They should also check things to make sure different armors match well together, or certain robes match armors and helms and such. Purely visual, but I personally enjoy going 3rd person and enjoying what my character looks like, especially with all that emphasis on face-gen.

Well, I hated how in Oblivion, you either wore a full suit of armor, a robe with no helm or looked awkward. In morrowind, you could mix or match and it still looked pretty cool. I always went with redoran bonemold armor with indoril pauldrons and gauntlets as a dunmer warrior, or went with steel and chainmail as a mercenary/fighters guild associate. Robes went really good over armor, and some shirts went really well with pauldrons that didn't cover the shoulders.

So they should make it so that iron and steel go well together, or steel and ebony could mix. They should make some robes that look like they could match armor sets, so make some bright red and gold robes to go with elven, black and gold for ebony, etc.

That would also mean you'd need to let us wear clothes and armor again. Bring back Morrowind's enchantments, so everything isn't CE. Daggerfall's uniqueness would be pretty cool, too. I was draqed in cloaks in Daggerfall, and it looked awesome.

And in terms of Fast Travel, I really hope they go back to Morrowind. I liked it alot more to have to prepare for trips. I'd have to find out what city my objective is closest to, the easiest way to get there, and then how to get there from the city. Sometimes there were no Silt Striders or boats nearby (Urshlaku Ashlander Camps) so I needed to prepare alot more. Levitate, water walking, etc, decide whether to take a shorter path through water or the longer path on land. In Oblivion, I just checked my map, looked for the green marker, found the closest place to it, and magically appeared a minute away from my objective.

Also takes away from true adventure. The FIRST time I went to the Urshlaku camp in Morrowind, I stumbled into a cave on the way. It was home to an Altmer, who was digging into some Daedric ruin. I had a scroll that was able to open to door, somehow managed to kill the Golden Saint guarding it, and I was rewarded with one of the biggest treasure dens in the game. There was the best shield in the game, some daedric weapons, and a daedric face. Bam.

/\

GOOOD IDEA! I LOVE YOU!

I hope Jeremy Soule does a mix of both Morrowind and Oblivion's soundtracks. I like both of them a lot. Don't ignore Oblivion's soundtrack like most people say.

Indeed. Morrowind's was so calming and inspiring, while Oblivions was epic. Both should find a home in Skyrim.

Also, in terms of Daedric, I'd really like there to be an 'elite' set that's hard to geet, like in Morrowind. Only way to get it was to find each individual piece from the most dangerous places in the game (castle of an ice giant, estate of the leader of a crime syndicate, etc) while in Oblivion it was the only armor you could find at a certain point in the game.

I remember I wanted a set of ebony armor at level 25-ish, literally couldn't find one piece. ONLY daedric, which was embarassingly lore-smashing.

Also, didn't like the look of Daedric. The helm was cool, but the armor looked stupid IMO. Too demonic. Fit the theme of the Daedra invasion, but I don't want it looking like that again. Didn't like it in Daggerfall, it was just red. But Morrowind's was pretty cool. The lore says it's ebony armor bound to the spirit of a daedra, so it should look rather elegant, which I thought Morrowind portrayed more than Oblivion.

:shrug: I don't have an issue with either form, I just think that in my personal opinion it's fine.

I don't experience the Fast-Travel dread that other people seem to, so I'm trying to make a compromise in my mind based on what I've observed. It's not really that hard to just go "I feel like walkin', it's nice and sunny today." and then laughing to yourself when halfway there it starts to pour. ^_^

I agree I don't mind fast travel, and in Morrowind I coc everywhere, unless I feel like wandering.

I would love to see a better item placement system in TESV. Trying to decorate in Oblivion and fallout is mind numbingly frustrating.

On MW enchantments. Do not auto-equip 'cast on ...' enchantments when scrolling through spells. The staff, ring, or scroll should be equipped or in the hand (scroll, weapon) before it is actually available. I just remember pulling out a wizard staff and levitating while trying to heal myself in the middle of a battle with a dremora. 1pt of levitation is not really fast enough to help.

It was also annoying when you were wearing two CE rings with great effects, then scroll through and find the ring of healing, or some other useless enchanted ring. Had to open up the inventory, equip both rings over again, tedious and annoying.

Another interesting thing to implement would be the ability to use a one-handed sword with two hands when not using a shield. It would make the attack raise a little bit, slow the swing a little bit, and add a little bit of damage. I can think of alot of reasons why this would be effective, for instance the weight difference of a sword and claymore and the speed and versatility of it. I'd love to be able to switch between one and two hands on a one-handed long sword.

I know of the console, but I don't use it when I play. Lots of people don't use it, perhaps most. When testing if a quest that involves travelling somewhere, they would use the travel feature to see if it's too far, too close, not too costly at low levels, etc.


Hmm... I never knew that. That could make a great main quest storyline. But anyways, unkillable dragons isn't the best idea.


Also, about the fast travel comprimising, I still feel that a sell that allows you to travel to anywhere you've previously been would be great for all of us.

That's all good and well, and to be sure, sometimes I've felt the urge to explore the surroundings as well. That said, sometimes I just want to go back fast and in the same way I came, without exploring the countryside - and for that, fasttravel is a good thing. As said before: just make it optional.

For whiners that use the 'argumentation'; "even if it's optional, I can't withhold myself from using it, if it's in there."....well, frankly, that's your problem, and not of the game nor of fasttravel. Give to each what he wants, I say. And forcing people that find fasttravel useful now and then to go the slow way, is still worse than giving the people who want to explore and walk the whole thing the option of doing just that. Ergo, making fasttravel into an option leaves the most choice to the player(s).

Then I have the option to turn it off. Rather than the personal option not to use it. Its not the same thing.

That's semantics. You could as well have it off by default, but with the option of turning it on, then you wouldn't have to do squat anymore if you don't want to use it.

I'm not even sure what you're getting at. Obviously, you have the option to turn it off OR even on AND to not use it. Even if you don't turn it off, you either use it, or not - that's a choice when fasttravel is an option (in essence, you already have that in OB, since no-one compels anyone to use fasttravel). But by NOT including the option to fasttravel at all, there is no choice of 'using it or not' anymore. Surely you see the difference.

I agree with those that claim there should have been more ways to travel (aka like the silth riders in MW), for those that don't want to use fasttravel, and I hope there will be some extra additions like that in the next one, but still it wouldn't help much if you're in the middle of nowhere and want to return fast. But anyway, point was, for those that complain "it's to difficult NOT to use it when it's there", they could turn it off, then - say, at the beginning of the game. That way, the 'seduction' to use it becomes a bigger hurdle/step. If they still can't withhold themselves from going in the settings and turning the option on again, well, that's THEIR problem, and one can ask oneself how dedicated they are in playing it 'pure' and without fasttravel, then.

The thing that really bothered me in Oblivion was the fact that nearly every quest required inter-city travel. Many quests in Morrowind were in town, and loading wasn't as big a problem. The quests that did go between areas weren't as tedious with having to travel back and forth and back and forth. But for Oblivion, I'd have to go to Bravil to get the quest, all the way to Anvil, get the thing, all the way to the Imperial City, get the other thing, take the things back to Anvil, then go back to Bravil to get my reward. With fast travel, half the entire time was loading screens. Without it, it would be loading screens and traveling along the same path five times for one quest.

More city-specific quests should be made, and inter-city quests should be fewer but more important. Assuming the scope of the game is large enough, inter-province quests should be very few, and have a huge impact on the factions factions with.

Then, Fast Travel wouldn't be nearly as necessary.
Morrowind-style travel options would be great for sure. Perhaps also for those who are used to Oblivion's, players could travel along major roads with on-foot fast travel, but run the risk of getting attacked by enemies. The public transport and mounted travel would be much safer.
Perhaps beast-drawn wagons would be a nice addition. They'd be a tad bit safer than going on foot, a little faster, and they would allow for much greater storage. And your companions could pile in as well.

I wasn't quite talking about the main themes of the games. I was talking about each different piece. The explore tracks from Oblivion were especially great.

http://planetelderscrolls.gamespy.com/View.php?view=OblivionMods.Detail&id=983's music is all-around better tham Jeremey's. My suggestion is to hire him instead.

Seriously, have you not read a single word posted on these threads? The problem with making it optional, is the mass amount of damage it will cause to the game.

• The scenery will be more bland, and less unique, if there's no need to see it.
  
• Quests will be centered around fast travel, because they'd not have to think about those who don't like it.
  
• There would be a slack alternative, it wouldn't be a priority.

These things would happen. Not intentionally, it can't be helped.
(No point arguing about the above - my opinion won't change)


-----------------------

And for those of YOU whiners, that say that you "don't like magic, potions, or scrolls" about my suggestion that actually DOES give the player a choice:
As NeBY might say;

"well, frankly, that's your problem, and not of the game nor of fasttravel. Give to each what he wants, I say."


If you haven't saw, here's my suggestion:

Create a spell that lets us teleport to any previously found location on the map.

It would be a mysticism spell around the level of Mark and Recall, and would be stocked in a decent, respawning supply at every town in potion and scroll form. It would cost more than fast travel, and would cater to everyone.

Please, if you can tell me any real problems with that system, feel free to tell me.



I also have a secondary suggestion for those who can't use magic, potions, or scrolls for some reason:

Create the game with Morrowind style fast travel. Release Oblivion's fast travel as free DLC on release.

If the game where to be created to Oblivion's fast travel, we would have the problems I stated earlier.
If the game is created to Morrowind's fast travel, those problems wouldn't be around, and you'd have your fast travel as dlc.

There's no other problem with Morrowind's system, other than the time it takes, right?

Well, that's exactly the point: it's only an opinion. For instance, I don't agree with the first of your tree points. With point one it could be argumented that the 'need' to explore is because one wants to explore, thus, even if fasttravel exists, sooner or later, the more adventourous players will go explore 'the scenery'. I know *I* used the fasttravel and yet I also explored the whole of OB, thus at least it proves one does not excludes the other. And I doubt I'm the only one (in fact, I suspect MOST players, even those who used fasttravel, went on exploring the countryside too.) Your case simply isn't compelling. Neither is your point two; it's based on speculation. Furthermore, I don't see how a quest can be literally 'centered around' fasttravel; we're not talking about the 'compass' here, that's something else. Fasttravel is a mode of transportation where you actually go to foot, albeit in a way that compresses time. Nothing in the quest changes, whether you do it the slow way, or the fast way. Therefor, if quests will svck if you use fasttravel, they will equally svck if you take the slow way; if quests are dependend on the scenery alone, they ARE bad quests. Only with your third point, I agree it is likely that Bethesda will put less effort in alternative modes of transportation, if there's already fasttravel. Which is a pity, but ultimately, that lies with Bethesda, and not with the system of fasttravel on itself. Alternative transportation, the scenery being bland or crappy quests is not dependent on fasttravel; you could have those with slow travel too, while you could still have great ones even with fasttravel, if Bethesda put their mind to it. So basically, those are arguments stemming from fear Bethesda will mess up, because of fasttravel, but they don't argue against fasttravel itself, if well implemented.

But, regardless; the real point here, is that there are different viewpoints on the subject. As far as opinions go, one opinion is as much worth as another. THUS, let's look at this objectively:

1)You have those that like it, and those that don't. (well, you have those that don't care, but that's not relevant to the question).
2)If you do NOT offer the possibility of fasttravel, you explicitly deny the possibility of using it to those that DO like it.
3)If you DO offer the option (in the settings, for instance), those that want to go to foot 'the slow' way still can do so.

Ergo, the LEAST restrictive is allowing for the option of fasttravel. We both have our opinions on the matter, but I do not prohibit you from going to foot, while you would deny me the possibility of fasttravel. Since one opinion is not worth more than the next, as long as it stays with mere opinions, I wonder why your vision should be granted above mine, while mine actually leaves the most freedom to travel the world as one sees fit. It stands to reason, thus, that the best way to proceed is to make it optional; that way, the most liberty is granted to everyone involved.


PS. That said, I'm not wanting to be unreasonable here. The major point of liking fasttravel is that it let's you skip the tedious bits, or for when you simply don't feel like 'going through the scenery', but just want to go a place, fast. If there would be a spell or scroll or whatever that accomplishes that; fine with me. That said; how would a mark/recall spell work, if you didn't go there at first? Seems to me like that would entail forcing us to take the slow route anyhow.... Maybe a instant transportation to whatever place on the map would do the trick, but then I'm sure some others would whine about that too. The truth is, fasttravel comes in handy some times, and no-one is obliged to use it, so, really, it's just searching for wild speculation to strengthen ones' case about not liking it - which has nothing directly to do with the fasttravel system. I mean, if Bethesda was delivering awesome scenery, excellent quests, and alternative modes of transportation, would you still be against fasttravel? No? Well, then it (your gripes with it) is not really about the fasttravel-system, is it?

Exactly. only the more adventurous players would explore. A lot of players actually don't like exploring. When there's no need to see the scenery, there's no need to make it good. In my opinion, that's why Obilvion lacked, and instead, had a terribly un-unique, cliché landscape and wildlife.


Who said it was based on speculation? It was based on Oblivion. And by based on fast travel, I mean the quests take you from one side of the map to the other. If I have a quest in Cheydinhal, and I happen to be in Anvil, there's gonna be a little bit of temptation to use it. There's a difference between wanting to explore, and wanting to keep hold of W until I'm on the the side of the map.


That's a lie. My suggestion gives you an easily accesible form of fast travel. For fast travel to be OK for me, it needs to be harder than standard travel, somehow. Hence, more expensive. It would cost around 100-500 gold to use. Not too much to be stupidly expensive, but not too little to make it the standard mode of transport in the game.

Also. I don't want to travel just by foot. I just want a travel system that makes sense. Something like Silt Striders, or Guild Guides, or Boats. I want to be able to see the world, but not have to walk every time I go somwhere.


Why are you debating, then?



My spell was Mark/Recall level. That means it would be around the same cost, and level requirement as Mark and Recall. It would let you use Oblivion/Fallout's system, but cost money/spell points.


People whine about anything. the trick is to get the least people whining.



Yes. These are only some of the problems that come with fast travel. But some of the only ones that I wont get the idiotic, unthoughtful, non sensical "It's Optional" argument. Seriously, you guys need a better argument. That's pretty much all I see.



I never actually get a "Hmm... that's a good idea" or "I don't really like that idea, how about..." comment. It's always an attack on my views on fast travel.

I would also like to add, for the dragon haters, that "dragon" just a generic suggestion. I actually meant any epic-scale creatures. Some for land, some for sea, some for air. But actually, besides the known cliches in fantasy, dragons wouldmake pretty good enemies in the game if the AI is alright: They can move from land to air, choose between melee and breath; sounds pretty sweet to me, but it could just as easily be a made up creature.

ALso, why not let us see some wild slith striders? I'm probably not the only one who wants to see this.

Depends on where the game is. Silt Striders wouldn't exactly fit in in Skyrim, or Valenwood. They need a swampy kind of atmosphere. I wouldn't think they could survive properly outside Morrowind or Black Marsh.

I think that the biggest problem with Oblivion style "fast travel" is that it begins the slipperly slope. If the only real argument in favor of it is that people are getting bored in the 15 seconds it takes to walk from any place in a town to a fast travel point of origin (mages guild, boat captain, etc.) then what is the next thing to became "easier"?

I get bored having to level up in order to get more hit points, just give everyone the same amount from the beginning.

I get bored having to hunt down new spells, just give me all of them from the get go.

I get bored having to collect ingredients for potions, just make potions appear in my inventory when I want them.

I get bored having to fight my way through a dungeon, give me a button to warp to the boss.

I get bored having to kill the boss, give me an option to skip him while still getting his items.

You see, if Bethesda continues to cater to the easily bored, they will increase their sales, but they will essentially be making Call of Duty: TES

... Does nobody look at the games they've developed after Oblivion? Am I the only one?

I know that it seems like Oblivion is becoming too mainstreamed and everything, but it was more of an action-based scenario, maybe the next game will be a little more slow-paced. I don't blame you at all for thinking the things you do, so if it seems like it I'm sorry if you read it that way, but I mean you no offense whatsoever.

But, there's no "slippery slope" even though they have fast travel, you have to walk to the place before you can "unlock" it, and it isn't catering to the easily bored. Some people don't like walking and even though we do and it seems like the game is focused around it, people still give you quests that are relatively close to the town most of the time. The main quest was all over the place in both games, anyway.

I prefer walking, I haven't fast-traveled besides to test out a mod in god knows how long; but I don't hate fast-travel. You just have to use it in moderation, or else it just seems overwhelming. And using the domino theory ignores all of the possibilities in-between, it isn't "all or nothing".

I prefer to not fast-travel either, but it doesn't effect the quality of the game because it's just one feature.

The reverse could be said as well: why introduce silth striders and boats, etc. to make it more easy to go from one city to the next? Why give strong weapons to defeat the bosses; you would have more of a challenge doing it with your fists, etc.

Fact is, there are already (and always have been) rules and concepts introduced about how to balance the elements to remain interesting without getting tedious or boring. There might be one or two die-hard TES1 players who find even MW all too wussy and catered to the masses, instead of the 'real' RPG-players. Such discussions are fruitless, because they are derived from ones' personal expectation what an RPG should be and how it should work, what it should have, and what not.

Therefore, if, for instance, enough people would complain about having to get ingredients to make a potion (I doubt there are many, though), I could accept that Bethesda would make it possible as an option to remove the necessity to get ingredients AS LONG as I CAN get ingredients for my potions, because that was what was fun in the potion-making, after all. I wouldn't be complaining: "Oh, noes! Now that the option is there, I won't be able to stop myself to go for the easy way". The only practical problem is, that Bethesda can't make *everything* optional, without getting to complex and wieldy.

However, some people who are against fasttravel would prohibit the use (and even existence) of it, even while it is clear there are also a lot of people who actually liked it. I find that unreasonable, and that's why I'm debating it (to answer the other poster). Personally, I didn't mind the fasttravel system, but I would not frantically hold on to it, if there is an alternative that is fully equal, and let's me skip roadtrips when I want to skip it. Some sort of scroll would do it, I guess. But then, what would be the difference, except in the mind? I mean; you would still have 'no exploring', you could still have 'bland scenery' because of it, etc. All the reasons I see mentioned against fasttravel would still be valid against instant map-transportation, so why one would have problems with the one but not with the other is beyond me. Except for paying in gold with the latter, and paying with a timeskip for the first, all the other arguments would remain the same.

OB was played in the main province; even according to the lore it was a 'normal' setting of forests and grassland. It stands to reason there aren't as much weird creatures or fungi-trees like in MW. Point in case; look at the shivering isles, where the creatures and settings were A LOT less bland.

Also, I think you're mistaken. I rather think the vast majority of players will explore the surroundings; exploration is fun, after all. Only it shouldn't be obliged to go the slow way every f- time, whether I feel like it or not.



See above. Besides, I find it somewhat of an exaggeration. OB wasn't all that bad; it was actually well done and did have variation. True, it was less original in it's surroundings and critters, but that was also according to the lore. You can't create a wolf in a hundred different non-wolf-looking ways, after all. I mean, c'mon...even if there HAD been another way of transportation, say, with a carriage, one could than say: it's a bland transportation vehicle, nothing like the awesomeness of a silt rider...well, duh. They just wouldn't fit in the imperial province. Almost by definition, Cyrodiil is the most 'classical' of provinces. If you compare it with an exotic province, yes, you may find it bland in the sense of it being less original, but actually it makes sense. Once you don't need that logical confinement anymore, like with the shivering isles, it's clear that the same game can be less 'bland'.



I was talking about the (principal) point of just getting rid of the fasttravel-system, because some people don't like it. For me personally, it's enough that I can get fast somewhere by skipping the tedious bit of travelling when and if I feel like it. But I don't see how an instant-map-transportation scroll would get rid of any of your arguments. Basically, it would boil down to the same in regard to your complaints about a bland scenery, crappy quests, no exploration of the wild, etc.




Well, it did make sense. Fasttravel wasn't actual 'free' transportation, it was a time-condensed way where you actually went on foot, but just skipped the scenery itself. Much like with the silt striders in MW; you travelled without seeing anything, and 'pop' you were at another city. Yes, you couldn't do it from everywhere to everywhere, but I'm just saying: it was a 'travel' that was just visually skipped in both cases, it was NOT actual magical instant-transportation.

I do agree though, that even seen as such, Beth could have implemented it a bit better. For instance, it could have given you a certain chance of encounters along the way from/to your destination. After all, you get those if you *actually* go on foot too. Maybe they could even have varied the chance according to your disposition of stealth and luck. Would have been a nice and more 'realistic' feel to fasttravel.




I'm debating the principle of the matter, not merely my own opinion of it; something that many posters fail to do. A concept isn't necessarily bad because one does not like it personally.




Yeah, well, making something optional instead of forcing it usually gets less whining too. :wink_smile:

But anyway, as I said: what would be the difference in regard to the arguments you yourself have given?




If the other arguments are made void by making it optional, it can't have been all that compelling arguments to begin with. But maybe I'm wrong; please feel free to give some other examples that are directly related to the fasttravel-system, instead of what might happen if Bethesda gets lazy if they use it.



Fine, fine. Your proposal of a scroll that replaces fasttravel is worthwhile considering.

Edit: wait. I reread your scroll proposal. It's only about places you've *already* visited... that's not a real replacement/alternative for fasttravel then, is it? Certainly in regard to the cities, one would already know about them anyway. If it's like that, one would need another fast alternative to be able to go to places one did not visited before. A horse like in OB isn't quite good enough. Maybe some huge, ridable cliffracer would do the trick. :rofl:

Slightly off target, at least from mt_pelions post.

And, the whole multi conversation thing...looks a bit overwhelming.