How can I balance out my Skyrim better (hate waiting for CK)

[RaycerX]

I agree with all your changes save for destruction magic changes.

Mages are already brain-dead OP in Skyrim if you know how to play/enhance them; no need for damage boosting of destruction at all.

My gf plays a lvl 50+ pure mage and has been one-shotting everything with fireball since lvl 10 or so - and that's without using any alchemy/enchanting/gear exploit.

She needs like 10/15 fireballs for dragons and 5-6 for bosses.

 

*Snip-snip*

 

That being said - it's true that someone hides cheats behind balance, but your changes are definitely not the case.

They just put you at the same level as other NPCs, aka balance.

 

The only thing I would like to add, there needs to be many, many, many more NPCs.

5-10x more guards in town; it's not realistic you can take over a town by yourself, if you assault a town you should be swarmed by 50 archers.

Bandits and wolves should roam in much larger packs.

In general, the amount of enemies should be raised by 2x and above.

 

Thank you for the kind words. There is one thing that has me very (and I do mean VERY) curious: How on earth did your gf go through the game (and get to lv 50+) as a pure mage and still not get frustrated by the slow magicka regen rates, the high cost of spells relative to the amount of damage they deal (in destruction magic), and the high amounts of damage enemies can deal?

 

Also, if you disagree with the Destruction changes, what is so bad about it? From my point of view, Destruction is underpowered if only because I see the spells as ratios between damage to magicka. Ideally, a spell should be on a minimum of a 1:1 ratio between damage dealt and magicka cost. If that isn't the case, then I may have grossly underestimated Destruction. Still, I'm thinking of bumping up the amount of runes that can be placed to 3x and changing dual casting so the cost modifier isn't so freakishly high (2.8x cost : 2.2x damage, wtf??).

[Sabatasso]

And unlike Sunnie says, balance isn't subjective.

 

Balance is certainly subjective, it is your opinion and not a fact that everyone agrees is a fact. Like I said, I understand that everyone has a different perception of the balance, and while i may agree and/or disagree with your opinions, they are still just that. I also have a laundry list of things I want to change for my own personal play experience, most of which will only ever see the light of day on my desktop. These are just small things though in the grand scheme of the game, since I am happy with 95% of the vanilla game.

 

 

I just think it's a result of a rushed project that deserved so much more love and affection from the developers.

 

I completely disagree with this. Again, that is your opinion and not a fact. While every game comes down to the final 6 month crunch time, the game seems like it had more than the 3.2 years of actual development time, and for me, in no way feels rushed. I believe they took great care to make a game that hands down has the best environmental elements, has a great deal of content, is interesting and fun to play, out of the box. This also is subjective to ones own interpretation, but the current statistical estimates indicate that may just be the case. If you want to talk rushed, just look at DA2, that's the epitome of rushed.

 

You're missing the canvas here Sunnie. I never said my opinion was a fact, and also stated it was just that. What do you think "I just think" actually means?

 

And for the balance part, it's not subjective, because either there is a balance or there is not. You may not care about balance, and is happy either way, but that is an entirely different thing.

[Sunnie]

You're missing the canvas here Sunnie. I never said my opinion was a fact, and also stated it was just that. What do you think "I just think" actually means?

I never said that you did, but the way you are making statements makes it sound like you are basing your opinions on something that is fact. It's really no matter, you are entitled to think the game is completely out of balance if you so desire, and are entitled to change the game to play how ever you wish it to! :thumbsup:

 

And for the balance part, it's not subjective, because either there is a balance or there is not. You may not care about balance, and is happy either way, but that is an entirely different thing.

 

But who is defining said "balance"? You are defining it, and thus making the determination that it is out of balance, making it:

 

 

sub·jec·tive

[suhhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngb-jek-tiv]adjective

1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought

 

Balance is indeed very subjective. In the case of game mechanics, it's based completely on your own perception of what you think the game should have and do. You can't treat game mechanics like physical weights and measures where balance is determined by equal measures of mass on both side of a pivot point, or a different math equations that all have the same sum (used as examples).

 

Again, you have the right to think the game is completely broke if you want, just trying to point out that your opinion is not the only one out there. I agree with some of the things listed in the thread, and some I don't.

 

And now to get the thread back on track, again, to the OP, make or ask for the changes you want for yourself, ultimately you should only be concerned about making your experience the best it can be. Sorry to have caused a derailment.

[RaycerX]

You're missing the canvas here Sunnie. I never said my opinion was a fact, and also stated it was just that. What do you think "I just think" actually means?

I never said that you did, but the way you are making statements makes it sound like you are basing your opinions on something that is fact. It's really no matter, you are entitled to think the game is completely out of balance if you so desire, and are entitled to change the game to play how ever you wish it to! :thumbsup:

 

And for the balance part, it's not subjective, because either there is a balance or there is not. You may not care about balance, and is happy either way, but that is an entirely different thing.

 

But who is defining said "balance"? You are defining it, and thus making the determination that it is out of balance, making it:

 

 

sub·jec·tive

[suhhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngb-jek-tiv]adjective

1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought

 

Balance is indeed very subjective. In the case of game mechanics, it's based completely on your own perception of what you think the game should have and do. You can't treat game mechanics like physical weights and measures where balance is determined by equal measures of mass on both side of a pivot point, or a different math equations that all have the same sum (used as examples).

 

Again, you have the right to think the game is completely broke if you want, just trying to point out that your opinion is not the only one out there. I agree with some of the things listed in the thread, and some I don't.

 

And now to get the thread back on track, again, to the OP, make or ask for the changes you want for yourself, ultimately you should only be concerned about making your experience the best it can be. Sorry to have caused a derailment.

 

No need to be sorry, besides, I was just asking for help on figuring out how to modify other trees to better meld with my planned changes.

[Falconsflight]

There is a lil bit of hate / aggression in here, let me lighten the mood a bit:

 

Edited December 19, 2011 by Falconsflight

[RaycerX]

I fear this thread will get locked up for off topic/ beginning of a flame war. In that case, lets get back on topic:

 

Conjuration (still yet to be thoroughly planned out):

 

- All low level conjured creatures are permanent and will have AI changed a bit so that they only attack when you successfuly hit an enemy.

 

- All low level conjured creatures will deal 20 damage with an attack.

 

- All low level conjured creatures will start out with 100 health and 20 armor. Each subsequent mastery perk will increase these numbers by 20% of the base (Maximum with mastery perks will be 200 HP, 40 armor).

 

- I don't know enough about the "Potency" perk to change anything. (As stated before, I got conjuration up to about half way before I stopped using it). As far as I'm concerned, it could affect the base stats which would mean 250 hp and 50 armor, or it could affect the current stats which would mean 300 hp and 60 armor. Though, I do know the damage would be 30.

 

- "Atromancy" perk functionality changed to: 25% damage reduction and 25% faster attack rate on all atronachs.

 

- Conjure "____" Thrall spells will summon a Thrall creature that has double the base health and armor of their respective lower level atronach. I still haven't decided if the damage should also be doubled though.

 

 

Notes: Again, this is a very experimental suggestion since I haven't had much experience with this particular line of magic. Also, my initial reaction to Conjuration was "OMG Final Fantasy style summonerz!!1" should basically be fulfilled by these changes. I would love to implement these changes, but if it renders the line imbalanced, forget it.

[Darksun45230]

I fear this thread will get locked up for off topic/ beginning of a flame war. In that case, lets get back on topic:

 

Conjuration (still yet to be thoroughly planned out):

 

- All low level conjured creatures are permanent and will have AI changed a bit so that they only attack when you successfuly hit an enemy.

 

Why? That'd be a lot less convenient for conjurers.

 

Notes: Again, this is a very experimental suggestion since I haven't had much experience with this particular line of magic. Also, my initial reaction to Conjuration was "OMG Final Fantasy style summonerz!!1" should basically be fulfilled by these changes. I would love to implement these changes, but if it renders the line imbalanced, forget it.

 

Why not give players special Conjuring spells that tell your summon who to target and what attack to use? That'd be the realm of Final Fantasy X.

 

...And :psyduck:

[cyrusmagnus]

I highly recommend the mod, "AutoPerksStatsLevel" it gives you a much more immersive game.

 

Change the settings for summons and runes to 10. You won't be able to use all of them because you'll run out of mana, but it is quite fun to summon a pack of familiars, ie wolves. They die in one hit, so don't expect to be OP. It's just fun. 2 or 3 flame autronaches though, that's downright useful. Again, you'll be limited by mana, as you should be as a mage (not by some preordained one summon limit). Once you get to daedra lords though... it's a bit much, but by then anything is a bit much. A max enchanted/smithed two hand sword is going to be insane. A 30x max enchanted/smithed dagger sneak attack too. So yeah, 2 or 3 daedra lords. You are that powerful at that point no matter your build.

 

In short, the game is easy. With swords, with spells. If you know what you're doing. It tends to be a lot of, I know what I'm doing and I win, or oh s*** what's that, dead, take two, win. *shrug*

[RaycerX]

 

*Snip-snip*

 

Once you get to daedra lords though... it's a bit much, but by then anything is a bit much. A max enchanted/smithed two hand sword is going to be insane. A 30x max enchanted/smithed dagger sneak attack too. So yeah, 2 or 3 daedra lords. You are that powerful at that point no matter your build.

 

In short, the game is easy. With swords, with spells. If you know what you're doing. It tends to be a lot of, I know what I'm doing and I win, or oh s*** what's that, dead, take two, win. *shrug*

 

Those are some of the exact reasons why I posted my ideas for balancing Skyrim and want to balance it out ASAP :down:. From my experience, it's not fun, it's just boring.

[Sabatasso]

You're missing the canvas here Sunnie. I never said my opinion was a fact, and also stated it was just that. What do you think "I just think" actually means?

I never said that you did, but the way you are making statements makes it sound like you are basing your opinions on something that is fact. It's really no matter, you are entitled to think the game is completely out of balance if you so desire, and are entitled to change the game to play how ever you wish it to! :thumbsup:

 

And for the balance part, it's not subjective, because either there is a balance or there is not. You may not care about balance, and is happy either way, but that is an entirely different thing.

 

But who is defining said "balance"? You are defining it, and thus making the determination that it is out of balance, making it:

 

 

sub·jec·tive

[suhhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngb-jek-tiv]adjective

1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought

 

Balance is indeed very subjective. In the case of game mechanics, it's based completely on your own perception of what you think the game should have and do. You can't treat game mechanics like physical weights and measures where balance is determined by equal measures of mass on both side of a pivot point, or a different math equations that all have the same sum (used as examples).

 

Again, you have the right to think the game is completely broke if you want, just trying to point out that your opinion is not the only one out there. I agree with some of the things listed in the thread, and some I don't.

 

And now to get the thread back on track, again, to the OP, make or ask for the changes you want for yourself, ultimately you should only be concerned about making your experience the best it can be. Sorry to have caused a derailment.

 

Balance:

- A state of equilibrium or parity characterized by cancellation of all forces by equal opposing forces.

 

Hardly anything subjective about it... and yes, I can use google too. It's not about treating it as a physical mass, it's a bout creating a fair playground for all participants, the AI and you.

 

1. They could balance by keeping the difficulty more or less stable throughout the game, i.e. level the mobs up or down a constant number depending on the PC's level. (bad idea, in my opinion, because it removes the sense of achievement of improving your character)

 

2. Or they could set certain mobs at a certain level and not care about the PC's level, which would create potentially ultra hard zones in the game, and others relatively easy. (also a bad idea, because it would limit the free roaming severly and make the game more of a "railroad" from start to the end)

 

3. They could also remove levels, set mob difficulty static, and the only thing that would differ a fresh PC from a well travelled one is his skill levels that would create the sense of growth, without really breaking the difficulty. It would make bandits easier as you got better, but there would be tougher mobs out there, but all killable from the start if you're persistent, careful and stubborn enough. The perks would need to be removed or severly reworked in order to do this, but in all honesty, 90% of the non magic perks are utterly stupid anyway. (A decent idea, with more details ofcourse, but it will present a more "realistic" environment for you to play in. Perks could be added in a more subtle way, as more "flavor" or "individuality" rather than balance changing "must haves".

 

4. Fallout system might not be ideal for a fantasy setting, but I am 100% sure that it would work much better, with a little modification, than the current mishmash in the game. Once I reworked the weapon damages, it was highly functional and quite realistic. Well, "action-hero" realistic at least, which is what most of us are after in one form or another. Keeping nearly all enemies lethal if you didn't take care.

 

There are probably more ways balance could be achieved, but I am too tired to think at the moment, and arguing here with you does not bring any coin. I'd say for the record that I would prefer a reworked Fallout 3/NV system for this game, though.

 

Right now there is no balance, because every PC build leads to complete removal of difficulty, and you become a demi-god unless you botch the perks completely, or choose not to intentionally (which I do). Which again completely annihilates Bethesda's reasoning to why Dragon Shouts are so weak in the first place. According to them, they're weak to avoid the PC to become too powerful. Hardly a problem when we're already way too powerful with weak shouts. Pissing in the ocean won't make a tsunami, you know. There are no balance, and whether my ideas of balance are good or bad, they're certainly no worse than that presented in Skyrim.

 

I'll give you another example;

Pressure plate traps is funny, especially because you can trap several mobs in them and wipe out 2-3 mobs in one bash. If I want to go high in stealth, I can't use that feature any more because I need to take "Light Foot" perk in order to progress, and that particular perk makes you unable to step on pressure plates with or without purpose. One of many reasons to why I think the system is not good, it's actually STUPID! The balance issue comes in addition ofcourse.

 

Also the traps in the game is a complete joke, you hardly notice boulders falling on your head, a wall of spikes smashing into your face or a big whoopin axe (or three) chopping your flank as you pass by. A guy with a one handed sword power attacks you, and you fail to block. It hurts a little. A guy with a two-handed sword does the same and you die in one single attack. Excuse me, but being utterly and physically raped by sharp objects hardly differs wether the blade is 80cm or 150cm long, they both penetrate a human being TWICE or more. A dagger being plunged 80% through my gut is probably hurting just as much, for the record. Damage tables are WAY out of line, and hardly balanced at all. In fact these are all examples of LACK of balance if you ask me.

 

I don't feel the need to elaborate more, once you open your eyes you'll see what most of us see, the system is illogical, stupid, unbalanced and hardly functioning. And mind you, there isn't any story worth following to even help you ignore the system, like most other games have. "You're special, go save the world" has been used a few times before, and it makes it very easy to become focused on the combat/AI system instead.

 

I agree with you on one account, a single player game does not need to be perfectly balanced. But it needs some kind of balance if it's going to be any good. Or else it would need a cracking story. Skyrim has neither at the moment, and that makes me frustrated. I am sure the game will become great once CK is out, and modded to hell and back.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Sabatasso