Whats wrong with pessimism about losing something?

All evidence points to having unoriginal characters at start, where as before we could have unique characters at all time. Evidence points to losing something, which isn't too blind.

Doesn't matter, it's being used in a demeaning way. Just like when someone calls someone a "bethbot".

I really don't think the blind faith is only directed at you, you could apply that phrase to nearly half of the forums.

But part of my previous post (the one you quoted) also included the part where I wrote that "I NEVER even came close to maxing out ANY of my skills in ANY of Beth's RPGs." So, none of my characters ended up with the same build at the end.

Fixing the OB system would not have been all that difficult. All you would have to do is:

1.) Make the Attributes more like Fallout 3's 7 Attributes (the SPECIALs) and keep them as inherent strengths and weakness (that rarely see any permanent increase during your game.

2.) Reduce the number of points that you are initially give to distributed in your Attributes result in an average character (if you spread out the points exactly equally) . . . a point increase above average for one stat, means a point decrease for another stat.

3.) Use a leveling up speed that is ~ 1/4 the rate of Fallout 3's leveling rate, and award fewer skill points for when you do level up.

4.) Us a slower Timescale (like 1:8, instead of 1:30), and have time pass while in the menus (such as when you are trading).

"Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
If you believe this applies to computer games then why aren't you playing pong?

Doesn't matter, it's being used in a demeaning way. Just like when someone calls someone a "bethbot". If there's nothing wrong with being pessimistic about losing something, then there's nothing wrong with having faith in a new system. It doesn't work one way and not the other.

You're right - it works both ways. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, which is exactly why the root of virtually all of the contention on this board is not the opinions expressed, but the fact that some take it upon themselves to argue the opinions of others - to attempt to "prove" that their opinion is "right" and somebody else's opinion is "wrong."

Some people are pessimistic about some things. Some people are optimistic about some things. If everyone would just post their own opinions rather than getting all twisted up about other people's opinions, the vast majority of the contention and strife on this board would vanish instantly.

Hey guys.

Here you have a group of people whose skills are incredibly similar.
Whose lives are incredibly similar, and revolve around them being able to maintain a high performance. Thus, their lives are spent in the continual quest to gain more muscle mass. They are therefore, all masters of exactly the same skills that affect that, they undergo the same amount of training to accomplish that.

Please tell me, in a convincing argument which contradicts the evidence in front of your face, that the strength of these men can not be quantified and therefore it can't be compared to across the group, despite it being incredibly clear that not all of these men have the same amount of muscle after the same training.
http://rugbyworldcupstream.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/all-blacks-vs-australiahaka1-live-picturer.jpg

What you are essentially saying, ladies and gentlemen, is that the five year old boy who has the the same amount of skill as the men pictured in that photo could tackle every single one of them to the ground. What you are saying is that that five year old boy could have the same amount of both momentum and force and apply it in the same way as the men in those photos, if he has the same amount of skill as them.

This is a totally pointless argument. Having the opinion that attributes are abstractions that don't make sense in the real word is a valid opinion, in the same way that having the opinion that the earth is 10,000 years old or that the earth is flat is a valid opinion.

You're right - it works both ways. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, which is exactly why the root of virtually all of the contention on this board is not the opinions expressed, but the fact that some take it upon themselves to argue the opinions of others - to attempt to "prove" that their opinion is "right" and somebody else's opinion is "wrong."

Some people are pessimistic about some things. Some people are optimistic about some things. If everyone would just post their own opinions rather than getting all twisted up about other people's opinions, the vast majority of the contention and strife on this board would vanish instantly.

So it's blind pessimism too then, right? Please don't insult me, or anyone else again.

There isn't anything lost by removing these things, the function that they were intended to perform is still there, but better and harder to see. This, friends, is superior.

Hey. I don't want to beat the thread to death, but you've mentioned something that I just can't quite respond to... the idea that someone is born naturally strong.

Clearly it's pointless to say that all men are born of equal strength. They aren't.

But really, is an attribute the right way to represent that? Huge guys can be very weak. Small guys can be very strong. Those outliers are developed by skill, not by any inherent attribute.

So much of what strength is boils down to how you develop, which is why I say it is more a skill than an attribute. Then again, clearly, on some level it is somewhat innate.

What's the best way to put that in a game? Not the way Oblivion did it, that's for sure. What were the attributes there? Not innate, that's for sure. You could level them, they were basically just big, vague skills. It didn't make any sense.

Now I'm confused.

Attributes represent the physical qualities of your character. They can be raised because you can "work out" your character like you would in a gym.

Attributes would aid skills in determining the effectiveness of something, such as swinging a sword. A skill would represent the knowledge and tactics learned to be effective with a sword. Things such as knowledge of weak points on a body like arteries and major organs, or knowledge of how to move in such a way to effectively combat an enemy. The attributes then represent your physical body, your strength aids in how hard you can swing your sword, your endurance aids in how tiring each swing should be, and your agility makes your movements more swift (keep in mind agility isn't speed, agility is how quickly you can change your bodies position, such as moving from a striking pose, to striking, or from being parried to a defensive pose). Attributes represent your body, skills represent your knowledge.

Attributes are useful in defining your characters body, but not skills. I could make a mage who is very strong but not very intelligent. After raising my magical skills his intelligence is likely to increase because of study. I could make a weak warrior, and he should become strong because combat is a workout.
One issue with the attribute system was how they were raised. In Oblivion you could choose which to raise, which is a classic RPG thing, but it didn't make much sense nor did the multipliers. If I increase my long blade skill (I detest combining skills, but thats a different argument) then I should get stronger, improve my endurance, and become more agile. So I would advocate automatically raising attributes, multiple attributes, based on the skill raised. Perhaps raising long blade by 10 levels improves strength by 8 points, endurance by 8 points, and agility by 4 points. That way using a skill makes you better at that skill but improves the attributes that "govern" those skills.
In Oblivion only 1 attribute would govern any skill, strength for long blade. The reality is wrong, and all attributes that are relevant should be used in calculating various aspects of that skill. Agility should make your swings faster, strength increases damage, endurance reduces loss of fatigue.

Attributes can represent a "connection" between skills. A skill that would goven use of warhammers and a skill that governs use of claymores should be different skills. Warhammers target pressure points and large parts of the body, claymores target limbs that can be chopped, arteries that are vulnerable, and weak spots in armor. The tactics and targets and use of these weapons are very different, thus the need for different skills, but they use similar attributes. A warhammer is going to take a lot of strength and endurance, and very little agility (but still some). A claymore will require a lot of strength and endurance but not as much as a warhammer, and more agility than a warhammer.
So if you were to level your "claymore" skill, you could pick up a warhammer and use it somewhat effectively. You wouldn't know how to use it, but your body would be able to use it easier than a shortsword or dagger for instance. The skills are different, but leveling a "claymore" skill would still benefit the "warhammer" skill because of your attributes, because your body can handle both.

To have a more effective system we would need attributes to be used where they would be used, agility should be calculated in weapon speed, strength was used in weapon damage. This way attributes actually benefit every skill that uses them, where as in Morrowind agility increased damage with short blades, but strength increased damage of long blades. Attributes should also level based on what skills are raised and it be done automatically (I see no reason not to allow "working out" to improve attributes slowly, thus giving players choice to raise attributes against the will of their skills, such as a mage working out to improve his strength) There would be plenty of ways to balance this to avoid people who just raise everything, but then again if thats how they want to play...

The major point is attributes are physical qualities of your character, such as his strength. Skills represent knowledge, such as how to use a sword. I can be trained in how to use a sword (perhaps read a lot of books that were educational) but not be strong enough to use one effectively.

I do like the additions to the game, such as perks. Perks offer the chance for variety. But they don't make attributes redundant, perks are additional "abilities" gained from raising skills. The dodge ability was a perk for acrobatics in Oblivion, as was jumping on water. A good example of a perk would be learning a new power attack. Perks don't however make the physical characteristics of your character redundant.

Any questions I'd be happy to help. I'd like for people to realize that the previous system was broken, but it is far more accurate than removing them. Attributes weren't a means to an end, such as health (like Todd said). Fixing the system is far better than scrapping it.

You really outta post that beast.

Of course that system would be ideal. It's clear, when you really think about it, that attributes are real. The problem is that their effect is so intricate that it would be difficult to represent in the game. Why Bethesda often shies away from fixing systems like this, instead of just axing them, I will never understand.

There is so much potential, if done right, for a dynamic interaction between your skills, abilities, and attributes. There's also a rich set of possibilities for how they all can be affected by player actions, and how they might influence one another.

I applauded their removal because of the nearly comical way they were implemented in Oblivion. But once again, Bethesda has chosen the axe of removal over the fine scalpel of change and reform.

I'm not sure why. I do wish they could spend the time to improve things like this so that real potential could be reached instead of opting for a simpler system. The worst part is that the new, simpler system is probably going to be better than the old one. It just has so much less potential for the future.

Secondly, and more importantly, I find that skills are actually less related in life than you might think. I have a very high LSAT score, I scored in the 97th percentile. Some would say I'm very intelligent.
However, on math tests I'll do well if I even pass. Not so good. Many others are the exact opposite. Stating that someone has a universal "intelligence" number is just pancakes. It doesn't work like that.

I'm seeing a bunch of doom-sayers these days on the forums

If you don't mind, I'll comment on these two only. First of all, you're absolutely right. Strength can be quantified. It can be quantified in many ways. However, I maintain that the different ways to quantify strength are better represented as skills and not as an attribute. Seeing as I can do many different things at many different levels of strength, I think it makes more sense to give me various ratings of skill with a particular action than to represent it any other way.

I distinctly sense that we both want the same thing, we just want it represented in two different ways. I prefer skills and abilities because I see that as more realistic, given the many ways we can vary from activity to activity.

I beg to differ, but only on your claim that the various skills are a disorganized mess and that they are, in life, linked.
For one thing, I don't immediately presume that Bethesda will create a tree of perks and skills that are entirely unrelated to one another. I don't, in fact, even see how they could do that.
If they do I will eat these words and probably won't ever buy another tes game again. I only can hope, then, that you are wrong on this point.

Secondly, and more importantly, I find that skills are actually less related in life than you might think. I have a very high LSAT score, I scored in the 97th percentile. Some would say I'm very intelligent.
However, on math tests I'll do well if I even pass. Not so good. Many others are the exact opposite. Stating that someone has a universal "intelligence" number is just pancakes. It doesn't work like that.

Every single thing that we might call an attribute is actually more realistically represented as a whole range of various skills. I still hold that real people don't have attributes, just skills and abilities. To me, the removal of the over-arching attributes actually makes quite a bit more sense.

[stuff]

[stuff]

Using three steps to accomplish 1 task is bloat. It makes the game slower and leaves less room for other processes. When you can narrow it down to 1 step, 1 task, you can get more in and use less resources.
This is always better.

I've basically just been arguing for a system that I think is better than Oblivion's, but still isn't the best way to do things.