That problem was only in the later games. They could have given less skill points at level up and/or make it take longer to level so you don't max out before you got the DLC done to fix that.

Makes sense.

It will definitely be every level. Obsidian did every second level in NV to be like the old games, but when Bethesda made FO3, they said that in play-testing people enjoyed picking perks and complained on the odd levels when they didn't get one. Picking perks was fun, so they did it every level. They wouldn't change that, especially if picking a perk is all we get to do at level-up.

Assuming it's true that we'll get a perk every level, they would need to be balanced in such a way that you're not stronger than God by level twenty. Hopefully Beth has learned how to balance their way out of a wet paper bag this time around. I'm not too optimistic about that, but still hopeful.

Has to be one perk per level and should balance fairly well.

Figure it took two level to reach the next breakpoint (25/50/75/100) on a skill like Lockpicking or Science in F3 and FONV.

Now you can buy a skill perk and have access to the next breakpoint immediately.

But you also have to get the other perks.

If half the time you get skill perks and the other half you get one of the other perks, then your advancement rate will be about the same as Fallout New Vegas.

Well Spell crafting and the new equipping spell system each have positives and negatives, I can't deny that. I'm not happy about the things we lost but I also can see what was gained, I know people hate the "spreedsheety" interview of Howard but he had a point, to be honest I wasn't a die hard fan of spell crafting in previous games, all 90% of people did with it was to make unbalanced and OP spells with it. He also said they tried other alternatives to make it work more dynamically but in the end they just removed it all, like I said they tend to do that,, my point is the reasoning here is NOT necessarily to adhere to filthy casuals (whatever that means anyway) but it's to make a better game.
Relatively minor game changes aren't all about money.
About scaling, I agree, I wonder why they never patched it.
BTW I think it's very likely we see spell crafting in one form or another in the next TES game.

I mentioned shouts because you said they are removing different stuff to dumb it down, I proved that they are not doing that as there are more of them in Skyrim. I don't miss spell crafting as much as some people do and I can acknowledge what we have "gained" with Skyrim's new system. You don't seem to see any though.

I could go over about your other points but whatever, you seem to be a rude and angry person, so I don't care enough to have a discussion with you.
By the way, people who see things differently than you, are not lying to themselves. That's not a hard concept to grasp.

No.

Someone already pointed this out in the comments section by the time I watched this. Gopher basically criticizes that "guns" is a blanket skill covering everything from pistols to miniguns, but then suggests an alternative perk system covering one handed guns vs. two handed ones is superior, while failing to highlight that there's just as much absurdity because again, a rifle user can use a minigun, and under his system energy weapons and guns are handled the same.

Overall, what's important is the implementation. For example it is fully 100% possible to provide a perk for every gun type, from pistols to revolvers to rifles to miniguns to SMGs to snipers, etc etc. Even then that can be flawed, because that might overload the perk pool and create balance issues. Point is that any system can work with proper implementation, just as any system can fail with improper implementation....

And Gopher has provided no valid argument as to why Bethesda's implementation will succeed. He's speculating and being optimistic, but that's that. His overall points made are flawed, as pointed out above.

The best we can do is presume the system will resemble the older systems they've used as one can reasonably presume the company will create something that resembles it's older work, AKA Skyrim. If you weren't fond of Skyrim's system, prepare to cry. If you were fond of it, prepare to be satisfied as hell.

And if you want my cynical opinion (you don't, I giving it anyways), Gopher is in the denial stage.

Fallout 4's skills are not comparable to Skyrim's attributes. Skills are measurable quantities in Fallout 4 (apparently), but attributes are not measurable quantities in Skyrim. In Fallout 4, if asked how skilled our character is in Science, we can say, "He is rank 1, which means he can do x and y" or "He is rank 2, and that means he can do x, y, and z." In Skyrim, if asked how strong our character is, or how smart, we have no quantifiable answer, because we have no units of measure for those attributes.

This

And since F4 is Skyrim 1.5 (or ES 5.5), if this works out I'd not be surprised to see stats return to ES6 and play much the same role as in F4.

How do you feel about that?

I'd gladly have Skills merged in to Perk if we got Stats back in Elder Scrolls.

Skills do little that couldn't be done by counting the number of perks for that tree the character has.

Wouldn't it be great to have a real strength stat to determine your damage bonus?

What the hell is this?

I wasn't comparing Fallout's skill system to Skyrim's attribute system (which barely even exists), I was comparing it to Skyrim's perk system. This entire post of yours just debunks a point that nobody was making to begin with.

Unless you cheat - which is what I am going to do (no: I am not ashamed of myself because: Firstly I play for the story (that's why I will never touch the realistic difficulty which adds weight to ammo etc.), secondly it's a singleplayer game so I am not hurting anyone by doing it (I would never cheat in multiplayer because that's just damned unfair!) and thirdly I think a character who really thrives in the wastes (and not just barely lives from day to day and has to do things he/she doesn't want to in order to survive (like prostitution - no: I am not saying every prosttute in Fallout is forced into it or anything!)) must be exceptional!)

greetings LAX

Trying to save face eh? It makes your failure more apparent

Of course the implementation is every thing, but Bethesda doesn't seem to be rushing this.

And it looks to be 100% better than what they did in Skyrim with stats so I'm hopeful.

There is such a difference in merging skills in to perks which already are a big part of a PC's abilities and making the Special stats matter more, than compared to merging all the skills together.

We just need three skills, say Kill Things, Steal/Sneak/Open Things, and Build/Fix Things (KT, SSOT, and BFT).

We don't need any speech, barter, or lore/scientific skills because the player can provide all that.

You know make merging skills in to perks and making Special Stats matter 500% better than what they did in Skyrim.

A crack pistol shot doesn't automatically know how to use a mini gun or M60 to best effect.

An expert with a mini gun would do controlled burst that stayed on target better, using less ammo, and not heating up the weapon as much so less chance of jams and the like.

If they have a good "eye", that is a high perception, they will both be above average but the one with more training and experience with a particular weapon will be better with it.

So perks that reduced spread and recoil would be much more useful with automatic weapons.

Perks that increased your rate of fire are more useful for someone using a pistol or a sniper rifle than someone using an SMG.

Perks that increase your zoom or reduce the wobble on the weapon are more useful for a sniper or sharpshooter.

Perks that helps with sidearms is obviously useful to someone using a 44 magnum or a Plasma Defender.

By paying attention to the what the perk does, how big the effect, and what weapons it applies to, they should be able to have a good balance.

Obviously some perks like Rapid Reload would improve the Sole Survivors skills with all guns.

But having perks that effect certain aspects of the combat system and how the Sole Survivor uses the weapon in game provides a better reflection of someone that is experienced and skilled with that type of weapon.

More perks that apply to the weapon means being better using it than someone without the perks.

So more perks equals more skilled (better) and isn't that the way it is suppose to be?

It looks like F4 has added additional skill perks to the game including additional ones for guns and energy weapons.

And many of the perks will now have extra ranks so there are now even more guns and energy weapon perks to chose from.

More perks means it is harder to get all the firearms perks and allows the players to chose exactly what he wants to specialize in and the order he does.

Or he can choose to be a generalist concentrating on perks that effect all weapons and taking a spread of the more specialized weapon perks.

So you can decide exactly what experience and abilities your Sole Survivor has in guns and energy weapons.

And depending on what stats and perks a Sole Survivor has, he or she will play very differently in the game.

More specialization and choices provides better roleplaying and replay value.

I agree with Gopher. If I'm understanding the concept, you gain the same benefit from the perk as you would from points. Sounds good to me.

But he isn't trying to say Bethesda will get it right and he doesn't claim they will do what he says here, he is trying to show people how the removal of skills is not necessarily bad.
I didn't catch the flaw you mentioned, if you start bad at every gun then take a perk to make you better with every energy weapon you are now slightly better with all types of energy and still crappy with regular guns. Now if you take a perk related to pistols, you are reasonably well with Energy pistols and a little good with regular pistol but you are still rubbish with everything else, Where is the flaw ?

No opinion. I'm flexible.

Knee-jerk reaction, sorry. The whole comparing of Fallout 4's perk system to Skyrim's in this forum did not happen because Fallout 4's system looks like Skyrim's. It happened because people saw nothing labeled "Skills" in Fallout 4 and erroneously concluded that Skills are gone from Fallout 4 in the same fashion that attributes are gone from Skyrim. That false perception became a basis for claiming that Fallout 4's perk system is dumbed down. You compared Fallout 4's system to Skyrim's, and my knee jerked.

Todd Howard has addressed this directly in the http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/11723096/Fallout-4-interview-Bethesdas-Todd-Howard-on-building-the-apocalypse.html:

Seems like Gopher was dead wrong. He was clinging on to the idea that the combat would be just as stat driven as it was in Fallout 3, but obviously it won't be. He's giving people false hope. Getting them excited basically to play a Fallout 3.5 instead of Fallout 4. This is a new game.

There was really no "compensating" for poor skill stats in Fallout 3. If you had a 17 in that weapon you basically couldn't use it at higher levels without leveling it up. To say that your aiming skills with a controller can "compensate" is basically saying that they'll have perks that help with recoil or something like that. There might be perks that affect your aim while strafing, for example. It won't be as bad as COD, but definitely not like Fallout 3. You people need to get that out of their heads immediately.

I agree with you about combat in Fallout 4 being FPS with skill perk's directly impacting the combat in game.

I think Gopher does too.

Gopher is only pointing out that VATS still has a percentage chance to hit.

This has to come from some where (the Perception stat I believe) and is affected by VATS perks.

So if you play mostly using the VATS/Bullet Time, then it will compensate for your poor FPS skills and be some what like Fallout 3.

And Todd Howard said that with the right perks, VATS is very powerful.

More powerful than doing Fallout 4 as a straight FPS.

As far as compensating at least for FONV, if you didn't have the strength min or the skill min, then the weapon had a lot of wobble.

If you were good enough, you could compensate for that.

It might be "powerful" in the sense that it can still give you an advantage, but you might only be able to use it sparingly. I pretty much used Vats in almost every combat situation in NV and F3. If I'm spending most of my time out of Vats in combat then that's a huge difference for me.

I guess I can see the "gun nut" perk for example giving a 10% boost in damage for each level, but it won't be a 1-to-1 replacement of skills like Gopher is insinuating. That's just going right back to the stat driven combat that was in Fallout 3 and NV.

It's not just the wobble in Fallout 3. The fact that you aren't doing any damage with a skill of 17 at level 30 would make the game impossible to beat. You can't compensate for that.

Gopher just needs to accept what's coming. I'm looking forward to the changes myself.

Nah, just more dumbing down. Bethesda's forte.

Abysmal news.

Aside: VATS should not give you any advantage at all; it's a shame what they've done.

Aimed shots in Fallout and in Fallout 2 give you an advantage. In any Fallout game, a shotgun gives you an advantage, a baseball bat gives you an advantage, and a laser rifle gives you an advantage.

In Fallout 3, VATS is not an "I win" button. The game is balanced so that enemies can kill you in combat even when you rely on VATS. Just because your character may be better off when you use VATS does not mean that VATS is giving him an unfair advantage over his enemies. A fair fight can be one that uses VATS, whereas avoiding VATS altogether might give the enemy an unfair advantage over you.

Reducing the influence of our character's ability scores is not a part of Todd Howard's meaning when he talks about improving the FPS-style combat and action combat.

Have you played Fallout or Fallout 2?
Combat relied upon character potential, and character skill. PC potential was APs; what could be managed in mere seconds by them. Any choice lessened the remaining potential; bad choices left them vulnerable. Choosing no action or ending a turn with some APS unspent [uncommitted] left potential available to be applied to defense. Aimed shots used more APs than shooting from the hip; hence they made the PC more vulnerable, and if the shot missed, or failed as a critical hit, then the gamble failed to pay off and they were lacking defense for the remainder of the round. Most characters in Fallout 1 & 2, could only manage one aimed shot per round, so it was usually an all or nothing commitment, unless they happened to be in melee range, and could try to swing a punch..
Oh yes it is. What other name is there, for an essentially free time-stop, that allows multiple shots fired while affording a 90% damage shield against return fire?

At least VATS is character-stats based. For someone who is so strongly against player skill coming into the equation, I would have thought you would be very pro-VATS. It only gives you an edge if you should have an advantage based on your weapons skill--if a melee-focused character is using VATS with a laser rifle, it may well turn out worse than if he's free-shooting outside of VATS.

VATS is a sham. As a mechanic, it's an "I win" button (as noted above), also it aims for center mass (afaik), and that means that if the targets hips and abdomen are behind cover, then a head shot will miss. Lastly, aimed shots in the Fallout series have [had] progressively increasing difficulty (risk) for a chance at commensurate gains from critical damage and after effects. Targets were ranked by area mass, and so the eye was harder to hit than the leg; critical effects differ between targets. FO3's VATS merely assigns difficulty by proximity... So whatever is closest is easiest to hit; and the simplified critical hit system is just a predefined critical chance for additional damage.