/tes/ - The Elder Scrolls Discussion

I´m going against this

Non-European culture has no fantasy potential

u_u

>>6387

Well, it's going to be in Hammerfell m8. Sorry to burst your bubble fetcher.

>>8363

Damn true. We'll make an exception for the Middle East, however, as the culture of the Khajiit, Ra Gada and (to some extent) Dwemer are based upon the Persians, Saracens and the Biblical world.

Judging by ESO, Saxheelian culture is based upon ancient South America (Mayans, Aztecs, et cetera). But ESO a shit so who gives a fuck? We haven't encountered their architecture, armour or weaponry in Bethesda TES games yet, so we can't be 100% sure.

Yes, let's move the spotlights to Akavir while a second great war is coming up…

>wanting Betheseda to ruin Akavir

>>8365

You say that like Bethesda isn't going to just write off the second Great War with an in-game book.

>gayyyyy.

underage cancer leave. i don't care if this board is half-dead.

It'll be Hammerfell or Shimmering Isles. I'd prefer the latter but I'll take the former, so long as it's anywhere other than fucking High Rock.

We'll probably never see Akavir in any mainline ES game, or at least not anytime soon.

But I guarantee we WILL see it in if ESO manages to eek out an expansion pack to ruin the mystique of the place before they go completely under.

>>8486

>Shimmering Isles

u fukin wot m8?

>>8497

yeah but ES6 is a long way off considering we are still waiting on ES4

>>8504

You convinced me. I'm more of a hammerfell fan but High Rock has such a history of magic that they can't make it medieval like Skyrim.

Good points amigo

>>8506

>High Rock has such a history of magic that they can't make it medieval like Skyrim.

Don't underestimate. Have you read anything about Skyrim before the games came out? It was anything but Le Medieval Europe we got, more like if Fallout happened in the 600 BC and there was magic too.

Skim was supposed to be incredibly alien and full of magic shit everywhere. And you saw what we got. The Jew's greed knows no bounds, and the casuals eagerly await to be despoiled by them, for the meager price of simple gameplay, shiny graphics and 1 dimensional lore.

>>8508

I think you're being a tad harsh, I agree that they really messed around with some stuff in ES5 that I'd rather they hadn't, most of them being magic/nord culture related, but I also think it made sense as they wanted to get away from the oblivion every-character-ends-up-being-a-battlemage and where your character's maximum magica is the be-all and end all

In Skyrim, more so than with the previous games (including Morrowind I'm sorry guys) you could legitimately play the game as either a non-magic fighter or a pure-magic fighter even at higher levels (although obviously everyone just made a tank in fully-enchanted armor)

It did annoy me a lot how they made the Nords so fucking anti-magic, and the culture so reverent/narrow-minded, when in previous games they had restoration magic perks and, particularly in oblivion, they were mostly "I don't bother with the chapels" etc.

It's almost like they've swapped bits of Nord and Redguard culture - originally it was the Redguards that were the worst at magic and had no magic skills at the start game and the nords were (not good at it obvioulsy but) better at it and in paticular had some restoration affinity

I think this could be a "the new fans probably wont fully appreciate the cultures in the game so we have to make them have super obvious real-world archetypes" so they basically turned the nords into dumb barbarians when they used to have their own interesting, admittedly less magic based than most, but some, culture that wasn't as black and white or basic as it seems in Skyrim

tldr:

I get why they did what they did changes-wise in Skyrim, but I can empathise with you when you say they're just dumbing it down

As far as the implications for ES6, it probably means that any region they pick they're going to borrow heavily from real-world cultures, so if its Hammerfell, Persia/Arabia and if its High Rock probably something like Game of Thrones (god that would suck come to think of it)

>>8510

You're right that I'm being harsh, Skyrim isn't an objectively bad game. I just had such high expectations of it especially in the Lore and ambiance department that its still pretty sore.

Doubly so because I don't see bethesda reversing the trend when the next game comes out. Rather, if the rumors about Fallout are true (and I think its confirmed by now) they will make their games even more casual oriented and full of Bioware-tier nonsense.

As I'm sure you are aware, if there is one thing that drives the casuals away is properly implemented and creative Lore.

>>8512

Crassius Curiwho? I only love that book because of SKYRIM 5: The Elder Scrolls.

>>8513

>All this bait

That said, I've got a question for the resident lorefags.

In Skyrim, Karliah's eyes are purple, as opposed to red, which is, as I understand it, the standard, since Azura cursed them. What's the deal there? Is there an in-lore reason, or was it the devs being retarded and cribbing the Drizzt Do'urden look?

>>8514

>Implying a joke at the expense of Skyrimfags

Karliah isn't a Dunmer, as you already mostly realize. She is Drow to the core. And as merry as any Mary Sue before her. You will sell your soul to her dark God, one way or another. Because that game is shit.

>>8515

Yeah, that figures.

>>8504

>I assume you mean the Somerset Isles?

Yeah I already fixed that in a later post. High Rock could be interesting, yes, provided they actually put to use all of the shit you mentioned, but I doubt that.

I remember thinking how awesome it'd be to have a game take place in the Imperial homeland when it was an awesome magic jungle. They just turned it into generic fantasyland and took out everything that'd make it interesting.

If we got an ES6 in High Rock it'd be generic england land with crypts.

If Beth is going to take broad ass strokes and do the bare minimum like usual I'd rather explore sand dunes and see sword singing and shit in action over that. Just me though.

I'd still rather see Summerset out of the two.

>>8363

>u_u

Kill yourself.

>>8514

I just assumed that Azura really wasn't all that specific with her curse and Dunmer eyes could actually be anywhere on the red spectrum, just like their skin tones can be various shades of greys. So, pink, classic blood red, reddish browns, orange, and purple are all possible.

Kariliah still a shit character though.

>>8518

Summerset ain't happening till consoles are powerful enough to render a city with a building made out of crystal with sunlight shining on it… so basically never.

>>8520

there is a lot that i don't like about what is being done with fallout: voiced player character, bioware tier romance( i bet it will have a Serana level wafu to) and a forced dog companion who can't die, but i think that if it is well considered and implemented which it won't be thanks Todd perks replacing skills has the potential to be a much more interesting and deeper character development system. for example instead of having a onehand skill again thanks Todd-casual alliance of 100 and being god tier with maces, axes, longswords, short swords, daggers and shit you could take a perk and have all sword like weapons made better. you would keep progressing like this becoming more and more specialised, so that by the end you will be god tier with one very specific weapon type ok with other similar weapons and shit at other things. the same would of course apply to other non combat skills. I think a better word for this would be traits rather than perks and it would function more like a hidden skill system. It is actually the only thing i find exciting about fallout at the moment other than weapon customization, which i also hope carries over to tes 4 6

>>8524

> I think we can all agree that the biggest problem in pretty much all ES games, and especially in ES5 is the lack of variety, this is why I keep saying High-Rock is a good choice as it has the potential to have massive variety in enemies, dungeons, landscape and so on. This was a definite problem in ES5, which is a bad sign for series progression as it suggests as the games develop enemy and dungeon variety decrease

> The lore was definitely dumbed down a notch in ES5, and I'd also say in ES4. BUT I would say that if you want the lore depth you can go out of your way and find it in the game by reading around, asking questions in dialogue and taking in the answers properly. What annoyed me more than this however was the changes to lore and culture compared with earlier games (see my earlier post on how Nord culture changed a lot in Skyrim). I think this is because the developers are making the cultures become effectively clones of familiar "real life" cultures (to make it easier for noobs to "get" the races and so on) and while this was always the case a bit, they've removed any deviations from this (e.g. the Nords used to be better at Magic than they are now, and the Redguards were worse at magic, and nords didn’t used to be xenophobic narrow minded barbarians). I think we can expect this to continue sadly.

What I’d like to see (but I think it a long shot)

> greater numbers of factions, with interesting interactions with one another based on player choices. I wouldn’t go as far as to say you can only join one guild per game, but I would say you would get serious penalties if you tried to be the master of every guild. Something like the guild master having to do “chore” type quests every so often to retain status would quickly make it not very viable to be the master of every guild. I also think there should be more unique rewards for the different guilds (e.g. a unique set of great armor for the fighters guild master, acess to a more powerful enchanter/spell creater/alchemy stuff for higher level mage guild members and so on). MAYBE EVEN…

> an ability to start your OWN UNIQUE FACTION, you would have to get recruits, manage finances, source headquarters, maybe take over a bandit fort, or buy a building in a town if you’re selling stuff, the possibilities here would be awesome if they implemented this well and with freedom and variety

> more interesting and more strategic combat. I’d love, love to see things like enemies fighting as a group - bandits forming shield walls, or a guy with a shield covering his archer partner from your arrows, the ability to make bandits have in-fighting by doing stuff as a stealth character. An this should apply to followers too – greater variety of followers with different skills / support roles, e.g. a guy with a shield who just blocks arrows that are going to hit you and doesn’t run into the enemies, a mage that focuses of healing you and giving you buffs, a heavy armoured tank dude that just back-back with you etc.

> I’d love to see bandits have “mini factions” like different bandit groups in different areas that fight with each other from time to time, and you can manipulate this (like the Goblin staff mechanic in Oblivion). You could even have it so if you eliminate one of the factions another one spreads to take over their dungeons, or a totally new one appears to take its place. They could all have different “personalities” like having different types of fighters, equipment, goals (stealing vs mining vs getting rare items and so on) etc.

> more random events, things like bandits surrendering and you have options on what to do with them, kill, enslave, get them to join your faction, send them to jail etc.

> the family stuff (which is going to be retained, no doubt) needs to be fleshed out, there should be penalties to having your spouse follow you around and not look after the kids, there should be different perks depending on your spouse (e.g. shopkeepers give you money or items, people in a guild help you to advance in the guild, if your spouse is a guard, other guards let you get away with stuff and so on). Kids should think you’re a dick if you don’t visit and give them shit, and you should get bonuses (Mara’s blessing or whatever) if they love you and stuff.

>>8530

>Is AI-teamwork from NPC's even doable or viable from a programming point of view?

It seems just as difficult as any other complex AI behavior

All it takes is a bit of time and autism

It would certainly be simpler to program than Oblivion's AI, though any bugs or oversights would be more noticeable

>>8549

I don't think they will ever do a speaking protagonist, nobody would like that not even casuals. So thankfully we shouldn't have to worry about it.

The perks thing could be awful, if it is just +10 per point it will suck massively - I'm hoping for a really more detailled (and it wouldn't have to be complicated/hard to get) character build/leveling system. THis would be done with the aim of making each play through genuinely different to the last (so not the Skyrim rush for full enchanting to make a tank). Things like:

> your characters height is adjustable (of course races still have average heights) but your height would impact on your stamina (bigger=tire quicker, better wither larger weapons and so on) and also makes fitting armor harder to find ((but you can pay a blacksmith to fit it to your size making which would also make the shops actually get used a bit rather than just a selling/dumping zone) so an average height imperial finds it easy to get armor and doesn't tire too fast, but would probably have trouble in a 1 on 1 with a monster 7 ft rape train Nord

> different races (as well as getting different starting stats) could have "natural affinities" to certain items (e.g. Dunmer get more benefit from Glass items, Altmer from Elven etc.), or certain situation (e.g. Khajitt heal faster in the dark, bosmer get buffs fighting near trees)

> some perks are mutually exclusive, e.g. if you pick Sword-Machine-Monster-Rapist you can pick Super-Magic-Fire-King. To stop people bitching about it shoehorning you before you understand the mechanics you could even have something like a "meditation" mechanic that allows you to swap out a perk for some sort of minor forfeit so people can change their mind if they decide they suck at destruction or whatever

> more differentiation between item types (as well as there being more types, I want to see chainmail and stuff come back) - e.g. dwemer equipment takes enchantments better, elven armor is slightly weak against magic, orcish is rubbish for enchanting but gives great protection (and obviously orcs get a massive boost from it), and there'd be guild specific armors that piss off rival factions (and ofc there should be things like unique guild-master equipment that is great and better than anything you could make yourself). This would hopefully make it so pretty much any armor/weapon type is viable even in late game depending on your character type/preferences so there would be MORE VARIETY to each playthrough!

> PLEASE PLEASE have it so you can't progress in a guild if you don't have suitable stats - e.g. you have to be at least level 50 in a combat skill to join the fighter guild (or its equivalent), the arch mage has to be level 100 at at least 3 magic skills and so on I know this is a massive long shot and there is no way they will do this

> at the start of the game there should be options like new-vegas's hardcore mode, e.g. one would be you have to eat and sleep, another could be that magic & health dont recover over time and you have to actively heal/take potions or they recover based on how well rested/hungry you are, financial realism - things cost what they really would (e.g. houses cost 50K, you can sell daedric artifacts for mega money to some collectors, guilds give you a wage rather than 10 gold per mission and so on), one for no fast travel, one for no map markers All these would be optional so noobs would not need to worry and older fans can pick which ones they want

>>8552

This would be great, and it would be so unique in a game, I think enemy AI has hardly developed in the last ten years in pretty much any game. Just imagine how much more epic it would be when you see bandits forming shield walls, or a support mage buffing and healing the bandit leader in the boss fight and slipping the occasional fire-ball at you

Also, I'd like to see guards not kill everyone, how often do you see an NPC get killed by a guard for something - all the time. The guards should have non-lethal capture routines for NPC's that are not bandits

>>8556

>different races (as well as getting different starting stats) could have "natural affinities" to certain items (e.g. Dunmer get more benefit from Glass items, Altmer from Elven etc.), or certain situation (e.g. Khajitt heal faster in the dark, bosmer get buffs fighting near trees)

Doesn't make much sense to me- let's look at it from this perspective:

German people don't benefit from using armor or weapons made in Germany, nor do French people benefit from items made in France. That doesn't make sense. Why would Khajiit heal faster in the dark? Are they somehow magically tied to darkness via Mephala or something? The only one that makes even slight sense is the suggestion for Bosmer, and I think the Green Pact only strictly applies in Valenwood.

>some perks are mutually exclusive, e.g. if you pick Sword-Machine-Monster-Rapist you can pick Super-Magic-Fire-King. To stop people bitching about it shoehorning you before you understand the mechanics you could even have something like a "meditation" mechanic that allows you to swap out a perk for some sort of minor forfeit so people can change their mind if they decide they suck at destruction or whatever

This seems to go against stuff we've seen in previous games, with individuals like Jagar Tharn.

>PLEASE PLEASE have it so you can't progress in a guild if you don't have suitable stats - e.g. you have to be at least level 50 in a combat skill to join the fighter guild (or its equivalent), the arch mage has to be level 100 at at least 3 magic skills and so on I know this is a massive long shot and there is no way they will do this

Even Morrowind didn't do this, not to such an extent. The guilds had stat requirements, but if your character wasn't a complete schlub, you could get in and advance.

>>8559

>I know it doesn't, nor do a lot of the mechanics in computer games, but this would make each play through more unique, and it does have at least a bit of logic to it - dunmer get more benefit from glass armor because culturally they like it so they want to use it, altmer make the elven armor and if you're making it you're going to make it to suit your race not other races, khajit already got boosts in the dark in previous games (night vision) and so on.

It makes at least as much sense as the perk in Skyrim that makes you get more benefit from dwarven armor, or how different races are better with different weapon types - same principle really

Yes, but it feels way too metagamey, and takes you out of it. In Skyrim, that perk can at least be explained as "this is a foreign, not often used type of armor that's not fitted to you to begin with, and you've figured out how to get as much use out of it as you can". That's a really weak fucking excuse, but it's viable.

I'm not saying every game has to adhere to Morrowind's example ( Although they should ), because every new installment should offer something new, but it has to fit within the context of it's ancestry. Khajiit developing a healing factor away from bright lights is totally inconsistent with everything about Khajiits up to this point. "Well they can see in the dark so why can't they heal faster in the dark" is not a valid reason. And cultural inclination doesn't make sense either- I'm American, but I'm not any better at shooting guns because of it. I'm good at shooting guns because I've worked at it.

>I'm not saying you wouldn't be able to get all your skills maced out, I'm saying some perks would not work with others, and if you pick one branch of a tree some of the other branches cant then be picked. (e.g.you cant pick a "negotiator" perk that makes you get speech bonuses and so on as well as a "war-machine" perk that makes everyone run away from you).

So you're talking more along the lines of taking "Good-natured" doesn't let you take "Terrifying Presence" (to use an example from Fallout)? I could see that, having to choose perks from within a single skill, and those choices having actual consequence.

>Unless you're saying Morrowind is perfect and anything different to Morrowind is bad I don't see your point? From a "makes sense" point of view logic you used earlier what makes more sense that guild members having to be competent at the relevant skills to join and the guild-master actually being a master of the skills?

I'm going to get flack for this, but no, Morrowind isn't perfect- BUT, there is a reason that it's held up as the gold standard of the series. It makes absolute sense that a Guild Master should be a master of those relevant skills, but the requirements for progression should be obtainable with a REASONABLE amount of dedication.

>This would *hopefully* mean they could make the guild quests better and harder, because they dont have to worry about noobs wanting to be arch mage even though they have novice skills.

>I think the risk with this is that it would be seen as an artificial filler to make the game last longer because it's making you grind before you can do more quests, but as long as they had enough in-between quests ad chores to o this wouldn't be the case

The key to making guild quests more interesting, aside from having requirements that you have to attain, is to have an actual guild, and an actual questline.

Have a series of hubs or outposts for the guilds in each major city, each one has quests to do, one or two for each rank in the guild, and make them something other than fetch quests.

You're putting forward some good ideas, but your ideas on armor and race are more than a little wonky, and need some thought. If it's so meta you'd get laughed out of a tabletop game, there's a problem.

>>8560

>I'm not saying every game has to adhere to Morrowind's example ( Although they should ), because every new installment should offer something new, but it has to fit within the context of it's ancestry. Khajiit developing a healing factor away from bright lights is totally inconsistent with everything about Khajiits up to this point. "Well they can see in the dark so why can't they heal faster in the dark" is not a valid reason. And cultural inclination doesn't make sense either- I'm American, but I'm not any better at shooting guns because of it. I'm good at shooting guns because I've worked at it.

Okay I'll accept the Khajitt thing is dumb although lets be honest any healing mechanic doesn't make sense really - hence my point about all game mechanics not really making sense I was just throwing idea out and writing fast. My real point is that they need to do more to differentiate the races, a game as a Nord should not play like a game as an Altmer or Dunmer and so on.

I'm also going to have to disagree with you slightly on the being-american-use-guns-thing, let me clarify:

In all the games you begin as an adult, therefore before you even get hold of your character they will have done stuff and gained some skills, so I thinks it's perfectly reasonable to say things like "all adult Nords will have developed an affinity to nordic type equipment in a way that other races do not". And also my point about if a specific race makes the armor it makes sense for that armor to be suited to that race (e.g. elven armor) as it will have been made that way.

> So you're talking more along the lines of taking "Good-natured" doesn't let you take "Terrifying Presence" (to use an example from Fallout)? I could see that, having to choose perks from within a single skill, and those choices having actual consequence.

Spot on

> your ideas on armor and race are more than a little wonky, and need some thought. If it's so meta you'd get laughed out of a tabletop game, there's a problem.

I think you're getting too focused on specific points I'm making rather than the "theme" of the points, I'm not a game developer, so I can accept that specific ideas for implementing the key idea may not be ideal.

The main thing I am saying is that a different play-through with a different character should play, and feel different than your last one.

To do this they need to make the races play differently, and ideally make it so you try out different equipment and items of new play-throughs. How they achieve this is debatable, but I do think ramping up the racial differences is the way to go.

Lets be honest here, there are already some very tenuous racial points that are accepted in the games, would saying different races prefer and get differing benefits from different types of equipment really be that stupid?

More stupid that Altmer being immune to paralysis (older games), or Argonians being immune to diseases, or Imperials having the power to calm enemies down in the middle of a fight, or all Nords being born with the ability to have their skin act like armor (Woad in ES4)?

We already have different races having different ability levels in different skills - would saying they also have different affinity to different items really be that strange?

>>8560

>>8559

What i would like to see is item material be more relevant than it is. the first step is to bring back weapon condition getting rid of skyrim's god awful weight balancing system. glass weapons can be high damage lightweight low condition again. next their is no reason for two of the weapons of the same design and weight (disregarding sharpness) to do more damage but a harder metal can be made to hold a sharper edge for a greater time and could penetrate amour made of a softer metal. so now an iron and ebony sword can have the same base damage but ebony can be sharpened to a greater extent do more damage through amour of any material softer than ebony and last longer before losing its sharpness. more expensive materials should also have a greater ability to be enchanted.

Now considering the different weights of materials a sword made of steel or can be made longer than a sword of glass for the same weight. I think that this would do a better job of creating diversity in end game weapons since all weapon materials even low tier once would still be viable whilst still having progression.

Next i want to see a much better smithing system were you can create truly individual weapons. for example you can chose from a section of blade styles for each materiel, changing in length, weight, with, curved/straight, and the type of hilt, cross guard, basket hilt, swept hilt, finger rings, one or two handed grip.

on to amour i want there to be a difference between heavy and light amour. at low levels this would not be very notice able but higher level plate amours should be immune to slashing and cutting damage as well as all abut the best arrows (note arrows not bows). this would force archer characters to carry high level arrows, which will be expensive and scarce, and force all players to have a strategy for tanks, even if it is just run away. to balance heavy amours effectiveness it will be heavy and very expensive, the low tiers will also be much less effective.

light amour will be light offer adequate protection and great mobility as well as being easily affordable.

>>8562

>I think you're getting too focused on specific points I'm making rather than the "theme" of the points, I'm not a game developer, so I can accept that specific ideas for implementing the key idea may not be ideal.

The main thing I am saying is that a different play-through with a different character should play, and feel different than your last one.

To do this they need to make the races play differently, and ideally make it so you try out different equipment and items of new play-throughs. How they achieve this is debatable, but I do think ramping up the racial differences is the way to go.

An easy way to do that would be to re-implement attributes from the earlier games- make it more of an RPG again as opposed to an adventure game. So your Speed attribute actively affects your movement/attack speed for examples. So, some races would be faster/stronger than others, especially at first.

>Lets be honest here, there are already some very tenuous racial points that are accepted in the games, would saying different races prefer and get differing benefits from different types of equipment really be that stupid?

Yes. Bringing up this point again, I'm not inherently more accurate with a handgun than, I dunno, a Samoan.

>More stupid that Altmer being immune to paralysis (older games), or Argonians being immune to diseases

A racial trait or adaptation based on where they lived (in the Altmer's case possibly based on their inherently magical nature), and the nature of the region. A race having a natural ability or even racial magical power in a fantasy setting makes sense. What you're suggesting is, I feel, way too meta. An RPG is BUILT on immersion, and having something that utterly meta kills the immersion and rapes it's still-warm corpse.

>In all the games you begin as an adult, therefore before you even get hold of your character they will have done stuff and gained some skills, so I thinks it's perfectly reasonable to say things like "all adult Nords will have developed an affinity to nordic type equipment in a way that other races do not". And also my point about if a specific race makes the armor it makes sense for that armor to be suited to that race (e.g. elven armor) as it will have been made that way.

Here's an argument from a roleplaying perspective- what if I want to roleplay a Nord who grew up in Cyrodiil? He grew up around Cyrodiilic wares and Cyrodiilic armors and weapons. Why would he have an affinity for Nordic items?

So, trying to make sense of it in a non-metagame way, doesn't work. And like I've said, there's got to be a level of immersion.

If you want to make the races different, there are plenty of ways to do it:

Bring back attributes, and all the races start at different ratings.

Make Altmer immune to paralysis again

Bring back the Eye of Fear ability for Khajiit

Giving Bosmer bonuses while fighting outside is good.

There are PLENTY of things you can do to make them play differently that focus more on the race and not equipment.

I do agree with you on the idea behind the points- make the races different from each other, absolutely.

>>8564

I think this would possibly be going too far and making the balence of the game too smithing heavy, and would make playing as a non-smith character non-viable (which is bad)

I do think bringing back weapon degrade is good though

>>8566

>If you want to make the races different, there are plenty of ways to do it:

> Bring back attributes, and all the races start at different ratings.

> Make Altmer immune to paralysis again

> Bring back the Eye of Fear ability for Khajiit

> Giving Bosmer bonuses while fighting outside is good.

> There are PLENTY of things you can do to make them play differently that focus more on the race and not equipment.

> I do agree with you on the idea behind the points- make the races different from each other, absolutely.

Hang on, you're saying races SHOULD have different abilities, but not different affinities and skills?

How is saying something like "most Nords are stronger than Altmer" any different to something like "most Nords are more familiar/proficient with Steel Hammers than Bretons"?

I agree that from a role-play point of view it is better to have your start character be more of a blank canvass for your to decide on what they do, but its about finding the balance between that and having each each new game be different enough from the last.

Tough to answer, and it's probably why we've seen the balance shift from game to game as the devs are probably struggling with it too. There isn't really a right answer as everyone will want a slightly different balance.

>>8568

Also - I forgot to clarify another point - the reason I'm saying make the equipment have more variation/specialization is so that you hopefully use different stuff on each different play-through, ideally pretty much every armor/material for weapons would have a niche, rather than it just being a progression to daedric/glass.

e.g. different types can have stronger enchantments, or are easier to maintain in the field, or work better with poisons, or maybe the amount of protection they give could be affected by other stats (e.g. armor points from steel are calculated by the equipment rating, your armor skill AND strength or something?)

I know I sound like a broken record here but I do think you can argue a case for certain races being more proficient with certain materials - e.g. elven armour is made for elven physiques, so it seems reasonable that elves would get an advantage from it compared with humans?

>>8568

>How is saying something like "most Nords are stronger than Altmer" any different to something like "most Nords are more familiar/proficient with Steel Hammers than Bretons"?

Because one is saying "Nords as a race are physically strong", because they are a hale and hearty race of Men and the other is a blanket statement that claims all Nords know how to use a steel warhammer because Nords.

>Also - I forgot to clarify another point - the reason I'm saying make the equipment have more variation/specialization is so that you hopefully use different stuff on each different play-through, ideally pretty much every armor/material for weapons would have a niche, rather than it just being a progression to daedric/glass.

This is a fair enough point, but here's the flaw with the specific ideas you're putting out there-

Within this system that you're suggesting, you're essentially chaining the various races to specific sets because "insert race here". And yeah, they can use other stuff, but why would they, when they can perform so well in their "native" gear? I see what you're getting at, but here's how I'd handle it:

Organize the races according to "Small" "Median" and "Large"

The races of Men, and (maybe) Argonians would fit in this category. They could buy "conventional" sets of armor.

Small races (those currently known to be shorter than the rest, which I believe includes Dunmer, Khajiits and Bosmer) have to buy "Small" gear. They might be able to wear medium gear but it weighs them down considerably.

"Large" races include Altmer and Orcs- Altmer because they're fucking tall, and their weird lanky bodies require the special fitting. Orcs because Orcs are fucking massive. If you really want to, you could make the argument that Nords belong in this category too.

>e.g. different types can have stronger enchantments, or are easier to maintain in the field, or work better with poisons, or maybe the amount of protection they give could be affected by other stats (e.g. armor points from steel are calculated by the equipment rating, your armor skill AND strength or something?)

This is fine, giving different materials, and the items they're made from, different advantages and drawbacks. That's perfectly reasonable.

>>8570

> Because one is saying "Nords as a race are physically strong", because they are a hale and hearty race of Men and the other is a blanket statement that claims all Nords know how to use a steel warhammer because Nords.

I realize this is probably getting to the point of pedantic now but fuck it I can't help myself but even if you say "nords as a race are physically strong" you're putting a blanket on all Nords being strong when some (the minority admittedly) obviously wouldn't be, I see what you're saying and we're in danger of getting into a /pol/ type genes versus environment debate.

I think it is okay to say "most Nords are strong" and okay to say "most Nords are familiar with and better at using steel than say elven", and also the bit about if nords are making the equipment it will be better suited to their bodies etc. Hell, the reason elves use elven and not steel might even be that they have some sort of affinity towards it - is that unreasonable to suggest?

I think if you were to implement something like this it would all be about the fine tuning - dont make it so the racial perks/weaknesses make other equipment or skills un-playable, but also don't make it so every playthrough ends up being a race to daedric. Finding that golden point somewhere in the middle is what you'd need to do through play testing.

I think the key point with this specific issue is to decide on the balance between every-new-character is a blank canvas with the potential to do whatever you want them to, and different races play differently.

I think I just want the balance more towards differences and you want it a touch more towards the blank canvas side for more immersion/roleplay?

I agree with you one basically every other point though

>>8572

>I think I just want the balance more towards differences and you want it a touch more towards the blank canvas side for more immersion/roleplay?

This is where I sound a bit weird, but I want both.

I want each race to feel different- BUT, I also feel that if we're even going to pretend that TES is an RPG, and not just some fantasy adventure hack n' slash, there needs to be a heavier focus on immersion/roleplay.

I see what you're getting at, and I agree, I just disagree on the direction you're taking to get there- as an analogy, you're going northwest, when I feel you should just be going north.

I feel equipment should largely be up to the player, and you shouldn't be guided to it based on your race or "muh daedric edginess" or whatever.

Having different types of armor, I feel would be immensely helpful to- different varieties of chain, plate, bring back Medium Armor in the form of stuff like brigandines and so on.

One of the biggest reason, I feel, that everything in Skyrim (arguably Oblivion too, been very long since I played) feels/plays the same is the lack of variety. Your options are very heavily streamlined, and it ends up being that, even if the different races had more abilities to set them apart, you're still very limited.

>>8556

>I don't think they will ever do a speaking protagonist, nobody would like that not even casuals

The statements I've seen from said casuals seems to disprove that assertion, but we can only hope at this point I suppose.

As for more unique character builds, I'd appreciate something like that though I think such strict racial benefits/downsides don't make much sense and aren't really the best way to go about doing it.

I'd rather be able to play any sort of race without being gimped for not wearing a specific sort of armor, but a perk system that allows for more customization and specifying would be fantastic.

None of this start as a thief, get to max level in all the related skill trees, then decide to move on to two handed weapons and daedric armor like everyone else,

shit that plagues Skyrim.

>>8564

If we'll get one cool thing from Fallout 4 ported over to ES6 I bet my bottom dollar it'll be extensive weapon customization via the smithing system. F4 already lets you mix and match various weapon parts to your heart's content, so allowing us to choose different blade metals/shapes, hilts, handles, all that shit, wouldn't be too unlikely.

I'd also like to be able to dye armor different colors. Even if it doesn't necessarily make a whole lot of sense, red glass or blue elven armor would look pretty freakin' neato.

>>8582

I agree with the dying at the least one of the things i always hated was at the end of play your character always looked the same because only three sets of equipment were viable. it was at its worse in skyrim where clothing offers absolutely no advantage to a mage

>>8660

a million times this, they're always been playing around with trying to make non-armor a legitimate thing to wear, and they've never really managed it

I think the only way to really do this is to go off the point earlier about different equipment having different enchanting potentials - make it so magika based enchantments are loads stronger on robes than the armors and you're pretty much there (add in the spells don't work as well based on the weight of you armor/clothes too possibly to fine tune the balancing)

It also makes sense to do things like have Daedric armor not necessarily be the best base armor, but to make it super rare (like in Morrowind, maybe 2-3 sets in the whole game) and have it so it takes enchantments like a champ, and glass armor could be great at fire enchantments, but rubbish on other stuff, and standard armors like steel would just not be very good for enchanting

This would have the added advantage of making the in-game unique items valuable again as you couldn't just enchant something yourself that is better and has higher armor rating

I'd also like to see stuff like the faction armors in Morrowind - how certain items were "imperial" and the indoril armor gets you killed by the guards - so you get pros and cons to wearing it in different company and stuff

>>8662

too true. i always try an unarmored play through as a spellsword. i could do it in morrowind and oblivion but it was almost impossible in skyrim. my proudest morrowind play through is a pure unarmored melee character before i found out about the unamoured bug. i

>>8662

>>8662

>It also makes sense to do things like have Daedric armor not necessarily be the best base armor, but to make it super rare (like in Morrowind, maybe 2-3 sets in the whole game) and have it so it takes enchantments like a champ, and glass armor could be great at fire enchantments, but rubbish on other stuff, and standard armors like steel would just not be very good for enchanting

Oh, absolutely, i've always thought the games would be more interesting if different materials would offer different properties rather than just being stronger than other in terms of stats; sure it makes lots of sense if you made an armor out of a rare obsidian-like mineral forged in the hellish screams of tortured demonic souls and it was stronger than just plain steel; BUT at the same time it would make things SWEETER if different armors and weapons held different advantages.

>>8677

Definitely.

Steel armor could atleast have boosts in enchants like fortify health and fortify stamina, cause warriors you know.

>>8679

> Steel armor could atleast have boosts in enchants like fortify health and fortify stamina, cause warriors you know.

I'd go against this, for a couple of reasons:

1. From a pure common sense point of view it makes sense for a common "mundane" material to be of little magical value, so steel should be poop for enchanting (but vaguely magical materials - things like glass could be good for fire, stalharim for ice and things like that)

2. I want the game to make it viable for you to play as a character that doesn't bother with enchanting, so if you are playing as a standard warrior type you won't really be enchanting your armor anyway.

Going on from this I want to see the unique items you get from guilds and as rewards actually be valuable again - so if you're playing as a warrior and you get some cool enchanted armor from the Fighters Guild you're actually going to want to use it if you couldn't make something better yourself.

>>8679

>>8680

I think the best way to implement "basic" armor types like steel (in addition to having it be rubbish for enchanting) would be to have the armor rating go up based on your strength attribute in addition to your heavy armor skill, but have "enchanting" type armors not do this and just go off your armor skill

if you go down the ES5 no attributes route instead of it going off strength it could instead go off something like your highest combat skill (blade/blunt/one-handed/two-handed) so pure warrior types see it get a decent bonus without shoehorning you into smithing if you don't want to

I keep saying this, but it annoys me when there are skills that you are pretty much forced to use in the games (e.g. enchanting & smithing in es5 or armorer in es4) you should have the freedom to completely ignore certain skills and the game should still be playable

>>8508

>shiny graphics

Nigga what? TES's vanilla graphics have always been obsolete upon release

>>8679

>>8680

>>8684

we have a thread for this now come and join us its cozy as fuck

If I was the CEO of Bethesda and I saw this, the next game would be called:

TES6: DIY. You make the game the way you want.

>>9070

Saints Row, for how shit it is, has full fledged character creation despite having voiced player characters, with three voices per sex and one "joke" voice.

If someone as shit as Volition can pull it off, even Bethesda could. not that they should

>>9105

I'm sure you'd agree that the ES game have a rather different fan-base to the Saints Row series, and I'm confident Bethesda is aware of that

>>9105

>saints row is shit

I suppose you have something against fun or something.

>>9122

>muh fun

>>>/v/

SR1:

>generic GTA clone nobody cares about

SR2:

>same, but slightly goofy and somehow the best of the series, meanwhile Pc port is as incompetent as you can get

SR3:

>decently enjoyable and fun, but very irritating that you can't just fistfight people and throw them without the game thinking you want to equip a pistol every time

>Steve Blum is wasted, making retarded sounds instead of talking

SR4:

>$15 DLC shoehorned into a full $60 game that reuses the world of SR3 with shitty animated "digital tron" textures that just cause strain on the eyes

>all the fucking music is in mono for some reason

>all of it

>superpower bullshit makes most of the game's copy/pasted mechanics from 3 irrelevant

>even more of the game than 3 is shitty minigames that are forcibly inserted into the main quest

>only redeeming quality is Nolan North

>>9110

Are you sure? They seemed very willing to reach out to the "lead me by the nose, I don't know what the fuck I'm doing" crowd with the "FIND X! (follow the arrow directly to where the item is)" quests and quest markers and the very existence of Clairvoyance spell.

>>9140

Are you implying that fun isn't THE most important driving force behind vidya?

I had my fun with sr2-3-4 and that's that, n'wah.

It's not like every game needs to be an intellectual gem that changes your perception of the world.

>>9141

>muh fun

>muh gamefaqs-tier argument

>same argument made to defend waifu mods

>>9140

>Are you sure? They seemed very willing to reach out to the "lead me by the nose, I don't know what the fuck I'm doing" crowd with the "FIND X! (follow the arrow directly to where the item is)" quests and quest markers and the very existence of Clairvoyance spell.

>getting this bamboozled over an optional feature

If you want to you can play without. I don't think quest markers need removal, they just need to improve quest dialogue so they can be completed without.

>>9153

>uses shit-tier arguments straight out of r/gaming, gamefaqs, youtube comments, and even /v/

>confused as to why he's being mocked for doing so

>>9160

>missing the point entirely

You can mod shit out, but that's only if you're on PC and willing to mod.

Not using clairvoyance is an option, but it existing at all is pathetic.

How do you avoid quest markers without modding? Deselect the quest you're using? Hardly an acceptable option.

I've got Skyrim modded to hell and back to make it better, don't you worry there. The fact of the matter is the default experience is what Bethesda intended, and what they intended was to go full IW Call of Duty with the handholding. Let's be honest here: they're not going to suddenly think "let's go back to Morrowind complexity because our long-time fans would love that, the new casual crowd brought in more money and let's try to get even more".

>quest markers

Further on this, I'm not saying they're 100% bad. Having them on the map when an NPC or quest item (i.e. note, book, map) tells you the location to go is good, and something even Morrowind should have done instead of "let me mark it on your map" [it's just the generic town symbol you might not notice if you have discovered a lot of the land]. Having no information to go off of yet the "find X" quest points you exactly where to go? Universally bad.

Quest marker on the compass? Not as bad as "lol there's an enemy here even though you have no way of knowing that outside of this compass", but still not ideal.

Quest markers on the screen, pointing to the pixel where something is even if it's an NPC you're currently following? Universally bad.

>>9173

What arguments im not even trying to prove a point here.

>>9175

He's being a bit condescending, but his assertion that Saint's Row is shit isn't negated by the "it's fun" argument - which, despite your claims, you provided it as. He even went through the trouble of outlining what he thought the series was lacking, and you just countered with, "well, I like it." Surely, you can see how that isn't that great of a contribution.

>>9173

Yes, deactivating the quest is what you could do, and just follow whatever directions you get.

I just want directions and hints in quests to be better so that every quest can be done without markers.

You're gonna hate me for this, but there's nothing wrong with appealing to 'casuals' if it doesn't go at the cost of the 'hardcore' crowd. If a feature that people here hate, like fast travel and quest markers, is NOT necessary because there's alternative methods of transport and you can get instructions through dialogue then there's nothing wrong with it. Fast travel and quest markers can stay as long as we get enough alternative forms of transport and hints in quests.