Thread Three


When I hit a guy with a mace, and he has light armor, that mace shouldnt need a marker from almight to tell it YES you can now hurt people through there armor!

and when I'm demi-god status strong in the arm (ups thats gone too) and I hit some guy in a tin Can, it should also without the need to be given permisision, turn that guy into pulp, is that not the nature of blunt weapons?


come, someone please answer this without throwing an insult or trying to make another look like an idiot.






mmk.


Why do I need to pick a perk to dodge my enemies? especially when apparently acrobatics and athletics are out? I'm trying to base this on tangible playstyle enhancing scenarios and not +5 to armor.







:lmao: but but Blunt and swords are seperate skills no? otherwise there wouldnt be a perk so specific to Blunts (there is).....so aww man all that work and I can't hit hard with a sword, and swords dont ignore armor :/


P.S I can't find the link to the article !

All one handed weapons are under a single skill now.

Can you aid in the search for the particular article? Akaryu renewed the 2nd version but He didnt get the Article. apparently neither did Gregasaurus when he first started the chain

Blunt and Blade are pretty much the same thing just different weapons. Swinging a Blade and an axe is about the same, There is only a slight difference with the Axe because it's lighter in some circumstances. Hence why both were combined to create One Handed and Two Handed not to mention that it saves on perks which can be used for other things.

It's all under the One Handed Skill, the One Handed Skill has a tree that branches, so you can work on the Blunt by going up right right side of the tree, or the Swords up the other side, etc. So having a high One Handed Weapon skill helps with all the one handed weapons, but your perks will reflect your advanced training and moves with particular type.

The Two weapon skills are now Two-handed and one-handed. The different weapon type perks like, axe, sword and mace are now under the same skill but on different branches, so you can specialize on certain weapon type.

Really they shouldn't even have called them perks.

They are abilities, or techniques. Skills within skills basically.

That's pretty much what they are although I think Perk sounds better PR wise.

Do you think a game developer would streamline or alter something so integral to their lore and their gameplay such as this, without good reason? The people designing Skyrim at Bethesda aren't dimwits, as a matter of fact they're far from it, and I wholeheartedly trust them with this matter. Also, they've hardly went into great detail about how the skill/perk system will work in relation to how the attributes did previously. This is not a huge problem, the only reason this seems like such a big deal is because a small handful of people on here keep making new topics complaining about it, attracting so much negative attention.

Blunt weapons never did ignore armor. Now they can if you choose a perk. So you're complaining about having to choose the perk to do it?


It's okay, you're doing fine on your own.

Now that I think about it, I can't believe I ever wasted time trying to formulate rational, detailed rebuttals to your complaints.

From everything I've heard and read so far, it sounds like doing away with Attributes and adding Talent tree-like perks is one of the smartest and funnest-sounding decisions Bethesda could've made. Also, it did seem like everyone pointing out how the removal of strength would mean imbalance in weapon damage in the last thread forgot about weapon skills being merged, so I'm glad that was addressed.

Okay, so a guy that trains with maces for a long time discovers during his fights and training that if he hits a person in just the right way that he can make sure all the energy goes into the person instead of dissipating into the armor (which is how armor works). There you go, it's how you can all of a sudden ignore armor after training. This shows how this system gives more and still is realistic.



Actually, from the article in joystiq, it seems like we still have individual weapon skills like one handed swords.

yes they did, apparently it was an earned perk in oblivion and if you are wearing chainmail and you get hit by a mace it will ignore your armor and give you a world of hurt.


Oh really? thanks do you feel better inside?


Ah mmk I am complaining, I didnt know opinions and legitmiate questions were frowned upon, Im sorry for wasting your precious time.

Link?

because its an archaic mechanic that most rpgs are giving the boot in place of tangible abilities/traits/talents.

Actually I was wrong, it was the IGN article. My bad. Here is the http://pc.ign.com/articles/116/1162158p1.html

Checking http://uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Blunt

Nope, nothing at all like that. All Blunt perks are 100% identical to Blade perks and just unlock the same power attacks.

Archaic?? And the whole Perk tree isn't really a rip off of the talent tree's that Blizzard is so popular of making? Don't get me wrong. I will be the first to praise it if the majority of the perks are unique but the removal of attributes and the sheer amount of perks already stated in the game means that most are going to be hidden modifiers like +5% damage firebolt. As I have said before. It is a "Rope-A-Dope". There is nothing innovative about this at all and it really is a copycat of all the other terrible "streamlined" games with the RPG label slapped on the box.

For the record - Streamlining a game to add a tighter experience and to add more gameplay or new innovative features is a good thing. When you streamline just for the sake of developement simplicity without truly adding more to the overall experience your not catering to the player. Your catering to yourself.

There are different levels of RPG's. The Elder Scrolls was usually rather high up but now it looks like they are making a low level game look good. Why so many are in favor of the new system is beyond me. There is only a few thousand best selling RPG's that use attributes.

This. It seems it's a recurring theme that people say "Oblivion's X system was terrible" but then people either put false information after it or they don't realize that the "terrible implementation in Oblivion" was exactly the same as it was in "Almight Morrowind". For some reason, Oblivion somehow became a terrible game to some people (Even though I say it's better than Morrowind ever was) and to make the features described in Skyrim look bad, they just say "It's just like Oblivion's X system and it was terribly implemented" but then they don't realize it was in previous games they hold to high esteem. It's just people trying as hard as they can to slander the new game on the block in any means necessary.



Umm, you do realize that TES has had perks since Daggerfall (1996) before Blizzard ever had talent trees. Fallout also had perks before Blizzard had talent trees.

Ups alright stand corrected, but the real life version stands

Umm, you do realize that TES has had perks since Daggerfall (1996) before Blizzard ever had talent trees. Fallout also had perks before Blizzard had talent trees.
[/quote]

Very aware. Both systems IMO are archaic. My main concern is that like F03 they are simply putting hidden modifiers in place of attributes. It's the same core gameplay concept with a different finish.... except it really isn't. Everyone else is doing it. .

Of course not. But it must never be forgotten that Beth is, first and foremost, a for-profit company. And within the context of a for-profit company, it's entirely possible that the "good reason:" is that some junior accountant gave a compelling powerpoint presentation demonstrating how eliminating the expenditure of time and resources necessary to balance attributes with the new perk system would represent X savings on per-unit cost for Y savings overall, and that the projected lost sales as a result of the elimination of attributes was sufficiently less than Y to make it a profitable decision. And if whatever committee was charged with that decision chose to do it, it makes absolutely no difference at all what the devs might have thought about it. All that remained was for the PR department to tailor the announcement regarding it and Todd Howard to go out and make it. And those so inclined to slavishly repeat the talking points.

These games that they've made are most definitely "Passion projects". They spend 5 years populating their worlds with details. They can find more expedient ways to make games...

Beth makes games they want to play and it's worked for them because they're damn good and damn passionate about it.

It's fine if you're bitter that Skyrim won't be Morrowind III... if you want the old system so bad, just mod old games.

Lol. I could actually see that going on at other development studios. I think Todd has a bit more say on core gameplay mechanics though. He was probably the lead designer for it