My point is that with so many perks available in the game a lot of these perks are going to be the replacement for attribute removal in some aspects. I.E. the +5% damage modifier that is hidden and ranks up. Everyone say's that is speculation but it is also the cheapest and most likley scenario. 180 perks + ranking to 280 perks. I can honestly say I really wouldn't want to spend my perks on a tree for certain aspects I don't want. It should be about SKILL progression not this damnable tree progression everyone drones on and on about. Basically If I want a single perk out of a tree set it as a skill requirement. Definately not a previous perk requirement or multiple perks as a requirement.

Exactly, it ruins replayablility as you just said yourself. One way or another. I don't want to have exploits in a game, because I always end up using them. I want to start Skyrim from the begining when I make a new char. So I say no thanks for any ideas that have the potential of destroying the replayability for me. Note the invisible IMHO here.

But regardless there are going to be exploits in a game this large. There were for oblivion, morrowind, probably daggerfall and other previous systems. Once an idea becomes a system it will have loopholes and exploits. That is human nature. But I would much rather have more frreedom and choice rather than so many restrictions that it binds me to 1 or 2 skills when there are 18 in the game. I never cared for the replayability as these games tend to last long enough for maybe 3 playthroughs.

I think that if I am able to see all the perks during my first "perk choosing" option, there really is no need to "save up" perks because out of the many options, I am sure I will want at least one of the lower-level perks or begin on a certain path to obtain a higher level through it's respective tree.

I don't mind the idea of trees, nor basic skill sets. I've played many games that require skill selection from Mass Effect to Dragon Age, Fallout 3 and Oblivion and Morrowind.
Every time I started a game, I thought about how another system might have been better, but in the long run, each fit it's game in a way and made me play it differently.

If I have the option to save up my perk points, I probably won't, and I don't see the need to persuade others to do the same.
After looking at all the posts, videos and article links on the forum, I am very excited to see the final product on how this system will look (both for gameplay and aesthetically).

I agree with you in that it should be a skill requirement and skill progression, but i dont think you should be able to save them...

You are choosing to use the skills that you level and the perks available will be the result of your choices.

You all are saying that you are going to use skills that you don't want in order to be masters of what you do want later? That is not freedom of choice, that is flip-flopping and the inability to MAKE a choice on your own. The entire leveling system based on "learn as you use" is the definition of freedom of choice in progression. I honestly can NOT see how choosing to use a skill enough to level is not choosing to learn that skill. Perhaps there is some confusion about the definition of "choice"? Choice means that you decide to use one thing over another which is done by using a skill so much that you level it.

Please enlighten me as to how CHOOSING to use skills and leveling them is NOT choosing to improve the skills that you use?

You are partially correct and incorrect. From my point of view let me try to clarify. I kinda ramble and shout because this new implementation frustrates me to no end.

I think unlocking perks should be SKILL based. They should not be unlocked by other perks that reside in the same tree. There are a few reasons for that. 1. If I want a "unique" perk out of a select discipline I dont want to burn up all of my perk points wading through a sea of perks that I honestly don't give a damn about.(More on this in a moment). 2. By going down the route of a "tree skill" system you are restricting gameplay from a certain standpoint(some may love being led by the hand down a select path but I don't). 3. A system like the "diablo" tree's or whatever you want to call them WILL be counterintuitive to the skill system. 4.IF they are indeed taking the path of a "tree perk" system they are pretty much downplaying one of the most important aspects of TES. The Skill system. If they are making these perks to be a buffer for the removal of some attributes along with some overpowered abilities at the end of a long and boring tree on ONE skill path they are going entirely the wrong way with this system. These perks should be something that defines your character even more and maybe add some cool flash to your style. NOT be the GoDoFRoxXoRz. I know Todd has said they "stole" the magic system from Bioshock but let's see how much intuition is put into the balance of the game while still making it fun. They could actually learn much more than dual wielding from the Bioshock series.

My greatest concerns: 1. BORING perks - I have been called out on the floor on this but I am standing my ground. The majority of these perks WILL be boring. Why? Because there are 180 +100. That tell's me that a LOT of these perks will be hidden modifiers like +5% firebolt damage. Basically it is to compensate for the removal of attributes. It's a sham and Bethesda can do better than that.

2. "OH I CAN DO THAT TOO!!" Every other (mostly western) so called RPG makers follow the same exact tree system. So often that it makes me sick. Bethesda could have still implemented perks but done it in much better fashion than aa button press and a shiny star pops up. The opportunity for more depth and more content lies just around the corner and they want players looking at the sky and the stars and not at the world around them.

I could list a few more but meh why bother. This is my greatest fear for Skyrim. I'm not saying it's the wrong path but they should at least take some good ideas and make their OWN path not follow everyone else. Bethesda is more than capable of it.

Will I buy Skyrim? Yup. Will I like Skyrim? Definately. Will I love Skyrim? Only if "Named Soul Gems" are back!

It's easy to stop an exploit if you realize it is one before the game is out and I do not believe a game developer who sees an exploit would just be like "oh well, exploits are part of the game."

Sometimes yes sometimes no. If it is a glaring systemic flaw definately. If it's a systemic glitch maybe not. Case in point crackdown. The upgraded truck eventually had the ability to do a charge jump. There was a glitch in the game where the charge actually made the truck stick to walls (spider-truck). This glitch was left in the game simply because it was "A pretty cool glitch". Now if Bethesda would have caught the "dupe" glitch in oblivion you can bet it definately wouldn't have made it to final product. But ask yourself this. Would you rather have a minor exploit in the game or a game breaking glitch I,E. "New Vegas: The coolest broken game ever shipped to public". I say leave the minor crap. Big picture I want a fun game that doesn't break down on me. For folks that have no self control whatsoever I urge you to try and get some. I don't want your mandates for restrictions getting in the way of my leisure time. In the end your building yourself a linear game. Go play a Bioware Quasi-RPG or something. The developers do listen and what they hear may be completely misinterperated.