It like this (in my opinion): When you spread the bonuses to 29 picks, they are bound to lack in substance, otherwise you will be a god. Going with this, picking 1 perk doesn't mean much at all and to reap any reward the perks are supposed to offer, you need multiple of them. The gradually growing, is primarily the job of the skills, which the perks are then supposed to enhance. But since the perks lack in substance on their own, the enhancement is felt much, much later.

Now, if you squeeze the 29 to 15, the gradual progress is much more visible and (I'd think) more satisfying to the player since the waiting for the stack to grow high enough to present the progress that is intended is compensated somehow. And all this would likely happen with same effort and time, and resulting in same situation as with more picks and less substance, but with more satisfying progress.

Specialists would still prevail, but even non-specialists would get something more out of it though having some harder times. It's not really "Hey, look! I got a cool new perk!" but more like "Hey, I think this'll come in handy". And, I must stress, I'm not wishing the perks to be overpowered by any stretch of the word.

And lastly, it's just my personal preference to not be constantly rewarded with "bonuses" (and I'm admittedly a traditionalist in this regard), and it (imo) would keep the perks more interesting throughout the game.

All in all, though, this is all dependant on what the perks actually do, more or less perks given.


(how much am I repeating myself? B) )

You're right. I usually played my games with the "gifted" trait, so I had it all wrong. Disregard that part.

I do like the collectibles though, and later in the game finding a way to enhance some of your stats through clever means. The whole Girdershade(?) ordeal was a bit early in the game.


Hey, I've been saying that!


You're within normal levels still.

Ok I am not missing the point, Truthfully I am not.
But a free style system allows you to tailor a character in minutia, Where as a tree system only finitely gives you a degree of who that player is. An expert in lasers would pick perks aligned to lasers. But not solely be focused on them. Having perks locked out due to other perks does not add roleplaying. It limits it by hedging you into being one thing. True I could stop taking higher perks in one tree and open up another. But that is the equivelent of what we have in FO3 already. Without forcing players to chose rather by giving them the option.

Perks such as AB and sniper I am afraid would be in all combat perk chains. For the simple reason they are tied to the basics of FO's combet. % to hit. Damage inflicted. chance of critical. AP's used. You see its finite unless they add more variables to the system of combat. You will end up with the same perks in all chains. You may disagree but in my opinion its futile.
You could argue faster reload speeds. Greater zoom. greater rof... so on but most of these are adressed by weapon upgrades in NV. So once again perks are limited to the basics. So why have multipule chains with the same perk effects except to limit the wide selection of perks. In which case just limit the perks which they have done.

I got class based by the simple reason. That once you start a chain unless you finish it you gain little benefit in it. So most players will always achieve the top thus picking 3 chains at most. And hedging them selves into a class focused on three specialties.
And as you pointed out under your system picking perks in one chain would remove the choice to pick from other chains. Hence a class based system.
And if your system is to offer choice. Why change from FO3, As that game was wholly about choice. If you did not want to do something you did not have to.
So please decide is yours a choice based system. Or a system where you HAVE to chose one at the exclusion of others.

I borrowed the opinion for a moment to try and make a point. I hope you don't mind. B)



Thank god. :celebrate:

Of course not, I want everyone to have my opinions, seems like the only way we can achieve world peace. :twirl:

But then who would we shout at on the internets

You have a point there.

I'd like to see the whole perk/skill relation to go either one of two ways:

1. Like in Fallout 3, where you had tons of small perks, where you can modify your S.P.E.C.I.A.L. stats a tiny bit, and skills are increased per-level or by quest rewards or items

2. A small amount of very sophisticated perks which affect many things, skills are modified both per level and by quests and items equally, S.P.E.C.I.A.L. is modified at the start of game and some way outside of the beginning, but NOT through perks. Possibly a mad scientist who messes around with your body chemistry and you can possibly buy more points for your S.P.E.C.I.A.L. stats or have to do certain quests to get another S.P.E.C.I.A.L. point?

How's 'bouts this. They divide the perks into two categories. One for minor perks, one for major. You can only take a major perk once every three levels.
It'd be like this. Minor, minor, major, minor, minor, major etc.
Of course, you could take a minor perk on the third level if you wanted. This would eliminate the feeling that players straight from Fallout 3 of not getting as much progress as they feel they should, while stopping players from being overpowered.
My 2 cents.

You could accomplish the same thing by making the prerequisites for a perk reflect the power of the perk. So, minor perks have little to no prerequisites, but powerful perks would require some combination of minimum character level, minimum skill levels, minimum attribute scores, and/or other prerequisite perks. That would be more granular/flexible than a hard categorization of the perks.

Yeah, that's a good idea too. But how many levels would it take to get a perk? Just one?

Either way. You'd just have to balance the perks appropriately depending on how often you could take them. If they're every level the lower-powered perks would need to be less powerful, IMO. I mean, I get why people want one every level (it makes leveling up seem more meaningful), but TBH I think I'd prefer to take fewer perks and have them do more. At least half of the perks in Fallout 3 were just...*yawn*

Okay. That sounds like a better idea.

This begs the question: just how visible should the progress actually be? I'm for seeing more, smaller increments, because not only has that been a RPG staple from the very beginning, it's much easier to control how much power is given in any one 'bonus' that way. By compressing the total potential number of selections, one must perforce increase the individual rewards if the intent is to still end up with the same level of progression.

A side effect of said compression is the loss of some amount of the original options, since there is no longer space for them with fewer selections. This, in turn, can easily lead to a reduction in diversity due to a lack of sufficient options. In addition, there is a loss of the opportunity to take 'nonessential' perks, such as those that would enhance the RP, as there are no longer any 'spare' picks with which to 'fill out' a character after the chosen specialty(ies) is(are) taken care of.

As for reaping the rewards that any one perk is supposed to offer, you do that as soon as you pick it; while the immediate reward may not be hugely significant by itself, it is, nonetheless, present and is built upon as you progress further along that line of perks. I would also disagree that gradual growth is solely the job of the skills; since skills and perks work together to make a character, they also, by definition, work together to show the growth and development of that character. Basically, to me skill increases represent the accumulation of general knowledge in that field while perks represent the additional knowledge gained in one's chosen specialty, and both together chart a given character's growth.

As far as generalist characters are concerned, should they get 'more' out of any given perk? Such a character is, after all, going against the intention of the system, and as such rewarding them for it seems a little odd. That said, there could be a set of perks meant for such characters; these would have larger individual effects but would not tie into any of the specialty 'trees', nor would a 'specialist' character gain anything by taking them since the need to commit perks to a chosen line would make selecting one or more of the 'generalist' perks counterproductive.

Think about "Nightvision", "Empathy" or "Smooth talker" from Fallout 2, or "Cannibal" from FO3 (aside from the fact that it was completely useless curiosity perk) - for a couple of quick examples. Surely not overpowered or HUUUGELY beneficial, but the effect is still very visible. Along those lines is what I'm looking for, and with effects as such, I don't see the problem in powercontrol if the amount of perks is lessened. However, if there are 29 somewhat similiarly powered perks to pick, there is a problem.

Then again, I don't know what's your idea of what the perks should contain.

Anyway. The smaller increments of progress you speak of, wouldn't go away. It should be handeled via lesser skillpoints, bigger gaps between levels, perks not directly (as in +skillpoints) affecting skills (or at least very, very few of them) and lesser given perks in general. A perk per every level - in addition to the skillpoints - is just too much in my opinion.



Isn't that what you're suggesting, though? Having to specialize? More over, if individual perks had more impact, each one is an original option by itself already. Mixing and matching wouldn't let you specialize and thus you'd not get too efficient, but diverse character variations would definitely still be there. And, the perklist doesn't need to be filled with "tree-options" only.



Not solely. I said primarily.



Is the intention to cast each character to a certain mold? Not in Fallout, I'd say. The optimal situation would be if every character you build, is a viable choice with it's strengths and weaknesses (barring some ridiculous ironman characters that are radically gimped just to see "if it can be done that way"). A specialist would be a master in those few areas that he/she manages to specialize in, but would be average (at max) and below in all others; whereas a generalist would be average or little(!) over across the board, but not really great in anything. Having to specialize if wanting to really excell, but not needing to by default. That's at least how see it.



That's a solution. Why not.

You keep contradicting your argument for trees to lead to specialties being better than FO3's system. By adding general perks in a chain system you end up with one branch no one would pick taking a stronger specialised chain instead. So a free style system removes the need of taking a chain of perks which add one roleplaying aspect. For a system where you can pick one perk for combat enhancement one level then add a roleplaying filler like cannibal the next. So open choice is more flexible when limited by stats then a system that limits by focus on one aspect of your character. A tree system is not flexible it makes sense when players need to be focused. But all FO games have needed some flexibility to complete them, And adressed that by equipment S.P.EC.I.A.L and perk / trait choice.

Please tell me how you would add bonuses to combat perk chains, and what bonuses they would be. You still have not adressed the issue of the same perks being pasted under different names in each weapon perk tree. Untill you do so I still think the bonuses that AB. BC, sniper, Pyromaniac... and so on bring. Will be repeated again and again in each tree on the specialazation metheod you are championing. Thus why have 3 to 5 chains of perks. When the free style allows one perk to do the same job.

My suggestion for this is to have it go like this:

Perks stay once every two levels. Small perk pool, very effective perks.

Other, smaller perks you will be able to get through quests, items (i.e. finding a diary in a spooky house that gives you a perk that gives you extra speech skill as it describes how the original owner tricked a bunch of people into thinking the house was haunted), or as rewards.

The same perks being pasted over several trees is not an issue I have addressed, because it wouldn't BE an issue since each tree would have completely different perks in it. Perks such as Better Criticals, Action Boy, etc would be in a VATS-related tree rather than in a specific weapon skill, if they were even present. The whole point is that there would be no perks that all builds would take as any given perk wouldn't fit into all builds.

As to nobody taking a set of more generalized perks, that is an invalid assumption, since with the wide variety of individual playstyles found in such games I can guarantee someone would do that.

As far as contradicting my assertion that a 'tree' system would be better than FO3's, that is hardly what I have been doing. If anything, FO3's system of all characters being able to take all perks proves my point for me, since there is no point whatsoever in specializing in FO3's system as there is no reward for doing so. Every single character can be the best at everything, and only the combat system even needs perks to do it, and even then, that is only if said character's supremacy is based on use of VATS.

The entire point of having perk trees is to encourage specialization in a small number of areas; my suggestion for a set of more generalized perks was meant for those characters that would not invest in the specialized trees and instead make a more well-rounded character at the cost of reduced performance against high-end challenges. Such characters could still get by in most cases, however there would be some things they simply could not do since they did not possess the advanced skill(s) required thereby.

By contrast, a system wherein any character can take any perk will inevitably lead to all characters taking the same narrow set of perks that are determined to be the most efficacious, and that kills character diversity since deviating from that 'norm' will only hurt a character's performance. The 'tree' system addresses this by making it such that no one tree is the 'best' option, thus encouraging players to pursue different specialties with each character and making for a far more diverse spectrum of viable builds.

F3' issues with specialization have very little to do with perks. The perks did have requirements, only all characters could meet those requirements easily.

Diversity is enhance by selection, not restriction. It's been confirmed NV will have [censored]loads of perks - what good will a tree system do then?

thats a good idea if lev50 is the maxor even 40 i just what there to lots of levs to get up

My post was not excluse to V.A.T.s but combat in general.
And you still did not give any examples of non V.A.T.s or V.A.T.s related perks or their bonuses defeating your argument again. Bonus to damage to specifec weapons is one I have already adressed. Greater chance to hit outside of V.A.T.s UnDecafIndeed and Slazy adressed by stating it is already affected by skill.
So that leaves what please give an example!
Less skill points are in which knocks out multipule early selection of power perks. And all it requires is a greater S.P.E.C.I.A.L requirement to stop people from cherry picking the best all the time.
Less perks per levels already added means hopefully we end up with less filler. So how could a tree based system where adding multipule similar perks help resolve the issues that most have with the game.
I would like some perks needing earlier picks but a whole chain is pointless.

Games with tree based systems add fluff or similar picks in them for lack of ideas. Or under powered chains all the time. Take DA:O A class based system with loads of trees which ended up with quite a few abilities or one with similar functions repeated. To get to the ones you wanted that you thought would add a specialty to your character, you had to go through so many that did not matter or ones that ended up doimg the same job. Even though abilities were readily available as FO3 a chain system added little role playing beyond class and deeds.
FO gives freedom of choice. If you hate cherry picking don't I do not outside of how I want my character to feel. A chain system has its limits and in FO they will be so darn obvious it will make GRS seem minor.

I never said that nobody would take a generalized tree. Just that by your assumption who would. Some would not invest in lesser perks when stronger ones are available and with 15 perk choices in game why would they unless forced. As they could have multipule combat chains on the go. And still end up as jack'O trade masters without ever delving into RPG perks unless they get bored. Which we already can do.
And one general chain is useless you would need roughly seven for FO3's various non combat perks arranged into groups. Then make up between 1 and 5 to make some of those chains into proper branches. While making no difference other to limit greater choice.
So unless you limit weapon trees to one only, And blacklisting a V.A.T.S tree because of specialization in another tree. You defeat your purpose again.

It seems that the only character type you're dead-set against with the white-hot rage of a billion expoding suns is one that is good at everything. Why? What does it matter to you if someone chooses to do that?

Oh, I dunno...maybe because that completely defeats the purpose of having an RPG stat system? Just a guess...

I like having the ability to max out all essential skills I hate people who want to make it impossible to do that because they like playing as a person who can only do one thing .I liked getting perks at every level in fo3.

You shouldn't hate people. It leads to the Dark Side.

I don't think anyone wants to only be good at one thing. The idea is that your character has an identifiable theme. It plays a role in giving your character a unique identity. If all of your characters are the same what's the point in making it a role-playing game?