Diseases are irrelevant

[Mattbott]

with the trend to hide the numbers (and simplification) in TES, diseases could be implemented with blurred vision on the screen, your character starts coughing, people start saying "Whoah, stay away from me" type stuff, and at most stamina bar refills very slowly (depending on the disease of course). This would aid RP and affect your experience of the game in a way that made you wish to get healthy again

When the disease gets more serious, your character can't stop shivering (shaky screen and vibrating joypad), you fumble and drop things , some perks now have "different" effects, eg when you roll forwards whilst sneaking you puke on the ground (LOL); when you zoom in with the bow your sight becomes dark, tunnel vision closes in and you black out; big hitting power attacks or mage abilities requiring concentration just dont kick in any more; picking locks is a wobbly, blurred affair involving lots of snapped picks

i would keep a cure disease potion around, and Argonian disease resistance would have some significance once more

[Mauin]

Deadly Dragons has some "nice" diseases. Blackwing Dragons carry a disease that will reduce your fire resistance by 50%. Considering the Dragon uses fire, that can be a problem if you're character doesn't have god-like resistances.
Arctic Dragons carry a disease called Frost Fever that reduces frost resistance by 50%. Same issue as with the Blackwing Dragons: Arctic Dragons use frost, so you'll be taking more damage against them in a fight.
Bone Dragons can summon a Draugr Deathguard, whose shout can infect the player with Necrosis. That reduces disease resistance by 50%, and since the Bone Dragon (somehow) does disease damage... Yeah.

I do think that having varied screen effects and whatnot could be interesting for diseases, but if they ever did something like that (kinda unlikely), I'd probably do my best to remove all traces of blur. I've already done so for Skyrim anyway. It's just irritating, and having constant blur effects hurts my eyes after a while (and has the potential to trigger headaches thanks to that eye strain).

I was actually comparing the effects of diseases in Skyrim to the descriptions of certain diseases from Morrowind. Diseases in Skyrim seem to only have one effect. If these diseases have such an impact, then why only one effect? Something that reduces manual dexterity should cause more problems than with picking locks or pockets. Unless there's some sort of limitation in the game system (there shouldn't be one), there should be multiple effects per disease.

So as an experiment, I've added multiple effects to each disease. The worst I can (sort of) remember off the top of my head is Sanguinare Vampiris, which I've changed to reduce health by 50 points, stamina and magicka by 25, and their regeneration by... Something. Maybe 50-75% each. Maybe only 25% for health. For something that pretty much kills you/transforms you (into something undead), it never did much. I did similar things to all other diseases, utilizing new disease effects added by Dragonborn and creating new ones where necessary.

Even modded diseases won't have much of an impact on higher level characters, but the vanilla diseases could hurt on a lower leveled one. Catching vanilla Sanguinare Vampiris at level 1 while fighting a Master Vampire (in Broken Fang Cave) comes to mind.

[Mattbott]

Diseases would work better if there was a more all or nothing approach. If you don't want diseases and their symptoms (the shakes, vomiting, stamina drains, weaknesses to different things etc) then i see no reason why animals and monsters would spread ailments, especially when every town has a cure disease fountain or potion seller.

I think an on / off switch for diseases in the menus would cater for all (tbh i would probably prefer no disease games for some characters) , tho i am not sure if the devs would think it worthwhile

sounds a bit like hardcore mode tho

[Belthazor]

I think an on / off switch for diseases in the menus would cater for all (tbh i would probably prefer no disease games for some characters) , tho i am not sure if the devs would think it worthwhile

An optional feature in a Bethesda game? They weren't even willing to make kill cams optional. Then again, I doubt they think of diseases as a cool feature that they want everyone to experience whether they like it or not...

[KryptonianBlood]

It's not for immersion. It's stat reduction. What's the point in diseases? What's the point of stat reducing spells? What's the point of weakness spells? What's the point of alcohol making you weaker? What's the point of magic? What's the point in doing anything except eating cheese and doing the fish stick? Your playing a roleplaying game; that's the point.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with this. If you want to roleplay that your character is suffering terribly from a disease, then roleplay it. You don't need the game to force that upon you, and frankly, it's better that they don't. Excuse me if sometimes I just want to sit down and play a game. If I want "realistic" diseases, I'll go out and get sick in reality (but I won't because that's stupid, though it happens whether I want it to or not).

And those saying diseases have more of an effect in earlier titles... They don't.
They do the same basic thing as diseases in Skyrim: minor stat/attribute/whatever reduction. My older Oblivion character had over 30 diseases and I never noticed any of them until I looked at my active effects list. You're just as likely to miss them in older games as you are in Skyrim.

The point is that it's a game: games are not supposed to be realistic. Effects that make the game more like actual life should be kept optional and not forced upon the player. I don't know about anybody else, but I play games as an escape from reality (especially when times are rough) and for fun. I really don't want things in the game to mirror what's going on outside of the game.

Your SOOOOOOooooOOO right! I have over 400 hours logged into skyrim, other than doing the requirements to gain breezehome, have not left it. I simply sit my dunmer down in a chair, and roleplay that I am actually out doing quests or killing bandits, slaying Alduin and so on.

Guys this is death simulator, its about killing things in one hit and watching the cool physics when they fall down. Not story, immersion, and so on. I thought we had evolved beyond the point of wanting silly hard things like realism? as my favorite purple dinosaur would say "let's just pretend."

[Avron the S'wit]

I'd appreciate much less sass. It's all right to disagree, but there's no reason to sound hostile. We don't really go for that on UESP - civil discussion, if you please.

[KryptonianBlood]

I'd appreciate much less sass. It's all right to disagree, but there's no reason to sound hostile. We don't really go for that on UESP - civil discussion, if you please.

I did get a bit carried away, I just was a little offended by the poster suggesting role-players should have to imagine realistic diseases, but I believe I made my point.

[Archer]

You're easily offended then. You do realise what roleplaying is, right? It is useing your imagination to create a character, often to create a life-like personality. I don't see why it is a stretch to exaggerate diseases.

[House of the Wolf]

*raises hand*

I, uh... I had a different understanding of "role-playing" a long time ago..

But yeah, hell..D&D is the best of example of how role-playing is mostly dependent upon the player's imagination (75-99% for most games, depending on the game).

OP: I wish Skyrim had Chicken Pox.

[KryptonianBlood]

You're easily offended then. You do realise what roleplaying is, right? It is useing your imagination to create a character, often to create a life-like personality. I don't see why it is a stretch to exaggerate diseases.

And again sir, I could sit in my apartment and roleplay I was playing skyrim. you get what I'm saying?

These games have always had diseases, no one should have to roleplay that they exist for the sake of others convenience. Now if the topic creator had complained about about how he wanted to be able to get dismembered arms and be forced to play though the game only using one-handed from then on, the person suggesting RPers just imagine might have a point. =P

[Mauin]

You're easily offended then. You do realise what roleplaying is, right? It is useing your imagination to create a character, often to create a life-like personality. I don't see why it is a stretch to exaggerate diseases.

This.

Seriously, that kind of sarcastic response to my post was NOT necessary. If you're going to disagree with somebody, then disagree with respect or don't say anything at all.



If you're roleplaying, you're probably going to have a story for your character that you're sticking to as much as possible. When they catch a disease in that story, are they going to go "Oh, I caught Sanginare Vampiris. It's only draining my health. No big deal." No. They aren't. It doesn't make sense. They're more likely to panic when they realize what's going on and become desperate to seek a cure. Unless, of course, they want to be a Vampire. That's an entirely different story itself.

The same goes for any other disease, in any other game. The way things are now, it doesn't force anything major on your character and their story.
If it did have more severe effects (like death), then the game is basically forcing your roleplay decisions. That leaves you less control over their story, and in certain situations, you might as well not be roleplaying at all.

I don't like games making roleplay decisions for me, so that's part of the reason why I don't want extra realism in my games. That's what life is for.

[House of the Wolf]

Chicken Pox? No takers?

[Archer]

I'm all for chicken pox. I could finally have a polka-dotted character

[Mauin]

I swear the freckles option for female characters looks kinda like Chicken Pox anyway.

[ZackyZombify]

I remember that one lady merchant than had a red nose from her cold. Too bad the game doesn't implement stuff like that.

[House of the Wolf]

Actually, I just wanted it for the Calamine lotion.

[Evil-i]

Although not diseases, I've always thought that environmental nuisances, like poison ivy or stinging nettles, and combined with a home remedy/alchemy system of salves and lotions, would be interesting features.

[House of the Wolf]

"I used to be an adventurer like you, until I got poison ivy on my crotch."

That would be horrible with the Forsworn armor on.

[Br3admax]

Although not diseases, I've always thought that environmental nuisances, like poison ivy or stinging nettles, and combined with a home remedy/alchemy system of salves and lotions, would be interesting features.

This is why I liked the addition of poison pods(or whatever) in Dawnguard.

[Evil-i]

Perhaps, but you could have Lydia apply the lotion.

"I need you to do something..." *moves cursor*

[KryptonianBlood]

You're easily offended then. You do realise what roleplaying is, right? It is useing your imagination to create a character, often to create a life-like personality. I don't see why it is a stretch to exaggerate diseases.

This.

Seriously, that kind of sarcastic response to my post was NOT necessary. If you're going to disagree with somebody, then disagree with respect or don't say anything at all.



If you're roleplaying, you're probably going to have a story for your character that you're sticking to as much as possible. When they catch a disease in that story, are they going to go "Oh, I caught Sanginare Vampiris. It's only draining my health. No big deal." No. They aren't. It doesn't make sense. They're more likely to panic when they realize what's going on and become desperate to seek a cure. Unless, of course, they want to be a Vampire. That's an entirely different story itself.

The same goes for any other disease, in any other game. The way things are now, it doesn't force anything major on your character and their story.
If it did have more severe effects (like death), then the game is basically forcing your roleplay decisions. That leaves you less control over their story, and in certain situations, you might as well not be roleplaying at all.

I don't like games making roleplay decisions for me, so that's part of the reason why I don't want extra realism in my games. That's what life is for.

I didn't mean to offend you, I was simply emphasizing my point by way of exaggeration. That being said I still disagree with you. It does not force you to roleplay anymore than being killed by falling off mountain forces you to roleplay a character who is not invincible. Argonians are immune to disease if you do not like them.

[House of the Wolf]

Perhaps, but you could have Lydia apply the lotion.

"I need you to do something..." *moves cursor*

"I'm sworn to carry your burdens......"

[Br3admax]

Perhaps, but you could have Lydia apply the lotion.

"I need you to do something..." *moves cursor*

"I'm sworn to carry your burdens......"

Then apply directly to the affected area.

I would not mind more though. I'm not sure we should actually see them put the salves on though, but it would be nice to have a non-potion fix for everything.

[House of the Wolf]

*edit*

So poison ivy..right.. What about poisonous mushrooms, and what not?

[Belthazor]

If you're roleplaying, you're probably going to have a story for your character that you're sticking to as much as possible. When they catch a disease in that story, are they going to go "Oh, I caught Sanginare Vampiris. It's only draining my health. No big deal." No. They aren't. It doesn't make sense. They're more likely to panic when they realize what's going on and become desperate to seek a cure. Unless, of course, they want to be a Vampire. That's an entirely different story itself.

The same goes for any other disease, in any other game. The way things are now, it doesn't force anything major on your character and their story.
If it did have more severe effects (like death), then the game is basically forcing your roleplay decisions. That leaves you less control over their story, and in certain situations, you might as well not be roleplaying at all.

I don't like games making roleplay decisions for me, so that's part of the reason why I don't want extra realism in my games. That's what life is for.

You're kinda contradicting yourself there. In the first paragraph, you say that it doesn't make sense for a character not to panic if he catches Sanginare Vampiris. But in the second paragraph you're basically complaining that if the game had more severe diseases, it would actually force you to panic. It just doesn't make sense to me. Why do you want to roleplay something, but then at the same time complain about it if the game gives you an actual reason to behave in that way? That's like wishing for something and then complaining when you get it.

If you take out all the things in the game that "force" you to behave in a certain way, then the game basically turns into an open world action game. You might as well play a game like Battlefield then and pretend it's an RPG. Then again, Skyrim is more of an action game with RPG elements than an RPG, anyway.