Have a fishy stick! And welcome to the forums!!

https://40.media.tumblr.com/8d0058edb11a2a28665af74d2e2d9dcb/tumblr_mjl8cciFzs1s45nhoo1_400.png

I don't there isn't anyone that's in disagreement about this, but saying it should be akin to Dark Souls in these aspects is sort of misleading. These gameplay elements need to be introduced in the context of TES and how those games play, as opposed to trying to uplift those kinds elements and hoping they stick.

The problem with Skyrim currently is that there is no way to stab someone with a rapier, even if you want to. You're always fighting the same way no matter which weapon you use - I don't buy the argument that always using your weapon the right way is not inherently better than always using certain weapons the wrong way.

The option to use it however you want would probably be the way to go. For a pad user, this could be something like;

RT = primary attack type for right hand (i.e. slash for a sabre, stab for a rapier). Hold for power attack.

LT = primary attack type for left hand, or block if shield. Hold for power attack.

RB = hold down and press RT/LT for alternate attack type - i.e. RB + RT = stab with sabre, slash with rapier

LB = shout/power

Absolutely. Skyrims product is just as bad. The difference is, it's easier to fix.

It would be even easier, in fact.


Left-Control (for game pads, it would be Left Trigger) : Click to thrust, Hold to slash.

Duplicated for Right-Control.

Left-Bumper : Click to Chop/Power Attack (couple ways to handle this) Hold to Throw.

Right-Bumper : Click to Quick-Use, Hold to bring up a Radial Menu.

Left-anologue : Hold to Move, click to Sprint, Flick to Dodge.



A further advantage of this style of approach is that you can apply characteristics to the base actions, as WELL as the item being used. So, for instance, a Thrust attack may be quick, but lack much Strength contribution, which would mean that a high Strength character would get less out of it.


When you put a mechanism for differentiation with Weapons, you end up with far more room for variation than something like Dark Souls offers. All in. Simplier, and far easier to mod and expand, package.

What about if you're using a spear against a skeleton? A spear would obviously work best when thrusting, but a skeleton could be nearly immune to thrusting damage. Thus, even though a spear works best when thrusting in a general case, sometimes you'll find that slashing or chopping would work better against specific types of opponents. Or if you want to keep an enemy at a farther distance from you, a normally chopping-based weapon would better serve you with thrusting. Similarly when dealing with one-on-one versus crowds... rather than thrusting or chopping a weapon at a specific enemy, it'd be better to swing in wide arcs for crowd control instead letting the others swarm you from the sides.

There's a difference between using a weapon in its intended way, and using it in a way that's optimal for the situation you find yourself in.

You really need to be careful with assigning multiple actions to a single key. Though Fallout4's bash+grenade is particularly egregious, the ultimate point is that it's bad to make the player do what they didn't intend. Particularly in combat when things can be hectic, you may not hold down a button long enough or you may hold it down longer than intended, it's not good to do what they didn't mean to. A press=chop and hold=throw sounds particularly problematic, with players throwing and losing their weapon unintentionally when they meant to chop (and also, if you need to throw quickly before the opponent gets out of the way, you wouldn't want to wait for the hold action to trigger).

A press-or-hold system also has responsiveness issues, since the game has to wait for you to release the button before it can execute the action (since it doesn't know if you're doing a quick press or a hold action), vs executing the action as soon as the button is pressed.

Agreed. It's not a perfect system, and doesn't work for everything, but I think it's a superior basis than what Dark Souls or The Witcher use. For the most part, I'd only recommend it for mechanics that I gave already seen it implemented with to reliable success. The Throw thing, admittedly was just for the sake of fitting it in there, and to show the range of options that exist.

I think a key element in maintaining functionality and minimising the problems of accidentally doing something you don't want lie mostly in the pairings of actions, though. The current system; Click to Attack, Hold to Power Attack, works well enough because both outcomes of the command are similar enough that you aren't instantly screwing yourself over. Compare that to, say, Bash and Grenade, where you may accidentally hold for a fraction of a second too long and suddenly be on fire because you hit someone 6 inches away with a Molotov cocktail...

Keeping the actions linked to the Timing-Dependant button use similar minimises the damage potential of a mistake.

I disagree with the idea of this complication, however, as we've already seen games that use a sort of press-timer rather than having to wait for release. This is particularly clear in Grenade mechanics in virtually ever FPS. It's even done in Fallout 4 with the Grenade/Bash option. Bash will only activate if you release within a certain timing window, otherwise it activates the Grenade, whether you release or not, which does allow you to overcook grenades.

Disagree. Dark Souls is designed really good. Enemies are designed to be predictable after player learns their actions and then to exploit their weakness, that's the challenge there.

Movement is done good as well, I don't know what did you mean about moving in tight spaces and ledges, I don't have problems at these. For me it's clear what do stats do, I don't know where your opinion about these come from. When increasing stats, game clearly show which aspects it increases (if vitality is raised, it raises health, no need for further explanation).

Game is liked by many game designers, you can read many articles or videos showing, what Dark souls do right.

Aren't we moving to an offtopic? I think we may stop critiquing/praising Dark Souls itself and focus on discussing, how features could work in TES.

As for weapons use - I can agree. Giving player ability to use attack type what they want is a good thing, but it stops being good it these moves are useless. These moves should be useful and even if an other move gives some other advantage, it should be big enough to make player want to use it.

It's amazing idea to tie it with perk system, when player has a high enough weapon skill, they can unlock a special effect to weapons additional move. Something like Oblivion did, but better, more varied and made for individual weapon types.

Still I think weapons should have unique animation for each type, otherwise weapons will feel same, even with different effects on enemies.

Okay, take Skyrim's combat system and improve it, but it needs a really large overhaul changing every aspect of it, from antique hit detection system, poor stamina management and all other features. Well, it stops being a Skyrim combat style, but rather a new system. "Fixing" becomes an overhauling.

I agree.

I suppose my point was this: DS and TES are extremely different, but DS is just a example of one way you can create a deep, thoughtful and balanced ecosystem of combat mechanics - which TES currently is not. Obviously TES can't just copy-paste the same ecosystem, but it can take inspiration from DS successes where it's applicable (as they already did, by their own admission, when designing Survival Mode).

But by all means, the ideal TES combat system should not be built to satisfy DS fans; it should be purely based on TES' own idiosyncrasies, in a way that enhances rather than diminishes them.

Sure, we all did it once or twice, but I think the gains ultimately outweighed the few moments of frustration. Any decent RPG is going to be pushing the limits of a controller's button count, so a few multi-function buttons are worth the occasional irritation.

And to his credit, the button choices he suggested were far less problematic than mixing up grenade with melee anyway. Bumpers are well-suited to charge up style systems, so I'd be all for more of that.

I really like that idea. Buuuuuut (and I hate coming back to this game again!) technically Dark Souls does do that. Dex and strength affect different types of attacks (heavy, light, thrust, slash, whirl, critical, etc) on the each weapon, just as they - alongside vigor, endurance and armor types - also contribute to your defenses of those (and other) damage types.

So even using the same weapon, a high dex character gets better results using lighter, more thrust-focused and critical attacks whereas a character with strength would be more effective using the weapon's heavier attack types.

I'd like to see in-game benefits from our characters stopping to take a bath in a lake or under a waterfall. A minor buff to resist disease perhaps?


Conversely, there was also a section in Skyrim where there were steaming puddles of water, and I was surprised when my character didn't take damage when entering them. The first time I encountered them, I painstakingly jumped from island to sand dune to avoid touching the water, only to discover that they weren't toxic/radioactive as they appeared.

That doesn't make any sense...do you guys know how muscles work?

And this is has a

Incredible potential for errors.

That sounds pretty nice, yet simple to do!

On a related note it would be cool if getting a good rest helped you recover from diseases. Like if every hour you rested there was a chance to reduce the magnitude of a disease, and if its magnitude got low enough you might be able to recover from it completely. This effect would be stronger depending on where you're sleeping, your stats, etc.

I have two concerns with any major combat overhaul:

1. If using a more complex system is the only way to be successful, it could harm the broad appeal of the game

2. If a more complex system is optional, there is the potential that skilled player could defeat enemies that his or her character shouldn't stand a chance against.

Since this is a forum for a video game series, I assume everyone here has quite a bit of experience gaming. Thus, the things that are appealing to us might not be the right direction for the next Elder Scrolls. For example, my fiancée rarely plays any video games. When I let her play Skyrim she became obsessed. That never would have happened if she couldn't get passed the first few encounters in the Helgen Keep because fighting required complex button combinations that she didn't have the skill for. For better or worse, it seems that Bethesda is trying to appeal to the casual gaming community. TES creates open worlds that don't require much in the way of general gaming skill to explore.

That being said, I believe combat can be greatly improved. The weapons should feel different as is commonly mentioned on these threads. As to the controls, I think this idea has a lot of potential:

It is still simple, yet allows for a greater variety of fighting styles. Furthermore, I don't think superior gaming ability would allow the player to outpace their character too much.

Yes, i do. Do you? The muscle uses in thrusting are fewer, and weaker, than those used in other actions. It relies primarily* on force from the Biceps, whereas a standard 'Slash' uses both the Triceps and Biceps (and depending on the swing the Pectoral and the Latissimus Dorsi) and a 'Chop' can use everything from the Traqezius to the lower back (in addition to the fact that both Slashes and Chops allow for greater potential energy due to longer arch time). Thrusting CAN use more muscle groups by involving more total-body movement (stepping into the thrust, pivoting the body, etc) but both Slashing and Chopping can do the same thing.

An object with the same surface area, impacting through a Thrust vs a Slash, is going to have less kinetic energy because of this. That's why thrusting weapons are optimised to have as small a point of impact as possible, to maximise their lower relative energy.

*I say primarily, as there are several additional muscles that contribute to all motions, particularly in the shoulder, but their contribution to the actual force is minimal.

I have to agree that this layout is a potential disaster. Using the same button to do multiple things in fine but can be very finicky as others fave brought up with fallouts grenade/bash which for me at-least was very frustrating and often did the unintended action. Using the same button to do multiple things is done better with something that doesn't need to be to precise like using (A) as both the "interact" button and a "run" button.

By moving sprint from (LB) to (A) that leaves us with both (LB/RB) to play with. LB could become a left hand secondary action button allowing builds like spellswords and dualwielders a way to block and RB could be a right hand secondary button allowing you to cast spells or activate a power.

Would archers and mages even be able to work with Dark Souls combat system?

Yes, with some changes. Dark Souls actually does have Magic, so and games like Assassin's Creed and The Witcher have shown that you CAN deal with ranged weapons in a similar way... Though frankly i think their total garbage (the Crossbow in Wild Hunt was insanely frustrating to do anything but a quick-shot with).

Oh, i agree. Again, it was more of an example of how few buttons you can reasonably use to achieve the intended goal. As it stands, while playing through the idea, i actually found it difficult to come up with enough options to fill all the commands, even limiting most buttons to only one 'click'. The only allowed multiple functions (at base, some commands can easily have situational commands. For instance, you can have A/Square do something when not close-to and facing an NPC, and have it do something else when 'talking') were buttons that extensively use that type of control in other games (Triggers, anologue Sticks and Bumpers) and situations where the commands are very similar (like, Pick Up and Move). And even then, fully half of the potential commands on a modern controller are totally unused.

Having multi-use commands should be used sparingly, and limited mostly (if not entirely) to very similar actions. Something like using Right-Bumper as a 'Quick Use' on Click, and bringing up a 'Radial Favourites Menu' isn't that problematic, because one action is just a more precise variation of the other. Fallout 4's Bash/Grenade combination, while it shows that the system functions, used two radically different actions, meaning if anything from your button sticking to your timing being off goes wrong, it can cause a major, potentially fatal foul-up.

I find both magic and ranged combat in DS underwhelming, and ranged combat (but not magic, though it is limited) in The Witcher 3 underwhelming too.

Having a nominally first person game makes melee a pain in the ass, but is useful for spells and archery. I'm not saying Skyrim was particularly good, but in principle you can work with those quasi-shooter building blocks. What it really needs from a control perspective is just better responsiveness and feedback. Casting/shooting should feel weightier and cause more significant knock-backs and stuns, to minimize the ridiculous run-backwards-while-casting situation that infests games that ranged attacks with melee enemies.

Or at least have better offensive 'spellsword' spells so you don't need to run away.

I'd like to see more 'less lethal' combat. no everything should want to fight to the death, and there should be some repercussions of always executing your enemies.

I would love to see this as well. I would also like to see ways to avoid most combat (apart from sneaking).

Eh. Given that 99.9% of humanoid enemies are either bandits no body is going to miss, or entities that are equally loathed as a foreign presence, punishing the player for doing things more often then not we're paid for is a tad extreme.

I would however like to see quests that can potentially not end in slaughtering everything in the room for once.

Enemy staggering from being hit is one of the key things this series has been missing when it comes to all forms of combat. Sure, the Dwemer automatons, undead, ethereal, and creatures far, far stronger then us are going to ignore being staggered for the most part, unless our character is disproportionately built strong, but normal humanoid enemies or wild animals really need to actually react to being harmed. Skill Trees could go a long way in helping that as far as magic is concerned, if properly utilized.

I agree. It would be nice if there were some ways to incapacitate enemies, opening up more non-lethal options to handling certain things (though i don't think a 'Zero Body Count' play-through of most questlines is reasonable to ask for) but punishing the player for killing too many enemies is a pretty slippery slope. How do you regulate it? Does it only apply to Named NPCs or does it cover all humanoids? What about animals? There may be some way to implement some faction dispositions into a system, but the fact that the games aren't built around killing regular law abiding citizens (though you CAN if you want) and there is already a punishment dynamic for doing so indicates to me that more punishment isn't really necessary.

The problem is, such a system can very quickly get over the top. In Oblivion, for instance, the staggering was far too over-blown, leaving you stumbling around like a drunk invalid all the time. In Skyrim, it's far too rare and driven more by chance than anything.

Staggering should have some sort of tactical element involved. It shouldn't be automatic, nor should it be entirely random.

More traditional RPGs have used various sorts of debuffs, stacking effects and various sorts of effect-triggers which are useful in this, i think. I've spoken of the notion of Stagger Stacking in the past, and it relies on this stacking-effect that is so widely used elsewhere. Having multiple actions which apply a single effect, and increasingly negative responses as stacks increase. You can then use Skills, Perks and Attributes to shift how you inflict these stacks, and how you respond to them.

It didn't exist in Skyrim. Or rather, when it came to melee combat, which only happened if you used a power attack on an opponent, or a bash.

Still, there's a difference between stun locking an opponent and having them react to actually being hit. A decent system (taking in Strength vs. Endurance into account) would allow an enemy to recoil after a couple of hits, before regrouping and getting their guard back up.

I didn't say punishment, I say repercussions. a character that slaughters everything, even though not breaking laws -- perhaps even enforcing law, could be viewed as ruthless -- which has different connotations depending on a character's views/affiliations.

But, the main point was less lethal combat, for both the player and opponent. perhaps a bandit won't kill a player, but incapacitate and rob the player, leaving them outside their lair. perhaps the player can surrender for mercy and get robbed/held as a prisoner. likewise, an opponent could surrender and plead for mercy, or flee. the player could rob a character. either could just call for a truce. Things like that.

even knocking a foe out, the foe should be really hesitant to return to combat, if not flee when they come to.

even better would be guards that instead of killing when you don't surrender, they seek to capture and rough you up before sending you off to jail in crutches, haha.

and if options to surrender/flee/etc., were available then the former idea of repercussions would have more meaning.

A player that executes opponents pleading for mercy, or foes that are no longer a threat fleeing? opponents would be less willing to show mercy themselves, and likely more opponents would be aggressive.

A player that does shows mercy and honor? could get the reputation as weak, but could also open more non-combative options among normally aggressive foes. similarly, when your reputation precedes you, being seen as chivalrous will have a different reaction than being seen as barbaric.

*also, wouldn't it be awesome if you could slap NPCs or get slapped by NPCs outside of a combat situation? either on the face or butt. LOL

When I mentioned staggering earlier, I had in mind a bit of a catch-all regarding any mechanics that allow you - as a caster or ranged player - to keep your distance. That could also include:

- Better magic shields and passive shields (i.e. with knock-back)

- More freeze/slow down effects

- More AoE

- More effects like fire that leave enemies flailing about or running away

- Disorientation

- More viable invisibility-type skills

- Blink/teleportation (Dishonored did it pretty well)

One thing they need to avoid doing though is only making these possible in the skill tree. I would much rather the game start with a rock solid combat system, and then use the skill trees to add all sorts of toppings to the cake. I remember thinking the same with the melee skill tree in Skyrim - so many of the perks should've been part of the game from level 1, because instead of making great combat even better, they just made bad combat tolerable.

There's nothing worse than feeling like they stripped out necessary features for fluid combat, just so they can 'sell' it to you as a high level skill later. I think the marginal loss in RP if you're hoping to begin as a 'nobody' character is worth the cost for a more solid gameplay experience. The sorts of things I would have every character start with are:

- Basic throat slit/backstab abilities for stealth

- Shield bash/parry

- A descent dodge or sidestep type of thing

- Perhaps a slow time ability or two, maybe on low health or after successfully blocking so that you can do a critical counter attack. Also while aiming on a bow.

- More uses for each spell. So if you start with a flame and ice spell as in Skyrim, you should be able to use them to A. buff/enchant a weapon temporarily B. create a fire or ice shield C. have the usual offensive spells too.

Those sorts of things should all be part of a vanilla character, or at least be attainable after just a level or two (assuming they don't use classes). Perks would then use that as a base to build upon.

The problem with those sorts of reputation systems is they can easily run into the Morrowind and Oblivion problems of Fame and Infamy. People who have no cause to know who you are or how you act suddenly react differently simply because of a largely arbitrary number you've accumulated elsewhere. New Vegas did slightly better with it by having those sorts of stats tracked individually with factions, but it ended up being little more than a Like/Dislike system for faction aggression. So, to make the system worthwhile, you'd need more variables, affecting factions individually, and a better way to track and develop those variblrs. And thats not even counting the fact that reaction to things like Honour, Ruthlessness, generosity, trustworthiness etc. tend to be highly individual in terms of perception and reaction, so by trying to standardize it you're pushing on the ability to define individuals.


Otherwise, I do agree. Subduing and non-fatal combat interactions are something the games desperately need. Morrowind tried to do it with its unarmed, to an extent at least, but it was absolutely rubbish in the execution. Being able to render others unconscious, and be knocked out in return, has been done with limited success in Mods, and deserves some degree of base implementation.


Of course, the biggest advantage it offers is in terms of Stealth... But that needs some rather significant updates as it is.




I have no idea how to do it, or what buttons to link it to, but absolutely yes.




I think the biggest problem with magic is going to be in making it balanced. The basic mechanics of Skyrim are good, but it lacks enough spell effects to really make the system as a whole competitive throughout. Balancing the early game is especially problematic, I think, because unless you give access to too many spells right from the start (losing the ramp-up and feeling of progress) you leave mages unable to cope well in encounters, and if you make their early spells too damaging then you run the risk of them feeling weaker and weaker as they progress (a problem Skyrim has). Some of this may be able to be alleviated with a revised Staff mechanic, but I'm still thinking on that...


I generally agree on the range of basic actions, though. Things like Blocking, Dodging, Partying and some sort of better Stealth-Kill should be part of the base kit. Perks and skill-Trees should be about expanding and empowering those actions, and allowing for different interactions. Rather than a Perk that allows you to Parry, something like 'A successful Wide-Parry has a X% chance to disarm your opponent'.