perk every level or every 2?

Discussion in 'Fallout: New Vegas Discussion' started by sampson70, Jun 9, 2010.

  1. Jax Sparrow

    Jax Sparrow It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Mar 29, 2010
    I think in order to pick a perk in the game and keep the balance they need to weaken the perks , I mean c'mon gain perks at first level ?
  2. Jay Null

    Jay Null First time out of the vault

    Jun 9, 2010
    But if We lower the inherit awesomeness of perks they'll no longer be awesome and no one will feel the thrill of gaining the full awesomeness of a brand new perk! I mean, come on! Think about it. Thinking. Thinking. Thinking. [SAD MAC] ********======------,,,,,

    No, I do not get the point of this redundancy, aside from an errant attempt to improve something for the sake of "It could be better . . . ".

    But, i guess some people really do like it. It works for them. Even makes sense to them.

    So what if I have to scoff in rage at their general local?
  3. Holiace

    Holiace First time out of the vault

    Dec 4, 2009
    I feel that every level should have something to offer, what is the point of leveling otherwise?

    20 levels is not much at all, 30 is not really a lot either. One perk for every level is not too much is it? Perks should actually do some big difference though, so perhaps you'd need to prolong the leveling process by 50% to make every new level a bigger step forward.

    And what is this talk about the game becoming unbalanced? It's only single player, no one can swoop in and own your ass because he has a perk you don't.

    Also, There is no need for a level cap. The levels are (In my VERY humble opinion) supposed to be a representation of the characters experience and knowledge of the world around him (amirite?)
  4. Stanislao Moulinsky

    Stanislao Moulinsky Vault Fossil

    Jul 16, 2009
    ...the skill points...?

    On the other hand if you become a demigod the challenge dies.
  5. Guiltyofbeingtrite

    Guiltyofbeingtrite Vault Dweller

    Oct 13, 2008
    the point of leveling is to be halfway to a perk and yea, skill points.
  6. Holiace

    Holiace First time out of the vault

    Dec 4, 2009
    Fair point. But that is just the game being unbalanced from the get go, letting you become THAT powerful. Some enemies should not be able to be punched to death, Strength 10 or not. Being too powerful gets boring after a while. Personally, I'm not in it for the challenge, I'm in it for the story and the exploration.

    I just feel that Perks should actually do something big, make a big difference, every 2nd level or not. Of course all perks should not be merely positive but should have drawbacks as well (like drugs, which should be in the game, would).
  7. Jay Null

    Jay Null First time out of the vault

    Jun 9, 2010
    Perhaps are more sane approach I should attempt-to-use to express my opinion . . .

    To feel as though you accomplished something larger than a few simplistic quests, generally. Is it really necessary to be rewarded on top of this?

    It can certainly be nice, I'll admit.
    Exactly. Due to their sometimes dramatic affects (effects?) they should be limited else the character collapse from fatigue.
    It would appear that balancing refers to the ability of a player to "break" the game, removing much of the challenge from it. It need not be multiplayer for this.

    After all, you are an entity in the game world, but you have that special perk that some other lowly wanderer does not, should you be able to "swoop in and whoop his ass?" (I admit, I'm not expressing my point clearly, but I hope you'll be able to compensate for my deficiency.)
    A game is, in the case of the Fallouts (even with DLC), a finite experience. There is only so much you can do and see. So many quests, so many locations, so many collectables and challenging battles.

    And, as you say, this is a representation of the character's experience and knowledge of the game-world, not necessarily the user's. (Again, I feel as though I fail to make myself clear. Damn inferiority-complex.)

    But some people are, like myself. I want a little bit of everything, in this case.

    How does the amount of perks you receive per level increase your comprehension of the story and range of explorations?
    We're on the same page, maybe even within a sentence's reach of one another's gaze.
    In Fallout 3, I do not recall a perk that has a negative attached. They're all positive. Nor do they make all that grand a difference, really. Just little tid-bits that hint at something I remember to be much grander. Memories do err, though.

    I made the assumption earlier that we discussing Fallout 3, as precursor to Fallout New Vegas, though. My apologies.
  8. chaoscythe

    chaoscythe First time out of the vault

    Jun 16, 2010
    After reading this post, all I could think was "There were perks in Fallout 3? Oh yeah, I forgot about those". Total disappointment everywhere I looked. Not only were most of them entirely lackluster for me, but I remember them screwing up old perks. I got extremely excited when I saw "Sniper". I didn't read it before I picked it up, and I was getting aggravated when it "wasn't working". I sat around griping that it must have to do with the luck rolls, and what not. When I finally looked at the perk, my head metaphorically caught fire and grew horns. The sniper perk isn't +% on head shot. It's upgrade to critical hit. +% on head shot is stupid.

    I hardly even use Vats on that game, because it sucks compared to just shooting. I can snipe with a hunting rifle as soon as I get one. Why use Vats? It's only good for close encounters. And those encounters I'm going to be close enough I should have 95% chance to hit their head anyway. I'd much rather have cool perks you have to plan for.

    Bethesda shouldn't have bought Fallout. They should've made their own crappy post-apocalyptic game.

    And their level-cap is a total failure. You know what happens if you go in a text file and change "20" "30" to say, 40 or 50? Your perks get ridiculous, but other than that, you already maxed out your skills at 20 from short-sighted design. All that really happens is you can't kill dogmeat or fawkes, and the mobs that are hardish to kill get a little harder.

    The only perk I actually like is almost perfect. However, that perk should never have been made. For me to have straight 10's I should have to cheat not level up. It's just the only perk I "notice".

    I admit, I use all kinds of editors when I go through older games. I try not to, but it's an addiction. Right now I have been playing fallout tactics, and I have my main character straight 10's with all skills tagged, as well as 5 awesome squad members of my own design with all weapon types tagged, with one member a medic. The thing is, I've beaten Fallout 1, 2 and tactics so many times, I've earned the right to do this kind of thing. I shouldn't become god-like on my first run through fallout 3 it's stupid.

    This caters to making the game easier for a newbie, so that they can still be good screwing up in the beginning, I guess. So why not make a system that's actually good, like... say... the original Special system. The original perk system. Have traits like Fear the reaper, to lower your perk rate. Divine favor as a perk. Then to cater to the newbie who has no plan and no clue how to work the special system, let them have a few chances to reset their skills/perks or something. Ridiculous amounts of money, or a few chips that go in a secret computer in the middle of nowhere. We know how they like stupid junk thrown somewhere obscure and pointless, like all the little raider dens thrown just for a fight.

    I don't know what's wrong with Bethesda now-a-days. I remember playing Morrowind, and I loved it. I loved it for the same reason I love fallout 2. You can just... do whatever. As far as I know there was no real level cap and what not. I have never played oblivion. I know it's tiny in comparison, and blends together blade sizes. I think someone said if you have blades it's for daggers swords and axes. Because they're all the same thing. Pff.. What happened to bethesda? Why do they churn out trash? And why do all these... morons.... buy it up? Whatever happened to gamer-geeks having brains? In terms of SPECIAL, it used to be if you played video games you generally would see people with 7 int. Now most of them have 2. I think in general, most of the world is now fail. Bleh. Atleast from the looks of this forum, most everyone that posts here has a brain. There wouldn't be any posts about Fallout 1 & 2 if only the pea brains were left.
  9. Jax Sparrow

    Jax Sparrow It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Mar 29, 2010
    I was just givig suggestions with which it would seem balanced to get perk every level.

    Of course if it was up to me I wouldn't change anything with perks and traits.
  10. nemetoad

    nemetoad It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Dec 7, 2008
    Eh, I prefer a perk per a level rather than every 2 due to the amount of perks in Fallout 3 and potentially in New Vegas as well. Yeah, they lose their specialty somewhat, which is why I think it was neat they added perks based off the completion of quests as well. THOSE perks would be special...except most weren't that spectacular or anything. Oh well, an idea is an idea.
  11. Lynette

    Lynette It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Jan 9, 2010
    Well its all about instant gratification I guess. Sometimes less is more and mindlessly throwing stuff at me only lowers its value.So one for every 3 levels is nice and please make them all so interesting that I cant decide wich one to take.Let me feel the sweet sting about the fact I cant have them all :)
  12. Euphrosyne

    Euphrosyne First time out of the vault

    Apr 26, 2013
    Wow just reading these comments.
    Nice how Jax Sparrow manages to escape moderation censure with his disgusting personal insults. After all just because someone disagreed with his "holier than thou" view it was quite unnecessary and well as pointless, except as an assessment of him a s a person.
  13. Alesia

    Alesia It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Mar 3, 2013
    I agree.

    And get rid of all the stupid VATS perks.
  14. Walpknut

    Walpknut This ghoul has seen it all

    Dec 30, 2010
    One every 2 levels is the way to go, and the way Fo1 and 2 did it. Perks should also have interesting effects and present a clear reason for choosing them, it's not about instant gratification is about actually being a point for waiting 2 leveles and investing your points.
    Having only low skill boosts just makes the perks pointless, you would just choose them without caring and the part about customizing your character's skills would be lost.
  15. Euphrosyne

    Euphrosyne First time out of the vault

    Apr 26, 2013
    I am pro extra perks , that is one per level or second level as otherwise I never actually use 90% of the perks and never can sate my curiosity. This is so for all fallouts . I am not after advantage but just want to see what they can do. I scarcely use grenades in any game (though useful vs mutants in fallout) but have all of the throwing/explosives perks in FNV and since then have thrown the odd one or two out of curiosity. Mysterious stranger is another I would never use unless I had a perk to spare and then, only to see how often he crops up.

    If you have a streamlined character few perks are that useful and it is curiosity that wants the others not a desire to cheat.
  16. Mistrz

    Mistrz Still Mildly Glowing

    Apr 28, 2009
    Perks should be avaliable every three levels as in F1/2/Tactics. Then thay are important and you realy wait for them. I`m also happy with in game perks (like gecko skinning or implant related perks) but they also should be rare enough to be an achivement.
  17. Euphrosyne

    Euphrosyne First time out of the vault

    Apr 26, 2013
    Mistrz...that is your opinion only.
    I see your point and I do not disagree with it, but curiosity has me try many perks and that flexibility should be allowed.
    If you wish to play in a straight(?) jacket of your own ethics/beliefs then so be it but that does not mean that it should be inflicted upon everyone else.

    In FNV my char was complete by level 21 and all perks thereafter were OOC than need ( I think that I use the grenade rifle/grenades about once per total game while I don't recall using the missile launcher in any game nor the minigun but I had my Big Guns max'd anway.
    Freedom of choice is the point not a rigid ethicls or belief structure: that is what makes such games so replayable
  18. Yamu

    Yamu Le Fromage Vieux oTO Moderator Orderite Board Cop oTO

    Jul 26, 2003
    With due respect, I think the "freedom of choice" you're talking about here is a bit of an illusion, and that's the problem. When you're allowed to "choose" nearly everything on every playthrough, you haven't really chosen at all. Giving a character access to 30 perks over a 30-level career or even 25 perks over a 50-level career (and even that's more perks than Fallout 1 had levels) tends to make for generic superbeings who've maxed all skills and only have a scant few abilities to differentiate one another, abilities usually directly associated with their preferred killing/crushing/destroying method. This would be bad enough in a New Vegas sequel, but in a direct traditional effort by Bethesda, with the choice and consequence factor intentionally minimized and a near-complete lack of skill challenges beyond the hacking and lockpicking that everyone always ends up maxing anyway, it completely bleaches the game of any replay value it may have had, offering you nothing but a token choice between good and (lulzy) evil and precisely one playthrough of canvassing the wastes to see what's there before most of the novelty is wrung out.

    Hopeless delusion or not, as long as they still see fit to refer to Fallout as an "RPG" in any capacity, I'm going to expect a gradual, rewarding leveling experience, choice-based replayability, and more content than can be witnessed on a single run, which is generally what the term "RPG" has signified in the west for the past 40 years. To me, that means perks every 3 levels. For the purposes of not alienating the new fanbase and better matching the "shooter" tempo of the new games, I can accept bumping it down to every 2, but if they're going to have that kind of pacing, they're seriously going to have to do something about game balance, especially as you approach the level cap.
  19. Euphrosyne

    Euphrosyne First time out of the vault

    Apr 26, 2013
    Ahh The "hard core" speaks out and I reply: with due respect.

    This is my 8th or 9th run through of fallout 2
    You are implying that I actually do or can use a perk each level and yet you have no real idea of how I play. Currently I am in fallout 2 and have just achieved my second perk art level 6(taken at level 8) and I had one hell of hard time choosing as most IMHO are rubbish and have little effect upon my game overall. Usually I only chose a perk because I will lose it when I hit the next perk level.

    But, you miss my point: I did not say that I wanted to have more perks per level, I said that it should be ALLOWED if the player so desired.

    You buy a game: you play it how you like. You go hardcore or you use cheatmode and the infamous 70 special character(making the game totally pointless IMO). That is his choice not yours or mine.

    RPGs are about choice and the perk level should be flexible IMO.

    My 21 level FNV char had only the minimum of perks but was already filled out to my satisfaction. The remainder were OOC items

    I always find it funny when people speak out about how easy a game is and how it should be harder(not saying that you said this). In that case they can adjust the perk level to one per six levels. That was my point.

    I actually play all fallout games without using a stimpak, radx or radaway on myself...only exception was the Glow in Fallout when I had no choice(2 radX used after multiple deaths) and I played hardcore in FNV. You should try it.

    I do not care how anyone else plays any game wimp/hardcore it is all their business and not mine. I just think that such games should be able to demonstrate more flexibility.

    Regarding the illusion that is "freedom of choice" . Let's not get into metaphysics here as you can say that about the whole universe.

    How many times have you selected a perk, not because you need it but because you are curious about its benefits if any? Once past level 21 my FNV char (my 4th or 5th IIRC) did just that and I think that most were pointless and had NO effect upon my game.

    Replay value is always maximised at the beginning when everything is so hard and once you hit about level 20 no matter what sort of character(unless it is the Int <4 or the pacifist diplomat) all chars tend to blur anyway.

    IMHO F3 & FNV were vastly inferior to Fallout 2...(.fallout background with a Doom engine) and this is what reduced their replayability not the perk level and the mods that adjusted it.

    I have wasted too much time on this already.
  20. Yamu

    Yamu Le Fromage Vieux oTO Moderator Orderite Board Cop oTO

    Jul 26, 2003
    I made (and meant) no inferences as to your play style, so if you took offense, apologies. I was merely reporting on my own experiences with the newer games, as well as the confirmed experiences of many others. I'm honestly probably as far as you can get from "The Hardcore" while still preferring the original games. I think I enjoyed the newer titles more than many here, as a matter of fact. As you say, though, there were inherent design flaws, and I do think that the power curve is a big part of that, or at least one of the chief symptoms of it.

    I like player freedom as much as the next guy, and I've played and enjoyed the originals (and, to a far lesser extent, New Vegas) with as many built-in and self-imposed limitations as anyone could care to name, but I do think there comes a point when leaving too many of the basic parameters of the game up to the player undermines the narrative tools it uses to deliver a baseline experience. Especially in an RPG, there is a such thing as "too sandboxy." Leaving core design elements fluid in the name of player choice leads often enough to a more generic general experience and a host of game balance issues (and we needn't even look beyond the franchise to find a fine example in Fallout: Tactics' well-meaning-but-lamentable turn-based/realtime toggle). That's not the Fallout experience I want, even from something as far from the originals as what we have now. A game that basically hands you the proverbial ball and says "design an arena and make up some rules" could well be fantastic, but not in a pre-established property that does (or should) already have its own standards and conventions.

    This is all just personal opinion, of course, as is everything else in this thread. Not trying to tell you that I'm right or that anyone else is wrong.