The problem you're describing needs to be addressed by balancing certain perks against all the other perks. In the tree system, where would you put some "miscellaneous" perks, like cannibalism, life giver, mysterious stranger? What more is, Fallout isn't that kind of RPG - the kind of predetermined paths, where if you invest in a certain combat skill it's obvious which 20 perks you'd be taking.

Wa, feels like I'm double-teaming with decaff against GM.
I'm gonna let you boys put most of your arguments out there, will join back in later.

I'd like it to be a perk every 3 levels past a certain point. Like as soon as you hit lvl 10 perks are more spread out. Im still happy with what it is at, though.

I like this, I view perks in a similar vein as the original traits (I know there were perks as well, bear with me). They define your character not only in ability but in who they are. For me at least, this is a roleplaying game. I make roles for my character (or normally a basic skeleton of a role) and then engross myself in that character, I act as them and live as they would. That's how I personally play this game, thus I do not choose perks based on benefit, but on roleplay, what would I, as a murderous and sadistic psychopath, choose? What about if I was a cheery, happy go lucky and slightly dumb coward?

Point is, having perks every level makes this more difficult, every other level enhances roleplay and allows for more influential perks.
The 'perk tree' idea is ok but again has the problem of limiting choice. One character may be incredibly diverse, few are going to be so specialised that a progressive perk tree will be of use.

That depends on what one's definition of a 'perk' is. To me, they are abilities your character picks up over the course of his/her career via use of skills that represent those areas at which that character excels in use of those skills.

See, to me having 100 in a skill is only part of the equation- it represents the ability to at least employ all the various aspects of that skill while not excelling at any particular one. This is where perks come in- they represent that character having focused on one or more aspects of a given skill category while not improving others. Take the FO3 skill Small Guns, for example: under my setup having 100 in it would represent that character having at least a working knowledge of the various weapons covered thereby, while the associated perks would represent excelling at one particular aspect of it, such as pistol use. Under this setup, the perks would enable that character to get far more out of pistols than one with 100SG and rifle-related perks would, and vice versa. Thus, if you want to truly master Small Guns you're going to need to sink a lot of perks into it rather than the current setup whereby after taking 3-4 perks you're a better marksman than Marine snipers.

As to some perks needing others as prerequisites, it makes sense when you consider that in order to really specialize at something you first have to master the more basic aspects- to become a master marksman, for example, one must first master the abilities to judge windage, distance, ballistic drop, etc. that determine when to take a shot and when not to as well as where to aim when doing so. This sort of thing is what the 'tree' system does- it represents the gradual development of a given character's mastery of a particular skill.

It's the 'bigger' part I am worried about, since if each component needs to be larger in order to make a whole out of fewer pieces then we're heading right back into the mess FO3 created wherein there were 6-7 perks every character took because they gave big increases to performance. By advancing in smaller increments one removes the 'mandatory' aspect from any one perk since you really don't need it, which allows for more variety in overall selection. The trick is to balance the ability to choose at will with the need to take a list of 'specialist' perks so that you can actually develop a given character along a chosen path.

It is with that in mind that I feel we need more than 15 selections, since more picks means a more fully-developed character rather than one of 100 minor variations of the same cookie-cutter base. To that end I am willing to sacrifice some amount of power from the individual perks in order to have a strong, well-built whole.

:stare:
If anything it was Bethesda that :gun: :fallout: . (again, even though my negativity I love fallout 3.)
Or are you one of those that don't consider Fallout 1 and 2 canon?


Use multiquote please.

I would have, except the second comment I quoted was posted while I was writing the previous response which meant I couldn't see it until the first one was submitted.

But the situation would be different here since acquiring the 6-7 perks would need double time and effort, plus it would already be half of what's available. And more over, if there was a tree system, following one tree and getting the "ultimate" bonus from completing it would need the commitment in skillbuilding due to the differing requirements for the perks - and, in addition, not following a tree and just picking 15 (or 10, if they go for every 3rd - which I really wish) random perks wouldn't really lead one nowhere near godlihood (otherwise the treesystem would be completely pointless, no?), but would still offer benefits the player sees and feels. This would, of course, need the treesystem and the perks to be carefully balanced.

How much (if any) more time it would take to get there would depend on when said perks opened up, but that still wouldn't address the problem of them being 'mandatory'.

Yes, one would still need to run the underlying skill up in order to unlock all the perks from a given tree, but that's a good thing since the act of getting the skill to 100 in and of itself would not be the end-all for that skill but rather one part of attaining mastery thereof.

No, the random 15 picks wouldn't get one anywhere if the tree system were implemented, assuming balanced perks, and IMO, at least, that would be a good thing since building a strong character should require a commitment to doing so rather than being handed to you after only a few picks.


This being Obsidian, it's a good bet the perks will be far more balanced than in FO3. I'm just a bit leery of any design that allows a character to even approach godhood until the highest levels, and a system of fewer but stronger perk choices seems to me to be headed in that direction. I could be wrong, since I know nothing of the contents of NV's perks, but I am concerned nonetheless.

With the more time, I meant that it would need double the levelups at the very least. And since Sawyer has said the skillpoint economy will be more frugal, and if the requirements gradually grow to the point of nigh maxed skill, I'd say it would take considerable amount of time and effort to reach the top of the tree - most likely nearer the endgame than half of it. It would also (likely) force the player to choose several trees and to pay bigger attention to how he builds his/her character if wanting reach the ultimate state of a skill (perktree topped, and skill maxed).

The mandatory part I'm not a fan of. But, there are certain benefits (subjective matter in this case) to it. Like putting up the tension in picking the perks, having to put some thought to it. But as said, I'm not a fan of the forced picking.

Your concern is very legitimate and I do share it - up to a point at least. I just don't see it as much of a danger in the tree system we're discussing with every 2nd level perks. And in this case too, I hold quality over quantity. Rather less more meaningfull perks than a lot of less meaningful. The less meaningful system doesn't allow the progress to be felt much until the "goal" is nearly reached, and that (imo) can make the "journey" to the treetop feel more of a chore than a rewarding experience.

I didn't see you disagreeing with my points too much anymore. So I guess we've at least found the same page with this, if not the same paragraph.

The progress in the 'less meaningful' system is felt more gradually, rather than every couple of/few levels getting a 'sudden' increase. I will grant it can be harder to see for many folks, I am very much an 'old-school' gamer and as such I notice the difference from smaller increases more readily. My intent is not to make individual perks meaningless, but rather to make it such that the combined effect of stacking up the smaller increases makes for a stronger, more balanced whole that does not depend on any one perk to get there aside from the necessity of having the lower-tier stuff to unlock the higher tiers.

Basically I am trying for both quality and quantity, where the 'quality' part is measured both in the individual perks and the end result of completing a given line thereof and the 'quantity' part in the need to take several perks to get to the top of any one tree. The latter is why I would rather have more choices, since it is highly likely one would need to max more than one tree for any given character type.

I noticed some comments on potential loss of 'RP' perks in this scheme: those could either be made into Traits, or incorporated in perk trees at low tiers so you wouldn't need to 'over-invest' to get them.

One perk per two levels sounds like a hardcoe mode thing, not for normal mode. Sure it can get overpowered by the end but I cannot count the number of times I've been saved in a firefight by leveling up and getting that one perk that let me take more damage and finish off the rest of the mutants, with the limitation I feel like it'll bite me in the ass if I don't do it right which sounds like something for hardcoe. Only way they could make it work is having perks that really change things instead of tiny boost to my stats.

Well, I guess it comes down to how less meaningfull the perks would be.

I consider myself something of an 'oldschool' gamer too, but the thing is, when I progress and have these extra rewards (that's what they are) beyond skillpoints and HP boosts, I want to feel them (at least to an extent) instead of having the actual 'reward' couple of levels later when more 'rewards' of the same kind have been piled up.

The thing that irked me in Fallout 3 was that I didn't feel the progress much up until I suddenly noticed it after trecking from one extreme to another. And to me, the "less meaningful" way represents just that - very small changes in a long run, or too smooth progress to be noticed in other words. And more over, from the sound of it, to feel anything major I am forced to follow a perk tree. That is not bad in it self, specialization is one of the biggest improvements I hope New Vegas will deliver, but there is no point (imo) in picking 29 random perks if they, individually, do not have an effect on the gameplay other than what the sharpest eye can spot. In my eyes it (the less meaningful style), in a way, defeats the purpose of the perks, because they'll feel too commonplace to be anything special/extra and the intended effects are "viable" (for the lack of a better word) only after stacking them up. And raising effects of individual perks just leads to overpowered characters if they are given every level.

The way I see it, perks should be those extra rewards they used to be. Wanting to "really excell" in a skill should require filling the perktree, but that shouldn't be an obstacle for having considerable (to and extent) and rewarding effects if one is not followed, so that it is worth it to pick them randomly (that would, of course count out the "really excelling" at anything, but the perks would feel like rewards nonetheless). And with 29 perks, I just don't see that happening without becoming overpowered.

Thus my comment in a previous post about the tricky part being getting the two to mesh without wrecking things.

Let me try this:

1) In the gradual method, with each added perk you might see a slight damage increase or have an easier time cracking a lock, and when you finally reach the top of the tree you can go after the toughest possible examples with at least a reasonable chance for success.

2) In the 'leap of knowledge' method you are suddenly, after just a few picks, able to crack the hardest locks or take on the toughest opposition in a firefight regardless of your current level of skill in that area.

Now, while #2 certainly appears to be more rewarding I would question exactly what sort of reward we are looking for in the first place. Are we looking for a system whereby every couple of levels we leap forward in ability and can clearly see the benefits thereof, or are we looking for a more subtle reward system where it's not the immediate results but their impact on the end product that sticks out?

I would contend that the more gradual system, despite being less immediately visible, can have a greater impact on the final character due to being able to be very finely tuned to allow for radically different characters within the same specialty, while the 'leap of knowledge' system, while being more immediately visible, is ultimately more limited in character diversity due to being predicated on functioning with a much lower number of perk selections for a given skill.

As to having 29 picks leading to being overpowered, that would not happen since the game and perks would presumably be balanced accordingly. At least, I would hope they were, given that it is Obsidian at work here.

Not necesserely so. What is "few" in your books? 4? That's 8 levelups. Almost 1/3 of the game levelwise already. And you have to take into account the skillpoint distribution, how the player allocates them and what are the requirements for each perk. If with just few picks you'd be able to crack the hardest of locks (for example) you'd be heavily lacking in other areas that are as vital as lockpicking, and dedicating one self to max out just one skill would take a certain amount of time and effort. As the player levels up the experience need raises and it's harder to reach the next one, and thus it would be harder to get the next few picks to build up the other skills. Essentially, what I'm suggesting, is the same system that you are suggesting, just more chunky and with more visible sense of progress.

I'm not wanting the bonuses from the perks to be idioticly huge, but I'm not asking just for an endgameimpact either. So it's somewhere in between (and of course representative of their reqs) those two where the endresult is very clear but still even individuals are worth picking and clearly helpful should the player decide to not follow a perktree.

Perk:
n. side income (Slang); benefit, advantage (Slang); percolator (Slang)
(more definitions are on the web, but in this context they're all along these lines)

A character can do well with any perks, in fact it could do well with no perks at all - but a character is useless without any skills. Skills are those predetermined gradual paths with an obvious eventuality that you're looking for, perks are those nifty bonuses you (should) get once in a while.
Perks don't affect your gameplay as much as skills do - whatever perks you're picking, if you have small guns as your primary skill you're going to use small guns, perks can only change your style slightly (you're always going to shoot enemies from a distance, but some guns are different than others of course).

How about each level up nets you a certain amount of "perk points" (depends on your SPECIAL) that you could invest on perks. Then you could follow a linear course, and each perk you choose increases your character's skill slightly, until you're close to maxing that tree and the change becomes noticeable. Sounds familiar? You're essentially trying to turn perks into skills. Perks need to stay what they claim they are - "perks". The few problems you mentioned are balance issues, apart from your character suddenly "leaping" every three levels which is a preference.

Exactly. Perktree system or not.

I may have an idea what if the perks in the perks list appear only if you have requirements (as a side note if someone has high firearms skill they would see all the firearms perks, this could be implented.). An example is if your character is evil he will not see any lawbringer perk listed, it is not grayed out or anything it simply does not exist for your character. This preserves the use of perks if they are balanced and are perks for that character type only.

Fine by me, we should not be able to become all powerful by level 10.

In a game where you see the dialogue choices that aren't available to you, I'd imagine you'd see all possible perks. Not seeing something is not being able to learn about its existence - and you do want to be informed as a player.
Older games were more like that, but I don't think those games' developers figured "hu hu hu, this will be challenging, we won't tell them anything, evar". More like they were preoccupied with other issues, or the whole field of gaming wasn't matured enough so no one was even aware.

You could get 5 perks every level for all I care. The point is that the perks are scaled to their availability. Each individual Perk in Fallout 3 was weak sauce, but after you get all twenty or thirty choices, you really benefit. If you only get half as many, they should be twice as powerful. Fallout 3's leveling was great up until Broken Steel. I didn't have a "god build" that could do anything by level twenty. It was the flood of skill points that was the problem. The skill setup wasn't designed for the extra couple hundred points. Besides, why do people complain about being powerful? They chose their perks and skills carefully did they not? It all falls on their choices to be powerful. People who actually liked the system presented shouldn't have to be disappointed because someone felt like they actually had some power by level 10.

In my second playthrough (before Broken Steel) I realized how I could make a perfect character, came up with a build, touched it up with some stuff I found on the Internet, and got a character to a point it could do anything, in the best manner possible (80-100 in all skills, but didn't find all books yet). It was cool doing that, I guess, but there was certainly no point in playing any other characters ever again. Then I left the game for a while, came back to it with a few DLCs, and completely maxed out my character in Broken Steel (still, not even half the books found).

I'm not sure how to explain exactly what's wrong with that, it's clearly apparent to me and I don't get how some people don't see it, but it simply isn't fun to play a perfect character. It doesn't feel like it specializes in anything, like nothing defines it, and the lack of weaknesses certainly takes all challenge and sense of danger away.
The ambition of the player is to always get stronger until you reach that "ceiling", but when the game has no ceiling or walls, you get the sense there isn't really an RPG structure at play here, it's just an FPS with some pseudo character development elements, a linear progression that doesn't mind your choices, they'll all lead to the same eventuality anyway.

I argued about this at length in the past, this isn't even the topic of this thread but you made it sound like we want Fallout: Gimp Edition or something. We just want it tight.

Not sure how you got that from my examples, if I were trying to turn perks into skills they wouldn't have any prerequisites.

Rather, what I am trying to do is make it so that you cannot take a small number of perks to be master of any given field, let alone more than one. How many levels it takes to get those few perks is not really the point, since what I am concerned about is the ability to do that at all. Attaining godly levels of power, or even coming close, should take all of one's perk selections.

IOW, if I choose to be a master of VATS combat it should take a lot of perks to get there, given the inherent advantages of the base system, rather than the 3-4 it takes in FO3.

The perks would still be 'perks', they just wouldn't be as pronounced in individual effect(s) as they are in FO3. If what is being objected to is that I want perks to not be individually strong, then I can see why you might not agree with my approach- I am willing to sacrifice power from individual perks in order to have the cumulative effect(s) of stacking them up be stronger as a whole, which seems to be a rather unpopular idea.

Umm, I got it from you saying 20 perks would be necessary to master a field, and each individual perk giving a very small bonus.

What I don't like mainly, is the "tree", prerequisites guiding you to a certain path, instead of just picking anything creating a versatile undefined class. even though combat-wise, the tendency is to maximize capabilities, so all snipers are likely to take the same few 'sniping' perks.

Well, why don't you give an example for "VATS mastery" - how many perks would it take to completely master? And is there a point to name perks anymore, shouldn't it just be "VATS Mastery" with 20 levels?

Can't answer for Slazy, but I'd guess the "perk->skill" stuff is coming from the way you present your idea. Where, as it seems to me, you're putting all the credit for becoming a god/great to perks and not taking the skills and skillpoints into account. Now, I'm likely wrong with this, but that's what it looks like.

Otherwise I do agree, state of divinity should not be achievable, cumulative effects for perks is a good idea. Only thing I disagree with is the amount of perks given and their individual effects. Those effects along with the reqs for the perks should just be balanced so that it isn't possible to create an everything-man.

Edit -I guess I'll let Slazy continue from here if he so wishes. Don't want to invade the discussion with my ramblings. Starting to repeat myself anyway.