Personally i would like to see a return to the morrowind system of weapon damage, with a min and max damage range, rather than the flat number system in Oblivion.

Min-Max, BUT NOT A CHANCE TO MISS.... I HATE
If I shank a guy I want him SHANKED not for it to somehow "miss"

THIS. hated that in Morrowind,almost made it unplayable at times.

I think that weapons should have fixed damage like in Oblivion (sword won't be dull for one strike, then sharp for other and then dull again for one after that), but I would like if we get that feature from Morrowind witch gave weapon 3 types of damage.
One was for stabbing, one was for slashing and one was for bashing.
It was good in my opinion since I think it's strange that mace will be equally good at stabbing as dagger for example.

Dear lord, keep the dice away. Keep it away!

Ehem. Damage should depend on how hard we strike the bad guy, where we hit the guy, the type of armor where we hit the guy, and the enemies armor skill. I wouldn't mind a min and max...but if I can see that I clearly hit the guy/creature...by golly the game better not say I missed. I dont think I have to worry about that, the battle we saw with the dragon seemed to have the beast react to every hit. Thank goodness, no dice.

I forgot to mention that i would also like a return to different kinds of attacks (thrust, chop, slash in morrowind...maybe not the same but whatever), just not based on the character's direction of movement. It doesn't make any sense that if I can't thrust while standing still or moving sideways. And I agree that different weapon types need individual attacks/attack animations. You shouln't be able to stab with an axe. You shouldn't be able to shop with a spear, but you should with a halberd (if they're included).



I also forgot to mention that while I would like to see a return to Morrowind's min-max range, I would also like to do with away with the 'hit probability'. To be honest I loved it in Morrowind but I would like to see Oblivion's system of always being able to hit an oponent.

Min & Max with a chance of missing. No PC is perfect, and the chance of missing reflects this (as well as possibly the speed & skill of the target). The Min & Max damage rolls reflect an even greater variance in the severity of the attack, should it strike; (Distinguishing a nick from a deep cut).
IMO no R.P.G. should be without this.

While I don't mind missing, what would be ideal is if the combat in this game is advanced enough that the enemy actually dodges or moves out of the way as opposed to taking no damage whatsoever. That did annoy me a little in Morrowind, though it certainly made the game feel like less of a fantasy based FPS........ :whistling:

There's a proper way to have a "miss chance," and that's the missing option: the Daggerfall way. Sure, if your sword touches them, you don't hear a "woosh!" if you're a level 1 noob attempting to fight a top-level daedra lord. Instead you hear a "clang!" as your sword uselessly clatters off from an ineffective strike.

By all means, the game is an RPG, not an FPS. (be "S" standing for "shooter," "spellthrower," "sneaker," or "slasher") Player skill shouldn't account for 100% of your results here. It's worth noting that one thing I HATED about Oblivion was that to compensate for the "you always hit and do flat damage" part, that damage, at later levels, was very LOW: you'd have to sit and hack away at an enemy for up to a minute or two before they fell over; If I wanted slow battles like that, I'd go play World of WarCraft. Oblivion was getting the worst of both worlds in combat: the lack of RPG character skill emphasis you see in FPSes, but the slow pace of combat found in the most stiff of RPGs. Daggerfall had VASTLY better combat pacing.

If you have a min-max system the only way to simulate skill is to have a chance to hit system. Min-max is just flawed in every way.

Would you please explain that in more detail? Why is the Min-Max mechanic flawed in your opinion?

When a weapon does the same set of damage regardless of your skill the only way to simulate being better with that weapon is to make your skills determine your accuratcey or your chance to hit. If you don't do that a level one PC will be just as good as a level 50 with the same weapon.

That's true, and IMO that's how it should be (Skills should reflect accuracy and defense)... So why is it flawed?

Yeah I'm not really sure if that post was supposed to be pro min-max or against.

I think the only mechanic they could leave out is hit chance. The only "FPS" like aspect of the game should be whether you, the player, can aim or not. There should still be a dodge/parry percentage for monsters, and I think it should be adjusted to level, or type of enemy.

Because people hate not being able to hit someone with a long sword when there standing two feet away. TES is not dungeons and dragons its a modern RPG, it just can't work.

Would fit spells to be "unpredictable", but now that we can actually manipulate them into flamethrowers/runes / firestorms / fireballs, I'm not so sure if it could be implemented right. However, if you make magic a "game of luck" it's a bit random. Perhaps all spells would still have fixed damage, but the longer you "charge" the spell, the closer to it's maximum damage it would get? I'd feel much better with something like that. However, now that we can do so many things with magic, I'm not entirely sure if we have buttons left on consoles to actually charge spells, the hold trigger button might do the flamethrower move and tap once might do a fire ball, etc.

Because we have the technology now to represent that in real time, instead of just a dice roll. The ai should block, dodge, parry, or counter instead of us just missing. If we miss, that's because we fired the magic ball to far off course, or swung the sword from to far away. But if we're close enough and swing and visibly hit the target, and the ai doesn't block or anything then we should deal damage.

The problem with Morrowind's system wasn't that your character missed part of the time (seriously - opponents miss my characters sometimes - why on Earth should my characters never miss them? Am I to believe that my character is the only being in the entire world who can dodge?) The problem was that the animations didn't show how and why your character missed - it made it appear as if his weapon just mysteriously passed right through his opponent.

Characters SHOULD miss sometimes. First - it's just an imperfect world. They're going to miss. Second, opponents are going to dodge, move, block.... One way or another, characters are going to miss sometimes. To believe otherwise is flatly insane. And even when they do hit, they're going to do wildly different amounts of damage. They might hit an opponent squarely and solidly, or they might just strike a glancing blow. That's the way things like that really work, so that's the way they should work in the game.

I'm absolutely in favor of "dice rolls" - that is, using probability to determine likely outcomes of actions. Dice rolls are fundamental to RPGs. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't like dice rolls is more than welcome to go play something else and leave RPGs to RPGers. Good riddance.

But in order for the "dice rolls" to work effectively, the animations have to correspond with them. If your character stumbles and takes a poorly aimed swing just as his opponent moves (the likelihood of all of which can be and legitimately is determined by those hated "dice rolls"), he's not going to do much damage to it if any, and that's exactly what should be shown in the animation. Looked at the other way, if the animation shows the opponent directly in line with a strong and accurate blow, your character should do lots of damage. And, of course, as his skills increase, the likelihood of him stumbling or taking a poorly aimed blow decreases and the likelihood of him hitting strongly and squarely increases. That's the ENTIRE point of even having skills. If we're not going to assign probabilities to things then there's no point in even having skills. The game should just be God mode from day one.


Sorry.... this is a subject about which I feel quite strongly.....

I had thought of that before as well. The only thing I might add to make sure the spells didn't get extremely overpowered is to make charging your spells up take magicka much like holding a bow takes fatigue to a novice ( +the cost of the spell cast normally). Holding down the cast spell would give a slightly more powerful spell and perhaps a better crit chance... if crit were a factor that is .

"Dice roll" stuff only works in turn based RPGs. Skyrim is a real time game. It can't work. You can still have missing without chance to hit, just make the AI actually dodge once in a while, instead of just standing there like they did in OB.

Edit: The vast majority of people who've played Morrowind HATE the change to hit thing. Some people have told be that the only reason they didn't like Morrowind was that they couldn't hit anything. I've also heard people say that the only flaw that MW had was the chance to hit system. Otherwise it was a perfect game. I have to agree with them. I got into MW and actually prefer it over OB, but I would trade it's combat system for OB's any time. The reason it wasn't good in MW was because it was the first real time RPG Bethesda made. Chance to hit doesn't fit it.

When, precisely, is "once in a while?:" Every five seconds? Every third swing? Or just some percentage of the time? If the last (which honestly is the only one that even begins to make any sense), how, precisely, is the game to determine whether this particular moment falls under the part of the time when the opponent does dodge or the part of the time when the opponent does not dodge WITHOUT "dice rolls?"

Seriously - do you people even have the foggiest idea what it is that those hated "dice rolls" actually represent in games?

We had the technology to represent it then. :shrug:
Characters in Fallout would dodge if appropriate.

**Actually... It was possible in 1998 to have a fully 3d game that incorporated full melee combat with dismemberment and manual attacks (and blocking!); using weapons that dealt damage that was derived from how hard/fast you impacted on the target. The player could also have 100% control over their weapon, and swing it as they wished.
I wouldn't mind plausible [and detailed] reactions from NPCs that get attacked and/ or hit; NPC's that dodge, and even grapple.

As for missing due to "firing off course, or swinging out of range"... That is not the reason dice are used, and not something I would want in an RPG myself. Dice rolls used for attack and defense are to reflect the PC's attempt at the action. If you are playing a PC that cannot shoot straight, then he should not be hitting the target because you [the player] are good at aiming. The dice reflect the PC's best effort at attacking or defending. The same goes for Lock Picking (and other skills); the dice reflect their attempt ~and their attempt can fail, (but its usually weighted odds, and the better skilled they are, the less likely they will fail).

This is 2011, we have reactive AI. AI doesn't need to have a percent chance system to dodge. It can interpret what your doing and move out of the way. Games have been able to do that for a very long time. It's called AI for a reason, it thinks.

Edit: the phrase "once in a while" was meant to be sarcastic. They should react to you like they are real fighters, or at least as real as possible. You can't have realistic dodging with percent chance systems.

Everything you mentioned are reasons why we don't have chance to hit systems anymore. You can't be in favor of chance to hit, and be in favor of reactive AI.

:rofl: