Factions You Wish Existed in Skyrim

[lord's voken]

i just wish the nature of radiant quests would change once you become boss of the fraction.
its just weird for example that once you kill harkon and lead that court of vampires they still ask you to fetch old limbs from random bandits and murder some bum on the street. that is grunt work. lets work on conquering skyrim or something and let those two lazy loser who eat all day take care of the grunt work

 

[Loonyyy]

Before any new factions in the game, they should properly do the factions that are already there. They should take some hints from Morrowind. Going with one faction should decrease reputation with another. Same with guilds. What fun is there in being both a high ranking member in, say, the dark brotherhood. Yet also be a high ranking member in, say, the companions? I would think that a group of basically illegal assassins wouldn't want to have anything to do with a group of mostly legitimate mercenaries.

That's the thing I missed the most in Skyrim (and oblivion, btw) I think. Your actions having actual consequences. Killed a key npc? The quest chain can't be continued. Gained high rank in one guild/faction? An opposing guild/faction doesn't want you near them any more. Etc.

As for actual factions that I'd like in the game: As mentioned in the OP, a tinkerer guild, an artificer's guild and a pirate faction should be in there!

Or also a lot of fun; Being able to make a new guild that does the same as an existing one, and then be rivals. Like, say you want to make a new mercenary guild without werewolves and that does things your way. You could start small. A few people under your wing. You get assignments and have to divide them and such. Your group forms into a small guild. The other guild notices you and becomes a rival. And eventually you would be able to grow large enough to overtake the other guild. Basically doing management rather than being the errant boy in the form of getting assignments, handing them out to npc's, and managing your guild's funds, size and members.

Pretty much this. You can join pretty much every goddamn faction, and do everything. Everyone's heard of the heavy armour beserkers getting into the Mage's Guild. A stealth character can join the Companions. The Theives Guild no longer cares if you murder people.

The only conflict between factions are these stupid binary ones: Werewolf or Vampire. Stormcloaks or Legion (Yes, you can go the greybeard route, I did, and negotiated a peace. But it was stupid, and made me look like the only sane person in the entire fucking nation). There's no depth to any of these. You flip a coin and do the opposite on another run through. Especially the Stormcloak/Legion conflict. The Thalmor are dicks. Pure and simple. The Legion are trying to keep them in check through appeasement, and have become a harsh dictatorship, and they even try to kill you at the start, and the Stormcloaks want nothing to do with the Thalmor at all, and are happy to fight them. But lots of the Stormcloaks are also racist wankers yelling "Fuck Off, We're Full" about the Dunmer and Argonians. On top of that, Ulfric is a jackass, and comes across more as a usurper-king than a rebel. The Greybeard/Blade conflict was ridiculous as well. I mean, really, how many people killed Paarthunax? The Blades were pathetic dicks, who you spend an inordinate amount of time pulling their asses from the fire, and then they presume to tell you what to do. It's a shame, because the Blades were a great faction in previous titles.

I get that it's meant to be ambiguous, but could I choose between at least more than two groups of pointlessly evil assholes? Can the ambiguouity at least not come from giving groups moronic flaws? Could they have some conflict because of reasons which tie into their aims? Could we have more than two?

 

[SajuukKhar]

Then they could easily script in that npc's can't die from other random npc's. And for things like a simple farmer running to a dragon to fist fight it for instance, they should script them better so they run away at danger.

There is no way to script NPCs to not be able to die by anything but you, the tried it in Skyrim with the protected status, but it has many flaws. http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrimrotected_NPCs

Also, making NPCs run away just makes enemy NPCs follow them to wherever they run to.

And this is the reason why TES quests suck and are soulless and boring.

They should move beyond this archaic storytelling mechanic because it's really holding back the gameplay.

Except having to be forgotten quite literally changes nothing about the content in quests, it only prevents you from being named Jarl/King/emperor.

Your argument makes no sense, unless you were trying to say you NEED to be able to become Jarl/King/emperor in order for any quest to have soul. Which also makes no sense.

Instead of adding more factions, I just wish they had improved the factions that were in the game already.

Spoiler

I wanted to side with Astrid, but wasn't allowed to.

I -really- wanted to refuse to sell Nocturnal my soul (for nothing), but I didn't get the option. In my opinion this is the crowning moment of fail in Skyrim.

I wanted to be able to refuse turning into a werewolf with the Companions.

In short, I wanted choices and consequences for my actions. Skyrim is a huge world where your actions mean nothing.

You are aware all of those options are entirely nonsensical.
-Siding with the person who wants you dead?
-Being able to progress in a faction line without having to prove your loyalty?
-Not getting blacklisted by a group of werewolves for finding out they are werewolves and NOT showing them you are willing to keep their secret?

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

A Dragoon guild.

Dragons are back. Spears aren't back. We need to get spears back to put them in dragon's backs. And faces. And I also had a slightly whimsical moment where I dreamed of being a Redguard Dragoon proctologist with REEEEEEEALLY poor depth perception.

But yeah, Dragoons. Dragoon all the things.

 

[endtherapture]

And this is the reason why TES quests suck and are soulless and boring.

They should move beyond this archaic storytelling mechanic because it's really holding back the gameplay.

Except having to be forgotten quite literally changes nothing about the content in quests, it only prevents you from being named Jarl/King/emperor.

Your argument makes no sense, unless you were trying to say you NEED to be able to become Jarl/King/emperor in order for any quest to have soul. Which also makes no sense.

I'm saying Skyrim is holding itself back in the terms of the quests it has by having this "namless hero" stuff being enforced by lore contraints.

It's a bad excuse anyway, in Dragon Age you play as "The Warden Commander" and that's all anyone remembers you as but you can still run your own keep.

What's wrong with them saying "The Dragonborn also had his own castle he ran?"

Also there are no consequences for quests such as you said "Not getting blacklisted by a group of werewolves for finding out they are werewolves and NOT showing them you are willing to keep their secret?" because you can't reveal the secret to Skyrim.

 

[Grottnikk]

I want to see the space faring lesbian pirate Khajiit faction.

 

[SajuukKhar]

snip

And as I said, the only thing it "holds back" is running a keep/being Jarl/King/Emperor. Which would consist of.... well.. just another Hearthfire, a goldsink where all you get is an ever increasingly fancy house........


Also, your Dragon Age example kinda falls flat because in DA2, no one ever mentions the keep. "ohh yeah you get to run a keep, but no one will ever talk about it ever outside of the one expansion pack it's in! Meaning........ essentially everything you did is treated the same as if it was forgotten/never happened to begin with!"

Who in Skyrim would believe it? the companions are the single most respected force in Skyrim, everyone would just dismiss you for being a liar if you tried to say that they were werewolves.

 

[DoPo]

There is no way to script NPCs to not be able to die by anything but you, the tried it in Skyrim with the protected status, but it has many flaws. http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrimrotected_NPCs

Correction - Bethesda cannot do it. I can think of half a dozen different ways to implement it off the top of my head. Here is three easy ones

1. They are immortal at all times but die off the player's hands or if actions switch the immortal flag off. So it's similar to the protected status, more or less.

2. Introduce infirmaries. If killed off screen, normal NPCs have a chance of appearing there and being "saved". Essential NPCs always end up there, unless killed by the player. Actually, that's probably the easiest solution I can think of.

3. OK, this isn't as easy - you could have the essential NPCs not be exposed to danger. Well that would need some reshuffling of the world but it's quite doable - they can hide in secure rooms and/or have lots of guards, so enemy NPCs cannot reach them easily. Also essentials can stay in areas where enemies don't attack.

Also, making NPCs run away just makes enemy NPCs follow them to wherever they run to.

Again, that's Bethesda's fault for not being able to make "smart enough" AI. I mean, yeah - I know AI isn't simple to make and stuff but that particular behaviour is one of the easiest things to implement. That's assuming one keeps it in mind when making the AI, though. It can be as simple as rubber banding the NPC - enemies did that in Diablo 2, for example - Fallen (and similar minions) wouldn't travel more than about a screen away from the shamans. So if an enemy starts to chase, they'll give up after a bit.

Alternatively, there is quite literally one of the simplest implementations of swarm behaviour - the boids algorithm. It's a well known algorithm and at it's core it allows swarm movements, some slightly more advanced versions have attract, repel and even chase implemented (chaser/targets dynamics) and other similar things.

 

[SajuukKhar]

snip

1. The game already does that for many NPCs who become killable after their immortal flag is set off, which happens after you complete their quest/a certain action. Many NPCs however logically have no ability to have their flag turned off, such as Jarls, their hosuecarls, their stewards, and the civil war generals on whatever side you side with, which constitutes 1/4 of Skyrim's total essential NPC population, who are ALWAYS needed to have the game work.

2. Nonsensical, the NPC would have to appear there EVERY SINGLE TIME, or else we still run into the same problem of "NPCs die by hand other then your own" breaking quests because of actions other then your own. There can be no "chance" it would HAVE to be a 100% certainty. Not only that but it destroyed any sense of NPCs being in danger in just the same way setting them as essential does, defeating the purpose of things like Vampire/Bandit/Dragon attacks on cities.

3. That doesn't help all the normal town folk who give out quests, and who wouldn't logically be in some safe house at all hours of the day, unless you are suggesting all NPCs stay inside all hours of the day, which defeats the entire idea of a living world.

4. Rubber banding NPCs is also nonsensical, and wouldn't be acceptable in a modern game. I would love to see NPCs essentially just teleport halfway across a city to escape danger, that's more immersion breaking then just having them be unkillable.

5. Unless the swarm behavior makes it 100% impossible for enemy NPcs to attack anyone but guards, which defeats the purpose of bandit/vampire/dragon attacks on cities, then it is flawed, entirely.

 

[endtherapture]

snip

And as I said, the only thing it "holds back" is running a keep/being Jarl/King/Emperor. Which would consist of.... well.. just another Hearthfire, a goldsink where all you get is an ever increasingly fancy house........


Also, your Dragon Age example kinda falls flat because in DA2, no one ever mentions the keep. "ohh yeah you get to run a keep, but no one will ever talk about it ever outside of the one expansion pack it's in! Meaning........ essentially everything you did is treated the same as if it was forgotten/never happened to begin with!"

Who in Skyrim would believe it? the companions are the single most respected force in Skyrim, everyone would just dismiss you for being a liar if you tried to say that they were werewolves.

Well in Baldur's Gate the strongholds had quests associated with them - we could have more of them, even quests which just decided how the town/keep develops or how to spend the income. You could become a feared or loved ruler depending on your responses to these quests.

TES games are set hundreds of years apart so it doesn't really matter if no one hears of your exploits anyway to be honest.

I think your problem is that you see TES games as absolutely perfect exactly as they are, and don't want to see positive change for rubbish "lore" reasons that you don't see are just bad game design by Bethesda.

 

[SajuukKhar]

snip

For a TES game to have a well done stronghold, it would basically have to be like DAO: Awkening, an entire game based around it, anything less would be stupidly superficial, and disappointing.

Actually, TES 1-4 were set within a 36 year timespan, ONLY Skyrim is set hundreds of years after, and nothing says that is a trend that will continue. Especially considering the Great War round 2 is hinted to be just around the corner, so the next game wouldn't take any more then a year or two after Skyrm.

I dont think ES is perfect, the combat blows, it's buggy, becoming leader of a guild means largely nothing, amongst other things.

I just dont think a bunch of half-baked ideas, that show very little, if any, real thought put into them, besides the most superficial of details, would make the game better. Unfortunately, most people dont bother to actually put any real thought into the amount of dev time needed to make something like "ruling over an entire stronghold/building it up" work in a good way, and just sit there clamoring for it, despite it being unrealistic, and then get mad when their unrealistic demands aren't met.

And if there was another game series like the ES, and people asked for even half the stuff they do in Skyrim, I would do he exact same as I am now, pointing out how it would never work, but in a really shitty way. I would point it out for the sheer fact that it's dumb, even if I hate the series, because adding that stuff wouldn't make the game better, it would just mean they shoved yet another half-baked idea into a game already overflowing with half-finished ideas.

 

[endtherapture]

For a TES game to have a well done stronghold, it would basically have to be like DAO awkening, an entire game based around it, anything less would be stupidly superficial.
.

Not necessarily, Baldur's Gate 2 had a stronghold for each class (3 for Clerics depending on your alignment) and one of them (the Fighter one) is about running your own Keep. The thief one is about running your own Guild, the Mage's one about running your own interdimensional travelling sphere and the Bard one about running your own playhouse and putting on a play. If Baldur's Gate can have a giant story driven game plus all of that in it then I think Skyrim should at least try to do a "run your own Keep" thing, at least as a DLC, like a fleshed out Hearthfire.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Not necessarily, Baldur's Gate 2 had a stronghold for each class (3 for Clerics depending on your alignment) and one of them (the Fighter one) is about running your own Keep. The thief one is about running your own Guild, the Mage's one about running your own interdimensional travelling sphere and the Bard one about running your own playhouse and putting on a play. If Baldur's Gate can have a giant story driven game plus all of that in it then I think Skyrim should at least try to do a "run your own Keep" thing, at least as a DLC, like a fleshed out Hearthfire.

All of those were stupidly superficial, and largely meaningless to the overall game. Nor did they even begin to reach the level of complexity that a modern game that had building a town/fort would require. It's a terribly broken comparison because of how vastly different they are at their very core in terms of the amount of actions needed to get it to work.

And considering how much people complained that Bethesda asked them to pay for Hearthfire, and considered it pointless, I could only imagine how pissed people would be if Bethesda asked them to pay 20 dollars for what is essentially just one giant version of Hearthfire, whose only real different is more generic guard NPCs around your larger house, and a few shops, and that's it. Hell, base game NPCs wouldn't even be able to talk about the new city being made because of the massive amount of dialog that would require.

All it would do is be an over-pricy gimmick that would cause more complaints about the world not responding to your actions.

 

[endtherapture]

Not necessarily, Baldur's Gate 2 had a stronghold for each class (3 for Clerics depending on your alignment) and one of them (the Fighter one) is about running your own Keep. The thief one is about running your own Guild, the Mage's one about running your own interdimensional travelling sphere and the Bard one about running your own playhouse and putting on a play. If Baldur's Gate can have a giant story driven game plus all of that in it then I think Skyrim should at least try to do a "run your own Keep" thing, at least as a DLC, like a fleshed out Hearthfire.

All of those were stupidly superficial, and largely meaningless to the overall game. Nor did they even begin to reach the level of complexity that a modern game that had building a town/fort would require. It's a terribly broken comparison becuase of how vastly different they are at their very core.

And considering how much people railed over the fact that Bethesda asked them to pay for Hearthfire, and considered it pointless, I could imagine how pissed people would be if Bethesda asked them to pay 20 dollars for what is essentially just one giant version of Hearthfire, people wouldn't buy it.

They weren't superficial. They added depth to the world and game...something Skyrim was clearly lacking. Baldur's Gate is infinitely deeper than Skyrim because all the quests were fleshed out, well written and had meaning rather than just being variations of go here/kill that/bring me this item.

The Fighter stronghold allowed you to keep the Keep from going to an evil family and perhaps make enough money to advance from Chapter 2 to 3.
The Mage stronghold allowed you to train apprentices and get cool magical new items.
The Bard stronghold was just really fun and well written.
The Ranger stronghold involved stopping the return of an ancient evil.

All fleshed out the world and boosted re-playability value and allowed you to get more loot and gold which is always good.

Neverwinter Nights 2 also had a stronghold section which was important to the main story and was only 1 chapter of the game, not an entire expansion.

 

[Ashadowpie]

bird people hahhaa, so they can fight with the cat people. it would be a riot!

 

[SajuukKhar]

snip

-They were totally superficial.
-They added no more depth then building a house in Skyrim does.
-BG quests actually kinda sucked, not that skyrim's are any better, BG's supposed "goodness" is largely nostalgia based
-Many of Skyrim's quests aren't just go here and kill X/bring me this item
-So basically the srongholds served the purpose that guilds already serve in ES games? getting money, finding artifacts, stopping ancient evils. We dont need more of those, because those already exist.
-It added no more re-playability then joining only one of Skyrim's guild per playthrough does, meaning, nothing that isn't 100% artificial.
-NWN 2's stronghold section also really sucked, and wasn't ANYWHERE near as complex as even building a single Hearthfire house in Skyrim.

 

[endtherapture]

snip

-They were totally superficial.
-They added no more depth then building a house in Skyrim does.
-BG quests actually kinda sucked, not that skyrim's are any better, BG's supposed "goodness" is largely nostalgia based
-Many of Skyrim's quests aren't just go here and kill X/bring me this item
-It added no more re-playability then joining only one of Skyrim's guild per playthrough does, meaning, nothing that isn't 100% artificial.
-So basically the purpose that guilds already serve in ES games? getting money, finding artifacts, stopping ancient evils.

1. Why were they superficial? Give reasons. Point is invalid.
2. No because they had characters introduced, new loot, consequences and boosted replay value. Building a house means you ground/bought the materials needed for it, very boring. Point is invalid.
3. I replayed BG2 recently and absolutely loved it, much deeper and more interesting than Skyrim. Point is invalid.
4. Every Skyrim quest is at it's heart go here/kill X/bring me this item. What one isnt? I can't think of any.
5. It added replayability because you could only do one per playthrough, it made me want to play through again with different classes and thus party composition. I could do everything in one playthrough of Skyrim.
6. You already had massive quests in BG2, these were just extra bonus stuff that you might not even find out about. The guilds are a significant amount of the content in Skyrim.

 

[SajuukKhar]

snip

1. How were they not? You didn't have to do much of anything to run them, it was mostly just telling people to do X. It was the same as telling the fighters guild to focus on mission or recruiting in Oblivion. It so so superficial because it involved very much real action.

2. Hearthfire
-Introduces new characters, in the form of new housecarls, bards, and carriage drivers.
-There are many new items to loot in Hearthfire, such as building materials, new clothing, and special clothing you can only randomly get from your children.
-As for consequences,you alter the landscape of the world in three different places, causing massive, fortress sized, houses to appear, you can give people new jobs by making them your steward, and you also get to fend off invaders such as dragons, giants, draugr, and bandits, who frequently attack your home.
-Because of the way the house system is set up, it's impossible to build a house with every single possible combination of wings, making a player have to replay the game several times to get every possible house combination.

3. Opinions can't invalidate other options. Try harder.

4. Sheogorath's Daedric quest for one, and the quest involving helping Cicero convince farmer to repair his wagon wheel.

5. Except you don't do both sides of the like 20 quests that allow you to pick a side/one of two outcomes.

6. Just like how you have significant questlines in Skyrim in the form of guilds, and tons of other smaller quests/questlines that offer more loot/money in Skyrim already? Many of which are in dungeons you are never directed to, and can miss unless you explore a lot?

 

[endtherapture]

snip

1. How were they not? You didn't have to do much of anything to run them, it was mostly just telling people to do X. It was the same as telling the fighters guild to focus on mission or recruiting in Oblivion. It so so superficial.

1. In that case, every single RPG is superficial.

2. Hearthfire
-Introduces new characters, in the form of new housecarls, bards, and carriage drivers.
-There are many new items to loot in Hearthfire, such as building materials, new clothing, and special clothing you can only randomly get from your children.
-As for consequences,you alter the landscape of the world in three different places, causing massive, fortress sized, houses to appear, you can give people new jobs by making them your steward, and you also get to fend off invaders such as dragons, giants, draugr, and bandits, who frequently attack your home.
-Because of the way the house system is set up, it's impossible to build a house with every single possible combination of wings, making a player have to replay the game several times to get every possible house combination.

2. Strongholds
- Introduce new characters
- New items
- New areas depending on what stronghold you get - the De'arnise keep gets an entirely new map.
Suppose we are even here then. Except you get extra lore and story points in the BG strongholds. Therefore it wins.

3. Opinions can't invalidate other options. Try harder.

3. You can't just claim that BG2 is only good because of nostalgia then. Try harder.

4. Sheogorath's Daedric quest for one, and the quest involving helping Cicero convince farmer to repair his wagon wheel.

3. Two quests. great.

5. Except you don't do both sides of the like 20 quests that allow you to pick a side/one of two outcomes.[/quest]

The end result is always the same except in a couple of Daedric quests.

6. Just like how you have significant questlines in Skyrim in the form of guilds, and tons of other smaller quests/questlines that offer more loot/money in Skyrim already? Many of which are in dungeons you are never directed to, and can miss unless you explore a lot?

6. BG2 has all the stronghold quests, the main quests, the optional quests, the small quests adding flavour to the world, plus secret dungeons and high levels encounters like all of the Lich Chambers, and forging legendary weapons. Each story and quest is incredibly fleshed out, plus there's hundreds of books in the world to collect and read if you like that kind of thing. Also there's loads more characters. All of this much deeper and better written than their equivalents in Skyrim.