This thread is for ideas and suggestions for future Elder Scrolls games, and to keep all the discussion in one series of threads.


We have a long way to go before we get another ES game. In the meantime, similar topics will be closed and referred to this one.


Note there is a separate thread specifically for http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1601186-tes-vi-location-and-setting-speculation-31/ suggestions for future games. Please keep discussion of Skyrim in the correct forums.

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1601280-official-beyond-skyrim-tes-vi-78/

And?You said there were non there are three:Houses,Ships and the Wagon.

Like weapon degradation, I feel banks add a whole level of annoyance for very little gain. Want to buy a new sword? Have to go to the bank, withdraw some money and return to the store. No benefit to gameplay, just a whole waste of time. Especially if we have to suffer through loading screens again.

now I don't want to get to far off topic, but I never understood the hatred for loading screens in any games.. if having interiors as a separate space allows for smoother gameplay, i think having to wait 2-5 seconds for it to load is perfectly reasonable, gives me time to take a quick sip of water..


especially for single player games, on MMOs i could somehwat understand (anyone try to play an MMO on a slow DSL connection? a 2 minute loadtime makes joining a party difficult).. but in a singleplayer game, where load times rarely ever exceed 6 seconds? yeah, i don't understand the hatred..




EDIT: maybe gamers these days don't have the same level of patience (not meant as an insult to anyone btw), but I have been gaming since the early 90s, and I see load screens as just part of the experience.. and they don't take nearly as long these days as they used to

I don't particularly mind them as they are. But having to go through five loading screens to buy one sword would be highly irritating

It's nothing to do with patience, it's immersion. I'd gladly take a 10 minute slab of loading at the start of the game if it meant no load times for interiors once I began playing. Honestly, I consider having seamless interiors and exteriors one of my biggest hopes for the next BGS game.

As someone who has a good computer, I understand your point about load times being short. Hell, my average load time is probably only as long as it takes a person to open a door and step through it, so why do I still hate it so much? Basically, because the way spaces join together seamlessly is the core of what makes open world games a great experience. It's wonderful moving across vast fields, forests and mountains - but it's equally important to feel that connection between interior spaces. Particularly in games such as TES, locations like inns and shops have a satisfyingly homely feel; there's nothing like escaping a snow storm by ducking into a fire-lit inn in the middle of the night. Seamless interiors magnify that sensation just as seamless exteriors magnify a sense of scale and grandeur that even the small loading screen can fracture.

Also, it impedes art direction heavily. Ever notice how no windows actually 'work' in a BGS game? Or how you can't have interiors opening out into the environment? These are all architectural mainstays that vastly improve the quality of interiors both in games and in the real world, and removing them really hobbles the overall 'feel' of the environments. Likewise with sound - it massively improves the feeling of authenticity when you can hear the rabble of an inn from outside, or the creaking of carts passing by the window when you're inside. In fact, Todd Howard himself specifically singled this feature out a few years ago when asked about what he looked forward to seeing in the 'next gen.' A shame that didn't actually end up making its way into Fallout 4.

And it becomes doubly frustrating when other games start doing this so phenomenally well that one starts to become accustomed to it. BGS used to be unchallenged when it came to creating vast, immersive worlds, but what was acceptable a decade ago is now starting to look decidedly antiquated and creaky. I mean Christ, in 2015/2016 they still can't even have a single-room cellar or 20 square foot mole rat cave in the worldspace? It's starting to look a bit ridiculous...

IMO, the most epic thing about Skyrim was the the terrain. The rest had the basis for great potential that unfortunately was never fully used/ fleshed out. You never get to see Skyrim's Jarls hold a Moot. Can't follow in Tiber Septims footsteps to rally all the holds of Skyrim and become High King/ Queen yourself, and then lead an onslaught to drive out the Thalmor from Skyrim for good. Can't overthrow Maven Black-Briar and bring back some "honour among theives." Or at least be able to join Karliah to sabotage the meadery I'm happy you were at least able to take out the DB.


That being said, I still think Skyrim was a notch above Oblivoin.

Edit: I haven't play FONV or FO4 yet, but if BGS is going to continue with making townsfolk killable, I at least hope they'll bring FO4's gameplay mechanic I heard about where random NPCs eventually repopulate settlements.

I thought the intent was rather clear in that I was talking about early to mid game storage, but fine. You are technically correct. The point was that banking in Daggerfall was made viable by the fact that you has no early and options for stashing money, largely requiring you to use the banks until you could save up enough to afford proper storage.




In addition to what Tabularasa said, there's an element of cognitive disconnect involved. Loading screens aren't terrible when you're covering large distances or periods of time, but when they disconnect you from one step to another the can be jarring. Particularly if it lasts for an extended period.


I suppose that ties into the Immersion thing, but I think it's a more concise explanation. Maintaining the suspension of disbelief is a bog component in TESs model of RPG, and every little thing can compound that and errode the Immersion.


Loading screens used WELL can contribute to the Immersion and suspension of disbelief. But loading screens used poorly can quickly tear it down.

This is probably something that often comes up but I'd like to see a bit more strategy in combat, like there is in other games like Dark Souls. I feel that this is alleviated on PC to some degree by combat mods, but this isn't really an option on consoles. The only real combat strategy in the vanilla game is just to stock up on potions, swing your weapon and use your spells. The combat doesn't have the depth, strategy and skill of other games like the Witcher or Dark Souls. The difficulty of the game could alter both the health and damage of the PC and NPCs, as well as the combat AI of the NPCs - on a harder difficulty, they would be more likely to dodge, block, or whatever.

As a bit of a Nazi when it comes to weaponry I'd also like to see more appropriate animations for certain types of weapons. What I mean is, daggers are stabbing weapons. When equipped, the PC shouldn't swing them like a sword. Similarly, certain types of sword (such as rapiers) are not cutting weapons either. I am not an expert in programming or animation but I guess that this could be implemented by just adding a separate animation set for swords, stabbing and thrusting, as well as cutting and slashing. A weapon could use either of them depending on whether it's a cutting or stabbing weapon.

The way I would handle the various types of melee weapons is this:

The perks for melee weapons would be similar to how it works in Skyrim, with blunt weapons ignoring armour, axes causing bleeding damage and swords doing critical damage. I'd also like to see spears added as a separate weapon type, both one and two handed (spears in real life were not necessarily just two-handed weapons). They could have a longer reach than other weapons, but do slightly less damage and maybe swing slightly slower. This would represent the fact that someone wielding a spear would want to keep the enemy at a distance so that the enemy can't get within range to use their own melee weapon, and the fact that the spear is actually quite a large weapon. The ability perk for a spear (like hack & slash for axes, bone breaker for blunt and bladesman for blades), would be to push the enemy back by a certain distance if the spear lands an unblocked hit. This would allow the spear user to keep the enemy at a distance, to compensate for its slightly lower damage and speed.

As for the various types of swords, they would all just benefit from the extra critical damage from the bladesman perk. The only difference would be the animations used for different types of swords - a scimitar, for example, should be swung, whereas a rapier or a dagger should stab, but both would be considered swords for the purposes of perks and combat.

In conclusion:

4 types of weapons

Blunt - Maces, warhammers, flails, etc - perk to ignore armour

Axes - War axes, battle axes, etc - perk to cause bleeding damage

Blade - Longswords, sabres, rapiers, arming swords, etc - perk to cause critical damage

Spears - Spears, partisans, pikes, tridents, etc - perk to push enemy backwards away from user

Swords use different animations based on whether they are used to cut or stab, but both count as swords.

I would also like to see the way heavy armour is used made a bit more similar to power amour in Fallout 4. In real life, knights wearing plate armour would often wear a gambeson, possibly supplemented by a set of chainmail as well, underneath the plate armour. There were two types of gambeson - one type is designed to be worn undeneath a set of plate armour, whereas another is designed to be worn as a set of armour in itself. I'm talking about the type worn underneath plate armour here. It could work in a similar way to the power armour frame in Fallout 4, except without the need for fusion cores (obviously) - you would need a gambeson to put on a set of plate armour over the top. Light armour would be unaffected - just work the same way as it does in Skyrim currently. Light armour would include armours like leather, studded, chainmail hauberks, etc - but not plate. Given that there's not really any equivalent to the fusion core, care should be taken to make sure the heavy armour is balanced against light armour given its obvious advantage of better damage resistance. Unlike Skyrim, it shouldn't be possible to reach the armour cap with a set of light armour. This should require heavy armour. Heavy armour should drain stamina to perform regular attacks, and power attacks should drain more stamina, whereas light armour should be unaffected - regular melee attacks do not drain stamina, power attacks drain normal amount of stamina.

I think this would give an incentive to use heavy armour, given the high damage resistance, but it would not be without its drawbacks.

In summary:

- Heavy armour works the same way as power armour in FO4 - gambeson & mail underalls work same way as power armour frame.

- No "fusion core" equivalent.

- Wearing heavy armour makes normal melee attacks drain stamina.

- No stamina drain for regular melee attacks in light armour.

- Light armour works the same way as light armour in Skyrim, or normal armour in FO4.

- Not possible to reach armour cap in light armour.

Cheers for reading.

First off, it is tradition to gift new people with a fish stick... Unfortunately, my phone doesn't allow me to access the toolset, so I can't hyperlink... So hopefully someone will fill the gap.



Anyway, combat is something of a lengthy topic we get into from time to time, and I'm hesitant to commit this thread to that line of discussion quite yet (not that i really have the power to do so one way or another, i just go where the wind blows)... But overall, I think many of us are on similar pages as you. Maybe not the same specific concepts, but the same general idea.


Though, I'll admit, I differ on the idea that strategy is a particularly strong theme in The Witcher or Dark Souls... Their combat is different, but just as simplistic. That sort of oversimplification is somewhat endemic to RPG's in general...

A sword wouldn't cost nearly that much. But it would hold you back from being able to just buy everything and anything because you constantly have 100K gold in your pocket with 300 or 400+ carry weight. It encourages you to make due with what you have, to prioritize what you want/get. The banks allow you to overcome these limitations if you wish, and also adding to the things you can do while in between dungeons or quests.

Pass. For the most part, the Witcher on Death March and Dark Souls in general are dodge roll fests that don't mesh well with TES all that well, and the only strategy involved is picking a single targets movements apart, memorizing a static attack patter, and moving on to the next foe. They're okay games, but hardly what I'd call something that can really be used in any capacity. Fallout 4's Survival mode on the other hand...well, it changes the amount of damage both you and NPC's dole out, which actually changes how the game is played and how you enter encounters significantly. If high level enemies (mostly where the humanoids are concerned) stop being damage sponges, and rely on matching the characters skill against theirs, I think you already have a decent working system there.

Yeah, no. Even in real life, armors like that weren't prohibitively heavy to be functional. Even though this is a game, and the heavy needs to be counter balanced with lighter armor builds, there's no reason to dole out stamina debuffs when heavy armor already comes with a decent list of cons, so long as they're not rendered moot by techniques like no longer impacting maximum running speed or reducing its overall weight. The only stamina penalty I'd inflict on heavy armor is sprinting and climbing, and that's about it.

I think, for Combat to improve, you need to do 5 things.

• First, you need a better way to control attack types. At base, the system should accommodate Thrusts, Slashes (side to side) and Chops (overhead strikes).


• Second, you need better damage variety.


• Third, you need better interaction between types of actions, such as Parrying.


• 
  

  Fourth, you need more defensive actions, such as Parrying and Dodging (though no rolling).

  
  


• 
  
  
  

  Fifth, you need a better basis for defensive interaction.

  
  
  
  

Solving these issues would, in my opinion, be necessary to really move forward with a better combat system... But none of them are really things that games like Witcher 3, Dark Souls, or, frankly, any other game deal with... Chivalry tries to somewhat, and Kingdom Come seems to be working with the philosophy (though i think their over-realism approach is absolute rubbish) but few games are moving forward... They're mostly just languishing where they are.

I agree that rolling can't and shouldn't be a major feature of TES combat (because it doesn't work in first person, and is admittedly not a great aesthetic fit anyway).

But taking his point more broadly, I think he's right that those games offer far more in the way of combat strategy than you give them credit for. Dark Souls is more about improvising than memorizing; the way enemies' combat patterns overlay on top of one another, and the way their skill-set is varied and RNG'ed enough to never be the same twice means that you can't ever rely on doing the same thing - instead, you have to do different things, but by applying the same underlying logic.

Think of the Chinese game Go - it's often regarded as the most complex board game around, and yet it has only 1 type of piece, and 2 rules. But the potential amount of board configurations exceeds the total amount of particles in the universe. Likewise, Dark Souls has clear enough rules and move-sets, but how they combine is always unique, so it's important not to simply learn a single pattern but rather to learn the logic behind the patterns, so that you can adapt.

Plus it has plenty of strong meta-game elements you're overlooking. You praised Fallout 4's survival mode, but by Bethesda's admission that was in part inspired by Dark Souls' balancing act between different mechanics. For example, needing to 'bank' your souls but also needing to get far enough to progress; humanity/ember providing a buff but also being invasion-prone and hard to find; weapons each having significant advantages and disadvantages - speed, range, direction, stamina cost, AoE to name a few; many rings and weapon arts providing significant buffs but also debuffs, and so on. In fact, this is an official https://bethesda.net/#en/events/game/fallout-4s-all-new-survival-mode/2016/03/29/96 from the devs who created Fallout 4's survival mode:

"[...] we wanted to force you to make interesting choices. We did that by bringing more contrasting motivations to Fallout 4 using the type of circular systems you might find in a game like Dark Souls. (By which we mean, two or more systems that push against each other.)"

I'll disagree, but I'll be the first to admit I'm not the biggest fan of that particular franchise to begin with.

I find that trying to apply Dark Souls or the Witchers combat methodology into TES is like trying to say, fit a round peg into a square hole. Greater enemy variety and actually giving certain humanoids different priorities and strategies based on their own skill set. And while combat is a corner piece to those franchises, character development is (or should) what TES is about before anything else. Trying to pin down how combat should work without talking about what character stats are involved in the game, and how they ultimately effect combat and how enemies respond is putting the cart before the horse. After that framework is build, then you can get into how enemies behave and attack the player, and what tools we have at our disposal to defend ourselves with.

Yeah... Frankly, I'm with Dargor on this... But my distaste for Dark Souls has been well stated here. I just don't think they're particularly well made, and they get far more praise based entirely on their 'difficulty' in the same way that WoW gets condemned for 'Dumbing Down', when both are basically little more than elitist yammering. If you LIKE the games, fine. I like some pretty horrible games (Hexen II, for instance) but that doesn't mean they're well made, or applicable conceptually to other things.

Dark Souls has almost nothing to offer, combat wise, to TES, unless the basic mechanisms of interaction are dramatically changed.

I think it's a little more back and forth than that, though. How interactions, Combat included, function is as much a driving element in what characteristics and stats are at play. I think that the conceptual elements, IE trying to determine what you want to be able to do, is the first step. From there, you can examine what actions can accomplish those goals, and what stats would naturally impact those actions.

I don't want to sidetrack the thread with talk of DS too much (I know its fans can be annoyingly preachy) so perhaps I'll highlight things that I think can be applied from the DS philosophy. Whether you think DS succeeds at these or not is technically irrelevant, provided we can agree that they would work in TES:

- More varied enemies, with more unique abilities and moves...

- ...stemming from that, said moves and abilities should derive from their weapons. DS is unmatched for giving virtually every weapon a unique moveset that both enemies and players can use. No more 'generic swinging a dagger/sword/mace/axe' animation.

- More satisfying blocking and parrying.

- Better responsiveness to damage being taken and received in the form of staggering and knock-downs.

- Animations/visuals/sound effects that are readable and distinct enough to let you know what's going on.

- Meaningful stat driven equipment (both regarding player stats, and the weapon's own stats). If there's one thing that's sadly underappreciated about DS by people who don't play it, it's how deep and important stats are to the game - arguably more-so than any other AAA non-turn-based RPG in at least the past decade. It runs rings around TES, even going back to Morrowind (for weapons, at least).

I don't actually think that's necessary... Nor do i really think it adds much to the game. Part of the problem with how Dark Souls uses it's animation sets is that you're always fighting in the optimal way with a weapon. You, for instance, have no real ability to smack someone with a Rapier, even if you wanted to. Having a way to execute the 3 basic types of attacks (Thrust, Slash and Chop) with any weapon would give you all the tools you need, without restricting your options in the same way. Sure, slapping someone in the [censored] with a Rapier wouldn't do much, but you can still DO it.

This is something that i do think Dark Souls gets right, conceptually, but it's enemies (typically being larger or stronger, and generally hitting like freight trains) and overall execution made that concept a rather poor execution. Oblivion tried something similar, and so have several mods for Skyrim, but overall i think they universally lack a strategic element.

One idea i have proposed in the past is the idea of Stagger-Stacking. The idea basically being that while something like a Wide-Parry may disrupt you for a second, it alone isn't enough to really put you off balance. However, several successive actions that unfoot or disrupt, in relatively quick succession, could have compounding effects. So, one 'Stack' would make you Stumble, interrupting your action. A second, quick enough, would cause a full on stagger. And a third, while you're staggered, will knock you down. So, for instance, a Wide-Parry, followed by a Shield Bash, followed by a Kick, could knock an opponent on their ass.


It offers some Combo-actions, a little more wiggle room in combat (assuming enemy AIs can handle trying to do it to you) and gives you some strategic options.

This, i will agree with entirely though. While i think, in some cases, it's not intuitive and even makes no sense, the games do have a very heavy emphasis on stats. I think there are far better ways to go about it (for instance, i don't think Weapons should have any sort of inherent Speed stat, but rather that should be derived from Dexterity and the Weapons Weight, adjusted a bit by Strength) but again, the overall concept is a good one.

While the distinct animations are perfectly fine for the type of combat mechanics DS has (3rd person, Zelda-ish, heavily pattern-driven), I'm not too keen on TES adopting that style. TES, in my opinion, would benefit more from a timing and direction-based system a la Mount&Blade, Chivalry, etc (as Lach said), where the animations can be more generic but also more, I dunno how to put it, freeform? I.e each click corresponds to one attack with the weapon, and you always have complete control of your character's movement.

Yea I'd prefer TES remaining realistic instead of "Every enemy is almost a powerhouse that'll kill you!" and not do the same bullcrap "it's good because it's difficult" artificial difficulty that games like Dark Souls and Dragon's Dogma did where enemy scaling made no sense and everything bigger then you is a powerhouse

TES is good in that I feel powerful as I'm becoming powerful. The power of things make sense in the game, going from a simple wanderer to a bad-ass sorcerer in a TES game feels rewarding whereas Dark Souls and Dragon's Dogma doesn't feel rewarding.

Well, I will defend Dark Souls combat system also in my thread about combat system in TES games I've suggested to take Dark Souls features.

Now I'm playing Dark Souls 3 and I'm loving every minute of it. Combat system is indeed a thing, that adds much fun to it.

So you say that Dark Souls games are... bad? Because you don't like them? Maybe it's not a game for you, but definitely it's not a bad game.

So why I want Dark Souls combat features in TES games? Simply because they are well made. I'm rather shocked, that I see that much critique about Souls combat.

Different movesets are bad idea? I disagree. Skyrim has only two animation types: one-handed and two-handed so it makes weapon diversity very low. Every weapon feels same, no matter it's a katana, it's a mace or dagger, it feels like same weapon. It ends up that in game I use weapon that has most attack points.

In Dark Souls every weapon type is unique, thanks to unique movesets and it creates very great diversity in weapons and builds. Before player chooses a wepaon they have to think about it, because attack points are not everything. Animation affects things like how many enemies it can hit once, how much room for attack you have, how fast you can attack before enemy hits you. Also Souls uses weapon's hitbox instead of outdated hit detection from Skyrim, that doesn't differ much from hit detection in FPS games, so it's accurate and it registers hit only when weapon visually hits enemy.

I don't think it's good idea to let player chose, how they use weapon. It was in Morrowind, player could choose between chop, slash and smash and players were using this strongest type of attack ignoring two others. Sometimes balance is better than realism.

Of course, I don't want to completely clone DS combat into TES, even it wouldn't work fully because of first person mode (for example, in DS character rotates in moving direction), but this game is a really good game to be inspired with when making combat. I'd say also it's really great when it comes to level design and how it could be used in TES, but that's for an other topic.

I'm sorry, but that is completely untrue. Dark souls has NO artificial difficulty. Player's task is to fight with enemy tactically, not spam attacks mindlessly. Character progression exist pretty much in this game, there's no level scaling like in Skyrim, so don't complain that high level enemies kill you in few hits.

And Souls games are not difficult at all, they just require to master skills. Easy to learn, hard to master philosophy. Skyrim is easy to learn and easy to master, not really good design.

I think the one thing TES combat really needs are some enhanced animations (especially in first person) and attacks that actually feel like they have weight and an impact on the enemy. Both the PC and the NPC should react responsively to attacks and be staggered either only a little bit or heavily depending on the physical strength, skills and perks of both characters, as well as the stats of the weapons and armors equipped. Minor visual effects like improved blood splatters and actual wounds and injuries on the character models would help a great deal as well to further immerse the player.

Skyrim's melee combat was a huge step into the right direction compared to Oblivion when it comes to realism but it still felt somewhat bland and like you were hitting a target dummy instead of an actual living being that is trying to defend itself. Further improving the AI similar to how the big combat mods do it should also be considered. I think Fallout 4 implemented some decent cover mechanics that enemies actually made use of which was quite refreshing to see. It's obviously nowhere near perfect but I feel like they could build upon them, at least for ranger type foes or mages.

The problem with Skyrim's combat is that it's way to simple and boils down to boring face-tanking and mindless hacking 90% of the time. Game like the Witcher 3 and Darks Souls add in a much more interactive and interacting combat in many ways. From combat mechanics like parrying, counter attacks, AND dodge rolling/side steps along with other differences like enemy types behaving uniquely and having special attack patterns and animations.

I've never played a DS game but I still recognize why players like it's combat and find it interesting. I feel taking some aspects from it would be well used in a TES game, obviously not copy/pasting but taking the mechanic and making it it's own. Things like weapon stats and special attack animations for weapons is something TES could very well use although I think it'd be better introduced in Warframe's weapon stances for weapon type rather than per individual weapon.

I feel unique weapon stances and patterns will work a lot better than the more combat sim like chop/slash/thrust style. A huge reason to that it requires a lot less control input to get it to work which is a huge issue as most people will be playing with a controller. Trying to implement a combat system that lets you attacks 3 ways, block & parry, use magic, and other items like potions, and possible even dodge/roll while staying fluid with so few controller inputs is a nightmare that is quite possibly impossible. By removing the different attack types for stances/movesets you eliminate a huge part of that problem.

No, I say Dark Souls is a bad game because it's poorly designed. A good deal of its difficulty comes from using mechanics and controls for things they aren't designed for (movement, for instance, is not designed around maneuvering through tight spaces or ledges) it's combat is simplistic and repetitive and relies on players being impatient to inject its difficulty, and the game lacks any real explanation if stat-interaction (which it's community then datamines and argues that the vagueness promotes community interaction, while many of the same people complain about the 'Good old days' when games came with proper manuals). It's primary learning mechanism is punished, the game suffers numerous translation errors which are given a free pass (and would be ridiculed in any other game) and frankly, it's not really CHALLENGING, so much as time consuming.


That's not to say Skyrim is a well made game either. Frankly, I don't think Bethesda has ever HAD a well made game. But enjoying a poorly put together game doesn't make it good, and recognising the problems even in something you love is crucial to improving.

The problem is, Dark Souls strips you of the ability to use a weapon 'improperly'. While Skyrim lacks the ability to differentiate weapons, Dark Souls lacks the ability to be creative in the use of weapons. It's much easier to fix Skyrims problem, within Skyrims style, than it is to fix Dark Souls in its own style.


As soon as you start determining animaations and options by the weapon you use you start limiting the range of choices and interactions available. A Rapier becomes ONLY a thrusting weapon, an Axe becomes ONLY a chopping weapon. That they are vastly superior in one approach or another shouldn't be the justification for taking away the ability to use them in an inferior approach.


Admittedly, Morrowind isn't a good example of how to do it right either. Its combat offered absolutely no reason to use anything BUT the best attack. There are ways around that...


But fixing Skyrims combat, making it more strategic, containing more variables, and offering more control, is far easier to do than to take Dark Souls style of combat (or Assassin's Creed, Arkhams, The Witchers etc) and achieving the same thing.


Actually, I think it would be quite easy.


You only need 3 control inputs for attacking with Melee weapons, which can be accomplished with 2 buttons and still have room for a Throw Weapon option. You'd need 2 control inputs for Movement, which can be done with one button per direction or a single anologue stick. And a single button for a radial menu.


With Skyrims style of having control of each hand individually, you could accommodate all those options with as few as 5 buttons (1 for each hand, a Power Attack/Throw button, a Movement anologue Stick and a Radial Menu activator).

Banks would be nice to see in larger cities. Imperial City would of made sense to have one. They are nice for those who do not fast travel as well. If I have a lot of stuff I'd like to keep and bring back to my home, but I'm still doing things in and around the city, I can use the bank.