madmole
New member
Well I'd like for everyone to play what we have first before jumping to conclusions that it doesn't work because one guy on the forum disagrees. A generic perk tree isn't needed, all it would do is water down the attributes and some people would still female dog that you need to invest points into a generic tree that doesn't have any combat to unlock the ones you want. This would make mining even less accessible than it is under strength. At least under strength there are some great other perks you can get while your there for mining.You lose the freedom that you specifically cited as one of the reasons for the rework of the perk system though. And you are not gaining 'easy to understand.' The system is easy to understand wherever you put the perk. Absolutely no one would be confused if the perk categories were different unless they are made in a nonsensical manner. A perk category that covered most non-combat perks is not nonsensical at all.
Those 999% (10 times the players apparently ;D ) will also not think about a million other small details that make the gaming experience truly great.
Its clear you haven't thought it through. We're here to protect the 999% and make a great game, your idea would make it less accessible. The more attributes, the less perks you can get because of scaling attribute costs. Then it waters down the loot too, now we need to make some eyewear that boosts your generic abilities so we're not favoring attributes?
BTW, no means, no, this is a courtesy so at least you understand why your idea won't work.
The only thing I would do, if somehow nobody likes this design is just nuke the mining perks, and mining would be 100% item driven. A generic attribute would be a lot of wasted effort that thematically doesn't fit with the new setup that is more class driven and would require a lot of content to properly support. Why does this disease affect my generic attribute? Make no sense either.