Skyrim's perks and perk tree designs are just really, really : V - Skyrim

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:18 am

Why is there a Master Lockpicking perk when a perk before it makes lockpicks unbreakable?

Because you may want not to spend a perk point on the unbreakable perk OR on the master lockpicking perk. You don't have to choose both.

It makes sense to you...

You pick Light Armor so you can run faster, move quieter, but can't take as much damage.

You pick Heavy Armor so you can take much more damage, but you can't run faster or move quieter.

I take a Perk in Heavy Armor that makes Heavy Armor Weightless, so I can run fine and not be burdened.

What's the point of ever picking Light Armor if I can make Heavy Armor just as light as Light Armor with the same, or better, protection?

The perk that makes heavy armor weightless can only be obtained when you get 70 in heavy armor. It takes a while to do so. During that time, you could be using light armor, which means you'd probably be able to carry more loot and get more money for your loot.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:22 pm

What you people call pointless and weightless, I see the exact opposite. :shrug:

I guess that's what opinions are for.

The weight of my CHOICE to put perks in heavy armor is the fact that after I do so, a full set of light armor is now pointless and will not protect me near as much. Not to mention I am now locked in to heavy armor types. Seems like a weight added to the choice to me?

And the perks for the armor types are not the same, just a few. Like the stamina regen bonus in light armor. Heavy has no such perk.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:32 am

Uh, serious question? It's called choice in an RPG. What is this, World of Warcraft? Why are you insinuating people min/max in a single player rpg? Its called rp and choice. There doesn't have no always be a point to choice; the fact that there is a choice is the point.
I swear, it's like all the fans of this series suddenly turned into CoD/WoW fans.

It's funny that you bring up WoW actually... since WoW actually has weight behind the choices you make regarding what type of character you can play.

In WoW, you can't make your Hunter, or Warrior, into a Druid or a Warlock... because you chose to spec a Hunter or Warrior.

In Skyrim however, you can make a Mage at the start, then change your mind halfway through and make them into an amazing Thief, then re~think yourself again and make them a bulldozer wearing weightless Heavy Armor.

So why did you pick a Mage in the first place?

The weight of my CHOICE to put perks in heavy armor is the fact that after I do so, a full set of ligjt armor is now pointless and will not protect me near as much.

Light Armor is made pointless because you can completely negate any weakness that Heavy Armor had. You can also strengthen Light Armor to the point where it is as good, or almost as good, as Heavy Armor, which thus eliminates the weakness of Light Armor.

So basically your choice between armor is pretty much almost completely cosmetic.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:00 am

I challenge anyone who disagrees to seriously look at their build and see if they can argue that more than half their perks aren't just filler that makes a skill viable by just reducing spell cost or increasing damage/effectiveness numerically.

This was my last build
http://chrizel.github.com/skyrim/#t/1/h9s0sg,-8vmyzm,m73j0g,54,0,29s6bk,24og,0
49 perks
8/10 in Illusion are filler (Quiet casting, master of the mind only good ones)
8/9 in Conjuration are filler (mystic binding only good one and that's arguable since bound weapons svck without it)
3/4 in Restoration are filler (Respite only good one)
8/8 in Enchanting are filler
2/2 in Smithing are filler
5/7 in Archery are filler (Eagle eye, power shot only good ones)
6/6 in Light Armor are filler
2/3 in Sneak are filler (Deadly Aim is the only reason I took the first two)

So only 7 out of my 49 perks are doing something that actually makes my character more interesting, the rest are just making the skills they're tied to work at higher levels.

Might as well not have called them perks.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:10 am

I love the perks like they are. It's like walking in a supermarket and buying the food you like. For free. You can decide which perks you take. Speech useless? Don't take it. Get other things. If you want to manipulate, intimidate and bribe, pick perks connected to speech. That's what I love... I also love how the perk trees look like with the star signs.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:38 am

Perks worked well in Fallout, but in Skyrim were done extremely poorly. The trees are one reason. Having to create several perks for each skill really doesn't work considering they vary so much in complexity. Lockpicking didn't need 10 perks dedicated to it, and the one that makes picks unbreakable makes most of them obsolete. The novice->adept and so on design doesn't work at all for lockpicking either, as lower level locks are already easy. Sinking that many perks into the tree for master or unbreakable is a total waste not to mention when you've got 100 lockpicking you're probably drowning in lockpicks anyway. The perks that might actually be worth taking are buried in useless perks for a skill that just didn't need that many perks dedicated to it begin with. Same can be said for pickpocket, or speech.

They tried to make all skills roughly equal but they're just not. Speech, lockpicking, pickpocket shouldn't be treated like combat skills and neither should crafting skills.

I really hope they get rid of the novice, apprentice, adept style perks in the next TES. I mentioned they don't work for lockpicking, but on second thought, they don't work for anything. These were completely unnecessary not to mention unimaginative. It's like they tried to make perks do too much of what skills themselves were supposed to do, rather than being actual perks.

Take a look at Fallout perks -

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_3_perks
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout:_New_Vegas_perks

There are some duds, sure. But look at how many don't even relate to a specific skill and are solely for improving or giving RP options for your character. Also note that some give major bonuses outside of combat for just one perk so that they're actually worth taking over a combat perk. They're also just generally more interesting and less restricted than Skyrim's perks. This is how they should've designed Skyrim's perks.

yes, im suprised, after the great fallout3, that these perks and trees aren't better.

big disappointment.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:32 am

You mistake "beneficial" for "pointless". Reducing mana cost etc seems like VERY well spent perks to me. Your personal opinion is not law, op, so get off your high horse.

You also seem to be under the impression that perks are supposed to be a core part of this game, which is false. The quest, discovery, exploration, immersion, etc, is the point of the game. Not lolperks.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:12 pm

Some perks are useless but the system itself is good, better then what we had in the previous games.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:30 am

You mistake "beneficial" for "pointless". Reducing mana cost etc seems like VERY well spent perks to me. Your personal opinion is not law, op, so get off your high horse.

You also seem to be under the impression that perks are supposed to be a core part of this game, which is false. The quest, discovery, exploration, immersion, etc, is the point of the game. Not lolperks.

Being as Perks are kind of tied to various aspects of the game... it's kind of important.

You want to talk about immersion? How immersive is it to have say... the inability to make Dragon Armor one moment, but then after smithing another set of Ebony Armor for your companion, because you leveled up, you now know the secrets of Dragon Armor?

How immersive is it to say... not be able to sell a stolen item, or a weapon, to a certain merchant but then a minute later them happily accepting it?

I don't feel as if I've earned the ability to haggle a merchant into them buying a sword when they normally only buy potions when it's a simple click of a perk selection.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:54 am

You mistake "beneficial" for "pointless". Reducing mana cost etc seems like VERY well spent perks to me. Your personal opinion is not law, op, so get off your high horse.

You also seem to be under the impression that perks are supposed to be a core part of this game, which is false. The quest, discovery, exploration, immersion, etc, is the point of the game. Not lolperks.

Beneficial is nice but they're providing benefits that are redundant with skills. Why have both skill level and perks determine damage of a weapon? Why is one thing called a perk and one a skill if they're going to do the same thing?
Character building has always been a core part of The Elder Scrolls.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:03 am

Being as Perks are kind of tied to various aspects of the game... it's kind of important.

You want to talk about immersion? How immersive is it to have say... the inability to make Dragon Armor one moment, but then after smithing another set of Ebony Armor for your companion, because you leveled up, you now know the secrets of Dragon Armor?

How immersive is it to say... not be able to sell a stolen item, or a weapon, to a certain merchant but then a minute later them happily accepting it?

I don't feel as if I've earned the ability to haggle a merchant into them buying a sword when they normally only buy potions when it's a simple click of a perk selection.

Oh, so you want real life in your games and complete fluidity in mechanics, with real life simulated trade-learning aspects

Get back to me in 30 years when that's a reality. :rolleyes:

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:58 am

Oh, so you want real life in your games and complete fluidity in mechanics, with real life simulated trade-learning aspects

Get back to me in 30 years when that's a reality. :rolleyes:

Yes, because that's exactly what I said.

Or, y'know... we could actually have to talk to the merchant through in-game dialogue options that open up as you level, along with a Disposition system that we had in prior games.

Sort of RPG like, y'know?

But I mean sure, it makes total sense that after stealing from Arcadia, having her send out hired thugs to beat me up, I can waltz into her shop, bat my eyes, and she'll buy whatever goods I have, even if I lifted them from her own shop, just because I hit level 70 and picked a Perk.

Makes perfect sense.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:34 am

Yes, because that's exactly what I said.

Or, y'know... we could actually have to talk to the merchant through in-game dialogue options that open up as you level, along with a Disposition system that we had in prior games.

Sort of RPG like, y'know?

But I mean sure, it makes total sense that after stealing from Arcadia, having her send out hired thugs to beat me up, I can waltz into her shop, bat my eyes, and she'll buy whatever goods I have, even if I lifted them from her own shop, just because I hit level 70 and picked a Perk.

Makes perfect sense.

Uh, yeah. You just described a video game. Which is what Skyrim is. If you want all of these revolutionary realistic features, stop crying and take a class in coding to do it yourself?

The only thing I've gained from this conversation is that you have absurd, unrealisric expectations and you're mad irl that they weren't met with this game which didn't advertise those features at all in the first place. /cry more?

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:06 am

Uh, yeah. You just described a video game. Which is what Skyrim is. If you want all of these revolutionary realistic features, stop crying and take a class in coding to do it yourself?

The only thing I've gained from this conversation is that you have absurd, unrealisric expectations and you're mad irl that they weren't met with this game which didn't advertise those features at all in the first place. /cry more?

Lol life checks, nice.

Absurd and unrealistic expectations?

I wasn't aware that a progress relationship through action and dialogue was impossible. I know I've seen it somewhere in RPGs recently... some game about Dragons and their Origins in a certain Age... or some Effect Mass has on things.

Revolutionary and realistic features? You do realize that Oblivion had a Disposition system, right?

» Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:12 pm

Pointless discussion is pointless. You're right, every single thing you specifically want in this game that wasn't included is Bethesda's fault and we should crucify them. Yeah, just crucify them.

Because it's not like TES is their EP. It's not like the same team/game director for the past three games all (for the most part) worked on the games together. It's not like they made the gsme they wanted.

That'd just be silly

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:40 pm

I challenge anyone who disagrees to seriously look at their build and see if they can argue that more than half their perks aren't just filler that makes a skill viable by just reducing spell cost or increasing damage/effectiveness numerically.

This was my last build
http://chrizel.github.com/skyrim/#t/1/h9s0sg,-8vmyzm,m73j0g,54,0,29s6bk,24og,0
49 perks
8/10 in Illusion are filler (Quiet casting, master of the mind only good ones)
8/9 in Conjuration are filler (mystic binding only good one and that's arguable since bound weapons svck without it)
3/4 in Restoration are filler (Respite only good one)
8/8 in Enchanting are filler
2/2 in Smithing are filler
5/7 in Archery are filler (Eagle eye, power shot only good ones)
6/6 in Light Armor are filler
2/3 in Sneak are filler (Deadly Aim is the only reason I took the first two)

So only 7 out of my 49 perks are doing something that actually makes my character more interesting, the rest are just making the skills they're tied to work at higher levels.

Might as well not have called them perks.

Perks help define your character, and the perk tree/points system is an improvement from the oblivion system where you automatically gained the perks at each 25 level interval. Unlike previous games in the series, you can't effectively make a jack-of-all-trades character with 100 in every skill and attribute. I think the perk system makes you focus on certain skills for your characters as you only have so many perk points to dedicate towards the skills that fit your character. So placing perk points in those "fillers" help define your character.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:15 am

Perks did work well in both Fallout games associated with Bethesda. In Skyrim, the perks are puntative in that one branch negates the possibility of the other. So I am a master in smithing, light armor, and cannot smith heavy nor utilize heavy weapons. In Oblivion and Morrowind, if you could swing it, it was yours. This is not what happened in Fallout with perks; you could build on your success with them and pretty much find the talents you wanted. YOu didn't select one branch only to find talents were denied you.
I am certain there will be defenders of the perk system in Skyrim- does that surprise us? No one argues McDonald's makes the best burger, only that they sell a zillion of them, nor would anyone suggest that means they have the best. Skyrim sells. It's fun, it just isn't as involved as previous ES games.
But the real difference between Skyrim is not the superior graphics, the 'fix' of certain technical aspects of play- it is that one can play Oblivion for hundreds and hundreds of hours and Skyrim is done when you're done with the main quests. I have 440 hours in this game with two characters. I just don't want to play it any longer. At 400 hours in Oblivion or Morrowind, I couldn't wait to develop another character and go again.

Character development equals game enthusiasm- all other things being equal. The perk system in Skyrim was supposed to answer the 'problem' of leveling in Oblivion; all it has done it create a game where there are about 3 characters you can play, and then quit. Racial strengths are gone, every race is much like another. Pick a high elf if you like magic, a nord for swords, or a cat for 'night vision'. It really doesn't matter much.

I used to marvel at how Bethesda gave the player what he wanted.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:14 am

Pointless discussion is pointless. You're right, every single thing you specifically want in this game that wasn't included is Bethesda's fault and we should crucify them. Yeah, just crucify them.

Because it's not like TES is their EP. It's not like the same team/game director for the past three games all (for the most part) worked on the games together. It's not like they made the gsme they wanted.

That'd just be silly

No one is crucifying them quit being so overly dramatic. We're criticizing one aspect of the game, not attacking the developers personally.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:28 am

Pointless discussion is pointless. You're right, every single thing you specifically want in this game that wasn't included is Bethesda's fault and we should crucify them. Yeah, just crucify them.

Because it's not like TES is their EP. It's not like the same team/game director for the past three games all (for the most part) worked on the games together. It's not like they made the gsme they wanted.

That'd just be silly

It's nice to know that instead of actually having a rational discussion you instead pull the really devoted fan card with your "because you make suggestions you hate Skyrim" card.

Nice.

It's funny you bring up the point that the same team and director have worked on all the previous titles as well as Skyrim... and many of those features from previous titles are now gone from Skyrim.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:34 am

It's nice to know that instead of actually having a rational discussion you instead pull the really devoted fan card with your "because you make suggestions you hate Skyrim" card.

Nice.

It's funny you bring up the point that the same team and director have worked on all the previous titles as well as Skyrim... and many of those features from previous titles are now gone from Skyrim.

So there must be a reason as to why those features are gone. Or does logic not make sense to you?

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:35 am

If there is a really good perk you really want, and have to take a few useless/filler perks to get it, denying your character access to several perks in other trees, I can't really see why that is a problem. How bad do you want it? Is it worth it? Decisions, decisions, isn't that what character progression should be all about?

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:04 am

If there is a really good perk you really want, and have to take a few useless/filler perks to get it, denying your character access to several perks in other trees, I can't really see why that is a problem. How bad do you want it? Is it worth it? Decisions, decisions, isn't that what character progression should be all about?

Problem is that most of the perks are filler. I'm fine with prerequisites for balance, Fallout's system used them and it worked.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:50 am

No problem with Perks from me either. I wish I could choose more than one at each level but it's better than the one every other level that I get when I play Fallout New Vegas. There's a lot to choose from so choose wisely and you'll build a great character.

» Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:50 am

Actually I have been looking at this problem of imbalance between perks and have come up with the perfect solution for a mod.

As we know not all perks are worth the same. For example, +20% damage from armsmen is boring, but huge compare to say, novice picklock.

But one perk is one perk, currently the only way to balance it is to hide the high value perk behind low value perks to average the total value of the set.

My suggestion is to give 2 perks per level instead, and drop some perk effects to half strength, like armsmen to 10% per rank with 10 ranks. This way, people who have to take the "useless" Cushioned (50% fall damage) in order to get Conditioning (no armor encumbrance) will "waste" half a level worth of perk rather than a full level's worth.

For powerful effects like Shadow Warrior, Master Picklock or Conditioning those effects do not have a numerical value can made to cost 2 or 3 perks. If not possible, have 2 or 3 ranks of which only the last rank gives you the effect.

» Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:01 pm

So there must be a reason as to why those features are gone. Or does logic not make sense to you?

Apparently you don't realize that's a portion of the point of this thread.

Why were perks put in place of things that worked in prior games?

Perks weren't added on top of what was previously there, they were used to replace. We're questioning the reason behind that decision by making threads such as these. But rather than just make a thread that reads "why'd you do it," we put input into it.

Input is something you have failed to give us as of yet. Or at least none that is worth mentioning.