On arbitrary name being arbitrary, I simply differ in opinion. You should I guess just accept that.
I find a world filled with healers, monks, archers, druids, paladins, nightblades, rogues etc. a whole lot more appealing than a world with NPC's and a PC.
It puts me into the world, it makes me a part of it. It gives me a background and goals.
It is an important roleplaying tool and a staple of RPG's no matter how you look at it and removing them still makes no sense.

On making things up, yes, I guess that is what you could call logical extrapolation from known facts and observed trends, but it does not have the same ring to it, now does it?

Doomstones and birthsigns are not the same thing, even if they largely give the same effects.
One is a fixed thing that defines your character, the other is interchangeable, optional and does not provide the same character customisation or roleplaying appeal at all.

On fixed speed and jump height, again, logical extrapolation. How would they handle it? Perks? No, perks are skill related.
Simplest solution would be to go the bland, boring and lame way and have it fixed.
Again, I hope this is not the case.

On oblivion realms: This is an RPG that boasts an open world. If I want to do this in an open world and find a way, I should be able to. I should not be limited by a designer who thinks I need to walk around the mountain 50 times, 50 times per game.
There is no wrong way to get to the sigil stone. Sneaking, killing all enemies or floating to the top are all equally valid options and I should be able to do what I want as the mood strikes me. Anything less is a step back and bad design.

Could Merari and AliTheLord plz stop bickering and stay on topic.. I don't want this closed because of you two.

Im not bickering, Im trying to explain how I feel:/
And I think Ali is doing too.
But fine, I think Ive said it all by now anyway. Twice, likely.

Last post, in an attempt to keep the thread open.

I'm guessing when you wandered round Morrowind or Oblivion you asked all the NPCs what class they were?? Or did you just know?? There is nothing that defines an NPCs class anywhere in the CS.

Regarding logical extrapolation, it's not really. It's extrapolation presuming Bethesda has made the worse game they possibly could.

Regarding the RP appeal of birthsigns/doomstones, I'm pretty meh about it but it's not gamebreaking. I'm giving the game a chance, which you don't seem to be doing.

Levitation was a technical limitation. It was not a design choice. They could not, with the 360s hardware, have open cities. Which means no levitation. It's not easier for them to make closed cities (it's actually a little bit more work).

They are not "moving forward" from attributes. They are merely recasting some attribute downstream effects in a more contrived and artificial manner. Given the crap in the Block skill it looks like somewhere between 1/3-2/3 of the perks are going to be wasted on trying to make up for having no attributes. With no skill interactions at all. And still no word on the existence of other attributable impacts like, speed, carry, balance, etc.

Sounds pretty grim... :unsure2:

I would think that since we are only allowed 50 perks...and there are 5 different ranks of some perks as you pointed out.....then the perk trees will most likely be pretty shallow and allow you to take the coolest deepest perks of more than one tree, then if you desire you rank up certain ones as you like.

That would make sense to me after seeing how many ranks are possible in some of them.

Considering there isn't a level limit (although Todd reckoned that people will stop around 50) then that is a lot of perks.

The perk system seems to advantage those that specialise rather than in Oblivion where you could be an all powerful jack of all trades. Now you can most liley be a good jack of all trades but you could be a really powerful mage or a stealthy assassin rather than pretending you are specialised because all your skills can eventually be equally high.

Maybe, but still, wasting 5 out of 50 perks on shield block value (which if it is needed in the game should be governed by skill) is a bad bad idea.
Ranked perks should not have more than 3 ranks. No matter what they did.

Ex. The boost to light armor perk from Oblivion.
By the same logic presented with the block perk tree it will make a return with 5 ranks 10% each instead of being one rank with 25% (the value OOO put it at) :flamethrower:

Those concerns are legitimate. Flat-bonus perks are a bit dull. But they do have their advantage as they are passive. So basically, you know they will apply 100% of the time. You don't have to activate them, you don't have to do a special move or anything to make them count. For example, the Shield Wall perk will apply EACH SINGLE time you block an attack whereas Shield Charge would have to be actively used. So, yeah, this kind of perk isn't as flashy but his use isn't totally useless. That said, I understand your concern that devs might have hold back some basic mechanics and put them into perks (to make a bigger perk list - it looks more cool to say "We have 250 perks!", it sells the game better). Well, I know that each perk could be taken separetly and each of those "sub-mechanics" could be anolysed. We'll leave that for after a few months of playing the game though. But for your Shield Wall example, know that TES games had already this mechanic in place. When you block an attack, you still take a certain amount of damage and it make sense. Hold down a shield and have someone bash at you with all his strenght for a minute and see if you're totally unbruised. But yeah, I guess it won't be anywhere near this 40% you mentioned (that was a speculation anyway). Well, above all it's a game, not a simulation. So it tries to take some concept based on reality and adapt it so it plays well. In past games, you'd take a % of damage from the attack depending on your skill level. By adopting this system, what the game tries to tell you is if you use a shield without much training, you won't be that good. But as you use it and gain training in it, you become more and more expert into wielding it and get to use it to his full potential (sometimes even making you do stuff others can't do at all with it). In Skyrim, it'll be the same as in past games but you'll need perks to do so and those perks will require that you have a certain level in the skill. It's the same, really, but with an added customability from the part of the player.

From that "customability" perspective, we could see perks has horizontal or vertical character progression. A vertical character progression is what we call "specialisation" : getting very good in a few of very focused domain. Horizontal progression would be the opposite : getting a bit better in a lot of domains. The perk system, as I mentioned, have the player able to gain control over this vertical/horizontal progression whitin each skill. Where before you would only get control over horizontal and vertical progression of you character's skills, now you also have this control over each individual skill. So, taking again your example of the Block skill, as I gain perks in that skill, I can decide if I want a character who, when blocking, doesn't recieve any damage at all. To do so, I'll be able to take up to 5 levels into the Shield Wall perk and make my character totally impervious to the "bypassing" (?) damage of the attacks he blocks. But, as you mentioned, you feel like this Shield Charge or Resist element perks looks more nice, more flashy, more usefull, whatnot. This is a personal like. But you'll be able to go that way and take only a single level in each required perks in order to obtain the one you like. You'll be less focused but you'll be able to do a bit of everything regarding blocking. Also, consider the fact that the perks at the top of the tree is better than those underneath since it as higher requirements. So this horizontal investment isn't only building your character horizontally but it also give you access to a potentially more powerfull perk in the end.

So, for those who don't want to read all my yaddy-yadda, here's in short :

- There's no such as boring perks. You only get to decide wheter you get very focused or get small bonuses from few different perks while building your way up to the top of the perk tree to get that one shiny-cool-and-powerfull-perk. I think this system works pretty well, in fact, it's more involving and it makes your character progression more customizable !

About the level stall, we'll have to see for ourselves. I do hope so you won't find yourself not wanting to level up to get your skill to a certain point to use your perk where you really want. I find it a bit wierd they've put those requirments in the first place since they big motto is "Do what you want, be who you want". I guess it's for some balance (if you could get that powerfull perk as soon as level 5, it would be game-breaking, for example). I think they needed only to put some level requirement without any skill level requirement. Well, as I understand it, you gain a perk every level so basically if you don't meet the requirements for a perk at that moment, you'd buy a perk in another skill perk you wanted and buy that specific perk you aimed for later on. It's a way to tell the player "you're not ready to get that perk yet. Get a few more levels".

Well, I'm sorry for such a long post. I guess a strong argument needs more words than those absolutely annoying and meanless single-sentenced (that is when they managed to make at least a single complete sentence!) posts (I won't name any; you know what I mean).

I hope it eased your concerned ! And if not, well wait for the game, play for some time and see how it goes for you !

@ Silverwave

I hope you don't mind that I don't quote the whole post.

I kinda agree with you and before the E3 video that was my thinking as well for most part. And there is a post on pg 4 where I explain how I envision block.

But look at this: Shield wall increases block 20% and has 5 ranks. Factual perk (work in progress)
That means at most you can achieve with block is 50% without it with each rank adding 10%.

So maybe block isn't the best skill. Lets say there is a similar perk for armor.
Meaning 100 armor does not provide you with max armor but you need to spend perks to achieve that.
And even being ok with that you need to spend 5 out of 50 to do so..
Meaning 100 alchemy does not provide you with best potions, you need 5 ranks in some perk to achieve that.
Etc.

I understand the concept of perks.
Having perks for axes mimics many swings with that weapon and learning how to make deeper cuts than someone else.
But saying swords and arrows or even those same axes don't make you bleed till you perk up is... well... insulting.

This leads to a wonderful comaprison to the world of MMA - having been watching it for 10 years I can say your above comment is on track with the way it should work regarding skill training.

For example, many fighters have black belts in different focuses but are forced to train specifically to the fighter they are engaging (wrestler versus striker). Both fighter have to attempt to learn the flaws of the other while spending many days practising soley on this one focus. The problem is that after the fight (doesn;t matter who wins) they both have to go back to the drawning board to prepare for their next challenge - which in most cases is a completely different style of fighter. Sacrificing time to master or understand their new opponents strengths while losing time to master their own.

Perks are far better imo as they cause you to be more of a one dimensional character with specific special abilities, versus being a GOD - drangon shouts help with the GOD like complex as they greatly enhance the basic abilities of the main character

I'm looking forward to the perks, or at least I won't knock 'em 'til I try 'em. I think they'll add diversity to the game and I'm looking forward to seeing what some of the higher tiered perks can do.

Yeah, I see your point. I think you shouldn't look at perks as "if I don't have them I svck at X". See the weapons/armors base stats as... well... base stats! You're not getting only 50% of the block power of a shield without any perks and with all the 5 levels of perks you get 100% block power. See it as : the base shield gives me X blocking power but I can increase that number up to 100% more if I invest some perks in it.

As for the bleeding effect, it's an added effect you gain in bonus when you buy a certain perk. Yeah, IRL every single slash you'd make to someone will make him bleed. But that is a game concept. The base damage of weapons includes a lot of damaging concept that couldn't be translated into a game (IRL, an axe cut would get you a cut, a bruise, broken bones, lacerations, shock damage, bleeding, nerve system damage, etc, etc, etc). The bleeding effect is an added benefical effect (well, that depends if you're the one who gets the hit, really lol) you get for buying a perk that gives additionnal damage over time. Nothing more, nothing less. It also better to call it "bleeding" than "bonus damage over time".

Don't look at it as though the other weapons don't cause bleeding, because they do. You can see the marks on the enemies in the video. That bleeding is already calculated into the damage of the weapon. The axe perk indicates that you have learned how to make people bleed profusely.

It was 25%, so you get 125% with Shield Wall 5.
Funny thing is, that mechanic is exactly the reason most people gave why attributes should be removed: They are redundant because they increase abilites just like skills do. Now we get perks that do exactly the same as their skill, which is even more redundant because at least attributes influenced several skills. I just love the irony.

Exactly Perks=Good :celebration:

You guys all fail, the reason they implemented perks in the first place is to let you get super good at the stuff you do, if u want to be super good at everything, do everything, i dont remember anything being mentioned that says, you can only pick the perks you want if u pick the prerequisite perks, if that is the problem that you are having, say that, say my problem with the perks system is that you have to take perks that you dont want in the place of perks that you do want. which im pretty sure is not the case but if it is then a change needs to be made, perks shouldnt have perk prerequisites, they should have only skill prerequisites, that way, if u want the perk that u need 100 skill to get, u have to get 100 skill. Lets face it, being ultimate at everything takes away from the game, you need at least one draw back to open up a loop hole for ur perfect character. the fun of the game is in the challenges thats why there is more then one type of dragon, personally im most likely going to go with a sword/axe dual wield combo, and if you look at previous games light armor perks tend to let u be able to increase your movement speed, which makes sense high defense takes away from speed and mobility,high speed and mobility also take away from defence, so there will be my first playthrough character, light armor /w perks, sword and axe with perks, hopefully there will be elemental protection bonus for light armor because most mages will also use it so im guessing there will be, so i might take a little more damage, but ill dish it out well enough too, especially with my marksmen with perks as well

other people have cited the fallout games too, in those games there isnt one case in which u need one perk to get another, there are only skill prerequisites, not perk ones, unless its for ranking

dont buy the game you wont choose a perk

As I said few posts above, you have to look the perks as bonuses over the base stat. This is even more true as it gets to 125%. You just can't say : I start off with getting only 50% of the shield's block power and build may way into getting 100% of the shield bonus. It's 125% bonus of the base stat!



I think don't quite follow you here but that seems legit. Could you use an example to illustrate what you mean ?

I think you don't quite get the point of the OP. It's not really about having to take perks you don't want to get to perks you do want. And it's absolutly not about having a perk system that allows the "perfect character". His concerns are about having to get perks to be able to do some of the basic stuff with a weapon, an armor or a shield (for the example used above). Then, read my posts above to see my thoughts on the matters as I won't recall them back here.

When we learned that attributes are removed, there were many heated discussions around here. People who thought that the removal of attributes is a good thing argued that attributes were redundant in previous TES games, because they had the same effect in regard to increasing your abilites as skills.
For example, to increase your ability to block, you would increase your Block skill as well as Endurance. Their argument was that Endurance was superfluous, and that the Block skill was enough to represent your blocking ability.
Now we learn that there is a 5-level perk that does exactly the same thing as its skill - and I dare to predict that all 1st perks in the perk trees will work like that.

So, the feature they thought would be infinitely better than attributes works in exactly the same way they criticized, if not worse. I find that quite ironic.

I think the perk system as a whole is great however I would prefer more defining perks than a lot of "meh" ones. This is basically WoWs talent system except that instead of 3 trees in WoW you have many more trees and much more to spend. WoW suffered the same problem early on in that there were too many boring "filler" bonuses like +10% to this and +5% to that. I really hope there are interesting perks,

My example of bad/boring perks-

Fire Power-
+10% Fire damage for fire spells per rank with 5 ranks.
Blazing Tempest-
-10% Magicka cost for fire spells per rank with 5 ranks.

Some interesting perks I can think of-

Combustion-
Casting 4 fire spells in quick succession unleashes a wave of fire around your character.
Cauterize-
Being hit by your own fire spells heals you instead of dealing damage.

That's assuming each rank gives +25% which is not obvious. Could be the fact first ranks give more benefits than later ranks (common occurance) like 25%, 45%, 60%, 70%, 75%

Two characters, no perks in block.
A: Block skill 10, leather shield
B: Block skill 100, daedric shield.

Do you really think there won't be a huge difference in blocking power between those two characters? Do you really think that?

Blocking is damage reduction. Maybe it's a mix of raw reduction and percentage-based reduction. Say that a monster hits you for 100 damage. Your glass shield automatically blocks 20 points of damage, so now you only get hit for 80. Your block skill of 50 reduces damage by 30%. If that gets applied before the shield reduction, you get hit for 50. If it gets applied after, you get hit for 56. I'm pulling numbers out of my a-- here, but that leaves plenty of room for the Shield Wall skill to affect raw reduction or percentage-based reduction or both. The numbers are fake, the principle is not.

Just because there are perks that hugely increase blocking power doesn't mean that a character with 100 block and a high-level shield can't block for s---.