Main skills only impacting specific weapons is backwards

[Ghostlight]

You missed the bit where he wanted simple flexibility in the perks.

[Dimpy]

How hard do you think it would be to play a build where you are only allowed to use weapons that you have put ZERO attributes/perks into?

[Liesel Weppen]

So if you asked your friend to help out a little bit he would quit playing?

Not just help out a little but care for the garden for the whole time while playing. It is not a job he wants to do. Simply as that.

 

Sounds like someone you probably don't want to be playing with anyway.

I even prefer playing with such people, because on the other hand they do stuff i don't like to do. And that's what multiplayer makes interesting, you can work together in way you WANT to do it, no need to do things you don't like. That's also the reason, why i absolutely don't play singleplayer.

 

You also have the option to not put any points in to cooking or farming. Being able to collect the cooking recipes makes Master Chef completely useless after a time.

Yes, up to now everybody can cook most meals here too. But in the beginning we haven't found the books for a long time. That's another point i don't like in the skill and book system. Some perks can be done by books. But it's a pure gamble if you find them, and find them in time when you need them. But yes, as you say it, it might be the time to use this grandpas moonshine and reskill, because in the meantime i would not need master chef anymore. Moonshine requires master chef 5, lol. I think we found one item, but still no receipe. Does that just reset the skillpoints or do you also forgett every book you've read so far?

But that is also a sign for bad skill design, either a skill is worth it or not, but it should not be needed and then become obsolete.

 

With farming all you have to do it make a bigger farm. Instead of getting three per harvest you would only get one but all you have to do is put out more plots to make up for that reduction. Making those changes will open up all those points for doing things you want to do more.

Leveling up should make things improve. Lotl is one of these to do farming more efficient. Why do you skill for shotgun? You shotgun also kills without any extra skills, maybe you need 5 times more bullets, but hey, it kills, why use any skills?

 

Anyway even if i do reskill, i'd keep lotl 4. Because it makes things easier and faster.

 

Those two only have been examples. There are other perks and ALL are tied to specific weapons by the required base skill. Miner 69er, packmule, salvage, lucky looter, better barter... and some of them can't be learned by books. Of course you can always say you don't need this or that skill you can also play the game without it. Of course you can play without them. But i WANT them. If you can play without any skills anyway, why then not just remove the whole skill system, hu?

[Ornias]

That ship sailed 2 years ago and isn't coming back.

 

Until someone mods it back in. Lets face it, pimps have a great base and the modders will bring it home for most of us.

[RipClaw]

But yes, as you say it, it might be the time to use this grandpas moonshine and reskill, because in the meantime i would not need master chef anymore. Moonshine requires master chef 5, lol. I think we found one item, but still no receipe. Does that just reset the skillpoints or do you also forgett every book you've read so far?

 

Grandpas Moonshine only gets you drunk. To reset the points you need Grandpa's Fergit'n Elixir. You can only buy it at the trader and it is expensive. So it should be bought by those who have points in Better Barter.

[dex314]

A lot of good comments but I want to address this notion that skill points aren't being wasted. Using myself as an example, I only use Better Barter from the intelligence skill tree. That means it takes 17 points to unlock 5/5 bartering and 5 points to max it. Now, it does not matter if I decide to use 1 skill or 5 from that tree, because of those 17 skill points, 0% improve my character. Yes, removing a gate is "progress" in the literal sense, but not in terms of the actual character. After 17 points, unless I use 2 specific weapons, I am not stronger, I am not faster, I cannot fight harder, I cannot trade better, I cannot level faster, I cannot craft better, I cannot heal more, I cannot eat more, I cannot loot smarter etc.

 

Adding a point to bartering is progress. Unlocking crafting options is progress. Anything that makes you feel stronger or better is progress. Unlocking the option to unlock progress is not the same as progress, it is purely gate-keeping. So yes, in my opinion, spending 17 points for the opportunity to spend more points without any other benefits feels like a waste, and how a game feels is key. Skill trees have to balance sacrifice and reward to maintain a sense of progression. The current sacrifice to reward ratio for primary skill categories is just too large. All I am saying is if a passive buff was added to intelligence, even if it was tiny, then WHILE a player spends 17 of their hard earned levels to unlock max bartering, they can actually feel like they're still progressing.

[Roland]

A lot of good comments but I want to address this notion that skill points aren't being wasted. Using myself as an example, I only use Better Barter from the intelligence skill tree. That means it takes 17 points to unlock 5/5 bartering and 5 points to max it. Now, it does not matter if I decide to use 1 skill or 5 from that tree, because of those 17 skill points, 0% improve my character. Yes, removing a gate is "progress" in the literal sense, but not in terms of the actual character. After 17 points, unless I use 2 specific weapons, I am not stronger, I am not faster, I cannot fight harder, I cannot trade better, I cannot level faster, I cannot craft better, I cannot heal more, I cannot eat more, I cannot loot smarter etc.

 

Adding a point to bartering is progress. Unlocking crafting options is progress. Anything that makes you feel stronger or better is progress. Unlocking the option to unlock progress is not the same as progress, it is purely gate-keeping. So yes, in my opinion, spending 17 points for the opportunity to spend more points without any other benefits feels like a waste, and how a game feels is key. Skill trees have to balance sacrifice and reward to maintain a sense of progression. The current sacrifice to reward ratio for primary skill categories is just too large. All I am saying is if a passive buff was added to intelligence, even if it was tiny, then WHILE a player spends 17 of their hard earned levels to unlock max bartering, they can actually feel like they're still progressing.

 

So you're not playing an intelligence build. The intelligence perks are outside your class so to speak. In most other RPGs you would be blocked from taking Better Barter in the first place. It would be greyed out. At least in this game if you choose to spend the extra points you can reach into any other tree and take what you want. It should be expensive to do so. It IS expensive to do so.

 

The 17 points is not just a gate. It is an economic barrier that once you break down everything in that tree is cheaper and easier to get. You don't have to pay the 17 points for everything else in intelligence. But the fact that you only want that one thing means you gotta pay for it because it isn't naturally in your wheelhouse. Also it is entirely your choice to ignore the benefits that your high level of intelligence grants.

 

What you need to do is figure out your fave perks that you want to play with every single time you run through the game and then just mod them to be in your own custom attribute tree. Then they're cheap and you don't have to make any tough choices about spending so many points to get something you want. The current system makes us pick and choose and allows for playing different characters with some variation if we are willing to pay for it.

[Sjustus548]

So you're not playing an intelligence build. The intelligence perks are outside your class so to speak. In most other RPGs you would be blocked from taking Better Barter in the first place. It would be greyed out. At least in this game if you choose to spend the extra points you can reach into any other tree and take what you want. It should be expensive to do so. It IS expensive to do so.

 

The 17 points is not just a gate. It is an economic barrier that once you break down everything in that tree is cheaper and easier to get. You don't have to pay the 17 points for everything else in intelligence. But the fact that you only want that one thing means you gotta pay for it because it isn't naturally in your wheelhouse. Also it is entirely your choice to ignore the benefits that your high level of intelligence grants.

 

What you need to do is figure out your fave perks that you want to play with every single time you run through the game and then just mod them to be in your own custom attribute tree. Then they're cheap and you don't have to make any tough choices about spending so many points to get something you want. The current system makes us pick and choose and allows for playing different characters with some variation if we are willing to pay for it.

 

Well said good sir.

[AGar]

I agree, i'd much rather have the LBD system because it makes the most sense to me. I havent spent one point into agility because out of that whole skill tree i only want run and gun so i just go without it, why waste points on it for one skill when i can put it into strength and unlock 6 perks i use. This isnt going to make me stop playing by any means but it does make me not enjoy it as much as i would.

 

I know learning by doing is gone, and everytime its brought up moderators and everyone else tell you to just suck it up and "play mods or edit xmls." i had over 600 hours into 16.4 in the first 6 months i owned the game, i think i played 20 hours of alpha 17 total because i thought it was so awful. 18 i tried out and i like the new weapons and items graphics zombies ect. , just gonna have to suck it up until i can mod LBD into the newer alphas in a year or so. Just wish i can have 16.4 with all the new stuff minus skill setup.

[dex314]

So you're not playing an intelligence build. The intelligence perks are outside your class so to speak. In most other RPGs you would be blocked from taking Better Barter in the first place. It would be greyed out. At least in this game if you choose to spend the extra points you can reach into any other tree and take what you want. It should be expensive to do so. It IS expensive to do so.

 

The 17 points is not just a gate. It is an economic barrier that once you break down everything in that tree is cheaper and easier to get. You don't have to pay the 17 points for everything else in intelligence. But the fact that you only want that one thing means you gotta pay for it because it isn't naturally in your wheelhouse. Also it is entirely your choice to ignore the benefits that your high level of intelligence grants.

 

What you need to do is figure out your fave perks that you want to play with every single time you run through the game and then just mod them to be in your own custom attribute tree. Then they're cheap and you don't have to make any tough choices about spending so many points to get something you want. The current system makes us pick and choose and allows for playing different characters with some variation if we are willing to pay for it.

 

If the skill tree was organized in a way that an intelligence build was viable then it would make sense to play an intelligence build. But with only intelligence, you cannot farm, your loot is crap, lumbering and mining are horrifically slow and yield is terrible, your stamina, light armor, melee, rifle aiming speed, etc are all baseline and untenable. In order to be competent it becomes necessary to pull skills from other trees. Let's say hypothetically you want one skill from each tree for a basic survival prowess. Let's say you want to max each one. And let's say you have a weapon of choice, a "build" as you put it. Then that's 85 points of gate-keeping, and only 17 of those actually giving you perks. Now of course someone will say "you don't have to max a skill" but the point is individual tree builds do not work in a18. And 1/5 subskills ratings are basically the same as baseline. So as a lvl 85 player, 65 points are spent on gatekeeping. Now obviously that's not how it works in game, you level subskills as you level primary traits, but I am trying to point out the empty space occupied by gatekeeping skills. There needs to be collateral progress when investing 65 points in something that your build will not utilize.

 

This notion that other RPGs would block Bartering is misleading. Other RPGs organize primary skill trees as providing benefits other than unlocking skills and those that do ONLY unlock skills, the main gate keeping is the cost of the skill and not the cost of the unlock. In other words, if applied to 7d2d, you would have a constant cost of 1 skill point per lvl for intelligence and instead, increase skill point costs for barter 4/5 vs barter 3/5. That way you can choose to invest extra points for specific skills you want rather than investing the MAX points (17) regardless of whether you max a single skill or all skills in that tree.

 

*My point is, the 17 points becomes a flat rate price regardless of how much of that tree you want to use and for those who want a more granular RPG approach, those invested points are not tied to progress and therefore feel wasted. I really really hope that all makes sense.*

[Sjustus548]

If the skill tree was organized in a way that an intelligence build was viable then it would make sense to play an intelligence build. But with only intelligence, you cannot farm, your loot is crap, lumbering and mining are horrifically slow and yield is terrible, your stamina, light armor, melee, rifle aiming speed, etc are all baseline and untenable. In order to be competent it becomes necessary to pull skills from other trees. Let's say hypothetically you want one skill from each tree for a basic survival prowess. Let's say you want to max each one. And let's say you have a weapon of choice, a "build" as you put it. Then that's 85 points of gate-keeping, and only 17 of those actually giving you perks. Now of course someone will say "you don't have to max a skill" but the point is individual tree builds do not work in a18. And 1/5 subskills ratings are basically the same as baseline. So as a lvl 85 player, 65 points are spent on gatekeeping. Now obviously that's not how it works in game, you level subskills as you level primary traits, but I am trying to point out the empty space occupied by gatekeeping skills. There needs to be collateral progress when investing 65 points in something that your build will not utilize.

 

This notion that other RPGs would block Bartering is misleading. Other RPGs organize primary skill trees as providing benefits other than unlocking skills and those that do ONLY unlock skills, the main gate keeping is the cost of the skill and not the cost of the unlock. In other words, if applied to 7d2d, you would have a constant cost of 1 skill point per lvl for intelligence and instead, increase skill point costs for barter 4/5 vs barter 3/5. That way you can choose to invest extra points for a specific skills you want rather than investing the MAX points (17) regardless of whether you max a single skill or all skills in that tree.

 

*My point is, the 17 points becomes a flat rate price regardless of how much of that tree you want to use and for those who want a more granular RPG approach, those skills are not tied to actual progress and therefore feel wasted. I really really hope that all makes sense.*

 

I have zero points in farming but I still have a farm that provides all the crops my group ever needs. I don't have any points in looting and yet I still have all Q5 or 6 items plus a ton in storage just in case I want to try using them one day. I have no points in heavy armor and yet I still have a full set of Q6 fully modded out that provides enough defense that I fight the blood moons on the streets. Lumbering and mining are still viable and very easy even if you don't have any points in them. The resources are so plentiful currently that there really isn't much of a reason to put points in, I still do but it would be easy to do it without. Why do you assume that it is impossible to do something unless you have 5/5 points spent in a skill? You can easily play this game without spending a single point and be just fine.

[dex314]

To clarify, I am not a fan of changing the skill cost emphasis to the subskills, since this would drive up total skill costs by end game. I think for me the best solution would be to take one subskill from each tree, and add those perks to the primary skill instead. So for Agility, pull the melee stamina drain on tools from the subskill list and make it a passive skill leveled with each point of AGI.

[dex314]

I have zero points in farming but I still have a farm that provides all the crops my group ever needs. I don't have any points in looting and yet I still have all Q5 or 6 items plus a ton in storage just in case I want to try using them one day. I have no points in heavy armor and yet I still have a full set of Q6 fully modded out that provides enough defense that I fight the blood moons on the streets. Lumbering and mining are still viable and very easy even if you don't have any points in them. The resources are so plentiful currently that there really isn't much of a reason to put points in, I still do but it would be easy to do it without. Why do you assume that it is impossible to do something unless you have 5/5 points spent in a skill? You can easily play this game without spending a single point and be just fine.

 

I already said that I'm not saying you need 5/5, just that single tree builds are not viable and that base stats have severe limitations, but to address your very good question, the issue is scaling. The skill system has to be viable on easy as well as on hard. Your gear stats are capped at lvl 6, so the only thing that can further improve your survival rating on harder difficulties is your skill point allocation. If you are already playing on the hardest difficulty without skills and are still doing fine, then either you are an amazing player, the game is too easy, or the skill system is not even necessary (e.g., looting tons of lvl 6 gear with 0 points in looting). But assuming the game's difficulty is balanced, this isn't a question of how good of a player you are, it's a matter of whether the skill system provides fair, sensible, and tenable routes for progress. If a game doesn't need skills, then there's no point in including them. And if the game does aim to rely on skills for late game hordes and challenges, then everything that I said above holds its ground.

 

Edit: truth be told, the game really isn't that difficult regardless of the difficulty, so some view skills as a matter of comfort rather than survival. But even with this paradigm, the same principles should apply to skill trait progression.

 

Again alllll I am saying is add a minor passive buff to the primary skills. I am not encouraging the pimps to rework the entire system.

[Roland]

I agree, i'd much rather have the LBD system because it makes the most sense to me. I havent spent one point into agility because out of that whole skill tree i only want run and gun so i just go without it, why waste points on it for one skill when i can put it into strength and unlock 6 perks i use. This isnt going to make me stop playing by any means but it does make me not enjoy it as much as i would.

 

Are you saying that you would never consider playing the game by choosing Agility and seeing how well you do? Are you always and forever going to choose strength because those perks are predominately the way you like to play? If so, that is certainly your choice but the developers are supporting a variety of playstyles that everyone can try out by making a different choice the next time they decide to start over. If your plan is to just play this game once and then move on to new experiences or if your plan is to play maybe 5-10 complete games but always stick to the same exact attribute tree then I agree that the game is limiting and you won't be able to experience it all. But if you choose to play it through 5+ times and decide to mix up the attribute trees in different ways each time then the current system is great and allows for a different feel every time you play.

 

It would be cool if a user friendly tool existed that would allow players to shuffle the perks into whichever attribute trees they want before starting a game so that there could be customized progression trees. But even that would then be removing the tough choices because then you would just place all your faves in one attribute to make them all cheap with no consideration over whether it might be worth it or not. Easier to just edit the xmls so you gain 2 points per level and double your buying power.

 

I know learning by doing is gone, and everytime its brought up moderators and everyone else tell you to just suck it up and "play mods or edit xmls." i had over 600 hours into 16.4 in the first 6 months i owned the game, i think i played 20 hours of alpha 17 total because i thought it was so awful. 18 i tried out and i like the new weapons and items graphics zombies ect. , just gonna have to suck it up until i can mod LBD into the newer alphas in a year or so. Just wish i can have 16.4 with all the new stuff minus skill setup.

 

I had 1200 hours in the game before A11 and the beginning of the whole LBD saga. Game was great before it and it is great again without it. In A11-A14 there were aspects of it but then thanks to changes in A15 and A16 LBD became the whole point of the game and in my opinion overwhelmed it. A17 and A18 were a return to the roots of the game without the distraction of LBD.

 

As much as you are sick of hearing us tell you to mod it, we are sick of people going on about it. It's beyond the realm of helpful feedback now and very much in the realm of pointless whining and badgering at this point. I would say that during A17 it was legitimate to ask for LBD back because it was newly removed and there might have been hope to see it returned. But now that the devs have doubled down with A18 and stated that this IS the system the game will ship with, it is time to move on. It is just unseemly to keep going on about it now that the final decision has been announced. The only answer that can be given at this point is to mod it-- and I believe there are mods that have it so you shouldn't have to wait a year to try it.

 

I used to post about zip lines all the time until I realized that the answer was a final "no". Now I don't bring it up anymore -- not because I wouldn't want them in the game but because it would be unproductive and just annoying.

[Roland]

If the skill tree was organized in a way that an intelligence build was viable then it would make sense to play an intelligence build. But with only intelligence, you cannot farm, your loot is crap, lumbering and mining are horrifically slow and yield is terrible, your stamina, light armor, melee, rifle aiming speed, etc are all baseline and untenable. In order to be competent it becomes necessary to pull skills from other trees. Let's say hypothetically you want one skill from each tree for a basic survival prowess. Let's say you want to max each one. And let's say you have a weapon of choice, a "build" as you put it. Then that's 85 points of gate-keeping, and only 17 of those actually giving you perks. Now of course someone will say "you don't have to max a skill" but the point is individual tree builds do not work in a18. And 1/5 subskills ratings are basically the same as baseline. So as a lvl 85 player, 65 points are spent on gatekeeping. Now obviously that's not how it works in game, you level subskills as you level primary traits, but I am trying to point out the empty space occupied by gatekeeping skills. There needs to be collateral progress when investing 65 points in something that your build will not utilize.

 

This notion that other RPGs would block Bartering is misleading. Other RPGs organize primary skill trees as providing benefits other than unlocking skills and those that do ONLY unlock skills, the main gate keeping is the cost of the skill and not the cost of the unlock. In other words, if applied to 7d2d, you would have a constant cost of 1 skill point per lvl for intelligence and instead, increase skill point costs for barter 4/5 vs barter 3/5. That way you can choose to invest extra points for specific skills you want rather than investing the MAX points (17) regardless of whether you max a single skill or all skills in that tree.

 

*My point is, the 17 points becomes a flat rate price regardless of how much of that tree you want to use and for those who want a more granular RPG approach, those invested points are not tied to progress and therefore feel wasted. I really really hope that all makes sense.*

 

This RPG has primary skill trees that provide benefits other than unlocking skills. You may not be interested in those benefits but they are there and can be utilized. There is not one step up in any of the attributes that's only purpose is to unlock the next tier of perks. They all have benefits beyond unlocking the perk levels. Why do you keep stating that their only function is to unlock a lock?

 

The model you propose would make going deeper into the perks expensive for someone who was specializing in that attribute. The whole point is that once you breach the barrier you can go deeper cheaper in multiple perks within that attribute. You want to go outside your area of specialty and have it be cheaper for you by making it more expensive for those who specialize in that area.

 

Also.....who only plays with one attribute? You can easily pick two and be just fine. Why would anyone only pick intelligence unless they were doing a personal challenge? Pairing intelligence with another attribute works just fine. In A19, when the non combat perks only have 3 ranks you'll be able to do well with 3 attributes according to Madmole.

[dex314]

This RPG has primary skillt trees that provide benefits other than unlocking skills. You may not be interested in those benefits but they are there and can be utilized. There is not one step up in any of the attributes that's only purpose is to unlock the next tier of perks. They all have benefits beyond unlocking the perk levels. Why do you keep stating that their only function is to unlock a lock?

 

First of all, sorry for making you read so much and thanks for taking the time to reply. The primary skills only boost perks for specific weapons so it falls under this category of "play the way we tell you to or gain zero benefits." I can understand the notion that it's a trade-off for choosing a build, but it's also a primary skill. Stun batons do not equal intelligence and only benefiting one to two gear items is far too specific.

 

I could go on but I'll stop posting about this aside to clarify since I think my point has been conveyed. That said, tldr is simply as follows:

 

*Add a small passive buff, or move a sub-skill, e.g., melee stamina to the primary skill. That way people can still feel like they're progressing in some tangible way, rather than missing out because they don't like a specific weapon.*

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

 

Also.....who only plays with one attribute? You can easily pick two and be just fine. Why would anyone only pick intelligence unless they were doing a personal challenge? Pairing intelligence with another attribute works just fine. In A19, when the non combat perks only have 3 ranks you'll be able to do well with 3 attributes according to Madmole.

 

Oh i only mentioned the one attribute play style because in your first reply you mentioned I didn't gain benefits from intelligence because I was not playing an intelligence build. I was trying to explain that multiple attributes are necessary.

[JaxTeller718]

Maybe Im simplifying this, because silly me, but if hes 100 percent dead set on getting Better Barter then farming isnt an issue. Buy the food or the seeds, or at worst loot the schematics? Literally nothing is preventing you from farming.

 

I mean you bought into better bartering for a reason. Go barter. I think people are over complicating the perks system.

[dex314]

Maybe Im simplifying this, because silly me, but if hes 100 percent dead set on getting Better Barter then farming isnt an issue. Buy the food or the seeds, or at worst loot the schematics? Literally nothing is preventing you from farming.

 

I mean you bought into better bartering for a reason. Go barter. I think people are over complicating the perks system.

 

I think with all this discussion it's become over complicated. My point isn't to change much, just add a passive benefit to leveling primary skills.

[Kalen]

I've been bashing away at an idea to revamp the attribute system. Instead of traditional attributes like Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence... etc. Use the attributes Martial, Marksman, Craftsman, Physical, Mental. Then I would move perks around to fit the new system. Martial would contain all the melee perks. Marksman would contain all the ranged perks. Craftsman would have perks like farming, engineering, mining... etc. Physical would have your food & water mitigation perks, health and stamina regen perks. Mental would have bartering, looting, scavenging, stealth, hunting perks.

 

I havent fully fleshed out where things would go... but thats the general idea.

 

I'd increase the skill points you gain, but up the cost of the higher tiers of the perks. The net effect should be that its easier to generalize in a bunch of skills but take more dedication to max out something.

 

It's mostly still all a WIP and only in my mind.

[BobTheBard]

This all turned into sort of a convoluted mess, but I agree with (what I think is) the original point that it feels a little bad to tie the bonuses for leveling up a stat exclusively to the weapons in that stat tree. In this case, you'll hear me give a rare compliment to A17's skill-tree system, where leveling up the various stats had bonuses that fit everyone. I know I used to take a few points in Agility not because I wanted anything in the Agility tree but because the maximum Stamina increase itself was useful, and I never felt bad sinking points into stats I didn't 'need' per se because I'd still get some benefit from them. In A18 I find myself seeing what the absolute minimum I need of a stat I need is to get the skill I want because I don't want to put any more points into stats than I absolutely have to.

 

To use another example, let's look at another RPG I'm familiar with, 3.5e D&D. There are six stats, and all but one of them provides some kind of bonus to things not related to its core function. Strength is favored by people who want to hit things hard and often, but it also boosts carrying capacity. Dexterity is primarily for ranged attacks and weapon finesse, but also increases armor class. Constitution affects hit points and Fortitude saves, which are useful for everybody. Intelligence gives skill points, likewise useful for everybody. Wisdom doesn't get much, but it does increase Will saves, so you don't want to skimp on it too much. All of them provide some bonus to things not in the primary domain of their class, they just provide larger bonuses to classes that actively use them.

 

7D2D's stats, however, are basically all Charisma. Charisma is widely considered the dump stat of choice for every class who doesn't actively need it simply because there's no benefit to having it otherwise. Charisma only benefits Charisma-based classes and Charisma-based skills, the latter of which are subject to the DM's interpretation anyway. With this in mind, 7D2D's stats are slightly worse than D&D 3.5's Charisma because the bonuses the stats in 7D2D give only apply to about 30% of that stat's related skills instead of all of them. When people talk about stat-gating, this is what they mean. If I want to build stuff quicker, I need to invest in Intellect, but if I don't want to use the stun baton or junk turret (and why would I?) then those points into Intellect serve as a gate. They give me nothing I want, nothing I need, and nothing I'll ever use, thus serving no purpose except to serve as a tax on crafting skills.

[Aldranon]

This RPG has primary skill trees that provide benefits other than unlocking skills. You may not be interested in those benefits but they are there and can be utilized. There is not one step up in any of the attributes that's only purpose is to unlock the next tier of perks. They all have benefits beyond unlocking the perk levels. Why do you keep stating that their only function is to unlock a lock?

 

The model you propose would make going deeper into the perks expensive for someone who was specializing in that attribute. The whole point is that once you breach the barrier you can go deeper cheaper in multiple perks within that attribute. You want to go outside your area of specialty and have it be cheaper for you by making it more expensive for those who specialize in that area.

 

Also.....who only plays with one attribute? You can easily pick two and be just fine. Why would anyone only pick intelligence unless they were doing a personal challenge? Pairing intelligence with another attribute works just fine. In A19, when the non combat perks only have 3 ranks you'll be able to do well with 3 attributes according to Madmole.

 

 

Perhaps drop the attributes entirely as they seem to have gone off the deep end anyway. (here me out please).

 

You can have any number of categories of perks that are relevant to each other. (you don't need to have the same number of perks in each category):

-Weapons

-Crafting

-Stealth

Ect...

 

-Each Category has any number of Discipline perks and possibly supporting Knowledge that can be dependent on each other in various ways.

 

-Discipline is often the end results of stressful experience(s), the player can pick any Discipline (up to five times?).

 

-Knowledge is usually beyond any LBD, so must be gained by finding books or other documents (up to five levels of knowledge?).

 

-In the Weapons category for example, you can have a perk that depend on another like: "Sight Control" and "Head Shot". Sight Control is a Discipline and Head Shot is a Knowledge.

 

-Head Shot depends on Sight Control to work. Head Shot being a knowledge of where exactly to hit a zombie in the head but would be useless without the discipline to do it.

 

 

IMO, this makes more sense and is more in line with reality without being tedious.

[BobTheBard]

What if you just did away with the whole idea of Attributes and made five skill trees:

 

Exploration - Gives bonuses to looting. Contains skills that boost mobility, looting, stealth, trader interaction, teamwork, etc.

Harvesting - Gives bonuses to block damage. Contains skills that focus on harvesting resources, farming, hunting, stamina use reduction, etc.

Melee Combat - Gives bonuses to all melee damage. Contains skills that focus on melee combat and melee weapons.

Ranged Combat - Gives bonuses to all ranged damage. Contains skills that focus on ranged combat and ranged weapons.

Crafting - Gives bonuses to crafting speed. Contains skills that benefit construction, trap-making, item crafting, schematic unlocking, etc.

 

The 'expectation' of this would be that any character choosing any two of these trees has a viable build. Exploration/Harvesting? You're rolling in materials, ammo, and schematics, and you can rely on stealth bonuses and trader quests to get you what you need. Crafting/Harvesting? The ultimate base-builder. Exploration/Ranged? Sniper. Melee/Ranged? Rambo. Any two of them forms a viable skillset, and you can do away with the whole 'attribute' system that seems to just confuse and annoy people.

[Kalen]

What if you just did away with the whole idea of Attributes and made five skill trees:

 

Exploration - Gives bonuses to looting. Contains skills that boost mobility, looting, stealth, trader interaction, teamwork, etc.

Harvesting - Gives bonuses to block damage. Contains skills that focus on harvesting resources, farming, hunting, stamina use reduction, etc.

Melee Combat - Gives bonuses to all melee damage. Contains skills that focus on melee combat and melee weapons.

Ranged Combat - Gives bonuses to all ranged damage. Contains skills that focus on ranged combat and ranged weapons.

Crafting - Gives bonuses to crafting speed. Contains skills that benefit construction, trap-making, item crafting, schematic unlocking, etc.

 

The 'expectation' of this would be that any character choosing any two of these trees has a viable build. Exploration/Harvesting? You're rolling in materials, ammo, and schematics, and you can rely on stealth bonuses and trader quests to get you what you need. Crafting/Harvesting? The ultimate base-builder. Exploration/Ranged? Sniper. Melee/Ranged? Rambo. Any two of them forms a viable skillset, and you can do away with the whole 'attribute' system that seems to just confuse and annoy people.

 

lol, I just posted pretty much this exact thing a couple of posts ago

[Aldranon]

What if you just did away with the whole idea of Attributes and made five skill trees:

 

Exploration - Gives bonuses to looting. Contains skills that boost mobility, looting, stealth, trader interaction, teamwork, etc.

Harvesting - Gives bonuses to block damage. Contains skills that focus on harvesting resources, farming, hunting, stamina use reduction, etc.

Melee Combat - Gives bonuses to all melee damage. Contains skills that focus on melee combat and melee weapons.

Ranged Combat - Gives bonuses to all ranged damage. Contains skills that focus on ranged combat and ranged weapons.

Crafting - Gives bonuses to crafting speed. Contains skills that benefit construction, trap-making, item crafting, schematic unlocking, etc.

 

The 'expectation' of this would be that any character choosing any two of these trees has a viable build. Exploration/Harvesting? You're rolling in materials, ammo, and schematics, and you can rely on stealth bonuses and trader quests to get you what you need. Crafting/Harvesting? The ultimate base-builder. Exploration/Ranged? Sniper. Melee/Ranged? Rambo. Any two of them forms a viable skillset, and you can do away with the whole 'attribute' system that seems to just confuse and annoy people.

 

This is a better way than what is currently being done. It gives the player logical choices as well as allowing for ether focused play-style for MP or a more general one for SP.

 

Allowing for books and other documents to supplement the perks would make it a solid game system.

[Katitof]

You obviously don't get what i am saying. But i already told it dozens of times here in the forum and i'm getting tired of repeating it again and again and the answers still make me ask myself if people even read my posts or just didn't understand what i was saying.

 

The base skills perception, strength, fortitude, ... should give genereic buffs usefull for everybody independently on what item he is using, wants to use or prefers to use over whatever. Buffing specific items should be limited to perks for this specific item (like dead eye, machine gunner, boomstick, ...).

 

And i don't talk about min maxing at all. If i invest a skillpoint i want this skillpoint to have an effect for me and my playstyle. My playstyle decides what i like to skill, not the skills dictate my playstyle, but the current system does. It does not "force" me, but if i want to be skill-efficient it puts me into specific directions.

I'd never invest a skillpoint into boomstick if i'm not even using shotguns. But i need to invest skillpoints into strength because other perks (and not only shotgun perks!!!!) have this as prerequisit, no matter if i WANT to use shotguns or not.

 

Would you prefer if the stats themseles provided absolutely nothing other then a point sink instead, so you wouldn't feel like you're "wasting" points on "improving weapons" you don't use?

 

You're angry, because you can't min-max every single point, there really isn't any more to it here from what you've said so far.