Already, some perks dont seem really worth it. : V - Skyrim

» Mon May 14, 2012 8:28 am

Don't worry this is the kind've thing us PC users can modify easily

Just increase the threshold to maybe 30%, or even 100% (so frost ALWAYS has a chance to freeze with this perk)... as for console players. Well you guys knew what you were getting when you bought it

» Mon May 14, 2012 5:22 am

It makes choosing perks a lot easier.

Except for one thing... They are perk trees. It basically means you may need to choose these to get to the perk you really want.

» Mon May 14, 2012 6:00 am

Except for one thing... They are perk trees. It basically means you may need to choose these to get to the perk you really want.

This is why you should read the full thread instead of responding to the third post. Torrello stated THREE posts before this that this isn't the case.

» Mon May 14, 2012 6:29 am

I wouldn't know which ones to choose if they were all good lol

» Mon May 14, 2012 3:45 am

Its already been said in this thread that these perks are at the END of the destruction perk trees, so it's the other way round.

Having watched the official demo several times and comparing it to the many 3-hr previews, a few things occured to me. Namely, the character in the demo is at a pretty high level. Look at the skill levels, a lot of the magic skills are right up in to 70s - 80, I think destruction is at 94 or something. Also he has a TON of health! Dragons' fire and bites barely seem to scratch him. It's only his melee skills which are low. Also, that video cuts out time and again, so you only see the start and finish of every fight.

Not to mention that the Giant took off at least 66% of his health.

» Mon May 14, 2012 10:55 am

Not to mention that the Giant took off at least 66% of his health.

Not only that, but he had a talk option with those giants. For the latest Ripten preview he couldn't take to them and they 1-slap squished him to death! So, maybe befriending giants is a quest!?!

» Mon May 14, 2012 1:06 am

Perks are to support gameplay and roles. Sure, some perks are useless to some characters, some perks might be useless to most characters. However, I don't want all my perks to be powerful, I want some choices to svck. Reason, sometimes I don't want to build a God Like Character, sometimes I want to build a character that adheres to a role, sometimes picking two crap perks in order to qualify for a really good one is a nice balance tradeoff.

» Mon May 14, 2012 1:19 pm

Some perks seem quite redundant to me *snip*

You know this because you've played it, right?

oh dear

» Mon May 14, 2012 9:43 am

You know this because you've played it, right?

oh dear

so he's not allowed to give his opinion before he's played it.. why, what a fun forum this would be then. The examples he gives are rather clear(atleast some of them), so it's not impossible to have some sort of idea how they'll work in the game

» Mon May 14, 2012 1:02 am

so he's not allowed to give his opinion before he's played it.. why, what a fun forum this would be then. The examples he gives are rather clear(atleast some of them), so it's not impossible to have some sort of idea how they'll work in the game

Play it first, see how it goes

too much too ask isn't it

hmmmmm

» Mon May 14, 2012 2:33 am

Play it first, see how it goes

too much too ask isn't it

hmmmmm

did you even read what I wrote?

» Mon May 14, 2012 6:34 am

Most of the smithing tree is badly thought out.

» Sun May 13, 2012 10:01 pm

If Skyrim Perks can avoid the pitfalls of FO3 and FONV's perk system I'll consider it a good start.

» Mon May 14, 2012 8:57 am

Most of the smithing tree is badly thought out.

I don't think it's badly thought out, just a bit too samey/simple maybe.

» Mon May 14, 2012 9:03 am

What if a dragon was below 10% health? I think those destruction perks could be useful then.

» Mon May 14, 2012 5:01 am

Some perks seem quite redundant to me; Some of the destruction perks,
Shock damage chance to disintegrate targets if their health is under 10%
Frost damage chance to paralyse targets if health low
Fire damage chance to make low health enemies flee

If the enemy's health is already low, why would there be a need to paralyse it , make it flee, or disintegrate it?

I totally agree.
Shock should have a small chance of disintegrating enemies from 50% health and less.
And frost and fire effects should be totally independant from the health and rather just have a percentual probability to happen.

» Sun May 13, 2012 11:01 pm

did you even read what I wrote?

I just went back and re-read it.

Looks like I owe you an apology: Sorry bro!

I thought this was another negative-skyrim's-broken thread

peace

» Mon May 14, 2012 12:16 am

Most of the smithing tree is badly thought out.

It's pretty standard, nothing original but unless a game is intentionally developed with a highly complex crafting system making stuff out of increasingly better materials is par for the course.

» Mon May 14, 2012 2:27 am

Disintegrate target?

Sweeeeeet

» Mon May 14, 2012 8:07 am

Some perks seem quite redundant to me; Some of the destruction perks,
Shock damage chance to disintegrate targets if their health is under 10%
Frost damage chance to paralyse targets if health low
Fire damage chance to make low health enemies flee

If the enemy's health is already low, why would there be a need to paralyse it , make it flee, or disintegrate it? I mean, its dying already, a few more hits and the monster would be dead (mostly)
As compared to a restoration perk: *Magicka regenerates 25% faster* which seems much more useful yea?

Because there are quite a few perks which are fixed in number, such as "Reanimate undead with 100 more health" as compared to "Absorb 30% magicka that hits you"; would percentage based perks be much better?

My guess is for role playing. Its cool for spells to have effects like that. To actually disentegrate someone with lightning or overide all morale and send a target fleeing on fire, spreading that fire to those he touches, just to hit him with a double handed fireball and watch him blast away like fireworks. Its FUN. Unless of course you'd rather have the same destruction spells in oblivion with no perks or special effects at all.

» Mon May 14, 2012 3:20 am

I totally agree.
Shock should have a small chance of disintegrating enemies from 50% health and less.
And frost and fire effects should be totally independant from the health and rather just have a percentual probability to happen.

lol 50% wut r u nuts!? :rofl:

» Mon May 14, 2012 11:07 am

Well, read again.
I said 50% as when it starts to have a chance to happen. The possibility it actually does might still be just 2%.

Maybe it would be cool to actually start with something low like 2% at 50% health and then increase the chance the lower the health is.
The actual damage of the spell should be taken into consideration then. Something like a factor, which is dependant on how many percent of the max HP of the enemy is damaged by the spell.
Otherwise the perk could be abused with rapid-fire of a really weak spell.

» Mon May 14, 2012 7:22 am

I can see the problem here.

Honestly, if my spell is doing less than 10% damage to a target per hit, there's a problem. The chance should be based on the % of the remaining health of the target you're doing, though.

From what I understand, these are also the capstone perks for the destruction tree, which should be pretty awesome.

But keep that flamethrower spell in mind. Could be pretty awesome with that, eh?

» Mon May 14, 2012 12:01 pm

Atleast its not like the increased hand-to-hand damage perk in the heavy armor tree. That one is blocking the path to half of the perks in that tree. I'm not even going to use HtH, damn it! :sadvaultboy:

» Mon May 14, 2012 7:45 am

Some perks seem quite redundant to me; Some of the destruction perks,
Shock damage chance to disintegrate targets if their health is under 10%
Frost damage chance to paralyse targets if health low

If the enemy's health is already low, why would there be a need to paralyse it , make it flee, or disintegrate it? I mean, its dying already, a few more hits and the monster would be dead (mostly)

I don't degree that the fire one seems a bit more useless. But the shock, and especially the frost one seem more useful. If you're fighting a super tough enemy the shock effect can save you some trouble, and finish them off quickly. The frost effect has some nice advantages as well.