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.

The majority agrees with you (every 2 levels) so I think it has a good chance of remaining as it is.

I'd like to feel that it really matters every time i level up so i would like a perk per level but i won't be bothered by it being every 2 levels.

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.

It makes me a sad panda. :sadvaultboy: They would have to drastically change the Perks lineup if they're going to cut our choices in half. The twenty choices (thirty with Broken Steel) worked because of the nature of the perks. They would have to drastically change all of that if they were to give us only 15 choices. As much as people laud the original Fallout and turn towards its leveling system, if you've actually played the game, you have to admit that the leveling kind of svcked. Getting seven (was it seven?) Perks out of a whopping 53 was just downright disappointing. The caliber of Perks we got in Fallout 3 worked with the leveling system they created. The "god builds" that so many people complain about were not a result of Perks, but rather the poor decisions made in the implementation of Broken Steel. My character at level twenty had his limitations. Broken Steel allowed me to fill out some of the skills that I neglected before with its flood of skill points. Don't let that mistake create a dearth of skill points in New Vegas.

As much as I agree with you on quality over quantity, I wouldn't want a perks tree outlining the path I should be taking. I like how it is now, a "create your own class" system with no clear direction on what you should be taking. I guess some perks could be prerequisites for others, but generally have the freedom to pick anything.

As much as I agree with you on quality over quantity, I wouldn't want a perks tree outlining the path I should be taking. I like how it is now, a "create your own class" system with no clear direction on what you should be taking. I guess some perks could be prerequisites for others, but generally have the freedom to pick anything.

Yeah, I'm not saying that all perks should be in a tree, I'm just saying that it would be cool for there to be "perk progression" in some cases to unlock the really powerful perks that represent a specialization in some subset of character skills.

Yes a branch system will please no one (or at least please me, which is more important). For the simple reason that the devs will have to limit themselves with a moderate amount of preditermined character classes to fit these trees into. Where as with the current system you can pick and chose. I could be a energy weapon toting canibal cyborg raider. Or a diplomatic big gun loving brusier with loads of AP. With branches you may end up limiting choice of playstyle and encouraging a fixed number of classes.

Every two levels is fine, as long as there are more balanced and meangingful perks. None of the crappy skill point/XP gain increases. I want perks that actually affected how your character played and behaved. Granted there were some in FO3, but more variety with those would be nice.

Some of that I would like. But leveled perks with many ranks. Irratated me a bit in FO3.
I will be happy with fewer perks. And less leveled rank perks to add as filler. And as you say below it will add some form of specialization so its a good thought.

I'm not talking about the ranked perks, either. Here's an example:

Gunslinger
Effect: provides some inherent bonuses to using pistols
Prerequisites: AGILITY 5

Shoot From The Hip
Effect: increases your rate of fire with pistols
Prerequisites: AGILITY 6, Gunslinger

Sleight of Clip
Effect: increases your rate of reload with pistols
Prerequisites: AGILITY 7, Gunslinger

Pistol Savant
Effect: allows dual-wielding of pistols with an accuracy penalty
Prerequisites: AGILITY 8, Gunslinger, Shoot From The Hip, Sleight of Clip

Hard Boiled
Effect: allows dual-wielding of pistols with NO accuracy penalty
Prerequisites: AGILITY 9, Gunslinger, Shoot From The Hip, Sleight of Clip, Pistol Savant

Yeah, my perk names stink.

The majority agrees with you (every 2 levels) so I think it has a good chance of remaining as it is.

Haha, pretty cool setup. Personally, I don't even want duel wield in, but I get the gist and I think it's pretty cool. Though perhaps a slimmer version of this (not so many perks unlocked by a single perk) and possibly a few pairs of perks that unlock a third perk that is somewhat of a fusion. Robotics expert + toughness could unlock cyborg. It's only an example, too tired to be bothered with coming up with original stuff.

Lol sorry yes I understood. I just wanted to point out that I hated leveled perks in FO3 it was just me venting on that issue and it got mixed up in the post.
I think a chain of specialization is a good idea. It will probably only be combat perks but those are what count.
And I love Hardboiled I can just imagine Chow yun Fat. Leaping from a window blasting away. And it could focus single weapon style more than FO3. Meaning you are not a jack of all weapons.
Unless you want your character to be.