So, if I'm reading http://www.gamepur.com/news/20145-fallout-4s-xp-system-working-revealed-there-are-275-separate-xp-levels-one.html correctly, Perks have their own XP levels?! That's news to me, I thought there were just ranks. So, Perks gain XP by us using them in-game similar to Skyrim's Skills or...is this is just a confusing way to say they're just "ranked" perks..

"Some interesting new details has been revealed related to the working of Fallout 4 in the latest issue of OPM. The publication confirmed that Fallout 4 will have 275 separate XP levels, one for each individual perk. You'll still level up via XP, and each level increase will still give you a point to spend on a perk, but now those perks have varying XP levels of their own. In simple term this means, in Fallout 4, each individual perk will carry its own XP levels and it will be tied into player's overall XP rank."

Need more info on this. Is it like Skyrim!? The more you use it the more it levels?

268 of these will relate to the 70 perks on the main park of the chart, and the additional 7 will be for the stat increases, accessed via the 7 training perks. If you take into account the maximum number of 42 stat increases, then the total number of levels is actually 268 + 42 = 310, plus your starting level which will give you 311. I think what the article is trying to say is that there are at least 275 XP levels, one for each perk/rank/stat increase on the chart.

I think the article is confusing the fact that perks have ranks with the idea that they'll grow like skills did in Skyrim. I think that perks "level up" when you reselect them and increase their rank, rather than growing independently of your character's level.

Yeah, I think that's just poor phrasing. (To describe the general concepts of "you can pick a perk each level" "there's lots of perks" and "there's no level cap")

I wonder if the ranks of perks need additional SPECIAL scores or levels. For example if I need a 4 in STR to get X Perk. To get rank 2 of the same perk do I need a 5 STR and be level 10? If not then want actually governs when I can pick the next rank ... just having a point to spend? Even Skyrim's skill trees had base skill requirements as you go up the tree.

I don't think there will be level requirements whatsoever, but I don't know if extra ranks of a perk will have higher SPECIAL requirements... my guess is no, though. And I'm not sure how I'd feel about that.

The base requirement comes from having to qualify for the initial rank, as well as the fact that each subsequent rank takes up an additional level. Bear in mind that each level you increase will take more XP, and therefore more time to achieve. In the end, the whole system is actual very well balanced.

I don't see that balanced at all. Under that assumption someone could be Rank 4 in a Perk by level 5. Does that really make any sense? Being a Maxed Rank in any Perk shouldn't be something we can get that easily, otherwise it really isn't that great to have.

Well, it might be about as balanced as taking the 10 SPECIAL perk at our first level-up. I'm torn about it; on the one hand, I can still get the most out of the Gun Nut perk without having to spend more perk points boosting my IN. On the other hand is all the stuff you're concerned about. And, we still don't know if they will up the SPECIAL requirements for different ranks.

Yeah but if you do that you are still just picking the first Rank of the Perk. If you can then just Max out the Perk with the next four levels it just seems like early overkill.

i think it will be self balancing.

Remember perks also cover skills too in F4.

Say in F3 you could take tag skills multiple times on the same skill and every level you dumped your perk and all your skill increases in to one single skill.

How viable is a level 5 Fallout character with 100% in one skill but only 15% in all the other skills and no perks what so ever?

Sure having a 100% with guns is good, but having no sneak, lockpicking, repair, science, speech, or explosives is going to hurt in a lot of situations.

Having no perks to add an edge is also going to hurt.

You are a one trick pony.

You could have a Sole Survivor that was an expert hacker, but that hacker is going to be having a lot of problems in the Boston Wasteland away from the keyboard.

I think it means one of two things:

1) Pete Hines misspoke and was merely trying to say that each perk has a separate level (or rank if you will) attached to it.

2) Unlocking higher ranks in a given perk enables you to do more complex/harder things (keep in mind this is in terms of RPG, not actual difficulty, like hacking a "hard" vs an "easy" terminal) that give higher XP. Thus, the perk-ception comment: more XP levels allow you to unlock higher ranks in perks, which allow you to do things that grant more XP, which allow you to get more XP levels, which allow you to unlock more perks...and so on.

Depends on what the increased damage is for a Maxed Perk on gun damage is. 40% may not be worth it, but 250% would be.

It'd be nice to read the original interview this article is quoting. I hate when publications do that: "here's an article about an article on another publication!"

Perhaps overkill, but very one-sided overkill.

If I read this right, you can have builds with hugely developed capability in one areas, but at a price.

It's the price that makes it interesting.

We're going to have to see this in practice aren't we to really get our heads around this. 10 weeks.

Oh, man. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YaoYV9Uj9M. You have to unlock the perk THEN level it up by using it. So in a sense it will stop you from wasting points in stuff you don't use. If you take Science! and don't actually build anything you probably won't be able to take the next rank.

In practice, the way that Matty explains it wouldn't actually make sense. It would essentially force you to take a large number of base perks as you level up, and you would then have to use a secondary system to gain ranks. I still believe that we will be unlocking the next available rank in each perk when we level up, which is exactly how it was demonstrated in the leaked Gamescom footage. Usually Matty is quite reliable, but in this case I think he's gotten it totally wrong.

Hmm ... does that mean if you do something but don't have the Perk unlocked for it you wasted XP? That would mean everyone should be in a hurry to unlock every skill perk asap so even if you are not using it much, you are not losing XP.

Sounds to me like Matty is guessing. His guess may be a good one, but not necessarily how it will work.

Doesn't Matty kind of frequently take a tiny tidbit of info, read way too much into it, and then post about his wild interpretation as confirmed fact? I feel like we've been down this road before with Matty.

I see. Maybe the Perk XP is not really tied to your perk level at all. For Example, take the Action Boy perk. Your number of action points could be determined by your perk level plus your Action Boy XP level that is determined by your VATS usage. Perk Level + XP Level = Total Action Points Available

You would still get general XP, but you wouldn't get the specific PERK XP without unlocking the perk.

Yeah, it's all speculation right now.

He's doing the exact same thing we do here on the forums. There's nothing devious about it.