You’re just a an unimportant piece of some game *Contains major spoile

[HeyYou]

I rather liked the way the world was leveled with FCOM for Oblivion. Closer to the city, it was just bandits, goblins, and such, (with some vampire caves tossed in for good measure), the further you got from 'civilization', the more powerful the opponents became, regardless of your level. Having the world revolve around the player, especially in the EXTREME way it did in vanilla oblivion, really turned me off to the game. (to the point that I stopped playing after about 45 minutes, as leveling seemed counter-productive. When FCOM started becoming more mature, it renewed my interest in the game.)

 

That aside...... with the trend beth is currently following, I don't expect a resurgence of RPG Elements in the next game. Quite the contrary. I expect things to get even more simplified than they are now..... We went from seven attributes to three..... we went from 30 plus skills in Daggerfall, to what? 18 in Skyrim? I expect that will be reduced again in the next game. Combat, Magic, and Stealth.......

 

The games are trending more and more toward action/adventure, and less focused on Role playing, which is what I see as the biggest disappointment. Is TESVI even going to be worth the 60 bucks they are going to want for it? My opinion is "No."......

[imperistan]

- Crafting under my system wouldn't be so readily exploitable, if at all. Skyrim's crafting suffers from Beth deciding not to stop the increase in effectiveness at any point. In Oblivion one can only repair up to 125% of the base stats, which is actually a pretty fair system (presuming level scaling is gone that is). In Skyrim you can indefinitely increase an items strength, and this isn't right. You could say that limiting that limits freedom or whatever, but fact of the matter is is that realistically you can only make a piece of armor or a sword only just so effective before you either A, can't do anymore, or B, outright break the thing (especially in the case of swords). And obviously for gameplay reasons that would follow through logically.

 

Freedom is good, but if we're presuming to create a gameworld that's supposed to be even remotely believable, allowing stupidly powerful weapons to be made like that without any in-game/in-lore explanations (For instance, requiring a very high smithing level as well as ultra rare materials, recipies that are hidden etc etc) simply cannot be done without undermining balance entirely.

 

One could also reason that if you haven't leveled your combat skills, then any items that are dependent on any of those skills still won't be effective even if you exploit crafting to the point of making them 1 step away from being the stomping boot of Talos himself. Even in real life you can have the most well made sword ever and still get bested by someone with nothing more than a half-rotted wooden club if you don't know what you're doing with it. Same with armor. This doesn't necessarily solve the problem you pointed out (more of a band-aid really), but it would be a fair safeguard if for whatever reason crafting is allowed to be stupidly exploitable, as well as against the possible problem of crafting still becoming slightly unbalanced as you suggested, just at a very different level.

 

- Further, when combined with my spawning system, you're never guaranteed that you're daedric sword of pwn will actually help you, even with stupidly exploitable crafting.

 

- Thats the entire point of picking a class, is to stick to that class. And if you don't like it, you are given the choice (Somewhere down the line. You should be able to change it at will after a time, but you should be required to at least give what you chose a chance before you change it within the same game) to change or abandon.

 

- There's nothing that says that things either have to be a total grind or lacking in any discernible difference. There is a sweet spot (There has to be. But without the ability to actually sit and playtest this system, all we can do is guess) that can be found. And besides that, the point in even allowing the player to not choose a class at all is so that they can define their class as they play, and then after a certain amount of time, establish that class for their character. Unless you're specifically playing a MOAT/JOAT/Dabbler In All Things (at which point neither way is better than the other), after a certain amount of time playing you're going to establish a set of skills that you'll actually be using the vast majority of the time, and at that time there would be little reason not to establish that set of skills as a class. If not for the XP gain increase, then for the fact that not to do so would just be denying that you're playing a class (when in fact you are).

 

- Again, the point of this system isn't just to kill things. Hence the the development of the non-combat half of it. But anyway, Perks (and do note that Skyrim's "perks", or more accurately, skill trees, are not perks in the traditional sense though the names have become interchangeable) have always been define as the culmination of your skills and attributes. Attributes define what you have the ability to do. Skills define what you can do. Perks define how you do what you can do.

 

Granted, Skyrim and the past ES games don't necessarily take this approach to the attribute/skill/perk relationship, that's the basic idea of it, and something my system is trying to approach.

 

But anyway, with perks being designed with that ^ in mind, perks augment your skills by designating how you're using those skills (Rather than designating the actual damage output by it). Perks become the difference between being an elemental or arcane mage. A more nimble swordsman or a berserker. Someone who hides among people, or hides among the shadows. In essence, perks become what makes one class different from another, even if the skill selection is the same.

 

But even more simply, perks just become the main thing in this system that delivers the raw fun in gameplay. Perks are the cool things you can chose that will allow your character to do cool and fun things with your skills and attributes. And the reasoning behind this is that perks are what allows the player to interact with his character beyond just telling him what to do. Attributes and skills are what governs the math behind your character, and in this system, they're handled automatically as you play (as they should be), whereas perks are what differentiates the gameplay, and in this case the choice to engage in one kind of gameplay over another is given entirely to the player.

 

- Of course they can but that's not the point, and further, it all goes back to the A.S.P relationship. Attributes are what your character has the ability to do. If your character is not very agile, then logically you would be very easily detected while running/sneaking around even if you were invisible. As such, if you have a skill and/or a perk saying contradicting this, then the system would be rendered completely illogical once you realize that in order for that skill or perk to say that you wouldn't be very easily detected would require that your agility ALSO say this as well.

 

The three systems that define your character are and should be connected, and as such cannot logically contradict one another. And if we're going to presume to actually put all three of these systems within the game, then all three most be developed and fleshed out. Just throwing certain things under one system's umbrella, when logically they are more appropriate under another, goes against that idea, regardless of whether or not the system in question (In this case, your stats being reacted to by the world) could conceivably be put under any of the systems.

 

It doesn't make one system "weaker" than another, namely because that kind of logic only applies when there is a lack of systems for these three to govern. But even then, saying one system is "weaker" or "stronger" than another just because its governing less or more is just silly. If a system cannot logically govern any more than what it already does (Or has been given to govern anyway), then there is no problem with that. And its same going in the opposite direction. If a system can logically govern a system that the other 2 can't, then by all rights it should even if it means one of the other two systems dont' get to govern it.

 

- Not necessarily, though you raise a good point. One could design the system to cater to the region X dungeon resides in. That alone would limit what would actually spawn within the dungeon and make it far easier to manage. And then, you could take it further, depending on your intentions behind the dungeon's design itself.

 

For instance, a small but fairly open cave residing within Whiterun Hold would mostly only spawn small creatures and lower leveled bandits/marauders, with a low chance of spawning may be a giant or a dragon. But then, you could go to the Pale in the Mountains, and find a large dungeon where anything from draugr to creatures to giants to bandits to dragons could spawn. Small dungeons could be designed to only be able to spawn only one kind of enemy at once. Larger ones could have several different kinds of enemies. (with perhaps logic checks to prevent absurdities, like Bandits being at the heart of the dungeon and high level draugr or dragons in the beginning room)

 

You don't need to have the props change entirely to suit the new tenants, nor do you need to have the leavings of the even more previous tenants. For instance, I'd be more interested in seeing bandits once, and then coming back and finding bears standing among their things, especially if I didn't kill all of the bandits. Makes one think that the bears moved in and ate all of the bandits! And naturally one can reasonably presume that after a time the leavings of previous tenants would just fade to dust (or get stomped or burned into it) or just somehow disappear as the new tenants moved in. Ideally speaking you wouldn't want that, but ideally there'd also be a system in place that would automate all of this according to parameters. Rather than designing every possible combination or spawn, you'd just set up your basic dungeon layout and then set parameters within it that the spawns would conform to. Barring such a thing however, one can do the above and wear down the amount of actual work needed by a fair bit.

 

But regardless of all of this, not all dungeons would fall under this system (nor could they really, especially when quests become involved). This system would be limited more to dungeons that are just there for the sake of having a dungeon, rather than to dungeons that are there to be a part of a quest and/or quest line. So even if we ignore the above and do none of it, the work would STILL end up being far less that you suggest.

 

 

 

(See how nice it is when discussions actually go somewhere?)

Edited February 13, 2013 by imperistan

[sajuukkhar9000]

-Even with a capping of crafting skills effectiveness, wouldn't one still run into a problem of, assuming that enemies are level scaled based on combat skills alone, being able to plow through whatever enemies you are up against with ease, as long as you get your crafting skills up to a high level?

Even without using exploits, Skyrim's crafting system can be made to take an iron sword up to like 50 damage, and when fighting like level 1-5 enemies, because your combat skills are at a super low level, the game would be too easy, and even if you cap it, you would still be more powerful then the enemies your are currently facing, probably to the point where you should be facing enemies of a higher level.

Adding in caps to weapon/armor improvements is a start, but the enemies you face should be determined by some fraction of your current crafting skill level, in order to keep balance, because even with caps, the bonuses you get to weapon/armor ratings would put your total combat effectiveness several levels higher then your current level, and the enemies you face need to reflect that.

 

 

-What enemies would be powerful enough to not be killable by a daedric sword of pwn? Daedric items are the best items in the game, and if it cant kill something, even after being smithed/enchanted, what exactly do you kill said thing with? I mean, I get what you are trying to say, but the way you are wording it just seems odd.

 

 

-Yes sticking to the class is the point, but that's also the problem, when you put the options of

--A class where X skills raise faster then all other skills

--No class were all skills raise the same speed, but slightly slower then the X skill from the class system

 

Most people are going to chose the latter option, because most people who play Skyrim and Fallout, don't play it with a hardcore RP mindset, they play it with a "effective" mindset. Essentially, classes would become like the swift learner perk from Fallout 3/New Vegas, it gives you a +10% more EXP whenever you gain EXP, but no one ever takes it, because there is just so much to do in these kind of games, that the extra EXP is useless, and only becomes a wasted perk. I just really don't see the majority of people taking the class option when it's so seemingly not worth the +leveling boost.

 

-The so called "sweet spot" for leveling really doesn't exist, IMO, in over three decades of developers making leveling systems for games, I have yet to see a single game find it. Even in Skyrim, I know many who consider the base leveling speed too fast, so fast that they actually got mods to slow it down, and I also know people who think that Skyrim's leveling system is a super slow grind, even with the warrior stone, plus the 10% leveling bonus from resting.

 

There just is no real sweet spot, and the only way anyone can agree on something is if you take leveling systems to the extreme, in making it either a super slow grind, or just really fast, and when we combine this with the two options class system from above, we run into the problem of either

--The classless system being able to be leveled at a base rate that's fast enough to where the bonus from the class system doesn't matter.

--The classless system becomes a super slow grind, in order to make leveling harder, and the class systems skill bonus actually worthwhile, but at the same time making the classless system so slow that no one really wants to use it.

--it ends up making both systems so fast/slow that it really doesn't matter which one you pick, and when combined with the class system's limitations, and needing to do something special to switch classes, while the non class system has no such restrictions, the classless system becomes the obviously better choice to such a level that there's no reason to take a class besides getting what amounts to a name tag on your character.

 

I just dont see it working out in a way to where both are viable, and also different enough to where both have a strong benefit.

 

 

-But what's the point of raising crafting skill if to not help you kill things? What purpose does it serve to do anything but help you kill things more?

 

And while I understand the whole A/S/P relationship, as you described it, it frankly feels wholly outdated and pointless. Why have attributes when perks can do what attributes do, and what perks normally do, like how Skyrim does it?

-Why have agility determine if enemies can detect you while invisible, when the skill itself, or the skill and a perk, can do the same?

-Why have STR determine how much damage your sword does when the skill itself, or the skill+perks, can do the same?

-Why have personality determine how willing people are to give you info, when the speech skill, and perks, can do the same?

 

Everything that attributes can do can be logically shifted into the skill itself, or the skill + some perks, and thus I don't really see the reason why to have attributes at all, besides to add a unneeded extra layer on the system in order to make it more complex then it needs to be, and while I do think many of the more mundane perks, like +melee damage, should be moved over to the skill itself, wholly, or at least partially, adding attributes into this seems pointless as skill+perks, cover everything that attributes, skills, and perks, do, just in a less cluttered system.

 

And I say attributes make the systems weaker because of the above, everything attributes do can be logically governed by skills+perk, so taking powers/abilities away from them, and slapping them into a, IMO, unneeded, and unnecessary system, makes them weaker then they need to be.

 

 

-While I understand what you are saying, the system still does run into some problems with logic.

--Why would a giant take over a bandit cave when they prefer large open areas to watch over their mammoths with?

--Why would a dragon live in a cave to begin with, given their size?

 

And by not removing the previous owner's stuff, and instead just placing the new enemies in the cave, it wouldn't really feel like the new enemy took over. There's a cave in Skyrim called Darkwater cave, and this cave once had human inhabitants, but it was taken over by trolls, and when you enter the cave, you can see how the trolls broke everything, and that's what makes the scene work, what makes the cave feel special, and unless they do that for every place in this system, it just doesn't feel like something actually took over, but instead that they just placed same new enemies in an old location.

 

And even if we exclude quest locations, that's still over 100 dungeons they have to make multiple copies of, for the before and after scenes of every possible tenant, which would mean we would have significantly less locations in the game world, and it makes the game also feel more repetitive because it's still the same cave, just with destroyed bandit tents instead of intact ones.

 

I personally would prefer something akin to what Skyrim has now, in that the higher dungeons are on the mountains/hills, the more dangerous they are, but with a wider variance in minimum spawn levels for the monsters inside, so instead of having a base level of like 15-20, the most elite dungeons have a minimum of like 25-30, or 35-40, and there would also be more monster variants, going up to levels beyond 50, to make the more dangerous areas even more dangerous. that way, Bethesda can design the places to be more "correct" looking, but also make the areas more dangerous then they are now.

Edited February 14, 2013 by sajuukkhar9000

[HeyYou]

Enemies you face should be based on either location, (distance from civilization, further away, meaner they get) or, character level, regardless of what skills were used to attain that level. (if using a level-scaled model)

 

Weapons/armor should have hard caps on just how much they can be improved, regardless of crafting skills, and other factors. I can make potions that improve smithing over 260% with a combination of alchemy, and enchanting..... if THAT isn't an exploit, I don't know what is...... The idea of an iron dagger doing more damage than a Daedric great sword is just oo much for me to swallow. :D

[imperistan]

- This is why I suggested that skills override your crafting depending on the levels. It shouldn't matter if you have a Daedric Sword of Pwn if you only have level 5 in Long Blade. Throw in my spawn system and any issues beyond that are negated.

 

- Its not a matter of damage. Its a matter of your character actually being able to use the weapon at all. As I said before, realistically even if you have the best sword in the (real) world, if you don't know how to use it then it won't help you in a fight. I know that first hand, as my instructor in sword fighting let me use his sword (Which in my experience has come to be proven as a very well made sword) and he beat me in every fight I had with him until I had learned how to fight.

 

And for a more direct answer to your question, the point should be that it shouldn't be enough to merely have something of great power. You should be required to be powerful enough yourself to make use of it.

 

Mechanically in-game, this would be represented by your item's health increase over 100% being mitigated and/or ignored if your skill isn't high enough. Where to set the skill requirement would take some thinking, but in a pinch I would say a minimimum of level 40 (note that that number is based on Morrowind's numbers, where skills started at 5 and with class bonuses would reach upwards to 40 or 50) in whatever skill would be a decent enough start.

 

- Unless you're suggesting that EVERYONE plays a MOAT/JOAT (Which isn't true. Yes a lot of people break traditional class rules, but that doesn't change the fact that they probably are only using a fraction of the entire skill list. In a game like Skyrim or Fallout 3 where there aren't very many skills at all, yes people would probably end up using most of them, but thats due to the low amount of skills. But look at the suggested skill list of my system. There's well over 3x the amount of skills with room for more. You'd have to be pretty good at the game to use ALL of those skills to the point where you couldn't say there isn't a real set of skills that you could say you use the most.

 

But before you say it, no, dabbling does not count. You can still dabble in my system even when you take a class, but dabbling does not = fully leveling. To fully level and use a skill would mean that you're either integrating it into your playstyle, or you're just trying for a MOAT (Whether you'd admit or not).

 

And as for the difference in xp gain, it would work somewhere along these lines (note these are again just arbitrary numbers). Say the base XP gain is set at 100xp per real hour. This is what the xp rate would be sans class for the beginning of the game. With class, it would go be 110xp per real hour. And then in the mid game, and I don't think I mentioned this detail before, when you're presented the option to change or choose a class, the xp rate for class would stay the same, but the xp rate for non-class would go to 105.

 

And as you level past that mid point, xp gain will decay for individual skills (IE, xp gain won't slow down for a skill only at 5 just because you're approaching 100 in another. This would have a more visible effect for non-class characters) back down to the base xp gain, with perhaps the xp gain decaying even further at some point after level 100.

 

All in all, after the mid game is approached, the xp gain differences are relatively small, but enough to be worth it for those who want the roleplaying aspects of a class (and have a gameplay reason to do so) but without alienating someone who just doesn't want a class period.

 

- Eh, that's more just opinion based on preference, rather than opinion based on approaching what is most ideal for the gameplay itself. Leveling rates will never be perfect for absolutely everyone, but for Dev's there is a sweet spot that can be attained that will satisfy how they want their game to be. What the player themselves want beyond that is up to them to change in the game for themselves.

 

Personally, I would lean more towards the slower side of the scale, but make up for it by changing the rewards to not necessarily accurately reflect the effort required, but rather downplay it. IE, make the rewards great enough for the player that the slower leveling doesn't seem as slow as it really is, but without making them so powerful things just get silly. Its more fun this way, not only because it allows the rewards to be more fun, but also because it still provides for the sense of accomplishment.

 

This system is all about approaching that middle ground between the different meta-playstyles as best as we can, but without downplaying any of the legitimate virtues of any of them. IE, don't take away the casual's fun, nor the roleplayers depth, nor the meta-gamers ability to power-game.

 

- Remember the emphasis on non-combat being fleshed out to the same degree as combat? This system allows for non-combat to be a viable gameplay option that will let you progress through the game without actually having to put any focus on direct combat. There would be just as many quests centered around non-combat game mechanics as there would be quests centered around combat.

 

Combat and Non-combat do compliment each other, but the point is to make it so that to reap the benefits of mixing and matching combat with non-combat that you actually have to put effort in both. A 100% combat character shouldn't be able to smith himself a Daedric Sword of Pwn nor should a 100% non-combat character be able to even swing it, very much less do any damage with it.

 

The thing that would solve the obvious void in that relationship is overhauled companions (as well as a slight emphasis on their use) that would actually help your character at his shortcomings.

 

And as for the actual gameplay of a non-combat character, much of it would actually be mundane (which is pretty much the point of a non-combat character), with the truly extraordinary only coming at high levels of mastery as well as progress in questing.

 

- You don't get attributes because you're probably used to Beth's take on them. From wikipedia:

 

 

Attributes are commonly referred to by their first two or three initials.

Strength aka Body, Might, Brawn, ... A measure of how physically strong a character is. Strength often controls the maximum weight the character can carry, melee attack and/or damage, and sometimes hit points. Armor and weapons might also have a Strength requirement. Constitution aka Stamina, Endurance, Vitality, ... A measure of how resilient a character is. Constitution often influences hit points, resistances for special types of damage (poisons, illness, heat etc.) and fatigue. Many games combine Constitution and Strength. Dexterity aka Agility, Reflexes, Quickness, ... A measure of how agile a character is. Dexterity controls attack and movement speed and accuracy, as well as evading an opponent's attack (see Armor Class). Intelligence aka Intellect, Mind, Brains, Knowledge, ... A measure of a character's problem-solving ability. Intelligence often controls a character's ability to comprehend foreign languages and their skill in magic. In some cases, intelligence controls how many skill points the character gets at "level up". In some games, it controls the rate at which experience points are earned, or the amount needed to level up. Charisma aka Presence, Charm, Social, ... A measure of a character's social skills, and sometimes their physical appearance. Charisma generally influences prices while trading, and NPC reactions. Wisdom aka Spirit, Wits, Psyche, Sense, ... A measure of a character's common sense and/or spirituality. Wisdom often controls a character's ability to cast certain spells, communicate to mystical entities, or discern other characters' motives or feelings. Willpower aka Sanity, Personality, Ego, ... A measure of the character's mental resistance (against pain, fear etc.) when falling victim to mind-altering magic, torture, or insanity. Some games combine willpower and wisdom. Perception aka Alertness, Awareness, Cautiousness, ... A measure of a character's openness to their surroundings. Perception controls the chance to detect vital clues, traps, or hiding enemies, and might influence combat sequence, or the accuracy of ranged attacks. Perception-type attributes are more common in more modern games. Sometimes combined with wisdom. Luck aka Fate, Chance, ... A measure of a character's luck. Luck might influence anything, but mostly random items, encounters and outstanding successes/failures (such as critical hits).

 

 

Attributes behave very, very differently from both skills and perks. Or rather, they should.

 

Again, attributes define what your character has the ability to do. The pure, raw power behind skills. Skills define what your character actually can do. To what degree attributes are actually reflected in the character's output. And perks are a combination of both that define what your character is actually doing.

 

Simply, attributes are what you could do. Skills what you can do. Perks what you are doing.

 

This is why certain things, like those in your examples, can't just simply be rolled into skills or perks. Just because the logical absurdity of doing so isn't great enough to the point where it becomes stupidly obvious that the absurdity is there does not mean that there is no absurdity.

 

 

- Not all giants necessarily have to behave the same. And not only that, it isn't like most giants in virtually every other fantasy world tend to hang out in caves anyway. Skyrim's take on Giant behavior is actually rather unique. And as for dragons, well, I need only point you to Smaug (and Vulthuryol) if you need the reasoning for that.

 

- Ideally you would see the leavings of all and/or most previous inhabitants. But ideally this would actually be logistically possible. Barring the ideal, exceptions and less than perfects must be made. The same idea is still there working as intended, but because of technological limitations it would be unreasonable to say that the ideal must accompany this system or bust.

 

And this isn't to mention that unless you're farming a specific dungeon (or specifically revisiting it, either for roleplay reasons or because you're testing the system) you probably won't have the memory of that dungeon as it was when you first entered it.

 

- I don't follow how my system would be more repetitive than what we have now, when my system would actually make the spawns fairly unexpected (unless you've played the game to the point where you remember most of the enemy types for that particular dungeon) and would probably change how you approach the same dungeon between two different visits, (IE, you can sneak through and stealth kill a bunch of bandits and walk out without causing a stir. Not necessarily so with giants or a dragon) whereas in the status quo every dungeon that respawns is still the exact same dungeon it was when you first visited (except perhaps with traps turned off/already tripped).

 

My system doesn't offer say, 100 levels more variety than the status quo, but it at least adds some more variety, even if it isn't a lot.

[sajuukkhar9000]

-I'll try to tackle both of your first two points together.

The entire problem with the "logically you shouldn't know how to use a weapons in an effective means until you reach X level" argument is that it's largely negated by the fact that magic exists in the ES universe.

Knowing how to use a sword effectively or not, would logically have no impact on whatever magical damage enhancer a person put on that weapon, as long as you can hit them. The 30 fire damage you place on a sword should still affect the enemy, regardless of if the way you handled the sword itself made the blade itself do any real damage.

As for improving weapons/armor with normal smithing, we again run into the problem that, even if you don't know exactly use said armor/weapons effectively, the increased sharpness/bulk of the armor, should logically give your more damage, and more protection. Hitting someone ineffectively with a sharp sword would logically do more damage then if you did the same with a dull sword.

Putting on caps that prevent a weapon from going over X amount until you reach X level in skill negates logic, and the increased weapon/armor ratings you get still need to be taken into account when determine enemy level.

 

 

-While true that many people use many skills in Fallout 3/Skyrim because of the low number, adding in more skills, for things that frankly shouldn't be skills, isn't the solution IMO, it just makes the skill system bloated. Things like cooking, fishing, horse riding, weaving, climbing, woodcutting, don't need to exist.

Cooking should be a part of alchemy, weaving should go with smithing, and things like wood cutting, fishing, and climbing should all just be actions that the player performs by themselves, I don't even see how climbing would work in a game like Skyrim. Speechcraft and mercantile should be the same skill as well. All you do by making all these things into skills, when they don't need to be, is just trying to bury the problem instead of fixing it.

Furthermore, making the EXP gain bonus degrade over time only makes the problem even worse, now, this bonus for picking a class makes even less impact on your character because instead of it being something that stays around, it goes away once you hit mid game, all your doing is basically telling people that going classless is better because it wont matter by mid-game time, and you don't have to put up with the restrictions the class system has.

 

 

-Making leveling slower only turns the game into a MMO, and frankly, I hate MMO leveling. I would rather have something like guild wars 2's leveling system, its really fast, each level takes only a little bit more EXP then the last, and it does this so that you can cut out the BS of being stuck with low -mid level stuff for large portions of the game, and get to the stuff people actually want.

And really, I don't see how downplaying the player's accomplishments is fun, or makes rewards more rewarding, the entire point of being downplayed i that you DON'T get some equal to what you did, but something smaller, and most people hate that.

 

 

-I don't really see how you could make non-combat quests in a game like Skyrim, or have a MQ that allows you to beat it without using combat yourself. All non-combat quests would amount to is some radiant quest like system were you smithing things and dealiver it to people, but that wouldn't work in a story, or in a MQ, it would just be pointless RP filler misc objectives.

 

 

-I played D&D and games based off of it, long before I picked up a Bethesda game, and still, I see no point to it. Everything that attributes do, as listed in that Wikipedia quote, can be logically moved over to skill/perks.

The entire definition of "attributes are what you could do. Skills what you can do. Perks what you are doing." Is based off of a standard D&D set three decades ago. but that doesn't mean that's the only way it has to work, or that its definition is relevant in the modern gaming world. I'm really not trying to be rude, but frankly, your logic comes off as "D&D said so, so it must be true, and the only way to do it".

And I don't really see the logical absurdity of anything I posted in shifting attribute powers into skills.

 

 

-Vulthuryol was trapped by the Dwemer, he didn't go down there of his own free will.

 

-If you won't notice/remember the difference in a dungeon then what exactly is the point of the system to begin with? If no one remembers what it was before, they cant notice the change, and if they cant notice the change then what exactly is the point of the change? Change only means something if its noticeable

 

-Because it really wouldn't change how people play each dungeon any more then the game does now, warriors will plow through enemy head on no matter what's in there, and thieves will sneak by no matter what's in there, as they do in the base game. the changing of enemies doesn't change how people play, their class does, and adding in random enemy spawn doesn't change how their class works, only what enemy they have to sneak past/fight head on. Not only that but it gives Beth less time to make each dungeon as good looking as it could have been.

Edited February 15, 2013 by sajuukkhar9000

[HeyYou]

As for improving weapons/armor with normal smithing, we again run into

the problem that, even if you don't know exactly use said armor/weapons

effectively, the increased sharpness/bulk of the armor, should logically

give your more damage, and more protection. Hitting someone

ineffectively with a sharp sword would logically do more damage then if

you did the same with a dull sword.

 

My point was, an iron dagger shouldn't even be able to come close to the damage of a daedric greatsword. The physical limitations of the materials and all that. I will grant though, that the addition of magic into the mix, does complicate matters. :)

 

Climbing IS a skill. Not everone is good at it, and some are better than others. I could almost see cooking/alchemy relation.... as you are doing pretty much the same thing. (combining ingredients to form a finished product.)

[sajuukkhar9000]

My point was, an iron dagger shouldn't even be able to come close to the damage of a daedric greatsword. The physical limitations of the materials and all that. I will grant though, that the addition of magic into the mix, does complicate matters. :smile:

 

Climbing IS a skill. Not everone is good at it, and some are better than others. I could almost see cooking/alchemy relation.... as you are doing pretty much the same thing. (combining ingredients to form a finished product.)

 

Yes, I agree, thats what smithign caps are for.

 

Climbing is one of those things best left to the players, if Skyrim was like..... I dont know, Fallout 1/2, or one of those other third-person isometric games, I could understand a climbing skill being used to get into special areas, but in a game like Skyrim, where being able to jump up places is based on the user's ability to do it, I dont see how climbing as a skill would work. Climbing as a skill just makes no real sense to me in a game like Skyrim.

 

Not to mention it would run into the same problems that athletics and acrobatics did, in that everyone would have super high levels of it becuase everyone uses it. It's justs one of those fundimentally broken skills IMO.

Edited February 15, 2013 by sajuukkhar9000

[imperistan]

- While I initially conceded you this (as I didn't really think about that), as I hammered out my concession I started to get some ideas for how to deal with this issue, as well as some revelations that haven't been pointed out just yet.

 

First and fore most is simply connecting enchantments to the same limitations of the base stats. IE, low armor skill = less effective enchantment. To make this more fair (and more sense), I would say that the effectiveness of the enchantment would only go down to about 50%, whereas the base stats would go down to 25%. (again, arbitrary) This makes it so that even powerful enchantments can still be useful even on an unskilled character, but while also preventing it from being nothing more than a free and consistent attack.

 

Building on that, instead of item skill setting the limitations, one could instead set the limitations with the enchanting skill itself. Enchant in Morrowind already governed how efficiently you recharged your items as well as the decay rate of the enchantment itself, so it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to tie the effectiveness of the enchantment to it as well. Not only would this solve the problem you pointed out, but it would also help to make the use of staves and scrolls a more viable combat mechanic.

 

Now obviously doing that runs into the problem of pre-enchanted items being used by non-enchant characters. My simple solution is just setting a flag on certain enchanted weapons that allow them to be used at full effectiveness regardless of enchantment skill. For balance, these items would be limited to uniques (Which make sense to work this way) at full power, and generic enchanted items that are limited to relatively low level enchantments. Still useful, but not necessarily the best.

 

- This is only goes to show the need for better AI in the game, as well as the ability to actually miss. Hell, better combat in general. Morrowind made it easy, because dice rolls were an easy way to emulate your character not knowing jack about using swords. (Yes if you managed to actually connect with your sword you'd do damage, but connect is the key word, and this is not represented in Skyrim)

 

Lets face it, Skyrim is still using Morrowind's combat system. Its just that now its been tweaked to where you never miss and the chance to hit was converted to damage. Frankly, this is way too simple of a combat system, whose blunt simplicity actually diminishes other parts of the game in order for them to conform to it.

 

An idea I had for combat a while back was to basically make a hybrid between player skill and character skill type combat. It would be built around two or more characters being literally locked in combat with each other (with the option for any to break combat and run away, naturally), and the actual physical part of combat being controlled by the player, but augmented by character skill.

 

To elaborate, the combat lock would be akin to to the aim assistance in Skyrim that helps keep you on target (Though I can't remember if this was a mod or not, but either way) and away from companions, but would be slightly more aggressive. And the reason for this would be so that it would be easier for the player to actually engage in the actual combat without doing finger gymnastics to keep on target while doing combat.

 

Now, the reason for that combat lock is because of how the physical combat would work, which could actually work in one of several ways. The main method would be something similar to Daggerfall/Arena's system where you used to mouse to swing your weapon. You would lock with your enemy, and as you used the movement keys to strafe/dodge (and move in closer, as to connect with your weapon), you would use your mouse to swing your weapon. Your enemies would strafe, dodge, and move forward and backwards as you would and would have just as much an ability to miss as you would (though for them, their skills would determine this entirely). The basic idea behind combat would be to close in and connect, causing as much damage as possible if not outright striking a killing blow. Locational damage would be required for this, naturally.

 

Skills (and perks) would augment your weapon wielding in different ways. Swinging will become more smoother (thus easier to do) and forceful (damaging) as you level your skill, and the perks you choose will affect this further in more specific ways. IE, preferring more damage over more speed. Preferring to expose rather than use brute force. Wide sweeps or more brutal bashes. Etc etc.

 

- Why not? Because, apparently, they don't enhance combat?

 

Again, this system makes a point of making non-combat an actual, viable meta-playstyle. Not just something you do on the side when you're bored killing things. For that to work, non-combat skills need to exist. Say what you want about the game, but Runescape does a pretty good job of doing just what I describe. Refer to that if you need to see how such non-combat skills could be fleshed out.

 

- What you're suggesting hurts variety. That isn't good.

 

- No, it wont' matter by end-game. Mid game is when your leveling picks up and caps off, and then begins to decay.

 

- If high-level content is the only good content in your game then you're doing it wrong.

 

- Much of non-combat would center around interaction with NPC's, rather than creatures or NPC's. Stories can still exist (For instance a good murder mystery doesn't need combat. Nor do political stories), and to say that all it would amount to is just radiant fetch/delivery quests is just bluntly admitting a lack of imagination.

 

Smithing quests could center around further developing your skill and learning unique recipes. Discovering ancient knowledge and tapping into the power to create things that only a master could even think of.

 

Cooking can be involved in quests to help the downtrodden. Temple quests to help the wretched out of their darkness.

 

Fishing can surround contest quests, as well as quests about old men trying to conquer a fish that eluded them. Could also be instrumental in puzzles and finding hidden objects as part of other quests that don't necessarily revolve around fishing entirely (if at all).

 

Wood cutting is obvious. It'd be related to building quests.

 

All in all, all manner of quests can be devised to center around these skills. But the thing is is that not every skill needs a quest surrounding it. It CAN just be a skill for the sake of being a skill, and there's nothing wrong with that so long as its fleshed out fully, even if there's no epic quest line to accompany it.

 

 

And as for MQ issues, this would only really be a problem for MQ stories where your character is supposed to be the savior of the world (Ala Skyrim and Morrowind), but even then, Morrowind at least you could reasonably travel with a company of companions and still logically come to be the Nerevarine. (Hell half of becoming the Nerevarine requires mostly non-combat methods anyway)

 

Skyrim it isn't so easy, but considering how rather poorly Skyrim was written as well as the game's focus on combat (of which virtually every quest is also centered around), it isn't surprising that this wouldn't work.

 

BUT, even then, you could still hammer it out even if it wouldn't be too great. One could still travel with companions and become the Dragonborn. Thu'um under my system would be considered a legendary skill, independent from either meta-playstyle. Not necessarily combat, not necessarily non-combat either. (The Thu'um can do more than destroy) So either character could reasonably use it and not really break the meta-playstyle.

 

It should also be noted that non-combat doesn't necessarily mean your character shouldn't be participating in combat, but more that they couldn't be directly in it. IE, they'd be in more a support and/or leadership role. (IE, playing the conjurer, except expanded so that you can lead NPC's rather than just creature summons)

 

- Keyword here is: Can. They CAN be moved. But that doesn't mean they SHOULD be moved. There is no sound reason to consolidate other than to simplify, either for the sake of space or technical limitation (Which isn't relevant here, as this is discussing what Beth could have been moving towards, not whether they're capable of putting out this system 100% as is) or for the sake of simplification. (Streamlining is nonsense that only applies to systems that never got fleshed out, which is also not relevant here)

 

And besides, that is still ignoring the logical reasons for maintaining their separation (Which you seem to be ignoring).

 

- Considering modern RPG's (at least western ones anyway) haven't even remotely come close to developing something equivalent to DND (and have in fact moved far and away from that, though in most cases not in ways that maintain them as RPG's) that isn't DND, your point is moot. Show me an RPG that goes (or can go) as in-depth as DND can that does things completely differently from DND (IE, isn't DND nor based on it in anyway) and may be you'll have a point, but unless some marvelous gem of development has slipped under my radar (Fat chance. I've played just about every noteworthy RPG made since the late 80's)

 

That, plus I take my cues from DND anyway. DND defined RPG's for me, and as such I go by the standards it put out.

 

- Because they make skills do something they, by definition, aren't supposed to do. A person's skill with a blade is not = to that person's strength, even if the former feeds the latter.

 

- That goes for the lack of change as well. Except with the lack of change, the fact that its all the same is readily apparent regardless of your memory. Combine that with the severe lack of enemy variety we see in Skyrim and the problem is exacerbated.

 

I would rather forget a dungeon and not notice a change than remember a dungeon and notice absolutely no change whatsoever. At least the former allows for change to actually happen.

 

- That's a result of simplistic gameplay.

 

- The solution is to make athletic skills (Such as athletics (duh), acrobatics, climbing, etc) scale and level differently from other skills, with the logic being the simple fact that everyone does end up using them fairly constantly, so to have them level at the same rate wouldn't work, nor would having the same output scale. (also idk about you, but in Skyrim I hardly ever had to jump)

 

 

[huntsman2310]

Kinda because the 18 skills in Skyrim can comfortably achieve what the 30+ skills did in Daggerfall.

 

Why have 30 vague and unbalanced skills when you can have 18 well-detailed and polished skills instead?