Perks...Attributes...Perks...Attributes...Perks...Attributes...Perktributes...Attriperks....whosawhatsitnow???? :ahhh: All these attriperk threads are giving me a migraine!!!

I need a percocet...or maybe an attribute...I just don't know anymore. :facepalm:

I want my character to be unique from others and grow in a satisfying way, despite there be attributes/perks or not.

My point is that attributes make people feel that if everything isnt maxed out then their character isnt what it could be... but there being 200 some perks and only being able to choose 50 wont be nearly as upsetting to most, because 50 is what you get.... If you dont power level in oblivion, you KNOW your character is stunted compared to what it could be... Choosing perks leaves it more up to you with less hassle concerning what skills to raise to get what multiplier...

That make more sense?

I think this system as it is described now is a better system than previously. However it has not been fully described yet. I think the small inconsistencies are what annoy people. My example is that if I was heavily into axes and I picked up a swork I am no better at it than the mage who never picked it up in the first place (perk system). However with attributes my strength would be high so even though i would be not as good with a sword as the person specialising in swords, I would be better than the weakling mage and the sword is still a viable option to me.

Attributes were a tedious game of min/maxing. [censored] them, and good riddance.

This is exactly my point. Health doesn't tell you how strong you are.

Except there will be perks to increase melee damage, so... exact same thing.

It seems like you have some insight on the perk system that no one else has. So, you know when we get the perk to cause bleed damage? How do you know it's not one of the later tiers of perks?
It's not a perfect system. But I still thinking you're looking at it at face value, strictly numbers.
"Level up! now I can suddenly cause bleed damage! Herp!"
But that's not how it is. It's more than likely a later tier, and when you look at it like that, it is pretty immersive and realistic.

But you will be. All one-handed weapons are rolled into one skill, all two-handed weapons are rolled into another. The perks associated with the one-handed skills will benefit either swords, axes, or maces (and everything in between). So you could use nothing but a sword but decided to choose perks which benefit axes if you plan on using an axe when you find one. As far as two-handed weapons go a mage will probably be just as effective as a warrior who specializes in one-handed weapons. But that warrior won't have to use a two-handed weapon if they don't want to because of dual-wielding, and they will still have other advantages like more armor and health. Also, perks associated with one-handed axes might roll over to two-handed axes. We don't know because we don't have the game.

@Shin: You don't get my point. No matter WHEN you get it, you still get it overnight. It's not immersive to me to wake up and know how to do something completely new, that's all I'm saying. If you find it immersive, then it works for you. And considering how much Todd has been rubbing the "Bleed damage!" effect in everyone's face, it's probably a perk earned relatively early on. They wouldn't want to withhold it from players for most of the game if they're advertising it so heavily.

There will more than likely be something that determines basic strength. maybe fatigue? Maybe a combination of weapon skills? It wouldn't be perfect but it may work.

for a specific skill group such as swords, or blunt but not for all weapons as strength would.

Attributes were overall redundant and pointless. I never actually felt like I was making an impact on my character every time I slightly increased one of my attributes. At least now, I can instantly increase my health/stamina/magika, and perks will allow me to specialize and learn new and interesting abilities while I make progress. This will ultimately lead to a much greater and entertaining experience. BGS is about efficiency and quality systems, and they are definitely ironing out a lot of the redundancies that have been plaguing TES games for quite some time.

Well stated.

While it certainly makes sense that the character who specialized in swords is better with them than the person who didn't (perks), it makes no sense at all to believe that a muscular warrior character who didn't specialize in swords specifically would have absolutely no advantage at all over a weak and frail mage (attributes).

The two should work together - this should not be an either/or issue.

ORLY?



100% this. It takes away all the tedious BS that made previous TES games annoying. There was NOTHING fun about them.

Lore and design has to be expressed someway yeah? otherwise its just that, Lore, just like its Lore that Woodelves can turn into voracious beasts, Redguard often are exceptionally proficient with weapons and Bretons are predisposed to magicl energies.

ATTRIBUTES portray this, PERKS do not especially when they aren't even availible right from the get go, you have to unlock them.

and do people even know the definition of perks? you know The Perks are incentives that help increase, motivate and reward the player for working hard at something, How is this fesible at portraying core aspects of the player? THEY are supplementary NOT Core factors of the game, they shouldnt be.

Lawl you guys are so fixed on 100+ and 280 perks its disheartening.

280 perks. 18 skills


Each skill gets an average of 15 perks provided they are evenly spread.

What part of this, addresses Attributes, which are the defining aspects for each race?


Perks should NOT and from the looks of it DO NOT replace attributes, they should supplement attributes.

Attributes are your characters base, extensions and grounds for getting stronger and better... you can't do that with perks...


and the "Grind" isn't gone, your still grinding to unlock that +10 to weapon damage perk.

Under the new system, both axes and swords are under the "one-handed" skill. So if you were "heavily into axes," you'd level up your one-handed skill and pick axe-related perks. When you pick up a sword, you won't have any of the sword-related perks, but you'd be able to wield it reasonably well just based on your one-handed skill level. You'd probably be better at it than someone who leveled Axe(Blunt) and Strength in the Oblivion system.

Even if we exclude the fact that being skilled in one form of martial arts makes it much easier to learn another, a warrior, swinging around a big weapon, would get STRONG, and thus be much STRONGER, making it much easier to use a 2-handed weapon instead of one handed, or vice-versa, than a weakling mage who spends all their effort on developing a greater understanding of the aetherial arts and has never picked up something heavy in his life. The concept is the same as what they said, despite the 2 skills in question being slightly different.

Why would picking a perk in swords make me better at using an axe? Dont get me wrong, I like the perk idea in general. I just want more info on how these small incosistencies would work out.

Except you will probably have perks for each race that you start out with that can reflect everything attributes did.|

Take your blinders off, yeesh.

I don't know about perks, but on a general skill level, learnign to use a weapon of a certain type would, while not making you an expert, give you an advantage learning to use another weapon, as they function similarly and the skills you have learned can be transferred.

yes I think that is how races will be partly differentiated

Then why are you here? If you believe that there was "NOTHING fun" about TES games, why are you trying to force your viewpoint on all the people who are here because they love these games and who DO think that they're fun?

Wut?

Actually, transformation, weapon proficiency, and magic all sound more like skills, racial powers, and potentially racial perks than they do attributes. Attributes are physical or mental characteristics, not predispositions.


Right. Skills are the core factor. They always have been. Attributes have always been supplementary in my opinion. Unless I try to min/max, I always focused on improving myself through skills, and getting to pick attributes at level up was icing on the cake.


Yep, them's the numbers.


I always thought it was the racial bonuses which were the defining aspects of the races. Seeing as every race could max out every attribute and skill, only some would take slightly less time to do so with certain skills. It was the racial bonuses (and birthsigns, I'll miss those) which gave permanent bonuses to the character and could not always be easily matched by other races.


Sure you can. If you pick a perk which increases your damage, then your damage is increased. Same as Strength. If you pick a perk which increases maximum encumbrance, you can carry more. Same as Strength. You still have skills as a base, and you still have three attributes as a base.


But you no longer have to min/max to make sure you get it. Just make sure you get the appropriate skill level before level 50. Which shouldn't be too hard if the theoretical maximum level is only 70 and that's with all skills maxed.

Except to get those perks, you need skills in that area of weapons, so your damage with one-handed swords would still be high, despite your focus on one-handed maces, due to them both being governed by One-Handed Weapons.

Problem solved.