My argument, which you seemed to have all out ignored, is game balancing. I gave you a paragraph about how it would break gameplay balancing, and you just "nope lol lore says otherwise" Where even in the lore does it say shields can't block magic? and besides, through out the entire game series, armor has negated the damaging effects of magic, so why not shields?

There's nothing balanced about that, just taking away from magic, giving you the magical ability to resist magic, by blocking physical blows somehow. Blocking=/=Resisting magic. I would actually see this as a good Mysticism perk, but there's obviously no more Mysticism school.

That is probably because you are not paying attention.

There are many of us on the forum that are essentially saying the same thing:

1. we like the idea of perks and think the addition of them are great

2. we think having a functional and well-developed attributes system would be better than what OB had and much better than the devolved attributes and morass misused perks we are seeing in SR.

3. The perk system would be better off with attributes. It would not be overloaded with useless perks that an attributes system would handle better.

This.

Oh, I'm sorry, sure, let's have Beth make you practically immune to melee and ranged damage, but when a spell caster comes around, you have no chance because you picked block. Ok, not unbalanced at all. Giving us the magical ability to resist magic you say? In a fantasy game? THAT'S STUPID AND BAD. Mysticism had spells that resisted fire, lightning, etc., but it's been moved to other schools. So if mysticism was in game though, it'd be alright to have immunity to spells? See, this is why we see you getting desperate and nitpicking, and I'm just going to be the bigger man here and forget that you just all out ignored the fact that standard armor negates magical damage.

Dude, all you do is complain about the new system for not being perfect. Obviously the vast majority of people here disagree with you and yet you keep arguing. You are one of those people that cannot accept the fact that some people prefer things to be done in a different way and everything has to be to your liking. I hate egocentric people like that. I like the way the new system is done and so do many others. When Bethesda or any other company for that matter develops a game they do not go for the perfectly logical way of making things, but for something that would satisfy the casual gamers.

It depends on how you felt about those lost skills and on how you feel about the perks.

I didnt like acrabatics nor athletics and didnt care about mysticism.. and hand to hand...

As a result..............................I....................................... didnt lose much and as I love perks and like the ones I have seen so far.. gained much.

But others realy liked some or all of these lost skills and some dont like the perks.. for them its a big loss and no or little gain or even anouther loss....

Thing is for bethesda what matters is overall of the entire player base for skyrim how many people will enjoy the game more because of what they did .... the fact is I suspect over 5-7 million people will enjoy skyrim more then they would have otherwise because of these changes.. and that is what drove the changes in the first place.

I won't know until I playtest it myself.

That's not unbalanced, you do know how a prototypical warrior works right (the only build your basically talking about, since if your not a pure warrior, you have ways to resist magic)? Its the obvious rock/paper/scissor mechanic of the warrior/mage/thief pure builds. The bolded? Im pretty sure you didnt even understand what I was saying.

I like the perk system a lot for Skyrim, should be a whole amount of variety in builds due to the fact that you will only be able to get 31% of the perks by level 70, that's assuming that the perk count is 220, if it's 280 then it's only 25% of the perks at level 70.

Why? Perks are rather effective if you're trying to get the same thing done as Attributes. Seriously, every effect Attributes offered, perks will cover it.

Oy, you hurt my feelings. :turned:

Attributes and perks are two totally different systems. One could have a perk-based attributes system. But that is not what we are seeing in SR.

No, they probably wont. Perks probably wont cover luck, or the difference between personality and speechcraft, or the separate variable of strength/agility opposed to weapon skill.

Perk packs may be quite necessary for me. I needs to be able to jump/run faster/higher and I want to be able to use hand to hand.

I am repeating myself here, but try to read it this time.

I am pretty sure it is possible to block stuff like fireball with a shield. I doubt the enemy NPC will use spells like fear, frenzy and so on on you so thats out of the way. The enemy probably wont be healing you either so that doesnt have to be blocked. The really only spell I see as to be unblockable with iron shield is Lightning bolt. Other than that I see no reason why spells couldnt be blockable. It is still just a projectile being fired at you whatever it is. If its electricity you should be [censored], but any other projectiles should be just fine to block. Thats the whole point of having a shield.

There is your argument. The only magical thing about NPC magin in TES is the fact that they magically create an element or other physical stuff. You don't get attacked by things like ghost swords or toxic clouds. Its always just a projectile which can very ealily be blocked by shield, again unless its electricity.
If you use magic on a wall nothing happenes to it. The shield is like a wall. It cant be effected by stuff like mind tricks etc. All it can to is transfer electricity on you.

Ok, you only answered to one of my arguments, but anyways, the whole rock/paper/scissors thing only really works in multiplayer. ES is a single player game where you take on hordes of enemies alone, so each archetype has to be balanced to handle many different enemies. So, let me put it like this and why it only works in a multiplayer game: You're a warrior, weak against magic but strong against thieves. Uh oh, you see a mage! he obliterates you because he's stronger against warriors but weaker against thieves. You get your party member, a thief, to take him out. Problem solved, and that's where rock/paper/scissors works. But in ES it would go like this: You're a warrior, you see a mage, he kills you 50 times, you have reload your save 51 times and finally kill him after dumb luck. ES is meant to be balanced against all archetypes, and with playing archetypes for different playstyles, not for the r/p/s effect

That's not an argument, you cover one elemental effect of Destruction, not the rest of magic. Blocking=/=resisting magic.



You've played an Elder Scrolls game before right? With your logic no pure warrior has ever been playable in an ES, which is obviously not true. Multiplayer? Er, the three main builds have inherit strengths and weakness. That's RPG at its core, not some multi player only mechanic.

I obviously covered all of them. Magic= projectile. Projectile can be blocked. You are just unable to process it. Any kind of spells the NPC will throw on you will be projectile. Small ball. It does not touch you physically but it touches the shield. There is no epic magic like cage formed from light that would tempararly make you unable to move or Metoer spell. All they can do is small ball of energy. Nothing more nothing less. Thats all easily blockable. Tell me one spell that cannot be blocked that the NPC could use. The only thing that comes to my mind is armor degrading and lighting. Give me more.

"Probably won't" and bam, that's where you lost. If you said probably won't there, then you can say Dragon fights probably won't be cool, or that AI probably won't be good. Probably isn't valid because I could say you probably won't be right. Luck was dumb anyways, seriously? All it did in ES was raise all your skills just a little. Personality didn't matter, other than increasing speech and merc, but even then, I could just level speech and raise someones disposition, so personality wouldn't even matter there. Ok, no strength or agility, strength affected melee damage, encumbrance, and fatigue, right? and agility covered fatigue I think, i forget but whatever. Instead of having Str increase all that, you could just increase them directly (when you level up, increase health, then pick a higher dmg perk, then next time you level, pick fatigue) it's rather simple, it cuts out the middle man.

They are going to have 100 luck perks, or 100 personality perks, doubtful. the rest of your post shows you didnt know what the attributes did in the first place.

No, you cover one of 85 effects. A form of one effect actually. You know about all of the delivery systems right?

I'm fine with perks, in fact, i'll love them, as long as they are plentiful, diverse, and truly make it so that if you fully perk for sword weapons, there is a clear positive difference between them and maces or axes.

Ok, i just told you why luck was useless, and why personality was too. I'm sorry, i didn't realize you needed a perk with it's name having said blatantly "Luck perk" or "Personality perk" even if it does the same thing. Then explain to me, what did they do? I must be missing something if they were so great that people are getting mad at losing them.

No, you said how you didnt know what they did. not how they were useless.

I only said that for Agility. Out of the 4 traits I talked about, I only forgot what Agility did. Wow.

Also, when they mean blocking magic, they meant blocking magic damage. Not stuff like charm/rally/sunder, stuff like that, it's purely defence against magic, there isn't really any way shields could negate spell effects, only negate damage.