Level 50 Monsters, Equipment and Perks

[Atomkilla]

I personally don't think this game needs a 50 level cap, nor do I like the idea. 30-35 level cap is just fine, everything above it is overdoing it and can easily ruin the game.
What this game needs is more balance in the whole XP distribution.
Seriously, some random human enemies that can be taken down with a shot or two generate you as much experience as a deathclaw filled with lead from one whole clip.
I know patches have brought some balance to this, but still, situation isn't the best.

 

[Faceless Stranger]

Well, it already takes a while to hit 30-35, so it'll probably take a very long time to level in the coming DLCs

 

[DJS4000]

well i don't know what they are going to come up with, since i just hit 35 and the legendary deathclaw dropped after 3 rounds to the face with the AMR.

 

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

well i don't know what they are going to come up with, since i just hit 35 and the legendary deathclaw dropped after 3 rounds to the face with the AMR.

Technically you could do the same at level 5*, you know? Once you have 100 in a combat skill it doesn't matter what's your level, weapons don't deal more damage.

*I know that at level 5 the AMR isn't available.

 

[RoseKilla]

They should just increase the XP count needed for each level, otherwise you level up too rapidly, while playing, I just sometimes get XP & level-ups so randomly, it doesn't even feel rewarding anymore. I don't even kill anything that much or do quests, but levels pop each after a couple of hours no matter what.

Original Fallout at least gave that "whew-I-worked-really-hard-for-this" feel. On my next playthrough I think I will skip large majority of quests just not to become too overpowered.

 

[Ravager69]

They should just increase the XP count needed for each level, otherwise you level up too rapidly, while playing, I just sometimes get XP & level-ups so randomly, it doesn't even feel rewarding anymore. I don't even kill anything that much or do quests, but levels pop each after a couple of hours no matter what.

Original Fallout at least gave that "whew-I-worked-really-hard-for-this" feel. On my next playthrough I think I will skip large majority of quests just not to become too overpowered.

I think it's due to getting experience from discovering locations and doing the perks like "Lord of Death", which is pretty silly. Isn't the bonus from the perk enough?

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

I think it's due to getting experience from discovering locations and doing the perks like "Lord of Death", which is pretty silly. Isn't the bonus from the perk enough?

I quite like the challenges, I'd rather earn experience from doing the challenges than simply exploring, hacking, killing etc. Same for the perks it feels much better to earn a perk for doing something often/well enough rather than just picking one from a list at level up.

 

[Wintermind]

Yeah, but location and challenge EXP is like fifteen and fifty points respectively, depending on the challenge. If you were to get EXP from just challenges and quests, you'd need to have them be awarded far more often. So instead of getting points for killing every 75 enemies, you get them for every 5 enemies. So you might as well just get EXP per dude.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Original Fallout at least gave that "whew-I-worked-really-hard-for-this" feel. On my next playthrough I think I will skip large majority of quests just not to become too overpowered.

Well if you are playing it on PC you could get one of the mods which I dont know like cut the XP in half or something. Makes the game quite a challange in the beginning though. Or so I would imagine.

 

[DJS4000]

Technically you could do the same at level 5*, you know? Once you have 100 in a combat skill it doesn't matter what's your level, weapons don't deal more damage.

*I know that at level 5 the AMR isn't available.

true, but at lvl5 that thing will kill you in one swing. at 35 it takes 2 to 3

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

If you were to get EXP from just challenges and quests, you'd need to have them be awarded far more often.

The idea is to slow down the xp progression. It's too easy as is, to make level 30 long before the end of the game. There's plenty enough quests to still level regularly without changing the challenge rate.

 

[The Enclave 86]

At least there will be a trait for the console users in Old World Blues which creates a level 30 cap.

 

[brfritos]

At least there will be a trait for the console users in Old World Blues which creates a level 30 cap.

But this don't solve the problem either. Sometimes I get the impression Bethesda did Gamebryo engine open for people actually fixing the game, not expanding it.

Look at this mod, for example, it's another one that balance the XP gainned.
There are various profiles for slowing levelling by 5%, 10%, 15% and so on (or making it faster, it's your choice). But the real "nail" is the two optional plug-ins that came with the mod, one that balances the XP gainned by your companions kills and the other with killing, hacking, lockpicking, etc.

This mod showed me that XP earned by making quests is very well balanced, it's the hunting and challenges that break FNV.
With this two optional mods you gain +35 XP for killing Deathclaws, Giant Yao Guais, Giant Cazadors, the Legendary creatures and so on. But you gain only +2 XP killing a Freeside thug, Mole Rats and lockpicking/hacking very-easy and easy terminals/safes; +5 XP for killing a Giant Mole Rat, Viper raiders and and lockpicking/hacking average terminals/safes; only +20 XP for hacking/lockpicking hard and very hard and so on.

+50 XP for killing a Giant Mole Rat, wich is the same amount for killing a Deathclaw, or +100 for picking a very-hard lock aren't a little too much?
No wonder people prefer killing and hunting, you are rewarded more for those than solving quests, wich is retard and made NV just another FPS.

This mod really balance the game, you don't need to use the main mod, only the optional ones.
With them, even with Dead Money and HH installed, it will make difficult to achieve level 35.

Remember: difficult, not impossible.

 

[Wintermind]

Being awarded XP isn't really the issue. By level fifteen or sixteen I'm petty much done with carefully leveling up my skills, or worrying about skill checks. levels seventeen through thirty basically only serve for more perks and maxing out other skills or set up for other perks.

 

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

+50 XP for killing a Giant Mole Rat, wich is the same amount for killing a Deathclaw, or +100 for picking a very-hard lock aren't a little too much?
No wonder people prefer killing and hunting, you are rewarded more for those than solving quests, wich is retard and made NV just another FPS.

Sure, you can balance the XP so you gain good amounts only by completing quests, but what about those that don't care that much about quests and prefer exploration? This is the problem of any game that tries to please every crowd. One way or the other you'll end with something unbalanced.

Being awarded XP isn't really the issue. By level fifteen or sixteen I'm petty much done with carefully leveling up my skills, or worrying about skill checks. levels seventeen through thirty basically only serve for more perks and maxing out other skills or set up for other perks.

The SPECIAL should be rebalanced too, of course. INT should grant less skill points (5 + INT, for example, instead of the current 10 + [INT/2]) and the other attributes should be implemented in a way that forces you to choose carefully your initial setup and suffer if you put a stat below 5. Also, higher requiements for Perks.

 

[brfritos]

+50 XP for killing a Giant Mole Rat, wich is the same amount for killing a Deathclaw, or +100 for picking a very-hard lock aren't a little too much?
No wonder people prefer killing and hunting, you are rewarded more for those than solving quests, wich is retard and made NV just another FPS.

Sure, you can balance the XP so you gain good amounts only by completing quests, but what about those that don't care that much about quests and prefer exploration? This is the problem of any game that tries to please every crowd. One way or the other you'll end with something unbalanced.

Not true, if the XP earned in hunting and exploration were more balanced people will choose to do quests AND exploration, instead of simply killing things.
There's nothing wrong with exploration, but there's something wrong when doing only exploration rewards the player more than doing quests.
One should be the complement of another.

Also, higher requiements for Perks.

The perks initially putted in NV were balanced I think, but the new perks introduced with DLCs are a lot powerfull and have lower requirements.
Those needs adjustments.

But I'm pessimist with the future DLCs, HH turned NV into another FO3.
I'm not refering to dialogs and story, these are miles away from the crap FO3 was, but the world now is very forgiving and behave A LOT like before: lower perks requirements, a lot of money, equipment and tools available without requiring some work from the player, a lot of decisions that don't have ANY impact in the main game and so on.

Let's hope Old World Blues raise the bar.

 

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

Not true, if the XP earned in hunting and exploration were more balanced people will choose to do quests AND exploration, instead of simply killing things.
There's nothing wrong with exploration, but there's something wrong when doing only exploration rewards the player more than doing quests.
One should be the complement of another.

XP earned from killing enemies certainly need to be more balanced (as you noticed with the Mole Rat-Deathclaw example) but reducing it so much would unbalance the game towards the quests. NV is supposed to be a game where the player plays the way he wants but that way you'd force a player that wants exploration and combat to take quests he may not be interested in because otherwise he'd level up too slowly compared to a player that doesn't care for exploration and combat.

The perks initially putted in NV were balanced I think

In terms of skill requirements, yes. In terms of SPECIAL requirements, no. It's just like FO3, were an average character can choose from the whole list, basically, since the higher stat requirement is 7. Having perks which requires 8 points or higher, like in FO1-2, would be an incentive for specialization.

But I'm pessimist with the future DLCs, HH turned NV into another FO3.
I'm not refering to dialogs and story, these are miles away from the crap FO3 was, but the world now is very forgiving and behave A LOT like before: lower perks requirements, a lot of money, equipment and tools available without requiring some work from the player, a lot of decisions that don't have ANY impact in the main game and so on.

I remember them saying that they wanted to try different things with every DLC, I guess this one was the "simplicistic" one.

 

[brfritos]

Not true, if the XP earned in hunting and exploration were more balanced people will choose to do quests AND exploration, instead of simply killing things.
There's nothing wrong with exploration, but there's something wrong when doing only exploration rewards the player more than doing quests.
One should be the complement of another.

XP earned from killing enemies certainly need to be more balanced (as you noticed with the Mole Rat-Deathclaw example) but reducing it so much would unbalance the game towards the quests. NV is supposed to be a game where the player plays the way he wants but that way you'd force a player that wants exploration and combat to take quests he may not be interested in because otherwise he'd level up too slowly compared to a player that doesn't care for exploration and combat.

Sorry, but you are being contraditory. You said before that one problem of the "new FOs" is trying to please every crowd.
I remember very good that I could advance at a certain point in FO2 only exploring, but if I really want to progress futher in the game I have to make quests.

And hey, this is an RPG! If people want to only shoot things they can play an shooter game.

The perks initially putted in NV were balanced I think

In terms of skill requirements, yes. In terms of SPECIAL requirements, no. It's just like FO3, were an average character can choose from the whole list, basically, since the higher stat requirement is 7. Having perks which requires 8 points or higher, like in FO1-2, would be an incentive for specialization.

I think we already discussed this before, SPECIAL should have a higher impact on the game other than serving as "perk choices".
What really CH or PE are good for?

I agree with you, FO3 and FNV are based solely on skills, not a combination between SPECIAL and skills.

 

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

Sorry, but you are being contraditory. You said before that one problem of the "new FOs" is trying to please every crowd.

It's not a contradiction. Trying to please everybody leads to unbalances but since they aimed for that kind of game we might as well try to balance every approach, not to force one above another.

I remember very good that I could advance at a certain point in FO2 only exploring, but if I really want to progress futher in the game I have to make quests.

FO2 is a different kind of game. The only abandoned places to explore are the SAD and Mariposa. And of course to proceed in the game you have to complete at least some quests, but that's another thing.

In FO:NV one can play just exploring the wilderness and doing the occasional quest. After my second playthrough I didn't care anymore for exploration but that's just me. Since the game offers that approach why should be nerfed in favor of the other?

And hey, this is an RPG! If people want to only shoot things they can play an shooter game.

It's not a matter of "shoot shoot bang bang". If the game let's you play as an explorer you should be rewarded for playing as an explorer. This is roleplaying too.

 

[brfritos]

And hey, this is an RPG! If people want to only shoot things they can play an shooter game.

It's not a matter of "shoot shoot bang bang". If the game let's you play as an explorer you should be rewarded for playing as an explorer. This is roleplaying too.

Maybe I used a poor example, the fact a game has "shoot shoot bang bang" doesn't mean you can't roleplay it.

My issue is the progression of your character is a little umbalanced if you choose to do mainly exploration, it progress too fast, compared with characters focused on quests.
If you mix exploration with quests you are at level 40 in no time.

I think it should be more paced.