So you start the game, maybe you haven't put any thought into how you want to play, so you play it, and you level your enchanting/alchemy/smithing up to 100's and now everything is easy. Yeah, that could happen to someone who didn't know what they were doing. If it were me, and I ran into that, I'd start over. Plain and simple, I don't want to have to wear crappy armor and use crappy weapons against creatures far beyond my level.

But the game is designed specifically to allow you to play how you want. If someone does this deliberately, Great! That's how they wanted to play. If you want to be a wandering lord of pain from the very beginning, you can do that. You level up those three skills, drop the difficulty to novice and run around without any trouble whatsoever. You're a damage sponge and a damage machine.

Why should Bethesda take that option away? That's what I do not understand. Many people claim the game is flawed or broken, simply because the game allows the player to become overpowered. I'll agree. They ARE overpowered. But that should be an option. This is an RPG and a Bethesda RPG, it's expected that you can do that.

I chose not to do that. When I realized that all of my equipment was enchanted and that I could no longer improve it, I did level it up so that I could improve it again. But I only brought smithing in line with the rest of my skills. Yeah, I gained two levels for it, but nothing was broken.

The game is designed so that everyone can see ALL of the content if they put the time into it. So if you've made your character a God, you won't find any more challenge.

But you play it how you want... "There's no wrong way, to play an Elder Scrolls".

TL:DR - it's not broken, it's how you choose to play. Min/Maxers will become Gods because that's how this game works.

Well said sir. :celebration:

Yeah but when I meet those Min/Max players in the PvP arena it isn't fair.

No ... wait ... nevermind.

Because choosing to play a weaker character should not be forced upon us in order to experiment with different character builds. It is unreasonable that any "strongest" character must take roughly the same 20 perks each time, just because that's how the system is set up.

There should be some room for variation, some means of arguing that it may actually be better to take ABC over XYZ.

Personally, I roleplay. Roleplaying is all about self-limits. Limiting the actions your character takes to only those actions that conform to your character's personality and background is what roleplaying is all about.

The Elder Scrolls games are roleplaying games. They do not have to be roleplayed, but I feel they work best when they are. Attempting to do everything with one character, using meta-game knowledge to make the most powerful "build," doing a thing just because you can...these actions damage many player's enjoyment of the game, in my opinion.

Given how easy it appears to craft, enchant, and mix potions in the world of Skyrim, it stands to reason that even while roleplaying a character, the realization would be made as to just how insanely easy it is to make money/improve one's chances through the use of such techniques.

Indeed.
--------------------------
I don't see the issue so much as the player being able to become way powerful, but the ease at which it happens. Having to avoid easy exploits lessens the sense of accomplishment and reward from eventually becoming powerful, and thus cheapens the overall experience greatly.

agreed

maxing out certain skills makes you really powerfull
makes sense
nothing broken about it IMO
people maxing out anything right of the bat don't have a right to complain, they broke the game IMO

Dang ol' Dragon Born man... Gonna be OP, right...

I don't see it. They give you an easy button and you're unhappy that you pressed it. I can understand that it takes away from your sense of accomplishment I suppose. But what if you played it "straight" where you only use crafting skills up to where your main skills are already, then stop, level some more, go back and craft to that level, rinse and repeat? All while playing on Master? Then you're actually gaining the levels and fighting the denizens of Skyrim on a more even playing (killing?) field. The challenge that Skyrim provides is not, "Can I make my character a god?" The challenge is, can I defeat all of my enemies without first "making my character a god?". And by this I mean, can I do it with a character that is not a god, not, I can do it without accidentally making a god.

The problem is how much more powerful these skills are. There is no reason for one set of three skills to be 75% superior to another set of three skills, when the resulting style of play is still running around in full heavy armour, using a shield and a sword.

First things first, this is not an online game. How powerful your characters are only matters to you. Whether they are weak, God-like, or somewhere in the middle that is only relevent to you in your single player game.

If you think the game is hard lower the difficulty. If you think it's easy raise the difficulty. If you think it's fun spending hours and hours farming thousands of gold to max out the crafting skills and make the most boring to play character possible go for it. You overpoweredness effects no one but you. If you want to actually use perks in combat skills(block, sneak, archery are my favs so far) it actually makes fighting more indepth and fun. I'd rather have my sword/board warrior use all his perks that effect the way he plays (running while blocking, slowmotion, etc) than having the best gear and playing with baseline, boring Morrowind/Oblivion combat.

You're absolutely right, it affects nobody but myself. The point still remains though, that "balance" issues relate to me balancing my first character to my second character to my third character.

Also, understand that 20 perks is still not that much, you can spec perks into the actual combat trees sure, so combat remains exactly as interesting as you make it, its simply that its significantly more trivial than taking non-crafting perks instead of crafting perks.

The point I'm trying to make is that balance matters when providing players with some form of choice on how to assign perks. We only have so many perks now, so it takes a moment of thought, planning, and interest when it comes to spending those points. To make one set of perks 75% more effective than another set of perks cheapens the options, and once again, forces us to play in a sub-optimal way (if we choose to stick to a more fluid "pick a style of combat and put perks in that" playstyle). Rather than encouraging us to actually pick a style we want, and resting happily in the fact that we are doing quite well for ourselves.

I would rather see crafting provide a smaller bonus, and most certainly not be a viable character build over a more "skill" based character. I would rather crafting be a "do you want a 5-15% improvement to all your activities" sort of option, so that there is also the option to spend those 20 perks on some other set of skills that just as easily could provide a benefit just as effectively.

I'm unhappy because initially I didn't know it was the easy button, and later because it was and was so easily pressed and by being pressed, cutting down an element with so much potential. And by cutting down, I mean having to knowingly avoid it in order to not get too good. I have to hinder my character progression - a very core element in an RPG - because of a broken element.

Boom! roasted...
/thread

Is it a 75% difference? And even if it is does it matter? 75% between two toons in an MMORPG is unplayable. 75% in an RPG is utterly different because you have the choice of whether or not to take the uber route down alchemy, smithing and enchanting.

Which will you find most fun, making every toon an enchanter/smith/alchemist leaving 1 skill to experiment with, or are you going to try each new one with different skills to see what happens. The affect of maxing out a new skill on a new toon might not be as great numbers-wise as going cookie cutter with 3 skills each toon, but it is definitely more fun. And if you are so weak that you feel you have to go cookie cutter each time in a single player game then I don't see why that is the problem for the majority of us who would rather go for 4 different skills on each new toon.

It's not being forced on you to play a weaker character. They simply exist in terms of the math that defines the system. In the same way, the maximum character will be defined by a strict set of attributes and perks. As it is a single player RPG the justification for playing a sub-maximum build is entirely within your own mindset.

It destroys roleplaying integrity. It is fun to roleplay a self-reliant character who makes and enchants his own equipment and brews his own potions. A highly skilled warrior/smith/enchanter/alchemist is not an idiot. The character would realize that using enchants and potions that improve his smithing ability will help increase his chance of survival while slaying dragons. Consistent with roleplaying, the character would take advantage of that knowledge. Thus, if you choose to roleplay realistically, the gameplay suffers. If you choose to pretend fortify smithing doesn't exist, preserving gameplay, then you lose roleplaying immersion. I want a game that let's me roleplay with good gameplay, without requiring me to reroll my charater.

Players that want to be superpowerful have other options. Specifically, they can turn down the difficulty level. I don't have another option for roleplaying a self-reliant 2H warrior, so I have to either diminish my roleplaying experience or diminish my gameplay experience.

First, enchanting and smithing don't change the gameplay at all so, in my view, that is not part of a build. All those skills do is make whatever your build is stronger. It's all of the other skills that determine what kind of build you are. This is one fatal flaw in those two systems. They need to add actual gameplay to those systems rather than just making items stronger or creating items.

Second, I have a hard time believing most people were like:

"I need to experiment making a brute warrior who happens to be smart enough to smith and enchant items!"

More likely the dude got on the forums read how powerful they were and went on their powergaming way. Then some of those same people come back on here to either gloat or complain or both. It's getting annoying.

Conducted an experiment once. Max enchant/alchemy/smithing. Added the needed materials to craft the ultimate fortify alchemt/smithing gear, and potions to improve smithing and enchanting (had to loop multiple times through this to get best effect). Then I crafted daedric armour/shield/sword/gold ring/gold amulet. I enchanted all of these with fortify heavy armour and fortify one handed.

690 armour (beyond armour cap)
140 damage ("high enough")

Then I made a new character, leveled heavy armour, block, and one handed to 100 (and all associated perks were taken). Added daedric armour/shield/sword.

490 armour, 40 damage.

The actual % improvement I state is a bit of a hyperbole, but its still reasonably large. Both are "capable" characters to be sure. My point though, is that they play roughly the same way, but have vastly different outputs.

Also 20 out of 80 perks isn't enough to force you to "only" take crafting, you're certainly free to explore other areas of the game. Its simply a matter that it is simply too effective to pass up, without specifically choosing to play a weaker style of play. I find the OPs belief here that its OK to actively gimp oneself for the sake of "fun" to be unreasonable. I enjoy using all the tools at my disposal. I also like trying out different tools. I am sad though, as the game clearly rewards using a highly particular set of tools more than another set.

I don't mind that using all the tools has amazing results, I just dislike that 3 tools are simply better than all the other ones I have.

Ha! I guess blondish nord-looking fellas' minds think alike (only you look better than me... damn it!): made a thread couple of hours ago to talk exactly about that. I like it when you say "The game is designed so that everyone can see ALL of the content if they put the time into it."

But I gotta play the - hopefully - constructive devil's advocate here:

Would you agree that, sometimes, the engine can be designed in a such a way as to make it "impossible" to achieve a certain level of challenge, and the rewards that derive from overcoming those challenges?

If that's the case with Skyrim it's open for debate. I personally don't think it's the case, but would like to hear your thoughts on it, even if it is in theory.

Your logic is wrong here.Playing game on easy difficulty is easy button.By playing "straight" as you call it you basically are doing what whoever is balancing game should have done by restricting in some way.What is the point of having difficulty in game otherwise?Game scaling needs a lot more work in my humble opinion.

Self limitation is less fun for a lot of people.

It removes options.

It breaks immersion.

You won't understand. It's hard to understand how other people think. But just accept that other people enjoy things in different ways that you.

I find a game less fun if it isn't balanced. You can't tell me that how I enjoy things is 'wrong'. That's just how I have fun.

Yeah i was thinking it was a long time since we had a new smithing/enchanting thread

There was already an easy button in the game. It's on the game setting screen. Anyone who does nothing but farm gold to buy thousands of gold worth of mats to power level crafting skills knows what they're doing. It takes way to much time and effort to do it accidentally.

But if you want to argue "well that's how I get my immersion" well roleplay being a vendor and avoid the world and all it's scary monsters. I mean that's why you started by putting all perks in crafting rather than combat skills right? because you wanted to be a vendor not a combatant