But there is, if there wasn't, we would not be having this conversation because there would be nothing to complain about in the area of mechanics and gameplay balance.

You're just not accepting the system that is already in place.
It's not how you wanted it done...so your refusing to use it.

Why not just try it?

Way to be a hypocrite.

I want to make a flaming sword of daedric fire.

I still want to be able to fight an enemy that can potentially kick my ass even when I have said flaming sword of daedric fire.

Thank you for being a hypocrite.

sure they can, easily. Take away the broken looping mechanics, that way you can use all the toosl they provide without fear of gettign stupidly broken characters.

Because accepting it and telling others likewise, would be....disingenuous.

So...did you max out your One-Handed?
Did you put all of or most of your level points into health?
Did you max out your armor skills?

Yes you did.
That's why.

Well....I disagree.
To me, this is an intended feature and it works.

Like I said....you should try it. Play around and see what you come up with. You may not like the system, but you can be pretty satisfied with the results.

So basically... I'm not allowed to have the game tailored to me... but it can be tailored to you just fine?

I'm not sure if you have the mindset of a hardcoe gamer, a casual gamer, or just someone who shouldn't even be talking about game balance in the first place.

In my opinion it is a destructive behavior, both to the player and the developer. It teaches the player to cope with shortcomings by inventing solutions that don't really solve the actual issue, and at the same time it teaches the developers that they can continue to overlook such issues because people will attempt to meekly live with it instead of asking for it to be given the proper care and adjustment it may require. In the end, everyone loses as it can turn into a slipperly slope.

What will you think, if sometime in the future, your method of coping with the issue, is rendered invalid by design? What then?

It can be tailored exactly to you...if you put the perk points and level points where they need to be.
Why put all your points in health? Are they needed?
Why max out weapon and armor skills? Is it needed?
No.

So why do it just because you can?

Like I mentioned in the other thread.
I've been playing CRPGs since they came out.
I'm a former tabletop D&Der.
I'm 50 years old and a hardcoe roleplayer....and I was able to adapt to this system.
Why can't you?

I'll adapt to it like I did this.

Or I'll go play something else.

I didn't like the way Dragon Age 2 went...so I didn't even bother buying the game.

this I agree with.

Perhaps because you "adapting" is self gimping over a better system in the first place. That your way doesn't make the game better? all your doing is ignoring the problems by pretenting they don't exist. If we have a balance system then you can use al lthe skilsl and combo's you want and you'll still get a nice challenge when facign somethign that should be challenging.

And ya know....balance never came up in single player RPGs until MMOs came out.
Did you ever play the Baldur's Gate series?
Did you solo as a mage, fighter, and thief?
Talk about a lack of balance.....the three weren't even close in ability...the thief/rogue was damn near impossible.

And yet no players complained about balance.
You either did it...or you didn't.

So...in a single player game...balance is extremely over-rated...and something new to the genre.

By then, it would already be too late. Silence means yes, most of the time. People want games to improve, to get better, not stagnate or continue to make the same mistakes each and every time. God forbid Dragon Age 3 turns out the same as 2. Sometimes the only way that happens is with harsh criticism. As a former tabletop player, surely you acknowledge the role a good DM plays in moderating what is, and what is not allowed, and in designing and tailoring things to challenge and keep the players entertained without frustrating them or being unfair.

"If it's OP don't do it." is akin to "If your quest bugged don't do it.". Isn't it reasonable that a player would want to enjoy all the skills and perks this game has to offer? Being unable to take a certain skill or perk because it is egregiously overpowered is REMOVING CHOICE from the game. How can anyone with their mental faculties intact possibly justify this? The common argument is that the choice for being overpowered has always been and should remain in TES. Well, guess what, the choice is there even in a balanced game, it's called the choice of difficulty setting. That's what it's there for! The big problem at the moment is that even the highest difficulty setting can be trivialized very easily and without exploits by choosing certain perks which one should be entitled to take to play the role they imagined.

So, by your own logic, to have choice and options in this game, it should be balanced, so that we have the choice of using all perks and skills without breaking the game. And the choice of being overpowered or simply not have to face much challenge can be achieved by playing on novice.

I really can't make it even more plainly obvious than this. If you don't get it now, you never will.

Why do it because I can...

Maybe because I purchased the game for $60 and want to play in a way I want to play?

It's not a "need" versus "want" scenario.

You used to D&D.... yet you can't fathom that D&D is very well balanced for all levels of characters.

You realize (or maybe you just had terrible DMs), that the stronger the players become, the stronger the enemies and traps become, right?

I played a D&D session with some friends where I was the main fighter... and I had lots of gear that was enchanted that gave me lots and lots of bonuses.

Y'know what my DM threw at us? A Lich who sealed himself away in a room that was protected by a corridor or anti-magic and then filled it with lesser non-magical minions.

I walked into that corridor and all my bonuses are gone. I'm sorry... but I'm not going to simply just "accept my fate" and fight weakened in the corridor of death.

My team lured each and every minion out until we could the final few as fodder shields so we could enter the Lich's room safely.

We adapted but it was still challenging.

Our DM made the encounter hard where we had to think even though we were powerful.

Get. That. Through. Your. Head.

I paid for this game. I want to play how I want to play within the rules the game allows me to play in. And I expect those rules to be challenging.

The game's rules, not my own.

Might say it's more an issue of the master difficulty not being tough enough.
Oblivion max difficulty was enemies did 5x damage and you do 1/5 of default
Skyrim is 2x and 1/2.
Oblivion used an slider who made it hard to remember the difficulty you played on if you changed it.
Solution might be to add some new levels on the dropdown, grandmaster 4x and 1/4 and insane 8x and 1/8.

Apparently you haven't played too many games then, being 50.

Final Fantasy has been balanced very well.
Xenosaga was balanced well.
KotoR was balanced very well.
Jade Empire.
Breath of Fire.
Valkyrie Profile.

All balanced well.

All pre-MMO.

Final Fantasy, the original, was hard as [censored], even if you were higher level.

Okay...you guys can just be stubborn and play over-powered then.

Good night

skyrim is badly designed? ROFL

For a 50 year old... you're rather... nevermind.


Various aspects of it are badly designed.

It could work as a tradeoff, but I don't think it would be as good a solution as doing changes to the mechanics in the game, so that we don't need the extra difficulty settings.

Yeah I played all the BG series.

No I didn't solo, because WHy the hell would yo uwant to solo in a party based game? BG was balanced for a party.

I'll give them props for making a pretty overworld, but it's not rocket science to realize other areas have issues.

bethesda games prob aren't for you. you ALWAYS get to be powerful in a bethesda game, you always have the option to play like that. so get over it.