3 attributes...

[SickFak]

Hey there folks, not a lot of posts in here from me. Can't wait for Skyrim, already asked for free days from work on 11-14.11... Decided to share my thoughts on the 3 attributes thingy and see what other folks think about it.

 

So based on the line I read in here:

 

My link

 

"The damage you do depends on weapon itself, your skill, and any pertinent perks." Now how much a "strength" attribute would be fitting in here. - "The damage you do depends on weapon itself, your skill, your strength attribute and any pertinent perks." It would make so much sense. I just want my male Nord warrior to be stronger than my female wood elf rogue.

 

No need for all those attributes from the past games being back there, but 2 additional attributes to health, magicka and stamina would be perfect.

 

+ Strength

+ Dexterity

Health (endurance)

Magicka (willpower)

Stamina

 

Well Stamina could be also responsible/function as strength, and dexterity could be left out. Then I wouldn't be worried, but it isn't.

 

For example magicka plus skill works fine, certain destruction spell requires so and so skill and/or strength of the spell determined by skill and uses magicka to be cast. You can't cast certain spell if you haven't enough magicka even if you got skill.

Now if you'd be required for example so and so stamina to wield a battleaxe effectively besides the skill I would be fine with the whole 3 attributes thingy. (I left out perks for example's sake)

 

What do you say folks?

[AlterMann22]

I mostly agree with you. I guess weakest point of Skyrim will be attributes system. Because Bethesda seems like linked some attribute values together. Edited October 12, 2011 by AlterMann22

[CalibanX]

I can sympathize with this view. Doing away with the rest of the Attributes is a big change. I'll need to play the game though before I can decide weather or not I miss the other Attributes.

 

But from a mechanical view, the old Attribute system does strike me as being redundant. Adding +3 to STR when leveling, for instance, is essentially double-dipping the melee damage ability of the character. It's cleaner to just have those things be exclusively governed by skills. It's also largely redundant from a leveling up perspective. Melee, Magic and Stealth characters typically bump up the same 3 Attributes each time they level anyway so having to click on STR when leveling your melee character feels kinda obligatory anyway just as bumping up a magic character's INT does. Also, our mental and physical "attributes" don't go up as drastically as they do in RPG games anyway.

 

As for wanting one's barbarian characters to be stronger than your stealthy wood elf characters: Well, that STR attribute is really just a number that doesn't physically exist in the game as any Immersion aspect. What Skyrim has that is better, to my mind, than a Strength number is a physique bar slider. If you want your rogue to look more Dexterous and nimble, adjust the slider for a leaner look. If you want your barbarian to look strong and beefy adjust the slider for a stockier, more muscled look. I much prefer this option over the comparatively abstract STR number which only appears in the menus anyway and not in the actual game world.

[stormguy85]

Let us assume for a second that there is a "Strength" attribute in the game, which you can choose to level up or not.

 

Now let us assume there is a combat tree called "2-Handed Weapons".

 

You would be able to use 2h weapons almost exclusively. You could put perk points into all the perks to increase your damage. But, you never choose to level up your Strength.

 

So in essence, you've managed to make a completely wimp character who is somehow amazing with giant 2-handed weapons and capable of swinging them rapidly and 1-shotting enemies. How does that make any sense at all?

 

Instead, your ability to be good with 2-handed weapons is a single tangible value: the strength to swing the maul, the dexterity to guide it, and the skill to know exactly how to use it.

 

Basically you're just adding a second value that inputs into the same result: and has the potential to break things and/or cause balance and scaling issues.

[natelovesyou]

I completely agree with CalibanX and stormguy85, though your points are valid as well SickFak. I embrace the new "attribute system", the old was rather redundant and confusing. I feel like some people are uncomfortable with this new system just because most RPGs/RPG-esques use an attribute system, i.e. The Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Baldur's Gate, Diablo, Final Fantasy, Breath of Fire, Dungeons of Dredmor, World of WarCraft, Guild Wars, even Pokemon, etc. etc...

 

But just because this is different doesn't mean it's going to flop. I like it.

Edited October 12, 2011 by natelovesyou

[stormguy85]

Honestly, the only game I've ever played that I really felt handled "stats" well was Darklands. But, games don't work like that any more.

 

In Darklands you actually built your characters from childhood up to whatever age you wanted. The older they were, the more experience with things (maces, alchemy, whatever) but would generally peak in physical performance around 30 and then decrease after that as they got older.

 

You could make a completely dumb 26-year old who was extremely strong, and then play him and teach him stuff as he gets older. However, his strength goes down as his knowledge with weapons and skills increases. Made for a very unique game. It is hard to explain exactly how it worked...

[Lowk]

CalibanX and stormguy85 put it quite well; I hope a lot of those people who are wary or even outraged by the loss of attrributes will read their posts. Well said, sirs! :thumbsup:

 

I tend to agree, although I would describe my initial reaction to the change as "confused and worried." Based on the information I've gathered on Skyrim, it seems to be set up for much better character balance regardless of your skill/perk/level up choices.

[SickFak]

I hear you guys, but what about this:

 

""Well Stamina could be also responsible/function as strength, and dexterity could be left out. Then I wouldn't be worried, but it isn't.

 

For example magicka plus skill works fine, certain destruction spell requires so and so skill and/or strength of the spell determined by skill and uses magicka to be cast. You can't cast certain spell if you haven't enough magicka even if you got skill.

Now if you'd be required for example so and so stamina to wield a battleaxe effectively besides the skill I would be fine with the whole 3 attributes thingy. (I left out perks for example's sake)""

[Lowk]

I hear you guys, but what about this:

 

""Well Stamina could be also responsible/function as strength, and dexterity could be left out. Then I wouldn't be worried, but it isn't.

 

For example magicka plus skill works fine, certain destruction spell requires so and so skill and/or strength of the spell determined by skill and uses magicka to be cast. You can't cast certain spell if you haven't enough magicka even if you got skill.

Now if you'd be required for example so and so stamina to wield a battleaxe effectively besides the skill I would be fine with the whole 3 attributes thingy. (I left out perks for example's sake)""

There seems to be something like that in place already, sort of...one preview mentions a level 1 character that picks up a battle axe and only has enough stamina to swing it once or twice. What confused me about it is that the author implied there was a perk that reduced stamina usage...

[stormguy85]

There seems to be something like that in place already, sort of...one preview mentions a level 1 character that picks up a battle axe and only has enough stamina to swing it once or twice. What confused me about it is that the author implied there was a perk that reduced stamina usage...

There is a perk that reduces the stamina requirement for power attacks on 2-handed weapons: "Power Attacks cost 25% less Stamina."

 

I assume that is what you're referring to.