What you said.

Honestly, for all the noise about immersion and experience breaking etc. consider how immersion breaking (and potentially frustrating) it would be if you spent vast expanses of time making your character into a master mage or a master of illusion magic. . . and then couldn't do anything with it worth writing home about? If you were no more special and had no more advantages over the Average Joe NPC than you did before you mastered them? THAT is immersion breaking. It is immersion breaking to have a game set in a world where it is known that certain, powerful forms of magic have the ability, at very high levels, to turn people invisible, and then have a character who is a master in that field of magic unable to cast such a spell.

It would also be immersion breaking if every single hostile NPC in a necromancers robe, or who has ever so much as stepped into a mages guild to use the bathroom, is automatically equipped with a powerful spell for detecting rarely encountered invisible beings.

Consider. Let us say someone goes to see some Harry Potter prequel movie, and in it Albus Dumbledore himself is tasked with recovering something from a stronghold of dark wizards etc. etc. etc. Now anyone who follows that series enough to bother seeing such a movie would come in with an understanding of Dumbledore as the greatest thing to happen to wizardry since Gandalf and Merlin, a genius, a prodigy etc. Rumour has it he doesn't need invisibility cloaks (rare finds in their own right) to become invisible, because he can cast a perfect invisibilty spell, etc. Now, for the sake of keeping things interesting, it will be accepted and expected that certain rare and terrible creatures (say if a Balrog found its way into Potterdom lol), and the most powerful evil witches/warlocks, might have ways of bypassing his invisibility spell. But if the moment he shows up every wicked witch at the fortress casts some spell that essentially negates his invisibility charm and he ISN"T able to override their detection. . . everyone in the audience is going to put on their WTF face, and say, "what the hell? I thought he was the most awesome, badass wizard on the planet, all of a sudden he can't slip past a couple of low level goons who aren't even supposed to be on the same playing field with him?"

A similiar dynamic applies here. Masters of fields of magic are not common things within the game, and there are many good reasons for that. One is so that the gameworld is not overpopulated with super-wizards. Another is to ensure that mastery over these fields is an uncommon and thus special thing, and an extension of that is ensuring that the player FEELS special when he or she does attain the level of mastery. If every other mage in the game becomes a mastery of magic the instant the player does, it robs the player of a sense of accomplishment. Likewise, if a mage oriented character attains mastery of certian magical fields and then is not able to show himself/herself to be something more impressive than both the average NPC AND the average NPC Mage, then their achievement is muted. Part of the game experience is having the transition from minor to mighty, which cannot happen if the game automatically negates your advancements by enforcing an insurmountably level playing field all around you.

Invisibility is nothing. try making a 37% chameleon potion and drinking three.

Not all people wanted fast travel gone,we/they just wanted other ways to travel. Is it really that ridiculous to ask for other ways?
Also for those of you that don't know.the invisiblity spell was a journeyman spell,not expert or master. Most of us that find overpowered,are asking for it to be a little more balanced,not ruin it so it's the other way around. The fact it's so debated and swings one way then the other,is basically saying-this needs looking at. Do you think it's right that with a crap sneak skill you can be invisible and silent while clunking around in heavy armour? Does that sound like balance to you?

Invisiblity,what it does,how the AI reacts,sound, smell etc,needs looking at. You could also have a spell that covers smell-thus adding another spell and tactic's. You can't just expect invisiblity to do all that and say it's fair. Bethesda has spent two years on dragons making them exciting,either to fight,or the fact the appear randomly,to add to excitement. You think it's fair to spam invisible and avoid all that so you can turn invisible,stab,turn invisible ,stab-rinse and repeat....Boring. Do you think such creatures shouldn't detect you at all while invisible? There are questions here that need to be asked,rather than say don't use it crap.That saying doesn't hold weight here,with this spell. If i like invisiblity,do you think it's fair for you to say,well...if it's overpowered never use it again.Or would you think it better that we find a way where everyone can use it,but have it balanced. It sounds to me those that say keep it the same,don't like a challenge,and like things dished on a plate. Some of you need to think about what your saying.You make it sound as if we want the spell gone.We just want it looked at,because it's crap the way it is now.

1: AI humanoids,should use ways to detect you.
2: Certain creatures/monsters should smell or hear you.
3: What about adding spells to cover smell etc,that way your using extra magic for that then to be invisible,it's also more tactical and could add other spells.
4: Should being invisible allow you to run around willy nilly in heavy armour with no penalty or a crappy sneak skill?
5: Do you think it's right not to be seen holding a torch while invisible? Suppose the spell is perfect then...eh?
6: Should invisiblity be a higher end spell,cost more magicka etc-thus encouraging sensible use of it,and encourage you use your brain and tactics?
7: Do you think the fact that it's an hot topic means it shouldn't be looked at and we should never use it again?...is that fair?
8: Whats more selfish. Us that think it's overpowered have it looked at,just to add a little more balance? Or your way,where you just say never use it then? Ask yourself what the more selfish option there.....I know do you?
9: Do you tink it's fair for a thief or assassin to work building sneak up,when a knight or mage can just do the same or better with one spell?That some how covers sound aswell... does that sound right?
We are not asking for the spell to go,or be completely turned on it's head,just tone it down and make it more sensible,so EVERYONE can enjoy the spell. It should not be full-proof.

That's a simplified defense of the term, though. "Deal with it" certainly isn't a phrase for one single purpose. With that, there's ultimately nothing to criticise as everything can basically be avoided. What if people would really like to use a mechanic, but with the "don't like it, don't use it" train of thought, they couldn't because the mechanic was halfbroken and unbalancing? Should they just svck it up and not want it to be better, should they just "deal with it"? If one says he wants X to be better, because previously it was badly done with an elemnt of Y, and gets a response of urging to avoid it and just dismissing the actual criticisms - the avoiding part is "dealing with it". It's about making those options of yours better and more viable - and you can disagree with the suggestions of how they'd be made better and it's fine, but saying "Just avoid using it, practice some selfcontrol" is just saying "Just deal with the feature you don't like" and more shorter: "deal with it". And defending that line of thought suggests that people shouldn't even want the game to better in those regards. :shrug:

Invisibility is illusion, not alteration. It affects the senses, not reality.

1) No.
2) No. They also cant smell me, its an illusion spell.
3) Not needed, needlessly complicated.
4) Yes
5) Yes, its an illusion. If i fool people into not seeing me then they also dont see my clothes/ torch.
6) Yes, I agree.
7) I dont think anyone says that.
8) No doubt, you people. Because the comparison is fallacious. Because of the clamouring of total removal. Way I see it, both sides now agree about balancing.
9) Oh yes, absolutely. Im a mage. I dont sneak. I have a crappy sneak skill. I have no desire to sneak. I do desire to master illusion.

I would have to agree with this.

Illusion should make non-stealthy characters be able to avoid conflict.

Fixed.

I sure want it!

Its the difference between roleplaying and powergaming I guess.
I have no interest whatsoever in powergaming.
I never said a mage or high level monster shouldnt use detect life/ dispel, but for a mage to be spotted by a rat, wolf or mudcrab is ridiculous.
The fact that it is an illusion spell does matter. It affects the senses, not reality. So if I fool something that relies more on smell than vision into not detecting me, I would fool primarily his sense of smell.
A high level illusionist should be able to do exactly that, anything less is underpowered. If Im an archmage I perform feats unattainable for a mere hedge wizard. This is how it should be.
Though not at level 1.

For future replies to posts of mine by you I would appreciate a more civil tone.
Implying that my abiltity to properly think is impaired and being berating is not ok.
Most of your replies to my reply are fallacious. You overextend into the ridiculous and then claim the ridiculous result is my original standpoint.
There are plenty of balancing factors already available for invisibility.
1) Unable to interact with anything. 2) (was in Morrowind) unable to cast in a line of sight.
3) (should be) a high level spell.
It needs nothing more.

re: So just don't do it....




"1) I like to play fighters
2) Mages are overpowered in this game."

Well, you're fine - you'll play a fighter and you won't be overpowered.

"But I have to play the most powerful way! Even if I don't enjoy it!"

....wait, what?

--------

This is how most of the "some fringe ability is broken/overpowered/etc" threads seem to go.

And it's why we say "Ok, so just don't use it."

The TES games are full of options. Fast Travel, chameleon, different races & skills, different ways to fight, can follow quests or slaughter towns, etc, etc, etc, etc.

So to say "I don't like X, but it must be removed so that I don't use it!" really comes across as silly. If you could hold yourself back from playing a style that you don't like, or not hitting TAI/TGM on the console, or anything else - you should be able to hold yourself back from doing . But just because you think it's stupid or broken, doesn't mean that everyone does. Or that it should be removed just because you've got no self control.

As long as a game isn't forcing you to do something ("The next stage of the main quest involves you using Chameleon to sneak past the eighty two Fire Giants. Here, let me cast a permanent 100% chameleon on you!") then "So just don't use it" is perfectly valid. A compulsive need to powergame, even if it means playing a way you hate, is not the programmers' problem.

Ok,i could of been a bit more civil,i was stating a point while being humourous.That obviously didn't rub to well with you,so i'll apologize.
Though i stand by what i say. The way you answered some of the questions makes it sound like your confused. It's like you wanted it kept the same,then after reading other posts,decided it did need a little balance,then turning back and saying it's fine as it is again. Somewhere in these comments,you've seen some common sense ,that it should be looked at. But that's my take on it. Some of your answer's didn't make sense to me,that's all.

No worries:)
Yes, at the beginning of the thread my memory of how it worked in Oblivion was wrong. I was under the impression it was a higher level spell and that it couldnt be cast in a line of sight.
I do agree those kind of balancing factors are important.
But I also think that being a pure mage should be a viable playstyle. So sneaking and invisibility should provide much the same function. There is no need to factor in sound and smell, as long as there are balancing factors as the inability to just pick something up and dissapear in a crowded room. (In Morrowind, invisibility cast in a line of sight did nothing but drain magicka.)
A high level illusionist should have the choice to just be invisible though. Mages are weak against melee attack and rely on subterfuge and making sure the enemy never gets the oppurtunity to land a hit in the first place.

So, I'm all for it.

It seems strange that the guy who abused the spell so badly is so loud about getting rid of it.

I advocate not using the spell if you can't use it sparingly. I also suggest using spells that use less magicka or beef up your magicka pool.

If you use a feature in a game and don't have fun, don't use it.

It also helps to gain a few levels before trying to finish the main quest.

By the way I hate chameleon and never use invisibility. The sneak skill and a bow is way more effective and satisfying.

Invisibility spells should only make you invisible. Not unhearable.

This is quite very obvious and I hope they fix this flaw in Skyrim.

Well its certainly an opinion.
My opinion however is that its an illusion spell and not alteration, and that therefore it doesnt make one literally invisible.
It just makes the senses ignore you, like you could with hypnotism.
That would make it quite very obvious it affects more than sight alone.

Then why is it called invisibility would you say.
It's under illusion because that's what it is, like night-eye, charm, etc. But that doesn't mean it's an illusion of everything.

It's not an opinion that invisibility = makes you invisible :facepalm:

Invisibility potions FTW Just walk past everybody killing stealing without them even noticing!!

Actually that is an opinion.
Where did you find an in-game source or other statement that says otherwise? (novels dont count, a treatise on invisibility by a mage would)
You didnt, cause there arent any.
But my Morrowind manual states that because of the illusory nature of invisibility you were unable to cast it succesfully when an NPC was looking at you.
Illusion =\= alteration.
One alters the senses, the other manipulates the earth bones to alter reality.

i dont really have much of a problem with the spell itself, i have a problem with the dumb npcs that watch me disappear in front of them and go about their merry way. they can keep invis the way it is if the npcs can do something about it.

'hey i feel something running into me. no worries ill just stand still while an invisible force pushes me around the room. omg its a dude and hes stabbing me! wtf! hey...he disappeared....i wonder what that was about...oh well back to standing idle."

chameleon was the overpowerd one, you can do things, invisibility, you have to recast if you want to go through a door. i have no problems with invisibility.
(and even with 100% chameleon, pepole still notice when you do things, like tellekinetically throw books at them.)

:facepalm: again. Not even worth time to comment. I've said what should be said.

Then dont comment.
Meanwhile, saying its not worthy of comment hasnt been recognised as a valid debating tactic since forever.
Therefore I now feel the urge to jump up and down like a child and go 'ner, ner, Ive won.'
But that would be kind of the same thing.

No one is saying invisibility shouldnt be balanced, in particular no-one is saying the mechanics in Oblivion were perfect.
But it shouldnt be removed or gimped beyond recognition, and making it so any mudcrab can still hear you would do that.
That would be ridicoulusly underpowered, for a high level mage.

In Oblivion, I didn't use invisibility spells but I did use Chameleon with enchanted rings and such. At first I used Chameleon a lot but then I learned to pick and choose when to use it because I didn't really need it so much. Yes, I'd like Chameleon in the game still....it was fun and if there's no temple around to run into, I can see hiding from a dragon by disappearing for a while.

That is probably the best thing that they could do with Invisibilty.