Whenever I searched Elder Scrolls 6 rumors, I always ended up in TES VI: Argonia page by the so called Master Herald site.

The way I see it parrying would replace blocking with weapons, so yeah, you couldn't do that. As for not being good at parrying, I honestly think that is such a specific trait - being good at attacking with a weapon but not parrying with it - that it's not really something to worry about. Alternatively you could invest in perks/attributes that increase your attack or lessen you parry effectiveness, and as such be at least wastly more specialised at attacking than parrying:/

Actually, now I think about it, it is not as minor and silly as it sounds. Back in Morrowind, Khajiit and Argonians could only be barefoot, which kind of made sense. In later games, they could all wear footwear. I suppose players were complaining, because this piece of armor was sorely missed. It looks silly on them to me. Anklets and toe rings might be just what's needed to roll back changes in their anatomy and still allow them this extra enchantment/armor.

So, I suppose all races could wear anklets/toe rings, but only in place of other, closed footwear. Khajiit and Argonians may not wear closed footwear, but may wear anklets, or toe rings.

I think there are enough other fields and variables to manage how good you are at parrying without having to break it off from a weapon skill. At its core, it's about weapon control, timing and speed, all of which are things you're going to become better at as you master a particular style of combat anyway. You then have Attributes, Perks and Techniques to add more diversity and flavour, and the room for Parry-Bonus weapon characteristics(a basket hilt on a sword, for instance).


While it's true that you could become good at partying without deliberately trying to, there's still lots of options available to choose to become GREAT.


But, I do see the counter arguement. In a world without Attributes and Techniques, using the Block skill would be a superior option.

I don't see why one has to exist at the expense of another, especially since it still allows for more concrete character builds with different priorities over only having one singular option for...everything. Nothing in the game save skills that have been implemented terribly (pick-pocket, lock picking) work like that, so mashing something together as a single, one shot skill only a single character type would ever use is outright bizarre.


I mean, why focus on blocking with one thing or the other when you could just as well parry with a shield? Why not reintroduce different shield types, like bucklers, standard shields, and tower shields, with different priorities over outright blocking versus attempting to parry. Why leave a single skill out on its own with only singe dedicated type of equipment?


The only way a shield skill works is if there is a parry skill alongside it, but again, there's not enough content between the two skills to make a meaningful perk tree out of them.

I still don't get what Techniques are supposed to be - glorified perks? And again, if you don't have perk trees you don't have to worry about narrowly defining them to just affect what their respective skills govern:) And I am totally for introducing different shield types, but I'd say that's more of an argument to have a Shield skill - just as you'd use Blade for daggers, swords and greatswords, you'd use Shield for bucklers, targes, kite shields, etc.

Mundane perks, more like it.


2 basic ideas came up while discussing it, but the way I imagine them functioning is more like a manual influence on the characteristics typically associated with increasing a Skill. Instead of leveling up your Blade Skill and getting faster and hitting harder, you'd get Technique points allowing you to manually increase the characteristics that skill governs. Things like Damage, Attack Speed, critical chance etc... Basically, instead of restricting what skills you can use, it lets you shape HOW you use those Skills more personally. So, at 45 Blade, 2 people could have developed very distinct techniques by focusing on different variables.


Jackal on the other hand envisioned a different model, in which Techniques are sort of like Job Skills in Final Fantasy Tactics. You learn a 'Technique' from a Trainer, and practice with it active, and after a certain point it becomes a permanent buff to that skill, at which point you can learn another Technique. In that case, I think they're more like mini-Perks....


The idea was born particlaly out of the complaint about simple stat-increase Perks like 'Increases Damage by X%' and trying to maintain the ability to basically choose your threshold without resorting to Oblivion and Morrowind style 'All Master Swordsmen are the same' linear skill progression. One of its biggest advantages, and biggest problems, is it opens up a veritable Pandora's box of potential variabkes, offering both near infinite customization, and insanely convoluted complexity.

Hm, it kinda sounds like something that might be needlessly complicated without actually adding that much - between Attributes, Skills, Perks and Equipment you should be able to differentiate your character to a satisfactory degree without having to "micromanage" how your skill increases. Furthermore, if it's implemented it should exist for all of the Skills, further complicating things.

Interesting idea, but I'm not sure TES is the right game series for it.

Oh, yeah, it's an idea that I've never really remotely refined enough to consider 'ready to go'. Even limiting it to only 3 variables per Skills you'd still be looking at 60 odd 'progress bars' and trying to juggle potentially 21 different points pools. It's more of an idea for future progression of Character customization and depth than something I would say is really practical now.


Jackal's rendition may have some more immediate relevance though, making Trainers relevant without using them entirely to keep up lower, unused Skills.


Of course, even then, their relevance depends on how things like Attributes and Perks work.

^^ Which is why I'm not a big fan of that particular model. Most of what that does is nothing a combination of Attributes and skills level can't cover.


As I see it, most of them are styled in the vein of more unique abilities that are slightly more specific and niche dependent on what you the player want to do. Weapon types gain unique properties depending on how it's used, applying status effects, giving enemies debuffs, ect ect. Basically anything that can give you an edge in battle and elsewhere.


Only skills that require what Lach said to work would be Security, a few of the Athletic perks, and a couple in the Block skill.

I've been away for a good while. I'm curious if there's been any news or even rumors that Beth is going to issue a successor to Skyrim - in a non-online version. I'd think this would be in the works given the popularity of Skyrim, but I don't know the economics of complex game creation or what's going on inside the company.

I did a search here but didn't find anything, but gee, so what. I've never managed to figure out how to make a successful search here.

There's been no announcement from Bethesda to date that I'm aware of regarding a successor to Skyrim. I haven't heard any rumors either. That said, all the speculation/hopes/dreams regarding a possible TES 6 is over in the Elder Scrolls Series Discussion Forums here - http://www.gamesas.com/forum/26-the-elder-scrolls-series-discussion/%C2%A0

They just released Fallout 4 and are still working on DLCs.

Chances are, we won't see an announcement/release for TES VI until 2018-2019 at the earliest.

I'm hoping for something-even just confirmation of the title and/or location- at this year's E3. No idea if it will happen or not and even if it does, the game likely won't be out for a couple of years.

OK, Thanks. Seems I didn't miss anything. I figured the interval between OB and Skyrim was about the same a Skyrim to now which is why I asked. Maybe E3 will have news.

Enderal is getting released in about 2 months <3

It should improve on the quality of Skyrim from what I've seen so far.

Really looking forward to it.

I dont think they would announce the game with two or three year of waiting. skyrim was about one year and fallout 4 was around six months. If you announce a game then take years to actually release it the hype could grow to such an extent that when the game is finally released the final product might be nowhere near what the hype for the pre release game was and would leave the game with a bad rep.....well my two cents amyway.

Well put.

In other words, the engine itself was fantastic, but the gameplay was lacking.

I disagree with you that it was better than Oblivion, though. Ob had more replayability for me, and I managed to play Oblivion for far longer than Skyrim.

Fallout 5 is already in the works (confirmed by one of the Fo4 voice actors, among other things). It'll be a LONG time before we see a TES:VI... IF we see one...

Fallout 4 started work immediately after Fallout 3. Chances are TES6 will come before Fallout 5.

Yeah, it's been standard practice to start preliminary work on the next game as soon as the 'current' drops. It's what they did with Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout 4 and Skyrim. This is nothing new. It's how Bethesda has operated for more than a decade, basically working on different stages of 2 separate games at a time. It's not like this is some revolutionary, game changing revelation.

Yeah, the basic notion behind it is that, if you can't (or shouldn't) restrict what skills people can invest in, you can create tools to shape how they use those skills. Perks were a step in this direction, but got overly cluttered with too diverse a range of impacts, from simple numbers to new effects and variables.

Chances are TES 6 has been in the works since Skyrim release. They probably just been laying the ground work like location, plot, doing concept art, ect but once they finish with Fallout 4 their main focus will likely be on TES6. Unless they going to let someone else do another "New Vegas 2" we likely getting TES next.

Frankly, it would be silly not to operate this way. You can't conceptualize the gameplay while also programming it, so those need to be done sequentially. Same with the plot, art, and so on. It would also be silly to have your programmers sit on their hands for months or even years while the story gets fleshed out. Having preliminary development on the next game while your current one is being coded is just time-efficient. If anything, the confirmation that writing is being done for Fallout 5 means that the writing for TES6 is probably mostly done, not that they're skipping an entry in the biggest cash cow they have.

Each one has merits in its own way, but for me, it may not be much better, but I enjoyed Skyrim more. Not to say that I didn't enjoy Oblivion too.