Doing more damage is now stuck to weapon skill and perks instead of to weapon skills and strength. Carrying more we don't know about but will probably be attached to stamina. Moving faster we have sprint. So nothing was lost, only gained in the end so I'm very happy. Besides, the increase in damage is more than a mundane "Increase damage by X", we have things like making your enemy hemorrhage to do extra damage. I've explained the reasoning why it's a good thing that attributes were removed, now it's up to people to decide if they agree with it or not. The final judgment is on 11/11/11.

THIS FTW


Honestly the only thing i'm worried about is every character feeling the same. I hope the perks are powerful because if the only difference in feel between characters is race, i'm gonna be disappoint

The perks are going to have to be ridiculously powerful, meaning if you don't pick the right perks you might as well start over, and that's not a very good game model.

i have the strange suspicion that a bit of those no's come from people who had no fears to begin with so il add on an option for that

I don't mind. I mean the game will still be fun right?

Can you give us the numbers please?
Provide any sort of link?

Proof or it isnt true, Im afraid.

Why should they be sloppily redundant, or a mess? No-one's surely asking for that. The same way one could ask: "Why would anyone want overly streamlined simplicity?"

I liked the Attributes cuz they gave the game an impression of more content, and it was kinda more organized before. Other than that, the graphics make up for it.

There's so much they actually could of done with attributes rather than just cut/merge them. They were cut to placate a more general audience. An audience that doesn't even really like RPGs, so they dont see all of the stats etc. and go "Well, back to COD".

As I've told another, Forum search is cool. I'm tired of people saying "It can't be true, pic or it didn't happen" and then I posted it 4 times after people say that and I'm tired of it, look for it yourself. Skyrim's combinations are in the Septillions while Morrowind's and Oblivion's were in the billions. Don't believe me if you wish but it's true and the numbers are on these forums.



Except that it's streamlined complexity. The systems are streamlined but their complexity is greater than that of Morrowind and Oblivion. More unique combinations with different radical effects > Useless attributes with less combinations.

The people screaming about numbers are near endless and allow for unparrallel complexity and diversity.

answer this please.


you tell me Im a old bag who doens't like change and have no idea how the perk system will work and that perks are more than a viable replacement for attributes...when perks are for skills.


so asnwer this.



How do you know all 280 perks will offer anything beyond +5 to armor your numbers mean crap if there isnt even a variation in what perks do. and is purely cosmetic and quantitative, not Qualitative.

Except that they are not.
What can be found though is numerous instances of you first saying there are more options the new way. And then come the instances where you say youve given the numbers a lot of times now.
I cant find the actual numbers.

So.. link please?

The honest answer is that it's insanely difficult to just 'crunch the numbers.' The simplest perk configuration (read, simplest as in providing the least choices), would be 18 skill perk trees that each start a ternary perk-tree of height 2. [EDIT: This actually cuts the number of total perks from 280 to 234]. And in trying to calculate the exact number of final configurations one might get after selecting 50 perks into a playthrough, one has to then proceed in factoring in all the dependencies that each higher-tier perk has, and all their dependencies, and all theirs until you get to the root node.

It forms a relation that is dependent upon the previous user-generated numbers in the relation, something akin to the Fibonacci sequence but way more convoluted.
In other words, it's an exponential problem, (note, exponential problems depending on their size can take computers years, centuries, or even the current lifespan of the universe to compute) and that alone should be indicitave of the sheer potential size of the perk configurations. Compare a problem on an exponential scale to a problem that has constant and linear inputs (such as birthsigns, beginning attribute choices, etc), and generally, the exponential combinations blow the linear combinations out of the water.

I'm trying to write an algorithm in java right now to crunch out the total end-configurations, even though I fully expect figuring 50 perks out of 18 2-high ternary trees to be an unrealistic problem to solve.

Your Numbers do not = Quality just different assortment of perks of which not all automatically will mean sweeping and game changing..........

We don't know exactly how much the values are but it wins out quantitatively and it wouldn't take much to pass attributes qualitatively because attributes have very little affect on the character beyond raising health, magicka and fatigue (stamina)

The numbers aren't meant to imply quality, hence their being numbers. The quality is something that just has to be inferred by the reader, whether they think Bethesda can manage to make the sum of 280 perks that are better than the sum of attribute increments, or whether they think Bethesda will fail.

EDIT: The 280 perks don't all have to be game-changers to make them succeed at being better than attributes. The sum of the success of the game-changing qualties of the individual perks just has to be moreso than the sum of attribute benefits.

As I said... No-one surely wants the attributes to be useless. Or do you disagree?

And the thing you quoted, was just a remark to the similiarly absurd notion you just said about "useless attributes" - as if anyone ever wanted them useless - not an anolysis of the current system.

I somewhat agree. I don't see how 3 attributes provides more combinations than 7. That's mathematically impossible. Plus we still don't know everything about the system yet. However, I actually like the simplified attributes. We're getting a simplified user interface with little or no apparent loss of actual functionality. I don't see how that can really be so bad.

I've yet to see anyone say OMG attribute system was the golden chalice of TES, it was flawless!


No, What I see are people saying, Make it matter, the Technology and skill is there, instead of replacing it with arbitrary auto gain abilities which in some cases should already be inherent or learned, not picked from a pool and say boom you now have a resistance to disease even though you never encountered diseased creatures, but its ok you can choose it.


Intelligence would help merchantile and support speech craft and personality,

Endurance would extend your damage resistance.. give you a greater pool of stamina to draw from and stave of debuffing conditions.

its stupifying what I some random guy could think of, they had 5 years, Hundreds of employees and your telling me this is the descision they go with? mmmh k. they could have made things pretty intricate were everything about your character mattered, because it does thats true diversity, not some assortment of perks by which going the track record, don't do much of anything.

The 3 new attributes don't numerically surpass the old attributes. The 3 attributes combined with the choosing of 50 perks out of 280 in a tree/graph are what push them over.

There are some that said they would be fine with attributes not doing anything and just being there for RP value. Also, sure, no one wants attributes to to be useless but unfortunately that's what they were so they replaced with a new system that does the same thing and more. I personally don't see anything to hate about it but that's my opinion.



But this just boils down to "It was here first and I don't want it to change." Some things need to be changed for the better and it has. I don't know where your getting "arbitrary auto gain abilities" when that isn't how it works at all. Think about it, you said that attributes needed to be reworked to where they work, they have been. I think your just misunderstanding how perks work. It's not like you can pick any perk from the pool of 280, you actually have to pick a perk relevant to skills you raised and even then there will be perks that most likely have to either have you choose another perk first or requires certain other conditions to choose.

First, why do people continually fail to acknowledge that there is no reason we can't have both perks AND attributes, like in Oblivion!

Second, seeing as though all we've really heard about this is pure PR from Todd, we can only rely on past history to try and guess whether perks add more depth. Well, past history is 100% clear on the subject of depth in TES games. It gets smaller over time.

Because we've been told that there are perks for axes doing bleed damage, blades doing critica damage, most of the Oblivion perks will probably be in, like dodging, disarming, knock-back.

And I was a saying...

Bound for lock, eh? This thread is nearly 200 comments long.

By help and support, do you mean do "barely nothing", "completely replace the need to train those skills" or "does basically the same thing so that you have to look at multiple different interface screens to see how high your REAL skills are, the ones that matter in that skill check"?

Honnestly, what do you want attributes to do?