Sounds good to me, should make perks more meaningful.

Yes true. After level 16 even if you take specialist perks with multipule ranks such as iron fist and animal friend. The character ends up having the usual power picks (Action boy - better criticals - grim reapers spirit) as well as my favourites robotics expert, silent running... and so on. Leading to you wanting to play as a specialised character. And ending up with all those that could fill that all the role, all those powerful perks and quite a few fillers that have nothing to do with the concept of your characters style.
As much as skills can lead to jack of all trades. So too can the perks. So a perk every two levels with more refined perks would help character development imo.

I did like choosing a perk every level in fallout 3 but I did also feel by the time I was level 30 I had far too many perks. So every second level seems a better compromise, every 3 levels just seems too long especialy at higher levels when your perk choices really start to matter.

It doesn't really matter to me. Fallout1&2 perk every 3 levels was fine, also I didn't mind fallout 3 perk every level. I think 2 fits perfectly, 3 every levels to get a perk maybe a bit much for fallout 3 styled game, 1 every level you end up with too many perks and start picking the useless ones at later levels. So I think 2 meets in the middle. Leveling should always be rewarding I always thought every 3 levels motivated me more to play the game and try to gain as much exp as possible, where as 1 every level was rewarding and still motivated me but it seemed a bit... overboard. A lot of the perks in fallout 3 I really didn't notice any difference and mostly spent them on intense training. If it weren't for intense training I'd say having a perk every level was overboard and too many.

like some say it depends on the kind of perk,

i mean grimreaper sprint vs partyboy?

there will be alot of perks in the game if its at every level up. but they will most likely be weaker ones and for the powervul perks they should get higher requiredments

A victory achieved through dying over and over again as you memorize enemy positions and tactics is inherently worthless. Only a victory achieved through superior skill (i.e. the power of your character) has any meaning. From the perspective that you are engaged in an honorable duel with your opponent, do-overs are a form of cheating. Do-overs only aren't cheating if you accept that the other people are NPC's who exist to test you as a gamer rather than other people who should fight honorably. But that perspective is the anti-thesis of roleplay.

Many old school gamers from the 80's define whether or not they have earned a vicotory based on how many times they died and were forced to study and anolyze enemy patterns to win. And unfortunately, they are just too close minded to accept that any other game design possibly could be good, let alone better.

Games from the 80's were a form of masochistic self deprecation, not fun. My first system was an NES, I played Super Mario Bros. 1&3, I played several Megamans, and to be quite frank, they all svcked. Dying over and over again to memorize a system and eventually figure out how to beat it was not a form of victory or something to be proud about. It was a form of cheating.

When a boxer goes up against the world heavyweight champion, he does not get do overs. He either beats the champ in his first try through simply being better than him, or he fails and has to wait several months or years for a second try. The purpose of roleplaying games is not to test your reflexes or puzzle solving ability, or to give your brain a challenge to solve. It is to let you roleplay as that boxer.

Mushashi did not die over and over again. He did not become famous for winning a single fight after 100 losses. He became famous for being undefeated. He was undefeated because he practiced, practiced, practiced to be become better than everyone else. The purpose of roleplaying games is not to test your reflexes or puzzle solving ability, or to give your brain a challenge to solve. It is to let you roleplay as Mushashi.

A soldier in real life does not come back from the dead. They take the enemy down on the first try without getting killed or they fail the mission, and they either fail at their attempt at imperialism or their attempt at protecting innocent people, without any do-overs. The purpose of roleplaying games is not to test your reflexes or puzzle solving ability, or to give your brain a challenge to solve. It is to let you roleplay as that soldier.

From the perspective that you are engaged in an honorable duel with your opponent, do-overs are a form of cheating. Do-overs only aren't cheating if you accept that the other people are NPC's who exist to test you as a gamer rather than other people who should fight honorably. But that perspective is the anti-thesis of roleplay.

His was one of the best books I've read :goodjob:
~along with that other guy's Sun Tzu

Sounds good. B)

If there is gonna be a jump between levels for perks. They need to be more epic than not. Only some of the perks in Fallout 3 were epic, ie must have perks. So if they arent much different in NV, than they were in 3. Making a level gap is kind of ridiculous. Even with the level 30 to begin with cap.

:goodjob: THIS

^ this. I totally agree with this.

"Oh boy! I sure like having 29 perks. Now I can one-shot everything in the game! I'M SURE HAVING FUN!"

Needless to say, I disagree with being the most powerful thing in the game because that makes it way too easy.

For me it kinda depends on how powerful the perks are, and it should be scaled according to that.

Do you enjoy cheating your way to victory? Dying over and over again and memorizing enemy tactics and weaknesses is form a cheating. Here, in full, is what I posted earlier in another thread:

A victory achieved through dying over and over again as you memorize enemy positions and tactics is inherently worthless. Only a victory achieved through superior skill (i.e. the power of your character) has any meaning. From the perspective that you are engaged in an honorable duel with your opponent, do-overs are a form of cheating. Do-overs only aren't cheating if you accept that the other people are NPC's who exist to test you as a gamer rather than other people who should fight honorably. But that perspective is the anti-thesis of roleplay.

Many old school gamers from the 80's define whether or not they have earned a vicotory based on how many times they died and were forced to study and anolyze enemy patterns to win. And unfortunately, they are just too close minded to accept that any other game design possibly could be good, let alone better.

Games from the 80's were a form of masochistic self deprecation, not fun. My first system was an NES, I played Super Mario Bros. 1&3, I played several Megamans, and to be quite frank, they all svcked. Dying over and over again to memorize a system and eventually figure out how to beat it was not a form of victory or something to be proud about. It was a form of cheating.

When a boxer goes up against the world heavyweight champion, he does not get do overs. He either beats the champ in his first try through simply being better than him, or he fails and has to wait several months or years for a second try. The purpose of roleplaying games is not to test your reflexes or puzzle solving ability, or to give your brain a challenge to solve. It is to let you roleplay as that boxer.

Mushashi did not die over and over again. He did not become famous for winning a single fight after 100 losses. He became famous for being undefeated. He was undefeated because he practiced, practiced, practiced to be become better than everyone else. The purpose of roleplaying games is not to test your reflexes or puzzle solving ability, or to give your brain a challenge to solve. It is to let you roleplay as Mushashi.

A soldier in real life does not come back from the dead. They take the enemy down on the first try without getting killed or they fail the mission, and they either fail at their attempt at imperialism or their attempt at protecting innocent people, without any do-overs. The purpose of roleplaying games is not to test your reflexes or puzzle solving ability, or to give your brain a challenge to solve. It is to let you roleplay as that soldier.

From the perspective that you are engaged in an honorable duel with your opponent, do-overs are a form of cheating. Do-overs only aren't cheating if you accept that the other people are NPC's who exist to test you as a gamer rather than other people who should fight honorably. But that perspective is the anti-thesis of roleplay.

Why can't I see the connection between your post and OakTables? Am I not reading it right? How, from "perk/level making the game too easy", are we lead to "Do overs and learning patterns and cheating"?

He complained about the game being too easy with perks every level. He equated a game where you rely more on leveling up/stat progression with being less difficult. I can only assume that if preparation is bad, then he is either psychic or he enjoys the multiple do-over style of 1980's era gaming. It's rather hard to win on your first try against a powerful opponent without either psychic powers that let you know what the opponent is going to do/strategy guides or simply being stronger than they are.

I can of course anolyze the opponents style, learn his attacks, and eventually beat him, but only with strategy guides or several deaths.

I think his point is that realism is not as necessary in an rpg. Because constant reloads would become frustrating. And that the issue of perks should not be about having less just to make it harder just because some find it to easy. But that some are needed to give players advantages over basic shooters in rpg combat?
That is my opinion of what he means.

This isn't really about respawning until you win as it is about becoming a God. Have you ever seen a man who can fire a gun perfectly, lockpick the hardest safes, knows the best way to treat wounds, can hack high-security computers, can repair almost anything, steps quieter than a cat, can wield a sword and what not like an expert fencer, and can utilize explosives better than a demolitions expert? No. You have not. And yet in Fallout 3 it is possible to become such an entity. Thanks to an abundance of attribute boosting perks along with an oversupply of skill points (another thing being fixed), your character probably will max out many or all of his skills and stats and critically hit everything everytime. Respawning until you win is cheating, but so is being a God.

You make a very good point. I could argue that since you worked to get those abilities that you earned them, but you would only have the ability to do everything perfectly because you are the player. So you do make a very good point.

Why are so many people obsessed with your character's ability to be good at things!? Do you think perhaps that if you spent every day just trying to survive in a world where these skills are necessary that you might actually get pretty good at doing that kind of stuff? The thing that most people neglect to mention is that you couldn't max out that many skills until you were around level 30. Broken Steel was kind of a messed up (but still quite fun) DLC. Before I got Broken Steel and my character was level twenty I was by no means a god, not even a demigod. My character had many limitations. It's not going to be like Broken Steel. Fallout 3 was quite reasonable with your ability to choose twenty perks. Imagine how bad it would have been if you only got 10 choices. That's what it's like with New Vegas only letting you choose 15 perks at the moment. I really hope they change that. Hopefully those "mixed reactions" will lead to the return of the every-level-perk-choice.

People can be pretty good at these things If you don't have the aptitude for it train for it.
For balance let's say that a perk like in New Vegas Grim Reapers sprint allows you to refill your AP it should have high requirements like 9 agility, 6 luck 7 Perception or something similar to that. Now it should also drain you health while using VATS or for every missed kill you suffer health damage.

You're way over-complicating it IMO. Nobody actually wants to fail/die and have to re-load a saved game. Many games are the most fun (to me) when I'm being challenged enough to occasionally come close to failing/dying....the occasional actual death/failure is just an unfortunate side-effect of playing a game that's genuinely challenging. I don't enjoy games in which I just go through the motions and breeze through without ever having to sweat it a little or needing to figure something out. Some of those games have good stories, but if I was only interested in a story I'd watch a movie. I don't get a lot of time to play games, so when I do I want to be challenged and entertained. Games that are too easy and/or simple don't do that for me. They just feel like killing time.

I'm not sure about your comparisons with real life, either. Yes, a role-playing game involves getting into more real-life-ish detail than other genres, but it's still a video game. There's nothing wrong with needing to re-load a save every now and then. What you're talking about is role-playing. When you add the word "game" to it you change the meaning quite a bit from my perspective.

You also bring up role-playing. To me, forcing me to take perks every level that don't fit the character I'm trying to play because I have to pick something actually hurts my role-playing. To use your example, Mushashi was good with tactics and swords. He was very powerful because he was good at those things. He didn't need to max out his Big Guns skill. If I want to make a character that specializes in Stealth and Small Guns and then make him specialize in pistols I should be able to. I should have some options that allow me to be so good with stealth and pistols that I'm a one-character army without being forced to put skill points into Big Guns and Big Gun-related perks because I have to allocate points and perks somewhere. This is where fewer, more meaningful perks would be an improvement rather than forcing me to choose a bunch of frivolous perks (c'mon...the +skill and +attribute perks were just filler) I don't care about every level. If we're really looking to improve role-playing we need to be given fewer skill points per level OR remove the 100 pt cap on skills and dump at least half of the perks in favor of more meaningful ones that allow us to create unique characters.

That said, I didn't like most '80s and '90s console games either. All the pattern memorization drove me nuts. There were some good games on computers back then, though.

I unintentionally maxed 8 skills on my first playthrough of Fallout 3, long before the DLC came out. Becoming a god was very possible. It was a severely unbalanced game, if a reduction to perk rate helps to resolve this then it is a very good thing.
It also means that the perks can potentially be much more significant, with a much greater impact, as they are less common. In my eyes, thats a good thing too. The majority of the perks in F1&2 where much more significant than the bulk of the F3 perks (Note: i did not say all, lets not start off a comparison contest here)

I can't believe 40 people want it to be every level, that is ridiculous. 2 level is good. It balances it out. Unlike in Fallout 3 which made it boring because you became god by like level 10 - 15. Not to mention lots of perks in Fallout 3 were bad ones. Fallout: New Vegas has fixed this problem but if it goes back to once every level I'll be disappointed.

Well, I think that they want the game to be easier for them. If it becomes every level well we got the trusty modders to make everything better. It has been confirmed I think check the Vault they made a statement bout modding.