You still end up with identical characters in that.


I gotta admit, being as desensitized to violence as I am, I only played Fallout 1 & 2 a few months ago, and even that intro shocked me a bit.

What do you mean by identical characters?

Okay:

Character 1: Bosmer, major skills are stealth oriented

Character 2: Orc, major skills are combat oriented

By level 30-40 it doesn't really matter what I started in, the character will be good at everything. Despite the orc being much larger in size, the bosmer will be just as strong and do just as much damage in melee combat. The orc will be just as spring-footed and sneaky as the elf despite being way bigger and clumsier. 100 strength for a bosmer should mean less than 100 strength for an orc, despite "capping" the skill, the orc is a lot bigger and therefore should always be stronger, an orc at 100 strength should be stronger than a bosmer at 100 strength. A bosmer at 100 speed and agility should be faster and more agile than an orc at 100 speed and agility because they are smaller and quicker.

With fallout, you're generally playing one race, which is human, but you define your strengths and weaknesses through the fixed attribute system, so at 8 strength, somebody will be a lot stronger than somebody at 4 strength, but the person at four strength will be better at something else, and regardless of the level between the two characters, one of them will always be stronger and bigger; while the other one will always be better at something else.

I dont really see that as a flaw, or a problem. In fact I dont really mind it at all. I dont want to be penalized for picking a certain race.

It kind of sounds like that is more of an issue of races and their associated skills and attributes and so on, rather than leveling issues. You say that a level 100 strength orc should be stronger than a 100 strength elf, but that doesnt really have any relevance to the issue here in my opinion. The only way for that to make sense would be for the orc to have a 'bonus' to strength. It doesnt really apply to a problem with the leveling system. At the peak levels (50 or more for Skyrim), of course all of your attributes will start to beef up, even the ones you dont really use as much. Personally I like this, because it gives me a chance to switch the game up a little. I like doing a little bit of everything.

And as for other characters, enemies, creatures and NPC's......not EVERY thing in the game has to be level based. There should be certain people and places that you should avoid until your a weathered, well leveled character. They shouldnt be easier just because Im level 1 when I get there. Guards should be a high level at all times, as well as other NPCs and even animals. I certainly dont want deer getting stronger as I level....and there should always be people smarter/stronger than you, but the balancing factor is the skills.

Someone in TES might be a better fighter than me, but I have potions, magic, great weapons and armor, and extremely tailored skills that I can use to take them down. Thats what can give me the upper hand in a fight against someone stronger.

I would prefer fixed attributes (FO style) and level-by-use skills (ES style).

The great thing about Fallout-style attributes is that initially different characters end up wildly different, with interesting flaws that they are stuck with. Low Endurance? Your character will need to avoid being hit, for the WHOLE GAME.

Elder Scrolls characters have a tendency to even out - sure, you can choose not to and call this 'roleplaying', but there's no particularly convincing in-game reason not to get a reasonably high Strength (for carry weight) and Endurance at some point, no matter what character you are playing.

On the other hand, levelling SKILLS by using them makes a lot of sense to me. Skills are more specific, the type of thing you can learn and get better at, and it makes no sense that in most RPGs you can level skills by doing something completely unrelated.

I completely agree, and thats what I was getting at. I still dont like the Fallout Special system for TES, but as long as my skills level by using them, I suppose thats all Im really worried about. I dont want magical EXP to determine my characters skill level.

You just spent the last page arguing against the post you just quoted. Nobody was proposing that there be XP (even though that's how arena worked..) :shakehead:

WRONG

Every post I made emphasized the leveling of skills based on using them, rather than leveling. The quote I used pertained directly to leveling your skills by using them, which is what I have been saying.

I dont want to argue about attributes anymore, because really I dont care. I loved FO3 and I loved TES, so if they want to mix the level systems of each whatever. I still HATE the idea of an RPG that locks your attributes at the beginning of the game.

What you guys suggest would mean never increasing the amount you can carry from the start of the game. My strength is set as a specific number and it doesnt change, whether my character's level is 1 to 50. It was a bad system in that aspect, and didnt promote the RPG elements I love about TES. I like everything to increase as you progress. I didnt like that it was based on a 1-10 scale rather than 1-100 like TES.

And as far as a leveling aspect went, FO3's system was good, but not excellent. Its not like the enemy leveling was much more improved than Oblivions. Instead of everything being a challenge like in OB, in FO3 everything was extremely easy. There was little challenge to the combat in FO3, and by mid way throught the leveling process I could pop the heads off of everything in site with only 1-2 shots. From level 1-35 in Fallout I always felt like a badass, and everything in the world was a puny weakling with the exception of Death Claws.

Are you talking about Fallout or Fallout 3? I can promise you that Fallout 1 and 2 are not easy.

Fixed post. I was referring to FO3 and NV, the more recent additions to the series.

playing oblivion with an always +5 multiplier mod totally changed how i feel about this. the game feels so much different not having to do math, keep track of multipliers, ect. skills should be way more involved. and will be with perks. and of course, health not being based on endurance is a good idea. i know some of you have played mages and trained in heavy armor just for an endurance multiplier :/ if you're playing a magic character, you should be able to focus on that. same for combat and stealth

Don't cite FO3 when arguing with Fallout fans.

Also, about weight.. that could easily be solved by stopping that weight scaling thing. Would be nice if all weapons and armor had similar weights, but some were just better than others. I don't think ebony would be such a popular material if it weighed so much.



That's actually a reasonable point. I was wondering what the rational behind the "choosing" thing was.

Then again, if you had fixed attributes you could decide whether you want a high endurance or not from the start.

Interesting! Im told not to cite FO3......in a post ABOUT FO3. Read the OP, closely.

This seems to have become a whine fest about FO vs. TES, so Im outta here. Bottom line, TES can borrow aspects of FO, but as for bringing its entire level system to TES, No. There should not be S.P.E.C.I.A.L in TES. Nuff said.

Has anybody maxed all skills in Oblivion? Possible in Morrowind because unlimited training, but in Oblivion it would be incredible boring, also the problem that if you take up a new combat skill you would hardly do damage.
And we will not get restrictions on skills, possible with race specific perks but I doubt it.

Of course there shouldn't be SPECIAL in TES. There should be SPWESIAL in TES (just as there has been in the other games), and everything else should oeprate the same as previous games (skills level as you utilize them).

The only whine fest was caused by you.



The problem is not maxing skills, it's about maxing attributes. On that note, I felt that attributes had little to no effect on anything in Oblivion. While someone with high agility should ideally be able to strike faster and with more accuracy, it was no so in oblivion; just as somebody who is strong should be able to strike harder. These problems need to be tackled in Skyrim, and if they are; along with a fixed attribute system, then each race will have specialties. As it is now the only practical difference between a level 40 bosmer and level 40 orc is that they look different.

As I said, I'm either for a fixed ATR system, or as you put it, a system where certain races have limits to certain attributes. The issue as I see it is that your character just gets more and more generic as you level up.

Good post. I agree.

As long as I enjoy a game enough to play it hundreds of hours I dont care what the fudge they change. Nothing is sacred to me.

stats svck

less states = better games

I have a recommendation for an amazing RPG for you. Its called Fable, and it sounds exactly like what you want. You can have a dog, and dig holes, and other childish things.

No seriously though, you idea is despicable. Stay away from TES, and anything related. Skills svck? Instead of verbally assassinating you, why dont you explain to everyone why 'SKILLZ R svckY' and 'LESS STATES = Bettar GaMez'.

Im serious. I want to hear this explanation.

That said, stats svck as they are a bar or a single path. Not very rpg-ish Perk tree's allow for different paths to be taken, and it wouldn't be to hard to rig it so that perk tree's grow as you use them.

Dude......chill out. Bottled up aggression much?

No. People just scare me with some of their ideas. Stats svck? Wtf kind of comment is that? No explanation. They just svck. Talk like that here and your asking for it.

Is attributes was confirmed?
Still between no attributes at all and S.P.E.C.I.A.L. I will prefer S.P.E.C.I.A.L. since attributes are fundamental feature

Heh. He probably couldve phrased that better. Still, speaking against stats in an RPG? the reaction is to be expected