I agree. My girlfriend spent HOURS in Balmora breaking into every single house and stealing EVERYTHING. She had a ton of gold early on in the game. I wish i had her patience.

1. Do not allow people to choose when they block.
2. Remove the lockpicking mini game.

I want fighting to be based on character skill, not player skill. I still don't understand why Bethesda moved away from that in Oblivion. I love Oblivion, but the could have easily made it a stronger RPG by continuing many of the things they did in previous Elder Scrolls games.

3. Allow more slots for clothing and armor.
4. Allow me to combine clothing and armor.
5. Bring back capes.
6. Bring back larger amounts of weapon and armor variety.
7. Separate skills that should not be together. Axes are not blunt weapons. Daggers do not belong in the same group as longswords and they definitely do not belong in the same group as claymores.
8. Get rid of level-scaling.

Could someone tell me why Bethesda changed so many things between Morrowind and Oblivion? Oblivion has its strengths, but I can't even understand why they went against what I posted above.

Why exactly? That would defeat the whole purpose of blocking.

Let blocking be based on character skill, like in Morrowind. It would not defeat the purpose of blocking, it would make TES V more based on character skill, and that is how an Elder Scrolls game should be.

Exactly, if at all I'd give the player MORE control. Saying "It's a RPG, it should be character skills" is no excuse for giving less control over things that should be self explanatory.
The player should be in charge of nearly all general motor skills, the character should take over "instinctive" actions. For example, evasive jumps should be player controlled but evasive body movements should be character controlled since the player can't possibly control those.

I mean should attacking be fully character controlled too? In Morrowind you could make it like that, after all you repeatedly had to click away at your opponents anyway, might as well have made it fully automatic (NO I'm not advertising that method).

^Exactly. There needs to be more player control, not less.

I agree with all of your ideas except this one.

I really like the ability to block when I want. It does add a tiny bit of controller skill to the RPG experience, but not excessively. I enjoy this sprinkling of controller skill just as I really, really loved the user skill needed to shoot accurately with the bow. I like to get better in the game both by improving my characters stats and improving my own skill of fighting. For me, it feels very immersive to have this direct control.

JPRG's turn-based fighting doesn't appeal to me because of the lack of this direct control.

The RPG/FPS line is still secure when a high-leveled character could still easily defeat a high-skilled user in a hypothetical fight. And Oblivion still passes this litmus test.

Personally, I have nothing against the blocking ability, but I thought a complaint about Oblivion was how it is more based on player skill, and I don't want to hear anyone call TES V a game for "FPS-junkies". Is it a complaint about Oblivion? I thought it was(No, I don't like hearing anyone insult my favorite game, so while I didn't care about blocking either way, I just don't want to see many complaints about TES V).

Eh? The amount of clutter items is actually rather popular around here, though I'm not sure why you're pointing to Oblivion as a good example of utilizing it. Oblivion took clutter and made it worthless. Quite literally, in most cases, giving it zero worth. Further, Oblivion kinda limited the range of clutter. In Morrowind, virtually everything that wasn't part of the large-scale architecture or a piece of furniture could be picked up by the player. Not so much with Oblivion; off the top of my head, they completely removed any portable lights (candlesticks, lanterns, lamps, etc) besides torches. And in dungeon design, Oblivion's clutter really hit a low-point. If it wasn't clutter found in a chest or container, or if it wasn't clutter that was cloned via copy-paste from a developer warehouse cell (i.e weapon racks, bookshelves with the same books, soulgem and alchemy collections, etc), then it was usually clutter in one of the big main quest dungeons that got preferential hand-placed attention.

FO3, in my book, was a step back in the direction of Morrowind; the whole scavenger aspect of the game glorified clutter and made sure there was a ton of it to be had. And because scavenging was meant to be something profitable, clutter was given substantially more than zero worth. Not only do its cities have clutter scattered everywhere, but its dungeons utilize clutter to a wonderfully immense degree (and the clutter makes sense for the location it's in). I don't see the [EMPTY] tag as having any real detractor from that; it's by no means limiting the amount of clutter to be had in the game world. The only thing the [EMPTY] tag tells the player is that there are no items to be had within that container. If there were items in every single container in the world, then I would almost find that stretching the line of believability.

Despite FO3 having containers that held nothing, it used clutter to a ridiculous amount. All around the world, really. Way moreso than Oblivion.


In regard to blocking, I don't want "The game decides whether you attempt to block or not" from Morrowind (made that skill rather passive and somewhat useless), yet I don't want "You can block every single time, and the game will automatically calculate out the correct protection ratio based on your skill."

Instead, I want:
-The player to be able to instigate the block
-The character skills to determine whether the block succeeds or fails (with an absolute noob at the block skill having around a 25% to 30% chance to pass the success roll)
-The term "failure" to be understood in the hard-failure sense of completely failing to block
-The damage absorbed via a successful block to be further dependent upon character skills and other derived-attribute factors

Cue argument over hard failures versus soft-failure gimping.

I suppose my thesis doesn't work if the player is completely incompetent, but still, here it goes.
You (player) are given more power than in Oblivion, with skills giving you perks. As the player, you decide what your character would do.
Is you character capable of performing 10 foot jump? If not, either don't do it or die trying.

That is all.

EDIT: BTW, part of the appeal in real time combat (rather than turn based) is the greater amount of control you have.

I think one problem I have with being able to control when I block is that there's very little incentive to increase the block skill or select it as a Major skill, since you can easily level it up by always blocking. The same could be said of athletics (simply jump everywhere), but there's more to athletics than simply jumping (there's running and swimming), and these aren't skills you need to have high points in so that your character will survive a tough battle.

Perhaps a reaction time could be incorporated. In other words, even though you, the player, can press the button to block, your character - if he/she has a low block skill - will not move the shield very swiftly - with the chance of being too slow to intercept the block. A character with a higher block skill will be able to move the shield closer to the speed that the player pushes the button, and recover from the recoil faster than at a lower block skill.

Additionally, instead of blocking all damage, a block would only reduce the incoming damage by a certain amount - that amount would depend on how high the character's Block skill is. Also, blocking should definitely knock out some of the character's fatigue - how much depending on how high the skill is (with high ranks suffering little fatigue loss from performing a successful block).

I propose that there should definitely be some sort of passive Dodge or a better active type of dodge as an alternative to using a shield. This would give more roleplayability for players who do not want their character to use a shield or rely on strength to deflect damage in battle. Again, a sort of delayed reaction time would meld player control and stat-based control of the skill. Lower ranks in the skill means a character will move more slowly and over shorter distances - resulting in a partial dodge (take reduced damage), or a failure to avoid the worst of the enemy's blow. Higher ranks would translate into more synchronicity with the player's mouse/button clicking, a better chance for the character to avoid an attack, and a faster recovery time for a counter-attack (made by the player).

Uhm sorry but even as a complete noob you can hold something in front of you to protect yourself, the biggest idiot could do that. However there's the question of blocking RIGHT, if you don't block correctly you can easily be knocked off your feet, your shield can be knocked out of your hand or your block can easily be broken since you can't really know how to hold your counter.

So you CAN block all the time, your skill would determine how well you can take the blow of a block (if you can't take it well you can be knocked down), how well you can control your shield (if you can't control it well it can easily be knocked out of your hand) and how much you can hold a block (if you're bad at it somebody can easily punch your shield out of the way and have free way to hit you)

The problem with blocking in Oblivion was that it made you a "iron wall", there was nothing that really BROKE a block or could pull a shield out of the way, if a heavy blow could knock you down it would be a totally different story.

Sure, anyone can hold something in front of them, but if all there was to blocking was just to hold something in front of me, I would be a master at it. As you note, blocking correctly would be what determines the true pass/fail.
So really, the "holding up something to protect yourself would be the "Player instigates block" stage, which has no limitations placed on it. I see no problem thus far.

Now, where I know we're not going to get along is the hard percentage check I feel should be present, based on the character's block skill, to determine whether they manage to absorb any damage at all. After all, if I (a completely non-combative untrained individual) were to go up against a competent fighter IRL, and I happened to pick up a garbage can lid (or hey, even an actual shield if there's one nearby), if I don't know what to do with it, it's not going to serve me any real purpose. I may try to block with it, but that competent fighter will more than likely rip it out of my hand or cut past my sloppy and slow movements. I guess it does depend somewhat on the skills of the opponent, so let's say that the successful chance of blocking depends on the character's block skill, the opponent's attack skill, and marginally the opponent's strength. Those variables interwork to give percent-likelihood of success (averaging around 25% to 30% for a complete shield-noob versus a normal combatant). I find it not only severely unbelievable but incredibly unlikely that someone who knows virtually nothing of shields is going to successfully block the strokes of a trained fighter more than 1/4 to 1/3 of the time.

If the character fails the check, then they are knocked back and take full damage. If they pass, then they absorb damage based on character block skill.

Really, I don't think we view this all to differently, minus the range of skill-to-action.


That's A problem, to be sure, but I don't see it as THE problem. Catastrophic failure would be a nice touch, but generally consistent failure rates correlated to the the character skills need to be sewn back in as well.

Let me try:

When you're bad at blocking here's what can happen:
-You CAN lift your shield all the time, save for your arm being broken, you're completely exhausted or there's not enough room to do so (in which case your skill wouldn't matter anyway), you CAN always block no MATTER of your skill.
-When you deflect a blow you can stagger or even be knocked down because you can't really balance out the blow well
-The shield can be knocked out of your hand since you lose grip
-Somebody can easily pull the shield out of the way and directly attack you
-A successful block drains a lot more of your strength since you can't counter it well
-A very strong blow can more easily injure your arm since it's "thrown around" and you can't absorb the blow too well putting too much stress on your arm
-You can't hold the shield up indefinitely, it will drain your arms strength, when your arm weakens you block also weakens
-It will take longer for you to "recover" after a blow (lift your shield back into blocking position)

So in the end you can't just keep holding up your shield and expect to block well but you CAN still block.

And what exactly do you see as "catastrophic failure" for a block?


EDIT:
I don't wanna get into that topic too much but there are better alternatives for the "failure" system, I wouldn't say "you have a 1/4 chance of success" but your opponent has a high chance to break your FIRST block and then connect into a second attack, that means you first BLOCK succeeded but it "failed" to hold. you won't magically get hit THROUGH your shield but you can't hold it long enough to deflect a second blow. Your skill pretty much determines how well you can CONTROL your shield, even IF it gets knocked around it might not be far enough to leave you OPEN for a attack, and that can be simulated by simple "physics", hell not even going so far, calculate the power of the blow, it's direction, your position and how well you could hold your shield, if the blow was strong enough your arm is pushed out of the way leaving you open for a attack, if your arm is too weakened you could drop your shield and so on.
The random factor is not entirely removed, I grant that is still a "necessary evil", but SEVERELY reduced to a size it won't be too irritating anymore and so many factors playing into it that it just feels more natural.


EDIT 2:
Oh yea and ONE reason against a automatic blocking system, sometimes it simply IS better not to block as it could throw you off, and if the game then decides to do it, that would svck.

I'm going to have to agree with seti18 in regards to blocking, it should be less based on player skill and more on your character.

That brings up combat also, you came out that beginning dungeon knowing how to use whatever weapon skill you choose. I own two straight swords and i've tried swinging them before and it takes a LOT of practice to even begin using it correctly. I hope in the next game they make the monsters or whatever you're fighting do more in terms of dodging since a complete novice at using a weapon isn't going to know how to use his weapon correctly to be dealing clean blows(if any at all).

Block skill should determine if you can block, not how much damage you avoid. A successful block should deflect physical attacks, completely. In my opinion, that should be the core idea behind the Block skill.
-----------------------------------------
As far as graphics are concerned, I'd like to see TESV styled around http://www.imperial-library.info/races/mw_nord.gif, not http://www.imperial-library.info/races/nord.gif, with the environment like http://www.artofokami.com/images/wallpapers/okami_wp4_800.jpg. Rob Dougan should write the music. First person anims warrent more attention, but third person anims don't.

I agree with Thatoneguy completely, except that I think that, for a novice, the chances should be more like 5-10%, but you still get XP for unsuccessful blocks (assuming that they keep the XP by use from OB and MW).

Also, why hasn't anyone brought up attacking with a shield? Possibly as a master perk? As an accompaniment to a possible dual-wielding system?

I agree that first-person should be more focused on, however, changing the Nords and making them gigantic barbarians doesn't seem right to me. As for music, I don't know anything about Rob Dougan, but I like the classical masterpieces by Jeremy Soule.

You mean a riposte?

wait, has the idea of perks been brought up?like something you could pick like ever 5 levels or so that could be added modifiers to whatever skills the perk falls under?

I wouldn't mind something like that. I've not played FO3, so I don't know for sure... but if there are at least three perks to pick from, that would be cool (as far as character build goes). Kind of like Feats?

Or maybe there needs to be Disciplines like in Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines. There are special skills that only certain blood clans (your starting race, so to speak) can use. Each clan (race) gets three of them, but I've read that you only really accumulate enough experience (XP) in the game to fully max out two of them (they can be upgraded at most 5 times). Maybe there could be something like that, based on your Class. If you make a custom class, then you get to select from a list of Disciplines (pruned according to what you've chosen as your major skills. (TESIV) or major and minor, like in TESIII).

Making it so that a player has to choose two out of three (to max out, at least) makes it so that there is more replay value and you can build your character differently by emphasizing different Disciplines.

Well said. I was a little bit worried after hearing the Kotaku interview. I interpretted Todd's remarks as meaning Fallout's [EMPTY] tag was a solution for Oblivion and Morrowind's clutter. He seemed to suggest that a spoon in Elder Scrolls was the old [EMPTY]. You are right about Fallout having alot of great clutter, however, and also great uses for it. The homemade weapons from blueprints and the cannon that fires anything (can't recall the name) were brilliant uses of all the trinkets. It seems that, as you said, the [EMPTY] tag should not scare me.

Yeah, I meant feats not perks lol. When I play Neverwinter Nights which uses the 3.5 ruleset it has feats you can choose like every 3 levels and there are a ton so it encourages replayability.

Oblivion had perks too, they were just disguised as the next level of mastery bonuses.

No, not just a riposte, the ability to actually hit someone in the face with your shield if they're close enough. This was a very common usage in warfare in the pre-gun ages (especially with Spartans).

I've always thought that unless you're being attacked with a gigantic warhammer or axe, blocking should absorb 100% of the damage, thats how it is in the real world after all. If someone tries to slash you with a blade and it connects with a shield, the guy behind it will be fine, but if an enemy lifts a hammer above his head and smashes it down on you, a shield should do very little, it should be situation based.

Also, I'd like to see being able to charge with a shield, and not just when your a master at blocking, that makes no sense, anybody can shield smash someone, I could do it right now, but being skilled with it should increase the effect.

The idea was to make shield bashing really powerful, powerful enough that it would be unbalanced accept at master level.

Also, the type of shield should make a difference, buckler/kite/round should all do completely different things.