later realizing that "damn, this is too powerful" and then making something less powerful that I can be satisfied with, I 'm forced from the get go to make something that I'll probably end up saying "damn, this isn't powerful enough."

The entire premise of creating an RPG is giving players as much choice as possible. You have a CHOICE to make powerful items. You also have a CHOICE to not make those items as powerful. Nobody is forcing anything onto anyone else with this system.

so you want to be able to get the most powerful items right out of the beginning dungeon?

you shouldn't be able to rob a character with an awesome item at a low level. he/she would put it in a well locked place that a novice of lockpicking shouldn't be able to open.

and like Kcat said, making some enchantments too powerful makes it less like "wow thats awesome" and more like "wow thats too powerful".

Trying to make your character the best he/she can be shouldn't make the game too easy/boring until you've spent 150 or so hours IMO.

So that's how balance in singleplayer games works nowadays? :tongue:

If anything is imbalanced, just put on your blinders and pretend it's not there?

... :facepalm:

You shouldn't have to purposely nerf yourself because the game gave you equipment that's too powerful. That's a serious design flaw. As long as the game gives you good enough equipment to "win", you won't/shouldn't be complaining that something isn't powerful enough. If there's equipment that's too powerful, though, then players have no recourse but to nerf themselves.. they have to play sub-optimally.


No. The premise is to give you a choice within the bounds of the system. And doubly, those choices should not be without consequences. In pen-and-paper RPGs (which games like these are based from), a good DM should have no qualms with killing your character if you keep going against the campaign they laid out. They also should be willing to kick you back down to size if you find an exploit and make yourself too powerful. The difference with computer RPGs is, a computer can't respond on the fly to deal with problems the developers didn't forsee.

RAAAAH!
:brokencomputer: :banghead: :verymad:

If you don't want overpowered enchanted items then don't enchant overpowered enchanted items ! How hard is that ? They aren't serving anyone by nerfing it - ITS NOT AN MMO!
They already nerfed the enchantment system from Morrowind to Oblivion, which turned it from "fun" to "meh" - going further would just bring it to "not in the game".

It's not an FPS, it's not an MMO - it's an RPG. Balance should be the last thing look at.

Seriously - if they all just made the frickin game, put in all the fun and amazing ideas they had along the way, and then 2 months before release, someone said ; Okay, let's play it and see if it needs a bit of balancing. That should be how they did it. I want maximized game experience, not maximized challenge level.

Maximized game experience equates to having a substantial challenge. having no challenge minimizes my game experience.

I wonder about the new enchantment skill. Will it be as it was in Mw where the skill determined your ability to enchant and the rate of recharge? Or has the skill been changed such that it is now a multiplier applied to an items base damage? eg

Flaming sword of righteous justice: +30 fire damage

If my enchant skill = 25 then the sword will only do 30 * 25/100 damage. If my enchant skill were 50 the sword would do +15 fire damage etc.

I've not seen anything to confirm this but it is a quick and simple way of linking character level to the power of enchantments.

On topic:
There is nothing wrong with either the game or the enchantments, the problem is with the player.

Yes did not find constant effect restore unbalancing in Morrowind, you could get 1-2 health second, so it did not help much in combat.
Weapons with absorb should be more expensive, this was mostly a problem with the absorb health 25 effect from sigil stones not with self enchanted items in Oblivion, they was overpowered in Morrowind.

Chameleon is no real problem, perhaps having a cap but it would make it pretty useless. Most people don't abuse it long as the game become to boring.

The game isn't giving anyone equipment too powerful. Did you completely miss my post outlining how difficult it would be to obtain 100% enchanted equipment? I can't imagine you did.

No one is asking you to nerf yourself. However you are trying to nerf everyone else. Play the game how you like to play it.

This is not Dungeons and Dragons. This is not a pen and paper RPG. The Elder Scrolls is a game in the evolving RPG genre. The way we play RPG's is changing. If you are looking for a pen and paper RPG. If what you want is dungeons and dragons, then go play it. Additionally, this is not a game that you play with/against other people. So regulating "exploits" isn't as important as it would be in a multiplayer setting. Besides, how do you know what Bethesda has intended with the enchanting system? You are saying "Hey, they created this game, but I don't think they were using their brains when they put the enchanting into place." The developers knew from the beginning that players would be able to enchant armors to 100% chameleon and left it in the game INTENTIONALLY. This isn't some deeply hidden bug in the code. And it's not an exploit. BGS meant for it to be in the game so players could utilize the system in whatever ways they saw fit.

EDIT: Now you said that if players have to nerf themselves, they'd be playing sub optimally. But that also means that if the nerf is forced, then they are already playing sub optimally, they just don't have any choice about it. That's a No-Win situation.

If the premise is to give you choice within the bounds of the system, well we already have that! What you and the OP want to do then, is change the bounds of the system so that everyone has to play the way YOU want them to.

But pen and paper is not, normally , a single player game and in a single player RPG you may be both player and DM.

you contradict yourself. the way i like to play is with a substantial challenge. I also like to try to make my character the best he can be.

How can i "play the game how (I) like to play it" and not nerf myself?

I'm not contradicting myself. I said no one is ASKING you to nerf yourself. However if you want to do so, then you are free to.

How can I play the game how I like to play it, under your system when what I want is the choice to have the most powerful enchantments?

You want to play the game how you want it, but you would deny those same privileges to everyone else. That's hypocritical.

Basically my opinion on the matter as well. I spent hours trying to mix and match things on weapons and armor (and devising cool names) in TES3. But I can't recall ever making serious use of the enchanting altars in TES4 because the system just didn't appeal to me anymore. It had become way too limited (the "you can enchant it with this and nothing else, deal with it" approach). Heck, 99% of my characters didn't even have enchantments on their gear.

My approach would be to go back to the dynamic and diverse approach and put the control back in the player's hands. You want to become a god (and have the hundreds of thousands of gold required), then by all means.

Why should everything in a singleplayer game be put under the same balancing methods as an MMO? If someone wants to enchant his/her gear and become invincible, it's not going to hinder my personal playing experience.

At one time I downloaded a mod to start the game as a level 100 Sheogorath which was fun for about 15 minutes. And then I went back to playing my other character.

If people want to 'cheat', they will find a way to 'cheat'. No sense for Bethesda to devote (waste) hundreds of hours of balancing (nerfing) which in the end will only harm the players that want to enjoy the game.

In my opinion

Then either:

1) You are playing the wrong kind of game

or

2) Beth. is creating a game I will not enjoy.

Unfortunately for me I suspect the latter, Todd's motto appears to be 'Screw the RPG, we must protect the bone crushing combat at all costs'

:(

I agree they shouldn't just put nerf everything to make it more challenging, but i think it should be harder/more expensive to create an unbalancing item.

If you devote alot of time to enhance your enchant skill and getting copious amounts of gold, then you should be able to create your "cheat" armor or weapon but these "cheats" were TOO EASY to come by in previous games, specifically morrowind.

Don't nerf what you can do within the system, but just make it so that your enchants are only as good as your level should permit.

To a point. If it's an exploit that you have to go out of your way to achieve, I completely agree. But if there's equipment laying around, and/or enchanting can be strong enough, to get you 100% chameleon by just playing the game, then it absolutely should be fixed.


No, if it's a "forced nerf" other people would still be playing optimally. Just because the game doesn't let you be better doesn't mean you're not playing optimally. You can still "win" and have fun. However, that fun is impeded if players has to purposely nerf themselves because "optimal" means "cheating".


Though in a computer RPG, it's the computer/game acting as the DM, not you.

I've never understood the whole "overpowered" concept in TES. The lore is written that almost anything is possible, so almost anything should be possible, particularly pertaining to magic. The trick is making it HARD to do. For example, to make a ring of 100% Chameleon you may have to discover a rare ore (protected by high level enemies), and have 100 Smithing Skill to smelt it into a ring. Then you'd need 100 Enchant Skill (becuase NPC's won't do things that hard), and a near god level soul (hard enough to find, let alone kill and trap).

Make it hard, don't make it impossible. I like aiming towards those ridiculous things, but I like having to work hard for it. In MW and OB it was too easy to do.

Who ever said anything about the equipment just laying around? Powerful equipment has never been left just laying around in any Elder Scrolls game so why on Nirn would it be left laying around now??

And again, I refer you to my post detailing how difficult obtaining 100% chameleon (since that seems to be what this whole thing is about) equipment should be. I never said anything about jumping into the game level 1, then 5 minutes later being God. I think you're just arguing for the sake of being disagreeable.

this a 100% this.

some people arguing on your side did talk about "jumping into the game level 1, then 5 minutes later being God". I posted a hypothetical situation in which the best weapons/ armor were in front of you at the beginning, and someone said "just don't take it". But i can see that you agree to some degree than everything shouldn't be easily obtainable at a low level.

I don't think that 100% chameleon should be impossible to obtain, but harder than it was in Oblivion/morrowind.

IMO i got an absorb health weapon way too early in the game. I dont think it's wrong to just think you should have to wait longer to get awesome items.

If the only functions of a DM were to enforce the rules and curtail any exploits then I would accept that and indeed it is the case in most games. Doesn't a good DM also respond to the mood of the party and how the members are interacting to try to make for an enjoyable experience? In the case of a single player game could we not make an argument for having the game provide the world leaving the player to manage their own fun as they see fit? This was the beauty of Mw, they promised a world and they delivered: do what you want, be who you want to be and the game played along.

This argument has been had many times. Around about now someone chips in with 'but I couldn't join all the Great Houses. How is that "doing what you want"?'. Yes, well.. All we are doing, each and every one of us, is arguing for what we want in the game

My thoughts exactly. Some people seem to believe that they're entitled to having the game made their way, with no regard for other people and other playing styles. The only thing that attitude achieves is making you look like an entitled child.
Instead of opting fora system that gives as much freedom as possible to as wide a spectrum of players as possible, these people can't get it through their heads that their way is not the only way, nor the right way to play a game, these people are selfish. You can protest as much as you want, you can say that all people are selfish, but while that may be true, it doesn't change the fact that you are selfish. Come to terms with it, deal with it and then move on.

That's not going to happen, if people were able to excersise some common sense and apply logic to a situation, coming up with the most rational and fair result then literally any problem in the world could be solved. But no, people are selfish and immature and they can't accept the fact that the world does not revolve around them, the attitude of these people makes me sick.

I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular, but you know as well as I do that there are people like this everywhere, including this forum. So to sum up my thoughs, stop thinking about yourselves and start thinking rationally.

I have no problem with 100% Chameleon. The problem I have is with the way monsters/NPCs behave in the presence of your 100% Chameleon'd character. The AI is completely and utterly helpless against it.

The proper thing to do is to make the AI able to hear and run from such characters. If the AI is undead, it should have no trouble at all detecting a Chameleon'd character (undead sense the life force of the living, they have no need for vision). If the AI is non-undead it should use other means to detect you (throwing water/flour, casting detect life) and if all that fails, it should swing its weapon wildly in whatever direction it last heard you. If the creature manages to draw some blood, that blood should stain you and make you visible for all to attack.

Then save your arguing for the people who think they should be God at level 1. I never said that and this entire time you have been assuming things that I never stated and that I have continually rebuked.

Also, you posed the HYPOTHETICAL situation, a situation that has never been present in any TES game. And if that situation were present, then my answer to you would be "just don't take it" and if other people do take it, it doesn't affect your gameplay at all.
But since that situation has never, and likely will never be imposed onto the player, I can't see how it proves your point, or even disproves mine.

You never said anything about "waiting". This whole time you've been talking about completely eliminating options from the game. Perhaps you should clarify better.

If waiting is what you have truly been advocating, then I can agree with that. I can agree that certain powerful items shouldn't be obtained (however still obtainable for a clever enough player) until later in the players career. I think that powerful enchanting abilities should be worked for. Level 100 in enchanting, or cost a lot of gold to get it from an NPC. However I do not think the ability to have 100% Chameleon should be completely removed from the game.

Leave the enchanting alone, it's not broken in any way.

If someone wants to exploit the game using those things, let them. If they have the money and the skill to make them, why should they be kept from making them? No one is forcing those on you.

Leave Enchanting alone.