FO: NV

[Guest Slinky]

I think one of the classic issues I've had with the Fallout series is that the combat skills seem to be balanced around the idea of phased obsolescence. The first Fallout was probably the worst about this, with almost no Big Guns or Energy Weapons for the first half of the game. That is, you're "supposed" to take Small Guns, then Big Guns, then Energy Weapons. If you do something wacky like take Big Guns or Energy Weapons at low level, you suffer.

To me it felt natural. Like in every game, you start with peashooters and nutcrackers and move on with time to total arsenators and massive assbusters. I never even thought about it when I started with small guns and moved on to energy weapons in FO1 and big guns in FO2, it was just natural.

Edited August 22, 2009 by Slinky

[J.E. Sawyer]

To me it felt natural. Like in every game, you start with peashooters and nutcrackers and move on with time to total arsenators and massive assbusters. I never even thought about it when I started with small guns and moved on to energy weapons in FO1 and big guns in FO2, it was just natural.

Then why allow someone to buy the Big Guns skill at all at low levels? There's no other skill in the game that has an effective restriction to using it in the second half of the game. If you tagged Science and didn't get to use it for the first seven hours of your first playthrough, wouldn't that be kind of irritating?

[Gromnir]

I think one of the classic issues I've had with the Fallout series is that the combat skills seem to be balanced around the idea of phased obsolescence. The first Fallout was probably the worst about this, with almost no Big Guns or Energy Weapons for the first half of the game. That is, you're "supposed" to take Small Guns, then Big Guns, then Energy Weapons. If you do something wacky like take Big Guns or Energy Weapons at low level, you suffer.

To me it felt natural. Like in every game, you start with peashooters and nutcrackers and move on with time to total arsenators and massive assbusters. I never even thought about it when I started with small guns and moved on to energy weapons in FO1 and big guns in FO2, it was just natural.

 

feel natural? perhaps, but is poor balance. typical rpg you not need multiple skills to move from nutcrackers to "assbusters." your rusty sword at start o' game depends on same skill or proficiency or whatever as does the +12 hackmaster blade of god-slaying. fo is different, and a bit wacky.

 

nevertheless, as noted earlier, the transition from small guns to energy weapons were painless and "natural" 'cause a character built for small guns were equal effective as an energy weapon combatant... weren't a particularly painful change. but where does the big guns fit in with your natural feelings? if you want big guns in fo2, then what does you start game with? is less natural to go from melee to big guns... particularly when the big guns is eventual less effectual than energy weapons.

 

is kinda fun to reduce an enemy to bloody puddle via a big gun, but it just not make sense to build such a character, particularly as you is wilffluly gimping either early and/or late in game.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guest Slinky]

Hmh yeah, now I see the problem. Maybe energy weapons and big guns should be locked until some point?

 

But isn't this problem in every skill in every rpg, as in you don't really know what skills are the most useful until you play the game long enough?

[cronicler]

Maybe we can have some LMG's like Steyr (I know it is not a different weapon than the steyr aug, just a heavier and longer barrel and 42 bullet magazine) that use assault rifle ammo and heavy caliber anti material rifles (.50 BMG, 14.5 mm, maybe even a 20mm monster that is actually classified as "cannon"). You can even add some WW2 era anti tank rifle or two into the game as secrets.

 

That way the player would have access to a big gun (Steyr Lmg, SAW) around the time he gets access to the assault rifles. And the AM rifles could be an aswer to the Heavy weapon for long range problem. As player gets better small guns you can also up the big guns too...

 

For the first part of the game, (From Pistols and Pipe rifles to real weapons) why not give the player a... low tech crossbow (that uses either your HG or SG skill, which is higher) or an ancient WW2 era AT rifle? I know it is a bit strech but you can say that it takes pure muscle to **** the crossbow and the AT rifle (while deadly) has a really slow rate of fire.

 

(Thou the second suggestion depends on player being able to craft his own ammo somehow and the time between pistol / double barreled shotgun to modern assault rifles and SMGs be long enough to be meaningful)

Edited August 22, 2009 by cronicler

[bhlaab]

To me it felt natural. Like in every game, you start with peashooters and nutcrackers and move on with time to total arsenators and massive assbusters. I never even thought about it when I started with small guns and moved on to energy weapons in FO1 and big guns in FO2, it was just natural.

Then why allow someone to buy the Big Guns skill at all at low levels? There's no other skill in the game that has an effective restriction to using it in the second half of the game. If you tagged Science and didn't get to use it for the first seven hours of your first playthrough, wouldn't that be kind of irritating?

 

On the other hand, Small Guns loses effectiveness in the second half of the game (okay, okay. it should but clearly doesn't in Fallout 1 and 2)

 

Isn't that supposed to be the trade off? Be really good at combat early but be outclassed later on or stink early on and be great later?

The difference between the combat skills and Science is that Science is for very specific situations where the designer says "Okay, let's put a terminal here and let you solve the quest that way", but combat is always an available alternative to just about any situation. So if you make Big Guns viable the whole way through then the player could coast through the game on that skill alone.

 

But I guess modern rpg design is all about "Well, if the player wants to coast through on one combat skill alone, let them" which I totally disagree with, but it's an angle that's been proven to work with audiences and in that case a complete Big Guns arc would make sense.

[Guest Slinky]

nevertheless, as noted earlier, the transition from small guns to energy weapons were painless and "natural" 'cause a character built for small guns were equal effective as an energy weapon combatant... weren't a particularly painful change. but where does the big guns fit in with your natural feelings? if you want big guns in fo2, then what does you start game with? is less natural to go from melee to big guns... particularly when the big guns is eventual less effectual than energy weapons.

Actually it felt just as natural to move from small guns to energy weapons, as it was to move from small guns to big guns. It was just progressing to more efficient weaponry, nothing more, nothing less.

 

While I wouldn't have any problems if big guns and energy weapons would be available from the beginning, it would be just as fine if players would get hold of them through level bound perk, or if somebody in game would teach to use them and so unlock the skills.

 

Edit:

But I guess modern rpg design is all about "Well, if the player wants to coast through on one combat skill alone, let them" which I totally disagree with, but it's an angle that's been proven to work with audiences and in that case a complete Big Guns arc would make sense.

Why you disagree with it? In my opinion it gives the player more freedom.

 

Edit 2:

Oops I think I misunderstood you didn't I? Forget I said anything

Edited August 22, 2009 by Slinky

[Gromnir]

the saw were the first real option for big guns users in fo:t. were a goodly number of hours played before it became available. still, 'question is how to balance. create some early big gun option with ridiculous high ap cost? can turn 1 raider into hamburger, but chances are you get killed by his 2 buddies? hmmmm. a big gun that is essential nothingother than a assault rifle... but without a single shot option? hmmmm. seems relative easy to make proportional more powerful options available later so that it ain't complete outclassed by energy weapons, but low levels is a tough sell. why make your big gun character who will be relative suck at start when you can instead go small guns/energy weapon route instead?

 

ideally, 1 skill point in any skill should be equal valuable... but that clear ain't the case with fallout. is particular irritating that in earlier fo games you had to time your spending o' skill points or you end up wasting. start fo 1 spending points in energy weapons but not small or big or any other combat skill. why not? why is doing so a bad option? 1 point = 1 point regardless if is early or late or if is small, big, energy, science or whatever. fo balance has always been terrible.

 

"But I guess modern rpg design is all about "Well, if the player wants to coast through on one combat skill alone, let them" which I totally disagree with, but it's an angle that's been proven to work with audiences and in that case a complete Big Guns arc would make sense."

 

of course, armed with meta knowledge...

 

how is player 'posed to know that energy or big guns is not viable at start. how they 'posed to know when is appropriate to change? like it or not, virtual any other crpg with combat focus is more intuitive. choose swords and swords is good from hour 1 to hour 40. the swords get better, but you not find out that spending skill in swords becomes wasted 1/2 through game. is other combat games that has energy weapons and chemical projectile weapons... but rare is the skills broken up. a pistol is a pistol in most games, whether energy or chemical propellant. perhaps that not make RL sense to you, but it makes gaming sense. class pistols and rifles separate.

 

fo does different... and it does poorly.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 22, 2009 by Gromnir

[Slowtrain]

I still think Josh's long ago idea of putting all ranged weapons under one skill (say Marksmanship) and then using perks to provide bonuses and various specializations for different type of ranged weapons is good.

 

 

Too late for that now, I assume.

Edited August 22, 2009 by CrashGirl

[Gromnir]

I still think Josh's long ago idea of putting all ranged weapons under one skill (say Marksmanship) and then using perks to provide bonuses and various specializations for different type of ranged weapons is good.

 

 

Too late for that now, I assume.

 

 

makes much more sense. pistols v. rifles is always an intuitive and easy division for those who insist on splitting. 'course pistols v. rifles still fails with big guns, don't it? also, for those who insist on reality, pistols is fail compared to rifles.

 

single marksman sounds good, but am thinking you need loads of feats to make genuine distinguishable.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[bhlaab]

of course, armed with meta knowledge...

 

how is player 'posed to know that energy or big guns is not viable at start. how they 'posed to know when is appropriate to change?

 

Well, maybe this is meta knowledge, but it's easy to intuit that rocket launchers and laser rifles are obviously going to be more powerful than pistols and knives and therefore be "end-game" stuff.

Plus if you're focused on being a "combat guy" then you tag and develop multiple weapon skills to cover all your bases.

 

Either way, even accounting for total ignorance if you tag energy weapons you know you're going to be useless until you find one. Which is why you'd have to rely on the other skills you've tagged like Sneak or Speech and avoid combat to get you through up until then.

[Slowtrain]

but am thinking you need loads of feats to make genuine distinguishable.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

There would definitely have to a lot of ranged-weapon related perks, I agree. But Bethesda did sucha bad job with perks that there is plenty of room for improvement in the perk department. Just replace all those +5/+5 skill bonus perks with weapon perks.

 

 

Anyway, I don't imagine Bethesda wouldn't allow such a major change, regardless.

[Guest Slinky]

I still think Josh's long ago idea of putting all ranged weapons under one skill (say Marksmanship) and then using perks to provide bonuses and various specializations for different type of ranged weapons is good.

As a oldschool Fallout fan, that idea kinda scares me. I didn't like in FO3 how pretty much every perk was only for enhance shooting skills. I would rather have skills for guns and use perks for more varied stuff.

 

single marksman sounds good, but am thinking you need loads of feats to make genuine distinguishable.

That's just what I'm afraid of!

[bhlaab]

The Marksman skill thing would be interesting in a new franchise with a system similar to Fallout, but I think Fallout is too deeply entrenched in its own lingo by now to make such a radical change. It'd be like making a Fallout with a "Wisdom" stat, it would feel absoloutely filthy.

[Slowtrain]

And just on a related note I will point out that it was completely possible to play right through the end of Fallout as a small guns fighter using the sniper rifle.

 

 

ALthough it was weaker than the TPR, the TPR was so overpowered that it didn't really matter. The sniper rifile was still totally awesome.

[Slowtrain]

The Marksman skill thing would be interesting in a new franchise with a system similar to Fallout, but I think Fallout is too deeply entrenched in its own lingo by now to make such a radical change. It'd be like making a Fallout with a "Wisdom" stat, it would feel absoloutely filthy.

 

 

I don't think its going to happen anyway, so the best thing would be to revamp the weapon lineup in NV.

 

Think about in FO3: there were a ton of small guns that were all available at low levels, but three were completely useless. Theer were four big guns but only three were really common. There were four energy weapons but only 2 were around before the late game. Note I am not counting uniques or special encounter weapons, just generally available stuff.

 

I think it would be nice to drop the chinese pistol and .32 pistol and even the 10mm and maybe add one or two new small guns to replace those. Add a couple big guns that provide some different attack possibilities and maybe bring back the gauss rifle as an energy weapon.

[Gromnir]

"Well, maybe this is meta knowledge, but it's easy to intuit that rocket launchers and laser rifles are obviously going to be more powerful than pistols and knives and therefore be "end-game" stuff."

 

how so? why you think laser is better than rifle? if Gromnir sees weapon options at start of game we has never played, why is we gonna assume energy is better than projectile? In point of fact, if we is using rl, am gonna assume projectile is probable better than laser. if is choosable at start, am probable gonna assume that there is good chemical projectile weapons and bad ones... and good energy and poor. as for rocket launchers... am gonna assume typical game drawbacks... rockets got slow reload and has a pretty indiscriminate area of effect... whatever.

 

and what is the combat guy assumption for anyways? why take multiple combat skills if one is good enough? does our character gotta be skilled with knives/melee if he is a combat guy? no? but he does gotta be good with small guns, big guns and energy? that not make much sense. 'course that brings us back to earlier point... if you do need multiple combat skills, why would you ever choose big guns. small guns and energy got pretty much same ability scores being important... and even the feats is typical equal efficacious.

 

is traditional to defend fo if you like fo, but is pretty damn tough to defend fo in this instance.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Slowtrain]

" why would you ever choose big guns.

 

 

Because Big Guns are just dang fun! Especially in FO3. I never made much use of them in 1 or 2, where I was mostly a small guns/speech pc.

[Slowtrain]

Actually, its kind of an interesting comparison. In FO1/2 my favorite archetype pc was small guns/speech. It was ahrd to imagine taking a pc with no speech skill especially.

 

 

In FO3 my favorite archetype pc is explosives/big guns. I never would dream of even developing speech in FO3. Let's just have some fun blowing **** up!

 

 

The difference in a nutshell between Interplay/Black Isle and Bethesda.

Edited August 22, 2009 by CrashGirl

[bhlaab]

"Well, maybe this is meta knowledge, but it's easy to intuit that rocket launchers and laser rifles are obviously going to be more powerful than pistols and knives and therefore be "end-game" stuff."

 

how so? why you think laser is better than rifle? if Gromnir sees weapon options at start of game we has never played, why is we gonna assume energy is better than projectile? In point of fact, if we is using rl, am gonna assume projectile is probable better than laser. if is choosable at start, am probable gonna assume that there is good chemical projectile weapons and bad ones... and good energy and poor. as for rocket launchers... am gonna assume typical game drawbacks... rockets got slow reload and has a pretty indiscriminate area of effect... whatever.

 

and what is the combat guy assumption for anyways? why take multiple combat skills if one is good enough? does our character gotta be skilled with knives/melee if he is a combat guy? no? but he does gotta be good with small guns, big guns and energy? that not make much sense. 'course that brings us back to earlier point... if you do need multiple combat skills, why would you ever choose big guns. small guns and energy got pretty much same ability scores being important... and even the feats is typical equal efficacious.

 

is traditional to defend fo if you like fo, but is pretty damn tough to defend fo in this instance.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I'm not defending Fallout 1, it did weapon balance terribly.

 

Why take multiple combat skills if one is good enough? Exactly! If you want to play a character who uses combat to get out of every situation, one skill shouldn't be enough to carry you!

[Gromnir]

"Well, maybe this is meta knowledge, but it's easy to intuit that rocket launchers and laser rifles are obviously going to be more powerful than pistols and knives and therefore be "end-game" stuff."

 

how so? why you think laser is better than rifle? if Gromnir sees weapon options at start of game we has never played, why is we gonna assume energy is better than projectile? In point of fact, if we is using rl, am gonna assume projectile is probable better than laser. if is choosable at start, am probable gonna assume that there is good chemical projectile weapons and bad ones... and good energy and poor. as for rocket launchers... am gonna assume typical game drawbacks... rockets got slow reload and has a pretty indiscriminate area of effect... whatever.

 

and what is the combat guy assumption for anyways? why take multiple combat skills if one is good enough? does our character gotta be skilled with knives/melee if he is a combat guy? no? but he does gotta be good with small guns, big guns and energy? that not make much sense. 'course that brings us back to earlier point... if you do need multiple combat skills, why would you ever choose big guns. small guns and energy got pretty much same ability scores being important... and even the feats is typical equal efficacious.

 

is traditional to defend fo if you like fo, but is pretty damn tough to defend fo in this instance.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I'm not defending Fallout 1, it did weapon balance terribly.

 

Why take multiple combat skills if one is good enough? Exactly! If you want to play a character who uses combat to get out of every situation, one skill shouldn't be enough to carry you!

 

 

fine. makes more sense to take small guns and melee or unarmed, no? 'course that ain't the way it works in fo. and no, particularly if you got party members to assist, there is no reason why we is gonna assume that we need full length and breadth of combat skills options simply to survive. how many other crpgs make you do so? why should we assume that if we takes one combat skill then we gotta take all? you is really destroying the notion o' customization if you is gonna force onto Gromnir the need to take all combat skills.

 

"That's just what I'm afraid of! "

 

dunno. loads of perks/feats is a great idea... in theory. making perks/feats that is balanced is hard. am recalling that with d&d pnp there were suggestions of giving feats values... not all feats is created equal. give perk/feat points instead of simply allowing one feat choice per X levels.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 22, 2009 by Gromnir

[Aristes]

Going to rewind for a bit. The idea of punishing folks for saving in different areas is idiotic. sorry, CG, just calling it as I see it. Hell, since FO moved to consoles with FO3, simply deny saves at certain places and you're better off than if you punish folks for saving outside of the city. I've always hated the heavy handed approach to game design packaged in such a way. If you want to be heavy handed, be heavy handed. Don't use half measures. You don't think folks should be able to save anywhere, make save points. Lots of consoles use them. Folks are used to them. The require even more strategy than the 'sin tax' method of policing the player.

 

To be clear, I despise the idea of the design team penalizing the player for saving outside of certain spots. It sounds all 'hard core' and 'ol' skool,' but in reality it's just one more irritating thing that hampers the player. I've never been a fan of savepoints, although I've played quite a few games that use savepoints. Savepoints do require some forthought simply because you have to be able to size up the situation and plan accordingly to be able to progress. I've never liked them, but I understand them. Save penalties are the weak willed version of save points where the design team simply lacks the balls to institute save points.

 

I don't want any doubts that I loathe the idea of save penalties. I don't suppose my opinion matters, and I know I've said some unkind things about Obsidz vis a vis the community, but, while I'm advocating my preference, I don't believe the idea would improve the game.

[cronicler]

I wonder if "locking" some of the skills and abilities at the start of the game would be a good suggestion.

 

At the start you don't have access to Big Guns or Energy Weapons. (Not crossed out but totally absent from your skilldex). After you get your hands on some actual hardware for the first time, your skill opens but in order to be able to put skillpoints into it you need to have a good understanding of science (energy weapons) or spend some time using the (big) gun (100 * (11-int) bullets fired to be able to put 1 skillpoint into it?). Maybe you can skip some of that by being instructed by experts.

 

Similarly, at the start of the game you are just a brawler who only knows that heavier punch = more hurt / have the "finesse" to use tire iron or wrench. Later as you use other stuff and get taught by other guys, you unlock "new" moves that interrupt the other guy (unarmed) or allow you to use that knife for silent kills instead of swishing it around like an idiot.

 

Then again this might be a totally needless complication for the average gamer...

Edited August 22, 2009 by cronicler

[Slowtrain]

Going to rewind for a bit. The idea of punishing folks for saving in different areas is idiotic. sorry, CG, just calling it as I see it. Hell, since FO moved to consoles with FO3, simply deny saves at certain places and you're better off than if you punish folks for saving outside of the city. I've always hated the heavy handed approach to game design packaged in such a way. If you want to be heavy handed, be heavy handed. Don't use half measures. You don't think folks should be able to save anywhere, make save points. Lots of consoles use them. Folks are used to them. The require even more strategy than the 'sin tax' method of policing the player.

 

To be clear, I despise the idea of the design team penalizing the player for saving outside of certain spots. It sounds all 'hard core' and 'ol' skool,' but in reality it's just one more irritating thing that hampers the player. I've never been a fan of savepoints, although I've played quite a few games that use savepoints. Savepoints do require some forthought simply because you have to be able to size up the situation and plan accordingly to be able to progress. I've never liked them, but I understand them. Save penalties are the weak willed version of save points where the design team simply lacks the balls to institute save points.

 

I don't want any doubts that I loathe the idea of save penalties. I don't suppose my opinion matters, and I know I've said some unkind things about Obsidz vis a vis the community, but, while I'm advocating my preference, I don't believe the idea would improve the game.

 

 

That's cool.

 

I just think that unrestricted/consequence free saving tends to be bad for games, especially free roaming ones like FO3. I'd be quite happy with being limited to a very small number of save points in FO:NV (providing the game is stable), but I recognize my opinion on that is definitely a minority one.

 

Just throwing the thought out there.

Edited August 22, 2009 by CrashGirl

[bhlaab]

For the amount of times Fallout 3 crashes I want an autosave every 3 minutes