If there will be 30 lvls (confirmed) I want them every level!!

fallout has never had anywhere near enough perk options. You play a certaIin build and find only 3-4 perks actualy make rp or even powergamer sense for that character.

So I dont realy care how often they show up I care how many options in total we get and if there are options for high/low stat/skill chars.

I am sick and tired of the same perks on every freaking char I make.

I had a nightmare just now. A terminator godlike character.
Updated Hardness+Robotics expert+Cyborg+100% Energy weapon+3 chained branches of energy perks+ Grim Reapers = The new uber perk GOD MODE.

Hehe...I'd prefer that to being forced to be good at everything.

:rofl: But you realise with the NV system and your specialization idea. With my uber chain you could be unkillable by level 14. And plasma weapons will make all armour seem like butter. with 8 more perks available. 16 levels of godhood here I come.
That should give the forums a heart attack of rage.

Now, I'm not going to argue for one side or the other on this thing, just state my own personal opinion.

In my own opinion, I think that we should get perks every level. With Fallout 2, the level cap was 99 (if memory serves), so having a perk every 3 levels was okay (at the end you would have 33 perks). For Fallout 3 the level cap was 20 (not counting Broken Steel), so you'd have 20 perks at the end. With Fallout: New Vegas, at current stage, we'll have 15 perks (perk every two levels, 30 levels 30/2=15). Now, in my own opinion, unless the perks are made to cover a lot more stuff (i.e. the Fallout: New Vegas version of the ''thief'' perk would give you +15 to security, sneak, lockpick, small guns, and science), 15 perks just doesn't seem enough for me. Especially if you look at Fallout 3 and include Broken Steel, that means Fallout 2 you got 33 perks, Fallout 3 (+Broken Steel) you get 30 perks, Fallout: New Vegas... 15? :/ It just doesn't seem to fit.

Like I said: Unless the perks cover a lot more ground, 15 just doesn't seem enough. Maybe having skills cover more stuff rather than perks? Maybe allow you to get a lot more perks outside of leveling? These would seem acceptable compromises, but as it is the numbers just don't feel right.

Again, this is my personal opinion, but giving us 33, then 30 perks, but now 15? It feels wrong. Thank's for listening! :flamethrower: :ahhh:

You do realise that noone will ever have the time or patience to grind their way up to lvl 99 right?
It's not impossible to reach, but I hardly believe anyone has ever reached it without character editor or cheating.

Btw, have you played fallout 2?
To even reach lvl 10 takes a loooooong time unless you've beaten the game 20 times and know exactly where to go or if you follow a guide.
Reaching lvl 20... Grind, grind, then grind some more, and grind again.
Lvl 30, let's just say it's really hard.
lvl 40, not worth the effort.

For the sake of balance every 2 levels still I cannot believe that 47 voted for every level.

i think it should be every three levels with a higher level cap, but im sure that what ever obsidian and bethesda do will be perfect. :thumbsup:

In the originals you could barely get 8 perks... Perk gain could be once every three levels and you'd still get more than that, no need to increase the cap. Like I said, the only (good) reason to go less than perk per 3 levels is if there are tons of awesome perks, and even then I'm not so sure...

Perks you get less often that are more useful sounds about right... that's how the original games had it. Getting a perk every level in Fallout 3 made it seem like there were 50 perks and 5 good ones.

This just means that it will be a little bit more difficult to play on hardcoe. Oh well, I'll see what happens when the game comes out.

As some one else has stated, your assumption about F2 is wrong. Id just like to get to this point though: Those multi-level perks which merely boosted skillpoints feel like a total rip off for me, They were boring in F3 and i hope to god we don't see them comming back in too much force in NV. I didnt initially have a problem with them in the originals, but their over abundance turned me sour to the whole idea.

Skill points perks should be merged with trainers - the trainer in san fran that teaches you unarmed could give you a perk that boosts your skill points instead of just the boost. Skill points you gain via level ups should be merged with existing weak perks, or have new abilities added to them. Black widow / lady killer could may as well give you a small boost to speech, for instance. But this assuming skill points gain upon level up is also low.
Also, quest rewards (duh).

Where do you see this information, in Fallout 3 they have perks every 2 levels but there were about 3 or 4 new perks every two levels so there were about 60 perks and only 20 levels to collect them all. So I speculate that New Vegas will be the same, offering you more than 30 perks but only you have so many levels in which you can get those perks. So in turn you will not be able to collect them all.

Well... There are about 6 billion people in the world and everyone might not agree with you.

Just saying

I just thought that there would be less.

I am in favor of a perk per level, and the above is one of the reasons why.

I have repeatedly stated that it's not the number of perks that's the problem, it's the content within. My main suggestion has been to take the perks and expand them, such as in the above example, so that in order to become really good at a particular skill you have to do a lot more than just add skill points. Furthermore, no one perk would be all that powerful although those high-tier perks with stiff requirements would offer somewhat more than low-tier ones you can get pretty much right away.

OP perks like GRS or PP would be removed, as would +skill ones, and those that give to-hit bonuses in VATS would be expanded as well so that one would need to take a bunch of perks to be good at VATS combat rather than achieving 'God of War' status with just 3-4.

Will I change it from every 2 levels to every one? That depends on the contents of the perks and how they play with the various systems.

There's a reason games are evolving into shiny red "I win" buttons that eject pretty lights, explosions, and praise with a single finger prod.

I'm fine with perks every 2 levels. As long as they actually make the perks useful. Seriously, half of the perks in Fallout 3 were useless and didn't change much, +5 sneak isn't going to do crap. Besides, the perks that was actually useful was often too useful. Seriously, at level 17 I was literally able to mow down everything with a Gatling Laser and my PJs.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO :cry: This is what they're doing to Fallout> :gun: :fallout: There were over sixty perks in Fallout 3. You only got to choose 30 with the addition of Broken Steel. Several of those perks were multi-tiered, so it all worked out. Those "mixed reactions" better bring back the every- level-perk.

There's still 29 perks to gain if they are given per level. How long would the perktrees need to be to not allow "overly" advantages for too many skills? The perktree idea is good, but I'd still say 15 (even 10) perks is well enough for it too, if they are made to give a feeling of reward even by themselves (which, I think, wouldn't be as strongly there if the perktrees were overly long).

The point of long perk trees is to make it so that you need to firmly commit to a given type of character, and 15 perks might not be enough. That would depend on whether or not a given character is to be allowed to master more than one skill, although I have a feeling doing so would be almost mandatory which would mean needing more perk picks.

See, the idea is that rather than any one perk being all that rewarding on its own, the net result of amassing the skills from that tree is the reward since that character is now master of that chosen field. Since it would take a considerable investment to get there, it would feel as if that character earned his/her level of ability rather than being godly after only 3-4 perks.

The fact you could achieve 'God of War' status in FO3 by taking 3-4 VATS perks is precisely the kind of thing that makes me worry about having only 15 selections, since by default they would have to be quite strong individually to make any one worth taking with such a limited number of choices and that sounds like it would end up going much the same way. That is completely contrary to what I'm looking for, which is for them to not be strong individually so that you have to build up a character over his or her career rather than basically being finished halfway through.

While it's true that under the tree system it might feel like you're taking perks simply to get to the top of the tree, if done properly you're steadily gaining in ability in the process which would make it worthwhile. Sure, it wouldn't be the huge leaps you get from some perks in FO3, but we saw where that system got us: any given character only 'needed' about 6-7 perks because each one granted a massive increase in ability, which left the other 20-odd to be filled as the player saw fit. Under the tree system you'd need most of those 20-odd to fill out more than, say, two trees, thus there would never be a point at which perks were being taken as 'filler'.

This is certainly one way to go, but weakening each perk, "expanding" it as you say, would remove the definition of "perk" from perks.
I don't like perks being prerequisites for other perks really, the way I see it perks complement your character, not make it (skills do that!). They're the icing on the cake, not the body - skill, SPECIAL and level make a solid method of character building - it's flexible enough but still allows you to specialize.
I say make perks even better - fuse different perks, combine skill points perks with normal perks (of the same field), enhance other perks if needed, then make them available every third level up. Every perk you'd take would affect your character immensely, so it's probably not the best approach (as there's the need to appeal to mainstream, and this is somewhat strict). So somewhere along the middle of what GM suggested and what I'm suggesting. Would probably end up being 2 per level with sufficient levels of awesomeness.

Sure. But what I was after was that the player should actually feel the progress even before the "goal". What you suggested is, imo, perfectly doable with 2 perks per level (15 total) and as the perks, even by themselves, would be stronger it would raise up some tension in picking them. "Should I follow this "tree" or pick that other tempting one that's most useful now at this given situation?" The commitment aspect would still be there, but with bigger tension and actually feelable sense of progress. Plus, the reward would feel bigger since the longer wait and bigger effect. The perks can always be balanced so that 3-4 don't make you a god, even though their effects are bigger.