The simple thing to do would be to not allow those type of magics to be in the game. Why have Chameleon, Invisibility, Detect Life, etc in the game if it's going to be abused.

I think what I would do is just not allow you to enchant with those types of magic. Just limit it to Fire, Frost and Lighting Damage, Shield, and a couple more magic effects.

Having said all that, I would like to see diminishing returns on all stacking enchanted items.

It'll be a sad day in Skyrim if they decide to cap enchantments. At some point in my experience I'd like to create an incredibly strong weapon like "Excalibur" for example. Just make enchantments really expensive. That way if you want 100% anything you'd have to be insanely rich to make it happen. Otherwise, you have the choice whether or not to make your weapon OP. Why take away that choice?

they should not deal with them at all.


If a player likes to play the game that way , let them

It would be nice if Chameleon was an active spell that would last as long as you maintained the spell (which could work with the two handed system) and steadily drained magicka as long as it was active. I think Chameleon should also be based on movement and light level. If you are entirely still, and concealed by shadow, it should be at 100%. If moving, or in direct light, it should be reduced in varying degrees based on movement speed/light level. Also, if it required at least one hand to actively maintain it, you would be limited in your spell/weapon use while under its influence, further removing it from its current broken/overpowered status.

you may look like an entitled child to some too, for you want your way to be the right way too.

there are two schools of thought here: "Freedom" and "Challenge"

Freedom: TES is known for its freedom and therefore people want to hold on to that freedom while an opposing school of thought (Challenge) thinks its TOO much freedom. This freedom allows a player to be whatever he wants and as overpowered or underpowered as they want, fulfilling the RPG status in a glorious fashion. People who are in this school usually have more willpower to avoid cheats and such. This school says:

"I know i can use this insta-kill spell to win, but 'my character wouldn't use that spell' (or simply) 'that spell is too cheap and it makes the game boring/too easy'"

Challenge: TES has never been known for an especially challenging game. Some people feel like the near-absolute freedom past TES games have given them has comprimised the challenge of the game. While 99% of them are not trying to change TES into an absolute action/adventure game, some of the RPG elements will be compromised in order to increase the challenge. People who are in this school usually succumb to the temptation of using cheats. This school says

"I have this insta-kill spell, so there's no way i can lose. I wish i was never given this spell because it takes the thrill of challenge out of my experience." or "Why wouldn't my character use this insta-kill spell? He would be stupid not to use it."

not being able to see how a hypothetical question can prove a point is a poor point of view



On the contrary, i stated several times in this thread about "waiting" and about not eliminating all the options.

While I completely sympathise with the 'no restrictions, it's my game why should you care' camp, I just think for me personally that the ability to enchant to such a level took very much away from the thrill of finding magical loot, especially as I said before with Daedric Artefacts et al.
Just a small point but if 100% chameleon is so easily obtainable, why thee hell did the mages who researched and created invisibility spells even bother?

The best solution here, would be not to change enchanting, but to change enemies and how the AI works. Make enemies smarter. If they suspect someone is chameleon'd, then they should use a detect life spell or drink a detect life potion. If BGS suspects people will be using items that are too powerful, then they could simply give enemies more health, or again better AI to actually dodge and block and such. Change spell dynamics so that drain life spells and enchantments actually have to touch the person's skin, not just their armor. So the PC would have to strategize and use a disintegrate armor spell before using drain life.

I don't think they're exploits. They had to have known they would be possible. TES games are about freedom. My suggestion is: Make it harder/much more expensive; even prohibitively expensive. But if you put in the effort and time to make that much money/items/whatever then the player should be allowed to be god-like. Yes. GOD-LIKE. They have earned it. Just my two cents.

Everyone is perfectly entitled to demand the game being made in the way they want. That's what they're paying for, after all. They can chose to not buy the game, if it doesn't suit them overall, but they don't have to accept their own opinion as any lesser than yours.
Because you're essentially finding a solution that's working for you and demand that others have to adapt. Better yet, you dare calling it a compromise, which has to be morally accepted and is thus the correct thing to do. You can pretend otherwise but you're effectively just as much giving a rat's ass about someone else's opinion and deserve the same treatment.

I think your "freedom vs challenge" dilemma is a false one. Daggerfall was far more challenging than Morrowind and Oblivion. Daggerfall also had more freedom than either game. There's nothing wrong with giving players more options, so long as none of those options is an absolute game-breaker.

If the monsters/NPCs are totally helpless to chameleon, fix them! There are plenty of tools available. Heck, there is even a spell (Detect Life) that they never, ever use! They also do not run away appropriately nor do they attempt to attack by following the sounds of your footsteps.

The problem is defining what that fun is. Some people find it fun to be challenged by games, and to overcome those challenges by playing to the best of their ability. A player can't self-manage that, because they're not playing to the best of their ability if they have to willingly forgo good items because they're too good. If just raising the difficulty slider fixed that problem, that'd be one thing, but exploits tend to cause problems beyoind that.

They should use an exponential scale instead of a linear one when combining enchantments.

For example: y=(x/5)2

+5 = 1 sp
+10 = 4 sp
+15 = 9 sp
+20 = 16 sp
+25 = 25 sp
+30 = 36 sp
...

In this example a 10% chameleon ring + 20% chameleon cloak would give you 22,3% chameleon instead of 30%. You add up the spellpower of the enchantments and calculate the effect (=sqr(x)*5), instead of just adding up the effects.

Other example: A super rare ring with +50 strength combined with a +30 strength sword would only give you +58 strength instead of +80.

I thought Fable 3 handled this aspect quite well. They should make your weapons and enchantments grow overtime & have objective based upgrades: Kill 1,001 Spriggans near Riverrim, Make 15 greybeards love you, Drag 84 Bosmer villagers to work, Successfully complete 30 quests, Have an orgy with 4 other people, Find all 50 gnomes, etc...

I had a very easy time with daggerfall when i was a magic character, but then with my melee character it was pretty tough... for a little bit. by the time i left sentinel in the main quest i couldn't die by the quests i was given.

I think oblivion would've been the hardest if it weren't for the level scaling, but thats just an opinion, no way to really tell.

I'll repeat myself, why? Why would you willingly take out an aspect that many people find great fun, instead of simply choosing not to use it yourself? How is this concept hard to comprehend? It is a single player game, that means that what you do in your game has no possible way of affecting anyone else, and that goes both ways.

Why do you care how others play their game? Mind your own business and let others do the same.


Let me start by saying, I don't hate Fable. I'm an advlt and I'm able to see positives and negatives in any game and base my decision around that. Fable did many things well, and many things poorly. Anyway, to my point.

I think Fable 3 handled this aspect quite badly. Forcing me to complete arbitrary tasks to improve my weapons is not an engaging or rewarding way to design a game. When the game asks me to go out of my way to farm a certain creature for hours just to make my sword a little better, I'm not going to do it. I don't find that fun and I won't waste my leisure time doing something I don't enjoy. It's the same reason I don't do a lot of daily quests in WoW, they can be well designed quests, but the repetition takes the fun out of it eventually, and I'm not going to bother, unless there's something amazing waiting for me once I've done it a certain number of times.

And incredibly cool reward will make me do something that's reptetive or boring, only because I will be incredibly satisfied once I get that reward and gradually counting down towards it is it's own kind of fun. But the bonuses in Fable 3 weren't worth the effort at all. That game is incredibly easy already, why work to get a reward that doesn't matter? I was plowing through the game as a living god, utterly destroying anything that looked at me wrong, why would I want to do tedious tasks that pull me away from the action just to get a slight bonus that ultimately doesn't affect me?

No, Fable 3 handled this badly, it pulled focus from the good parts of the game, which is something you never want to do. If you make a game, make it as good as it can be in every respect. If a part of a game is not engaging and satisfying you do not pull focus towards it and you absolutely do not force the player to do it. If a system doesn't work well, you improve it, if you can't do that then remove it. Never force the player to go out of his way to do something that is not fun. If a game is not fun to play, I'm not going to play it. To use a food anology (Been a while since I did) I will not eat at McDonalds if I have the option to have a nice steak dinner instead.

Give us all the options but make it harder to get to the godly status.

I personally love my 100% Chameleon Armor. I thought it was a lot of fun being invisible and I would hate it if Beth changed the system to make those kinds of things impossible. I agree that enchanting should be more expensive, but I feel it should apply to every level of enchanting. Not just the upper echelon.

i hate overpowered encantment i hate that they ruin the diffaculty of the game and i hate how easy they are to get but i still say keep them in i have never made a overpowered encantment but two of my friends love making them selfs overpowered so why should they lose out on the fun because people like me want a challange right now in oblivion i just ignore them and the game is nice difficult and fun for me and on the other hand my two friends make them selfs gods we all win

See? This is a sensible attitude. You play the game your way and enjoy it, while your friends play the game a different way and enjoy it. Everyone wins, nobody loses.

This is seriously the most straightforward issue ever posted here, there is one optimal solution and it is painfully obvious.

Because it reduces the fun for us by leaving it unfixed.


We don't. We care how fun the game is for us, just like you.

Then explain this to me. Why does it reduce your enjoyment of the game when you are not being forced to do anything. You can choose not to be overpowered, how is this an issue?

And it ruins your fun how exactly? It's o p t i o n a l. Don't want overpowered enchantments? Don't use them. Just like fast travel (which I LOATHE being in the game mind you, but I'm not advocating they remove it.)

See, another sensible statement, my god finding two sensible posts online in oen day is getting a bit unsettling...have I drifted into some paralell universe?

You dislike a system, so you don't use it. It's that simple, there's no sense in trying to ruin the fun for everyone else.