So some people been doing testing (along with myself).

if you have 100 points in any skill like say single handed weapons, you will do less damage then a nooby with 20 points but 1 perk in the 25% boost in damage.

In fact, have 100 points and being a master only gives you 24% boost in damage.

I truly think that's why this game is somewhat broken with balance. Perks should be compliments to the skill tree, and increasing skill should be really what determines your character.

No wonder my shield bashes do more damage than I can do with my Daedric Mace. Been playing a bit of a mage with heavy armor and I put 0 perks into one-handed so far but a lot into block.

I really prefer perks just complimenting the skill. But the way they have it now skill means NOTHING except for leveling up and unlocking more perks.

I disagree. Having perks play a bigger role helps them fill in the role of the class system. It's like you pick your character's class as you go by picking perks, instead of just picking it all in the beginning of the game. Having perks play less of a role would sort of really drive home the effects of not having a class, and I think that's a bad thing.

oh. very interesting.
I'd like to do some tests myself. what was the process you used to test?

I like it the way it is. I like putting perks in the things I use and benefit me that help me progress. That's the way it's made.

agreed
i love that they removed lame attributes and we have perks now;
but having 100 in something should give a huge buff compared to 20~50 and a few perks.

Don't get me wrong, no where did I say I didn't like perks.

All i'm saying is buff skill growth; and nerf perk's huge buffs.

This isn't an MMO. Nothing is getting nerfed or buffed.

My one handed is 100 and I believe you have to have those first perks to do work.

Cheers

Wrong. Beth have said already they are going to be stopping exploits in the game.


Not going to happen. Perks are better for the precise reason that they are once per level bonuses. Being skilled in a tree doesnt mean jack if you dont have the perks to back it up, thats the way the game is designed to be.

its better this way. if perks were nerfed then you would end up with characters that can do everything like in previous TES games which is just stupid. if you want to be good at something then you are going to have to invest in the perks for it.

Perks shouldn't be a requirement to be good, Perks are also known as Bonuses. why is the preverbiale Master of one handed weapons weaker than a guy who chose a tick box.

Meh, I'll forget this game when Soul Calibur 5 comes out. Extra perk points were among the first mods for the PC besides making butt ugly looking characters into something decent.

i think i want 80% of the power in the perks and 20% in the skill numbers

or say each skill point is worth 0.2% skill increase > so with 100 points u have a 20% increase in skill (or sumthing to that effect)

so skill points matter but dont buff u too much!

perks have skill requirements though
I usually find myself buying these basic % increase bonuses a lot of skills have whenever I can (the ones on the bottom of stuff like 1H,2H,block,stealth etc.)
they have a noticeable difference right away, as opposed to leveling which is slow and gradual

I find it rewards focusing on one skill tree right away
I must admit at first I sort of overlooked these perks and just went up the tree as fast as I could to get all the cool moves and such
but I think it's better to invest in these perks whenever you can

Because your not a master of one handed thats the point. Without perks your just a highly skilled layman. That "guy" has learned to hold the blade better, angle his strikes better and get his shoulder behind the blade better to cause more damage. Thats what perking does. When he reaches 100 skill and has the perks to back it up HE is the master of one handed, not the guy next to him with zero perks.

This isn't a problem unless you're taking the perks you should get from leveling up and putting them in completely different trees. If you properly allocate the perks you get to the trees that level up, progression feels natural.

^

That's the thing though, perks are worthless and have no purpose. Oblivion was fine with just unlocking perks as you got your skill level high enough.

It does make sense that if you put a +25% damage perk, then your damage will be +25% higher with that perk than without. That makes perfect sense to me.



What are you talking about? How are perks worthless?

The reason they changed to this system (as far as I can tell, since I haven't mind-[censored] any of their designers), is to address the complaint of previous games where a character could become a "master of everything". The new system requires perk investments to actually bring up a skill to being good enough to rely on it as a major feature of your character. This goes hand in hand with the new level system where only the "first and highest" skills that you advance really put a dent in your level-up bar. The overall intent is that you will gain levels by increasing your primary skills, and then invest the perk points you earn into those primary skills, and while you can eventually grind up EVERY skill with enough persistence (the hypothetical level cap of 80-whatever), you will receive far fewer perk points to invest into those skills you picked up after you were already high level and as a result they will never be as good as the skills you increased and invested in first.

I don't really care for the new system, but I can see the logic behind it and I appreciate their taking a stab at a creative solution.

No, if it was the way you said, it would be possible to make a nuke mage necromancer knight barbarian sneak assassin, which is what they were trying to avoid, and by doing it the way it is now, you need to make a specific class, which increases the ROLE PLAYING element. Much better the way it is.

You can get all skills to 100. You are, some might say severely, limited in perks.
Think about getting the important bit, the majority of the effectiveness, in all skills, and being strictly limited in incidental, unimportant and slight bonuses. Where is your character's uniqueness then?
Try to forget any baggage, past associations, with the words perks and skills, and decide whether skills being more important than perks will actually give you a defined character, markedly different to any other.

perks arent worthless! thats where all the power is, maybe u want them to be worthless but atm the numbers are worthless except they unlock the ability to have perks which make u better

perks have the power how can they be worthless?

Disagree.

You can level every skill to 100. But you have a limited number of perks to spend.

Perks should rightfully have more impact because they are limited. Your character should also be defined by your perks.
If you let skills fully determine your character, then in the end, everyone can do everything. 100 skill without perks should rightfully make you average in that skill.