So what would we get like a 1500 perks or something? Tons of skill trees in skill trees entangling each other?

This could work. No matter what the raging fanbois say, 3 skills would be enough if there are still other ways to define your character (like perks).

But it would be boring. Going from ~27 skills to 21 wasn't a big deal, as there was still a lot of skills to play around with. But going down all the way to 3 would not be fun, at least not if something else along with the perks are introduced.

You'd rather have every single swordsman, every single destruction mage, every single theif, every single boxer, be the same? And here I thought people wanted more skills because they like more uniquness and less streamlining. You can't get uniquness with skills. Its a straight line that everyone goes down.

Most of the perks would be invisible in game and gained automatically, such as ones that increase the damage delth. Those would be the trunk, and you could watch it light up as you use say swords more and more. They would act like a sub-skill bar, and would function much the same way, they'd just be called perks instead and would be dots instead of a bar. While others would diverge to different sword styles and animations, these would be the branches and the ones you chose manually. Choosing one branch would mean you may not be able to choose another because some styles don't go together, or it would be harder to get both, because you dont' have an unlimited amount of perk choices. Other smaller branches could be added that help you increase the speed of your attacks instead of the power.

If we have just three skills, you would be better off specilising in just one as the sub-skills are all related.

In Elder Scrolls games alot of skills are seperate, unique and shouldn't be that related to other skills, Like Alchemy, Security, Marksman, actually most skills are pretty unique apart from the weapon skills (sword, axe, blunt), the magic skills and speecraft+mercantile.

In crafting your custom character, you should not be limited by which class you play, and where you classify each skill as. There shouldn't just be 3 playstyles, there should be endless combinations.

I would also liek the game to introduce more unique skills that are hard to define, but are useful to all classes like Horsemanship, Awareness/Tracking, etc.

Zorro=/=Conan
Mike Tyson=/=Bruce Lee

I agree with the learning one lock pick thing but the game would just be too easy

Well, they should add different locks then. Or make the mini-game less on player skill and more on character skill. If its based on player skill like Oblivion, it doesnt need to be an ingame skill.



I don't see what you're saying. My perk system would make it so that every swordsman is unique. Your simple skill system makes every swordsman the same. You're saying you want unique things, but then saying you want straight line skills. Nothing's unique about a line. My system makes the skills that you say are not unique, unique.

I'm simply moving the power from skills to perks. The idea is the same, but the concept allows for more divercity. The three skills would only add small boosts the the perks themselves, making it easier to earn perks the higher that skill is, and they would level up very slowly. You can gain a lot of combat experience fighting with a sword, and then go pick up a bow. You'd be able to shoot the thing, and you'd have a basic idea of how it works based on how you've seen it used, but you would have 0 perks to go with it. No damage boosting skills, no zoom in skills, no perks to make you shoot faster or more accurate, nothing. You'd feel a lot weaker after changing from using a sword to a bow if you have no perks for the bow.

But because of your combat experience, you would be able to pick up the skill faster when compaired to someone whos' never fought before. You all ready know what battle is like, and you know how read your oponents.

I have never seen so much [censored] stuff in a single post, like, ever.

I cant ′learn how to use a sword while smithing shields

Hell, you won't even be faster, learn how to use a hammer or a shield, while smithing a shield. XD

Also to a guy saying that you can't get uniqueness by skills alone- try not playing the game for 10 hours a day, and remove cheats and raise your bar to hard. Now you'll definitively want to specialize yourself, otherwise you're so [censored] dead.

This idea just a huge load of [censored].

I dont think I ever said smithing would help you use a hammor or a shield. There's no combat experience gained when making a shield, so of course the two wouldn't cross over. When fighting with a war-hammer, its different because you're gaining combat experience. Even still, you're not understanding what I'm saying. The combat skill would hold little to no power. Even with it at one hundred, you'd only be average with a war-hammer if you put all your perks into a shortsword. Perks hold the power, the combat skill would only make it so you could hold your own if you were forced to use a weapon that you had not specialized with.

I don't see what was unique about the swordsman skill in Oblivion. There were what...4 perks everyone got? Everyone got the same 4, every master of blade was the same. What's unique about that? Please tell me, because I obviously play 10 hours a day, use mods on my console, and play on the easiest setting. Obviously that has everything to do with me not seeing the uniqueness of 4 perks everyone got.

Most perks in Oblivion svcked. I'm just saying that training with a mace wouldn't make you any better with a sword.



So how is that different than simple short sword skill and blunt weapon skill, especially if "The combat skill would hold little to no power."?

It's just like that now, if you train short sword you're good with it, and if you don't train blunt you ain't gonna be good with. No need to cut the skills to 3 of 'em just because it looks cool.
Tho I do agree that there should be much more perks, which there will be in Skyrim, I only hope they will have more sense than Oblivion ones.

So while I don't think that 3 skills is feasible and absolutely unallowable in what should be a classic open world RPG, I do agree with you on the idea of huge number perks.

Any relation between skills, such as axe and blunt (which of course are gone) should be handled by attributes.
Why does being better with a warhammer make you slightly better with a sword? Because your muscles are used to it, which is an attribute thing.
So raising one skill would affect the other because attributes should get raised automatically based on the skill being rased. If blunt relys on strength and endurance, those skills would raise as your skill does. That is what would make the difference.

In one of threads about combat skills, I know i made a suggestion about only having 3 skills, it was sarcasm.

First off, thank you for replying without flaming me.

I actually like having lots of skills, and I'm not saying they should use this system by any means. Its just I kept seeing people so upset about how we lost 3 skills from Oblivion to Skryim, and they'd say that eventually we'll just get 3 skills sarcasticly. This thread was to try and show people that it could work, and actualy maybe allow for more uniqueness. I knew a lot of people would just write me off, but I figured it wouldn't hurt anything. I mean, it could work, and it does make some sence.

I think most people will agree the more one fights, they'd gain two things. They'd get better with the weapon they are using, and they'd learn how to adjust to fight their enemies. One could train against a punching back their whole life, getting the strength, speed, and all the other things that one would need to be a profesional boxer. But then they could get into the ring, and freeze up and not be able to fight to their fullest. The more combat experience one gets, the better fighter they would be, even if they had to suddenly change weapons or fighting styles. Of course they'd not be as good a fighter with a weapon or fighting style they are not used to, but they could use their past experience to help them get by.

I agree, lots of perks and skills would work just as well as what I'm sugesting. But in all honesty, what does a skill bar do? When you level up, you gain a little bit of a damage increase, right? The trunk of a perk tree could do the same thing, and it could increase the same way. The more you swing your sword, the higher the trunk of the tree would grow, and the higher the trunk, the more branches you have the option to take. These could fill the same role as a skill bar, but the name change may be more than people wish.



Like I said above, you can train all your life, building up your muscles, endurance, intellect, but if you don't practice it against an enemy, you won't be able to fight to your fullest. Those things can be useless if you can't use them properly in a fight because say youre nervous, or scared, or the enemy fights using a style you've never seen before. The combat skill would represent how well you could use your atributes in battle, while the perk trees would show how well you fight with a specific weapon. I think atributes along with the three skills would work nicely together, increasing your potency with any of the perk trees one could choose.

GTFO

I would say the trick is to find out each game how many skills is gthe right amount for each skill to be doing what you want it to AND so that overall most characters wind up playing well.

Mnay characters didnt play well in daggerfall... more of them played well in mw but it was still very flawed gameplay wise.

Ob did a much better job of it but was... bland.

Then they did fallout... I think from that they found some very good ideas for warrior skill sets. And from that came thief and mage skill sets.

But the start was the quest to make a very good warrior gameplay experience. I think they may have managed that.. depending on what those last few combat skills are.

Actually his points about synergy do make sense, only that his implementation would be wrong. It does make sense to get a couple of points into dagger if you raise your one handed sword skill a lot. A master swordsman may not be the best at utilising a dagger, but certainly his proficiency in swords will help him use a dagger better than the average person. So yeah, synergy can be used in RPGs. Age of Decadence does this.

I'm interested. You would rather have the 27 skills in Morrowind's system or even the 21 skills in Oblivion rather than my system which would have 3 skills and...lets see...a rough estimate after writing them down on a list...29 perk tree's that would function almost exactly like a skill, except they would be a tree instead of a straight line. That's rather odd if ya ask me.

The thing is, your explanation is very sloppy, and skills we have now pretty much do what you explain combined with the attribute as is. It could be utilized by one way. But perks would have to be VERY numerous. For example there would have to be several perks for, say, stagger amount, damage bonus, sneak attack bonus, agility with weapon, weapon speed etc, and then for all the neat unique stuff such as disarming or paralyzing. Then adding that synergy tesfanner mentioned, raising similar weapon classes adding efficiency to other ones in the class, much more relation between skills and attributes.

It could be pulled off with careful planning, but all I'm saying that 3 skills and lots of "perks" simply isn't something that should be in such open world RPG. To be honest, the word "perk" itself is not really an RPG term. For Fallout? Yes. But for TES? No.

No, just no.

I'm fine with what they're doing right now by condensing redundant skills, but this is just ridiculous.

Better yet... The Elder Scrolls V: Pong :lightbulb:

Well, you find the motivation to make a thread you know will be flamed to kingdom come no matter how well you articulate your argument. That said, you're probably right. Sorry about that.

I really don't see what all the big fuss about the word perk is though. My system really would basically be the same thing, just shown in a different light. You'd have more skills, still reprecented and gained by doing that skill to increase that skill, they'd just be showing with dots instead of a number. Heck, you could still have the number on the main part of the menu, it would just change to dots when you go to look or choose your perks.

As for the synergy, that's what the three main skills are for. The more you raise a perk tree, the higher the relating skill would go up. The higher that skill is, the more base damage you can deal with any weapon. I still feel that if you became a master of a longsword, you'd be able to pick up a war-hammer and be skilled enough in battle to not look like a newborn baby. You wouldn't be good, but you'd be able to hold your own at least. But that's just my opinion, obviously a lot of people disagree.

A word is a word. Its what the word means that matters. A rose by any other name is just as sweet. If it would make everyone feel better, I could call the three skills classes and then the 29ish perk tree's skill trees. Would it change what they did? Not really, though I get a sneeking suspicion people may have actually read what I had to say instead of just...well...posting nonsense like this.



Don't really remember adding a perk tree that shows how good you are at bouncing a ball. A dagger perk tree could increase youre pong abilities, but I dont' know about its own tree.

I hope this is some kind of dark humor to make a point...

If having 3 skills and 29ish perk trees(which grow the exact same as skills do now, except with options on the side) is dark humor to prove a point, then by all means yes.