Seriously Fallout 1 and 2 didnt have them. Why Fallout 3 and New Vegas needed them is beyond me. You shouldnt just stop learning when you reach Level 50, it should keep on going, perhaps after 50 you earn a perk every 3 levels. Whats wrong with eventually maxing out all your stats? Whats wrong with eventually becoming an unstoppable harbinger of doom to your enemies? Dont want to level up more? WHy not add an option where you can set a level cap, that once you reach that cap you wont earn any more XP unless you decide to raise or remove the cap. You could even set it to Level 1 if you feel like it, so you will never level up.
No More Level Caps
- Thread starter X12
- Start date
I kind of don't like the lack of level caps because they mean you can be everything and anything which is sort of what happens in every TES game. I do like min/maxing stats and getting as much as I can out of a limited set of levels, as that appeals to my obsessive and number crunching personality however. After a certain point things also don't scale very well (or at all), so you're not just a "powerful character" but you're more like a naval aircraft carrier shelling fire ants with cannons. So I like to be "as powerful as possible" but also for that possibility to be somewhere in the realm of enemies still being fun to kill with a chance of them being able to kill me. That being said, I also don't care that much. It's not something that comes up until you've pretty much done everything anyway.
Last edited:
Liek i said, limited levels should be an option, not something forced. If you wish to handicap yourself, go right ahead.
In my ideal scenario experience would be much harder to attain, so that hitting a cap is difficult and somewhat of an achievement rather than the cap feeling like a restrictive ceiling. In Fallout 3 for instance upping the difficulty upped the amount of experience you would receive but you ended up capping out long before the game finished (if you like to do a lot of side stuff). Even though the cap was reached too quickly, when it was restricted to 20 levels getting 100 in every skill was a bit more rewarding as it required a lot of exploration/magazine hunting. It was just boring to be stuck there for most of the game.
New Vegas was better for this, as the experience was linear and consistent and leveling in general took longer. When they raised the cap I think I didn't hit it until the end of the last couple DLC. So if you wanted to keep playing and doing every side quest and DLC you could find, you would still have new levels and new perks to look forward to. I enjoyed that format a lot more. Conversely though, I've played Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim and not having the level cap isn't so bad. Maybe it's a difference in perks versus skill points. The perks in Fallout have minimum levels, which makes them desirable to attain but not being able to have all of them makes each perk selection valuable. That's been my play experience at least.
New Vegas was better for this, as the experience was linear and consistent and leveling in general took longer. When they raised the cap I think I didn't hit it until the end of the last couple DLC. So if you wanted to keep playing and doing every side quest and DLC you could find, you would still have new levels and new perks to look forward to. I enjoyed that format a lot more. Conversely though, I've played Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim and not having the level cap isn't so bad. Maybe it's a difference in perks versus skill points. The perks in Fallout have minimum levels, which makes them desirable to attain but not being able to have all of them makes each perk selection valuable. That's been my play experience at least.
Last edited:
Also, main enemies should NEVER be as strong as boss characters. Im looking at you, LR Deathclaws, which are about as strong as the Legendary Deathclaw at high levels. Also like Skyrim you should be able to choose perks when you want, instead of being forced to choose one.
No Man
Gore Bag > Meat Bag
If there is to be more of a mook-boss gap in the game, I'd rather it was done by boosting the bosses, not nerfing the mooks, like Skyrim does. It makes bosses into a goddamn joke. That's the really crappy stuff. When you get the buildup for a badass Vampire Lord, who rips people in two with his bare hands and end up with a half-assed bat.
Both Morrowind and Oblivion have kind of level caps, because of the skill-based levelling system. And the level itself is less than in Fallout. In NV you could max out your skills (kind of justified, since you need genius level INT) and in FO3 you could have a perfect character (nothing justifies 10 in all SPECIAL stats). This makes it kind of hard to balance the game since you'd be able to max out everything eventually. Same goes for perks. You already get a lot and with unlimited levelling you'd end up having them all (and definitely all worth having) eventually. The only way to fix the perk thing would be to have the NumberOfPerks(Level) (the number of perks your character has at any given level) function be logarythmic, not linear (as it used to be). This would mean that you'd get perks at a faster rate at the start to define your character and significantly slow down later. That way the really big, powerful perks - like old Sniper - would be a real choice to make, since you won't get the next perk for a long time. Same could apply to skill points and then the levelup would mean just a few health points and a symbolic amount of skill points by the time you reach something ungodly like level 78.
My idea for the perks would be NumberOfPerks(Level) = 1.5 * log(Level) / log(1.3). That way you get 4 perks on 2 lvl and 2 per lvl until you get to lvl 4, but by the time you get to lvl 20 you get 1 perk per 4 levels. Might sound weird, but this way you get to make a defined character early on and get the powerful perks later (by the time you reach level 100 you should have 26 perks). Not sure if the mass perks early on are a good idea though, could be linear for the first 10 levels or so.
Both Morrowind and Oblivion have kind of level caps, because of the skill-based levelling system. And the level itself is less than in Fallout. In NV you could max out your skills (kind of justified, since you need genius level INT) and in FO3 you could have a perfect character (nothing justifies 10 in all SPECIAL stats). This makes it kind of hard to balance the game since you'd be able to max out everything eventually. Same goes for perks. You already get a lot and with unlimited levelling you'd end up having them all (and definitely all worth having) eventually. The only way to fix the perk thing would be to have the NumberOfPerks(Level) (the number of perks your character has at any given level) function be logarythmic, not linear (as it used to be). This would mean that you'd get perks at a faster rate at the start to define your character and significantly slow down later. That way the really big, powerful perks - like old Sniper - would be a real choice to make, since you won't get the next perk for a long time. Same could apply to skill points and then the levelup would mean just a few health points and a symbolic amount of skill points by the time you reach something ungodly like level 78.
My idea for the perks would be NumberOfPerks(Level) = 1.5 * log(Level) / log(1.3). That way you get 4 perks on 2 lvl and 2 per lvl until you get to lvl 4, but by the time you get to lvl 20 you get 1 perk per 4 levels. Might sound weird, but this way you get to make a defined character early on and get the powerful perks later (by the time you reach level 100 you should have 26 perks). Not sure if the mass perks early on are a good idea though, could be linear for the first 10 levels or so.
Last edited:
I'll mirror what Korin says, mostly: I think more important than level caps is whether the process of leveling up is actually balanced and rewarding. Fallout 1 actually did have a level cap-- a scant (by modern standards) 21-- and reaching it was a real accomplishment a casual player of the game would probably never achieve. Fallout 2 didn't technically have a (pre-99) cap, but every level really made you feel the burn, and if you got too far past the mid-20s it's because you were devoting a grueling and concerted effort specifically to doing so. The comparison between the old and the new kind of overlooks how much easier it is to max your skills these days, as well as (and especially) level scaling's effect on the ease of picking up experience.
Playing as a paragon of human ability and an invincible badass death machine is the literal definition of God Mode, and for people who want to have that experience most programmers are thoughtful enough to have included cheats or console commands. It takes the "R" out of "RPG" when the role you're playing by the endgame (hell, let's be honest, the midgame) is "the same Master of Everything I played last time," and in my opinion it cheapens the decisions you made to get there. At that point the only reason you even need more levels is because without that occasional "ding," there really isn't anything keeping you invested in your character's interactions with the wasteland, and that is a serious game-design red flag.
Playing as a paragon of human ability and an invincible badass death machine is the literal definition of God Mode, and for people who want to have that experience most programmers are thoughtful enough to have included cheats or console commands. It takes the "R" out of "RPG" when the role you're playing by the endgame (hell, let's be honest, the midgame) is "the same Master of Everything I played last time," and in my opinion it cheapens the decisions you made to get there. At that point the only reason you even need more levels is because without that occasional "ding," there really isn't anything keeping you invested in your character's interactions with the wasteland, and that is a serious game-design red flag.
naossano
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Could you care to explain what would be the whole point in having stats in your scenario ? I mean, if you are the best anyway, why bother implementing numbers and choices amongs those numbers ? If i were a devellopper that intended that makes the played great with everything, i wouldn't bother to spend months implementing those stats system... Those are there to make you various playthrough as different as possible by NOT allowing you to be everything on one playthrough.
Yamu: "Playing as a paragon of human ability and an invincible badass death machine is the literal definition of God Mode, and for people who want to have that experience most programmers are thoughtful enough to have included cheats or console commands. It takes the "R" out of "RPG" when the role you're playing by the endgame (hell, let's be honest, the midgame) is "the same Master of Everything I played last time," and in my opinion it cheapens the decisions you made to get there. At that point the only reason you even need more levels is because without that occasional "ding," there really isn't anything keeping you invested in your character's interactions with the wasteland, and that is a serious game-design red flag."
Unfortunetely, console gamers dont get the luxury of console commands. Plus i want to feel like i earned that God Mode by playing the game and raising my stats, as it gets harder and harder to level up, not by typing a few codes.
Also, how about giving us the option to save our perk points like in Skyrim. Instead of being forced to choose a perk right then and there.
Unfortunetely, console gamers dont get the luxury of console commands. Plus i want to feel like i earned that God Mode by playing the game and raising my stats, as it gets harder and harder to level up, not by typing a few codes.
Also, how about giving us the option to save our perk points like in Skyrim. Instead of being forced to choose a perk right then and there.
No Man
Gore Bag > Meat Bag
The point of an RPG isn't that you earned something. That is the beauty of RPGs - you play a role. If you want to play a role of a superpowered Mary Sue, play Skyrim. The idea behind character development and statistics is choice. You create a character in a certain way - with both strengths and weaknesses. God Mode characters without weaknesses are boring and make the game pointless. What kind of role-playing is this if the character never faces any serious problems?
As for the perks, Skyrim doesn't have a perk system in the same way Fallout does. Perks in FO are supposed to be a set of abilities that are impossible/hard to obtain otherwise (that is why skill perks in FO3 were so crappy). Skyrim perks are supposed to improve the skill they are assigned to. More importantly, in Skyrim you need to get lower tier perks to get the higher tier. In FO there is nothing of the sort (except for several ranks of one perk), so players could just get through the first levels with no perks and then get the powerful ones at higher levels - unless you want the entire Skyrim perk tree in Fallout, this would be highly unbalanced.
As for the perks, Skyrim doesn't have a perk system in the same way Fallout does. Perks in FO are supposed to be a set of abilities that are impossible/hard to obtain otherwise (that is why skill perks in FO3 were so crappy). Skyrim perks are supposed to improve the skill they are assigned to. More importantly, in Skyrim you need to get lower tier perks to get the higher tier. In FO there is nothing of the sort (except for several ranks of one perk), so players could just get through the first levels with no perks and then get the powerful ones at higher levels - unless you want the entire Skyrim perk tree in Fallout, this would be highly unbalanced.
Ok, well i want no level cap because i want to keep on learning. I want to feel like my character is getting stronger as i play. I dont want to be a Mary Sue. Once all my skills have gotten to 100, THEN i would start a new character. The journey is why i dont want a level cap.
Harken
Always late to the party
I think a pretty good compromise would be a sort of gameboard such as in FFX. Levels in FFX were points used to move around and alternative points were used to increase ability scores and gain new techniques based on location and adjacent places. Something like that would be out of place as hell in a Fallout game, but it would really work, both allowing unlimited levels and requiring strategy to actually make good use of it.
RetroAmerica
It Wandered In From the Wastes
A possible solution to all this could be to give the player two options when he starts the game.
The first option would be to simply allow the player to select a cap, whether that be level 1 or no cap or something in between.
The second option would be that the character you create would be much more realistic in that they would be a typecast character whether that be for example: Prior Service in the Army of the NCR for 10 years with a minor interest in science....so now you'd have a Ex-Service character who'd be highly skilled in firearms with a minor ability in the scientific method.
Now obviously this character could learn new skills, but he'd learn them at a realistic rate making him less a jack of all trades, and more a specialist so that each playthrough would be much more unique and would make the player rely more on the skills which they chose then simply becoming a living-god by midway through the game.
The first option would be to simply allow the player to select a cap, whether that be level 1 or no cap or something in between.
The second option would be that the character you create would be much more realistic in that they would be a typecast character whether that be for example: Prior Service in the Army of the NCR for 10 years with a minor interest in science....so now you'd have a Ex-Service character who'd be highly skilled in firearms with a minor ability in the scientific method.
Now obviously this character could learn new skills, but he'd learn them at a realistic rate making him less a jack of all trades, and more a specialist so that each playthrough would be much more unique and would make the player rely more on the skills which they chose then simply becoming a living-god by midway through the game.
Ceratisa
Sarcastic SOB
I like powerful perks in Fallout, without a max level I feel like they would reduce the impact of perks accordingly.
CthuluIsSpy
A Smooth-Skin
Level caps are needed, imo.
It's already pretty easy to max out nearly every skill with just 35-50 levels.
They should change how tagged skills work; I never liked beths way of doing them. They just don't feel right to me.
They should either bring back the soft 100 cap and the hard 200 cap (like in the old games), or change it so that the tagged skills level up normally, but every other skill needs 2 points to increase by 1.
It's already pretty easy to max out nearly every skill with just 35-50 levels.
They should change how tagged skills work; I never liked beths way of doing them. They just don't feel right to me.
They should either bring back the soft 100 cap and the hard 200 cap (like in the old games), or change it so that the tagged skills level up normally, but every other skill needs 2 points to increase by 1.
Harken
Always late to the party
Bringing back the old skill system could work, assuming Bethesda doesn't go full retard and butcher the skills to a total of 5 or something, thus defeating the point.
Changing the requirements to level up skills like that is a bad idea, I'd say. It'd just slow down the process to capping everything rather than stop it. Maybe if most skills gradually required more skill points to level up but tagged ones negated this counter, things would work out pretty evenly, compelling players to using the things they chose at the beginning rather than being a jack-of-all-trades for no reason. Assuming the level cap remains the same, this could mean that they would have even more reason to focus on the things they chose to focus on.
None of this matters until skill books are either 90% rarer or scrapped entirely, though.
Changing the requirements to level up skills like that is a bad idea, I'd say. It'd just slow down the process to capping everything rather than stop it. Maybe if most skills gradually required more skill points to level up but tagged ones negated this counter, things would work out pretty evenly, compelling players to using the things they chose at the beginning rather than being a jack-of-all-trades for no reason. Assuming the level cap remains the same, this could mean that they would have even more reason to focus on the things they chose to focus on.
None of this matters until skill books are either 90% rarer or scrapped entirely, though.
CthuluIsSpy
A Smooth-Skin
Maybe a system like this then -
3 skills may be tagged
Tagged skills have a soft cap of 100 and a hard cap of 200.
Every skill point increases the tagged skill by 2, until it reaches the soft cap. Afterwards, every skill point increases the tagged skill by one.
Some tests and weapons will require results >100 to accommodate for this change, to act as an incentive to level up the tagged skills as much as possible.
Non-tagged skills have a soft cap of 50, a middle cap of 75 and a hard cap of 100
Every skill point increases the skill by 1 until the soft cap.
When the soft cap is reached, the requirements to increase the skill by one changes to 2 for one
When the middle cap is reached, the requirements change to 3 for 1
There should be a max level of 50, that increases by 5 for each dlc. Using the FNV formula for skill point calculation (10+(Int/2) that should give enough points to max out all 3 tagged skills, even at int 1.
It should take 150 points to reach the hard cap on a tagged skill, and 175 skill points to reach the hard cap on a non-tagged skill.
3 skills may be tagged
Tagged skills have a soft cap of 100 and a hard cap of 200.
Every skill point increases the tagged skill by 2, until it reaches the soft cap. Afterwards, every skill point increases the tagged skill by one.
Some tests and weapons will require results >100 to accommodate for this change, to act as an incentive to level up the tagged skills as much as possible.
Non-tagged skills have a soft cap of 50, a middle cap of 75 and a hard cap of 100
Every skill point increases the skill by 1 until the soft cap.
When the soft cap is reached, the requirements to increase the skill by one changes to 2 for one
When the middle cap is reached, the requirements change to 3 for 1
There should be a max level of 50, that increases by 5 for each dlc. Using the FNV formula for skill point calculation (10+(Int/2) that should give enough points to max out all 3 tagged skills, even at int 1.
It should take 150 points to reach the hard cap on a tagged skill, and 175 skill points to reach the hard cap on a non-tagged skill.
Last edited:
Harken
Always late to the party
Yeah, I quite like that system. Having a mere 25 point difference may decrease the value of tags, but with a maximum intelligence that allows to have universally decent skills and still maximizing tagged skills.
My worry is that Intelligence will become an absolute priority for all players under these circumstances. If the other statistics made a bigger difference on growth rates of the skills beneath them as well as starting bonus though, that could even out. Players can then gain versatility with Intelligence and still roleplay with specialization easy, thus increasing the number of playthroughs among some players.
Maybe I just desperately want to use exponents or something. Although I suspect this may be because it smoothly eases players into finding their priorities, my opinions are probably not the best gauge for this, so I'd go with your ideas.
My worry is that Intelligence will become an absolute priority for all players under these circumstances. If the other statistics made a bigger difference on growth rates of the skills beneath them as well as starting bonus though, that could even out. Players can then gain versatility with Intelligence and still roleplay with specialization easy, thus increasing the number of playthroughs among some players.
Maybe I just desperately want to use exponents or something. Although I suspect this may be because it smoothly eases players into finding their priorities, my opinions are probably not the best gauge for this, so I'd go with your ideas.
No Man
Gore Bag > Meat Bag
The problem with SPECIAL stats in 3D Fallouts is that some are dump stats. The most screwed one is Perception, because there is little to no reason to invest in it. It only shows you dots on your compass and is used in a few checks. The problem is a player can play a sniper an be less perceptive than the rock he sat on, because he didn't notice it - it's ridiculous. The problem with perception is that it's hato find some possible use for it. Damage increase with ranged weapons? No, it doesn't make sense - if you hit, you hit. Chance to hit in VATS? Could be, but it's not enough - with a bit of skill you can shoot down things that are outside of VATS range, easily. The problem is that it can no longer affect the chance to hit in combat, because it's up to the player if the character hits. The only thing I could think of is add some sort of blur that would screw up your vision ouside a certain radius. On 10 there's no blur at all. On 1 it's like 3-5 metres in front of you. You might think it'll screw up the game for some people who choose PER 1, but if they set the attribute directly responsible for navigation to cripple level they'll have to deal with it.
CthuluIsSpy
A Smooth-Skin
Not entirely true, as lockpick and Energy weapons use Perception.
No idea why a laser pistol needs perception, but it does.