Because the fun is in the challenge. It's not fun if we know the game is designed to let us become god-like without really working for it. If the only thing stopping us is a personal choice, the "challenge" is just an illusion.. not really there.

Aww, shucks. *snaps fingers*

Roleplaying is all about choice. You can meta design a character that's as optimal as possible to reduce challenge, too. But that's acceptable?

So, there are two options.

1) Make it optional, then there are two groups of people (those who want it and those who don't want it) that can - potentially - enjoy the game.

2) Mandate that overpowered (which is a SUBJECTIVE term by the way) enchantments cannot be created. Then only one group (those who don't want them) can enjoy the game.

You would really rather have the option that cuts out one group? Reject that I do. Replace it with my own opinion I shall.

It's not o p t i o n a l.
It requires our own effort to ignore it, and as little as that may be, I for one am not so sure anymore I'd be willing to do it for the people such as in this thread.

How about I ask of you to just use normal cheats whenever you want your godmode? It barely requires any more effort than you require of me. I'm sure you can make such a small sacrifice, so that we both may "win", right?

That's [censored].
Having to limit yourself because the game makes itself to easy to exploit, it's just the opposite of having to cheat because the game is unreasonably hard, it's not fun.

Same argument: If you think the game is too limiting, why don't you just edit your savegame and use mod's with overpowered items? You think that's unreasonable? Exactly.

Yes it is.



It's called roleplaying.



Instead of the console? Hell yes I would. Instead of enchantments? As long as I can also do it through enchanements too OPTIONALLY, then yes.

Yeah, took the words right out of my mouth...fingers...whatever.

The point is, it's either one side is happy, or both can potentially be happy. Choosing the first option is nothing but selfish and entitled, the second one isn't perfect, but it's the best way to please as many as possible. You can't please everyone, but you should always at least try to get as close as possible. If you truly want to deprive a large portion of the player base of enjoying the game, just so you can get the game just the way you personally want it, then you'll get no support or respect from me. Such a selfish attitude just isn't acceptable to me. We're all selfish, I sure as hell am, but I still don't go out of my way to ruin something for other people.

Just because you think sandcastles are stupid, doesn't mean it's okay to go stomp on one that some kid spent a long time making. The same logic applies here, your opinion is not the only one that matters, and it's not okay for you to attempt to force it on other people.

Yes. I know, I just have trouble understanding the mentality.

If the only thing wrong with a game is the fact that it has become all to easy since I picked up a certain sword then, given the option, I will stop using the sword. I know the game wasn't made just for me, some people may need the sword that they may survive, in some other circumstance I may need the sword to survive. A few moments later I'm back to hacking and whacking to the best of my abilities and the sword is all but forgotten. I would say the same for any talent, skill or ability.

The definition of cRPG is very woolly, but can we at least agree that such a game must involve some degree of choice? Choice, by definition, means some sort of compromise, you gain one option, you lose the other and you may not like either. How can anyone unable to compromise for the sake of their own gaming experience find any enjoyment in a cRPG?

Edit

I'm a slow typer

Yes, because there would still be challenge. If you can design a character that makes the game unchallenging, then the game needs fixing.


As I've said, the other option cuts out people, too. Those who enjoy a legitimate challenge. If there's only a challenge because the player's rejecting what the game is giving them, then it's not legitimate. Why should you be favored over us?

I'm not asking to be. I've said they should increase the difficulty inherent in becoming god-like. But it should still be possible to do if you invest sufficient time and effort. The price should be higher, in my opinion, but it should be nowhere near impossible or prohibitively challenging to the point that it isn't worth doing.

Look. Your way cuts out a group. What I'm saying includes you and me both (at least to the greatest extent possible.) Will it be as challenging as you WANT? Maybe not. But it will be challenging (which is a subjective term, too.) And I can still become god-like with some effort. The good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one.

Make optional, like a hardcoe mode or if you don't like it, just don't make powerful enchantments. Just like fast travel in oblivion, that I HATE, but you don't have to use if you don't want to use.

I personly like making myself turn into a god, and I like the feeling of being rewarded for all my hard work. Morrowind the first time through I got my but kicked, the second time through I spent weeks, turning myself into a god and it felt good! If I want a challenge now, I just won't make powerful enchantments.

I think that this has gone way off topic now. We're not even discussing enchanting anymore. You guys are arguing about being "challenged". This post is supposed to be about one thing, whether or not enchantments are "overpowered".

In this very specific case, the issue is as simple as not using extremely powerful enchantments. The powerful enchants are in no way, shape or form being forced upon any player at anytime. The creation and use of such enchants are 100% optional. The degree to which enchantments are used (be it 10%, 50%, 85% or 100%) is completely up to the player. Enchanting is not broken, AI is. And we have known AI to be broken for quite some time now. Previous engines were not able to create AI smart enough to combat someone with 100% chameleon effectively. Hopefully, this will be remedied in Skyrim. Not by destroying enchantments, but by making AI smarter and therefore better equipped to deal with a character with such a powerful enchantment.

It has also been stated that a simple fix to this issue would be to make such enchants difficult to attain. By either requiring master level enchanting abilities, or lots of gold to have the enchanted item created. Complete removal, or even nerfing of the enchanting system is unnecessary, and unacceptable.

The previous games both had "cheezy" exploits. I prefer it when the game allows you to EVENTUALLY go beyond the norm and do stuff that's "broken" from a balance perspective; you've earned it after several hundred hours of hard work. I hate it when the game hands you "uber" items for doing something stupidly simple, or makes it glaringly obvious that you can break the system right from the start.

In Morrowind, Alchemy was so exploitable that you could actually render the game "unplayable" at Level 1, such as by making your character so strong that you'd break your weapon on the first hit, but kill the target in the process. Enchanting allowed you to stack effects on multiple items, to achieve invincibility even with low skills or enough easily-obtained cash. There were literally "near-godlike" weapons (or at least a couple of Ebony ones I can think of) just lying around for the taking, and enchanted items in crates scattered about town that you didn't even need to sneak to take. Becoming overpowered wasn't difficult; in fact it was pretty difficult NOT to become ridiculously rich and powerful in a few hours, once you figured out where the "goodies" were. You either re-played the game, after you knew the tricks, with a modicum of self-restraint or else you became "the ultimate killing machine" in a matter of a couple of game days.

In Oblivion, any barbarian could enchant items with a Sigil Stone more easily than a trained Mage could make a similar item using the Enchanting Altar. Not only were you able to create stackable effects that threw balance out the window, you didn't even need to have any skill at it to do so. A lot of other exploits of the previous game were "corrected" or "balanced" by removing the entire spell or exploitable mechanism from the game: fixing a broken finger by amputating the arm.

Making spells, enchantments, and potions non-stacking, so only the strongest spell is in effect until it wears off, would prevent part of the problem. Placing unique or powerful static items where they're harder to access at low level would be better than just making them hard to find, and also better than removing them from the game world until it determines that the player character is "ready" for them. The cost of magical effects should be exponential, so casting weak magic is relatively easy, but making massively powerful spells and enchantments should be difficult and costly in terms of either coin, magicka, fatigue, or a combination of all of these, and not possible without at least close-to-sufficient skill.

My current MW character is using a weapon with Absorb Health: 2 points On Strike. It's enough to take care of the minor cuts and scratches from fighting routine wildlife, but won't make a lot of difference against something that deals 30 damage in a shot. Making a weapon that svcks 25 points of life force from an enemy and then hands it to you should cost DOUBLE what a typical damage or healing spell of the same magnitude would cost; it's doing both, after all. I like the fact that such things are possible, but hate that they're so easy to do and have to be intentionally avoided for the sake of balance.

A lot of the defensive spells in both games were either absurdly overpowered or absurdly expensive, or both. Individually, they weren't all that effective, but could be stacked to create an invulerable character. The devs raised the cost on them (in order to make it harder to abuse them) to the point where they were totally non-cost-effective to use normal in combat (the defensive spell cost several times what the offensive spell did, and only offered limited protection at that), but they were STILL overpowered if stacked. Removing the stacking, making the casting cost exponential with either strength or duration, or other "tweaks", could fix the problem. Removing the spells or the ability to enchant is just a way of avoiding the issue, at the expense of player options and enjoyment.

Choujichan - the reason it's drifting off topic is that the same underlying causes affect multiple aspects of the game. The trouble with Enchanting is just one of several symptoms of the problem.

Actually what should be stopping you is the fact that it would make the game boring to you. I used a walkthrough to find those super powerful arrows and that mace in oblivion but after I used them for a while I got bored and put them in a trunk and forgot about them. HOW HARD IS THAT? Play the game the way you want, if it becomes boring to you, you are obviously doing something wrong so change your play style, don't try to get something kicked out of the game that other people enjoy.

I will honestly have to admit I am completely astonished by the amount of people who describe having a legal godmode button in the game as "enjoyment". (I'm talking 100% Chameleon here)
I mean most people probably don't mind turning on cheats every once in a while and go on a rampage through the world - but I always thought that lasts for 10 quick minutes until it gets very boring.
Why aren't we doing this in every game? Of course, it's always gotta be o p t i o n a l. Then it cannot ever be wrong.

For a completed game, yeah. If you happen to run across an easy exploit, or a weapon that you weren't intended to get at a low-level, you really only have two options.. use it, or don't. I'm just saying that, ideally, exploits you can "accidentally" trigger should be plugged, and you shouldn't be able to get a strong sword until you've overcome an approproiate challenge to get it.

Also, I'm not talking about something that's just a little more powerful that I'd need. Sure, some people may need something a little bit stronger/weaker than I do, and on a properly balanced game, fiddling with the difficulty slider would cleanly take care of that problem (which is another important reason for game balance; if you want to change the difficulty and things aren't balanced, the difficulty will become chaotic.. some things become super-easy, others super-hard; the developers can take care of this much better than most self-regulating players, I'd wager). But what I mean stuff like one-hit-kill daggers, 100% reflect damage, etc, without an appropriate drawback to balance the extreme bonuses. Essentially what amounts to "I Win" items, or makes large chunks of the game effortless.


Absolutely. I'm all for choice. Choices that make sense, at least, and have appropriate consequences. The problem is, when you're given an unbalanced item that's much too powerful, it's not really a sensible choice (it's stupid not to take it if you're trying to play your best, and if you're not cheating, there's no point in being offered it).


What it really comes down to, for me, is this. I'm not the greatest player, so I basically have to do as good as I can to overcome challenges. This is all fine and stuff, as I slowly get through it at my own pace, and it feels good when I do overcome them. But if an item suddenly dropped down that took away a bunch of the challenge, then it leaves me with two choices:
1) Take the item, knowing I'll get farther than I should be able to given my skill -- especially a problem if it only makes certain things easier, leaving the rest just as difficult (if not more difficult, since I'd be in a higher class of challenges)
2) Leave the item and gimp myself, when I'm already bad enough
Neither of those leaves a good taste in my mouth. The best option would be to make sure the item is balanced, and is only retreived after an appropriate challenge. That way I'm neither gimping nor overpowering myself, but it's something the developers have to do.

I find the "enjoyment" is getting to that Godmode point. Without a walkthrough or a wiki page it takes hard work! I didn't figure out how to make constant enchantments in morrowind until the 2nd time through. Figuring out the exploits is the fun and adds to the replay value of the game. Of coarse if find out the exploits the first time through it would probually ruin the game for me.

And as far the 100% chameleon ( which I have never done) in oblivion, I would think NPCs with a good AI system would make it a bit more fun or challenging...... and yes, it always is optional. You don't have to use it if you don't want to and you can always play the game you want to.

Some people do enjoy it; some people don't or get bored with it. If someone enjoys Dr. Pepper or Coke but someone else doesn't, does that mean Dr. Pepper and Coke should be banned so the ones that do enjoy it can't or shouldn't be able to? People that don't like it have the choice not to do it; if it is taken away people that do like it won't have a choice at all.

This is about the 100th time Ive said this.

The enchantments were never overpowered. This is not a hack n slash.
Do not petition to turn this into a hack n slash.

If you do not have the self control to not use certain optional enchantments, fine.
I really despise people advocating a dumbing down and stunting of the game because they have no self control, and thereby limiting the options for those of us that actually like these game features.

All in all I think its selfish and rude.

Just pulling your post kind of randomly and riffing...no offense

Feedom/choices response:
Dude!
You're steppin' on my freedom, man! If I want to be a god, I should be a god, man! The elder scrolls are all about CHOICE, and if I want to fly forever like a skooma-crazed Timothy Leary addict, then I should be able to! Don't tread on me, man!

Followed by the immersion folks:
Erm, you can't have these kinds of exploits since they break immerison. Honestly, 100% chamelion would lead to way too much stumbling in real life since you couldn't see your feet. And where does your body get all of the miconutrients it needs for constant regeneration, especially if we can't see ourself eating and drinking!

[/jest]
ahem

What I really don't get is why they need to be limited. Isn't it up to the player to employ what the OP claims to be exploits?

I came from AD&D and Baldur's Gates, so I was used to rings of regeneration. No problem having those.
I used levitation to avoid battles and take shortcuts over mountains, is that cheating?
I used 100% chameliion to avoid battles so I could get to a destination and finish a quest before I was too damn sleepy to finish playing for the night (Noooo now that makes me a powergamer and a cheater instead of a father with limited playing time)

What some folks call exploits, others see as just another tool in the box. Why is it nesecary to limit them? To keep folks from cheating? (erm, who's the ref and other opponent in a one-person game? ) To preserve proper game balance? (oh, wait, that goes back to the old "you don't have to use it" argument that's quite fitting here, but folks don't like hearing).

But finally, while the devs will probably try to limit the exploits, I'm sure some monkey will push the right button combination to make the Defective Dwemer Boomstick operaple and turn it into a machine gun :gun: (or stack a spoon). [/half-jest]

Why aren't we doing what in every game?

"Appropriate" in whose opinion? Subjective. "Sensible" in whose opinion? Subjective again. You cannot PROVE that something is appropriate or sensible. Think you can? Have at it.




3) Leave the item, but rather than view it as gimping yourself, ROLEPLAY.

Furthermore, we're talking about 100%+ enchantments. These don't "drop down." You have to create them. You have to go out of your way to create them. Again, to do that, you have to choose to do so. CHOOSE. As in O P T I O N A L.



Overpowering, again, is a subjective term. What is overpowered to you may not be to me or to someone else. We don't demand that you use or create what you call an overpowered item. Yet you ARE demanding that we lose the option to use or create said item. Who is being more fair here? The person trying to compromise so that everyone has options, or the person demanding that they get their way or nothing (i.e. you)?

They didnt allow restoring health to be enchanted in ob so...

On chameleon id make it so no matter how much stuff you have enchanted with it if your wearing heavy armor your max chamelion is 30 light armor 60 clothing 90.

As for absorb health id make that only enchantable into a staff. or id make it realy weak on non staves.

Most of us in the "challenge camp" don't ever want to be invincible.

Seriously, you can have all your 100% enchants if they just remove all constant effects from enchanting. Now it's win/win, you get to be a god but only momentarily.

Yes a cap would be good, no more 100% reflect damage, but maximally 85, preferably max 75. That's stilla a huge amount, so maybe 50% would be better?