Fallout: New Vegas

[J.E. Sawyer]

F3 skills start around 15% (on average). From 15% to 100%, weapon damage increases by about 55%. Situations being described where a rifle takes off "one dot" with a low skill or a mini-nuke being ineffective with a low skill aren't really an indictment of a game balance problem. "One dot" of damage at 15% becomes 1.55 dots at 100%. 100 points of mini-nuke damage at 15% becomes 155 points at 100%. A 55% increase in damage may be the difference between killing a target in two shots vs. three, but it's not going to turn a 10mm pistol into a death dealer. A change in spread will often have a much more dramatic/practical (and less predictable/scalable) effect on damage over time.

[Guest Slinky]

A 55% increase in damage may be the difference between killing a target in two shots vs. three, but it's not going to turn a 10mm pistol into a death dealer.

Good, that could be rather annoying for most people

Edited April 15, 2010 by Slinky

[Slowtrain]

F3 skills start around 15% (on average). From 15% to 100%, weapon damage increases by about 55%. Situations being described where a rifle takes off "one dot" with a low skill or a mini-nuke being ineffective with a low skill aren't really an indictment of a game balance problem. "One dot" of damage at 15% becomes 1.55 dots at 100%. 100 points of mini-nuke damage at 15% becomes 155 points at 100%. A 55% increase in damage may be the difference between killing a target in two shots vs. three, but it's not going to turn a 10mm pistol into a death dealer. A change in spread will often have a much more dramatic/practical (and less predictable/scalable) effect on damage over time.

 

 

Are skills going to have more impact in NV than in FO3?

 

I think it would be great if the game went the route Alpha Protocol appears to be going in which your skill choices and point assignements make a really significant difference in how the player character can deal with problems.

 

I always felt that in FO3, not only were skill points way too common and skills way too easy to raise, but also there wasn't nearly enough of a difference between a 0 skill and a 100 skill.

 

a 100 skill should be hard to achieve but have a profound impact on gameplay.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Slowtrain

[Amentep]

F3 skills start around 15% (on average). From 15% to 100%, weapon damage increases by about 55%. Situations being described where a rifle takes off "one dot" with a low skill or a mini-nuke being ineffective with a low skill aren't really an indictment of a game balance problem. "One dot" of damage at 15% becomes 1.55 dots at 100%. 100 points of mini-nuke damage at 15% becomes 155 points at 100%. A 55% increase in damage may be the difference between killing a target in two shots vs. three, but it's not going to turn a 10mm pistol into a death dealer. A change in spread will often have a much more dramatic/practical (and less predictable/scalable) effect on damage over time.

 

I guess (perhaps wrongly) also that as the opponents scale, 100 pts on a character with 100 hp might become 155 points on a character with 200 hp (which may effect the players perception on the usefulness of the weapon)? And there is damage resistance as well, I'm guessing (unloading into a mole rat is different from a supermutant?)

 

I don't really mind the combat system - like I said it is an abstraction (and the same thing happened in the other Fallouts, where shots to the eyes with guns blinded but didn't kill and all). It is kind of unusual first time a rushing Raider has an assault rifle unloaded into their face and doesn't die, but it wasn't something that broke the game (for me at least).

[WorstUsernameEver]

I'm actual interested in what the mag meant when saying that Hardcore Mode would make combat 'more lethal'.

I guess that could mean 'you, your friends and your foes will be more fragile so combat will require more tactics' but it would be interesting if it also changed how skill affect weapon behaviour (accuracy/sway/damage).

I guess that if the devs change some of those however it will be for the core experience and not just for the optional HARDCOREEE (I admit, it DOES sound a bit silly ) mode.

[Slowtrain]

It would be nice if tag skills went back to the way they were in FO1 and 2 as well.

 

I find significant choices that affect my pc to be more interesting than insignificant choices that make little difference. Tag skills in FO1 and 2 made a big difference to how your character played. In FO3, they had little impact.

[WorstUsernameEver]

It would be nice if tag skills went back to the way they were in FO1 and 2 as well.

 

I find significant choices that affect my pc to be more interesting than insignificant choices that make little difference. Tag skills in FO1 and 2 made a big difference to how your character played. In FO3, they had little impact.

 

As long as the skill balance is redone from scratch, otherwise it'd just make it easier to max all your skills.

If I was designing the game (and fortunately I'm not) I'd give less skill points per level, make tagged skills give you two points for one spent as in FO1/2 and make tagged skills have a slightly higher cap like 125 instead of 100 that would give you consistent bonus.

Fortunately I'm not a designer and I just play games.

[Slowtrain]

As long as the skill balance is redone from scratch, otherwise it'd just make it easier to max all your skills.

 

That's a good point and very true. Ideally though, by lowreing the number of skill points available but increasing the ability to riase three choosen skills over the course of the game, skill choice in generakl would have more specific game impact. No more all-characters-can-do-everything syndrome. Which is fine for a shooter, but pretty much completely antithetical to a crpg.

 

If I was designing the game (and fortunately I'm not) I'd give less skill points per level, make tagged skills give you two points for one spent as in FO1/2 and make tagged skills have a slightly higher cap like 125 instead of 100 that would give you consistent bonus.

Fortunately I'm not a designer and I just play games.

 

 

I wish you were designing the game.

[WorstUsernameEver]

As long as the skill balance is redone from scratch, otherwise it'd just make it easier to max all your skills.

 

That's a good point and very true. Ideally though, by lowreing the number of skill points available but increasing the ability to riase three choosen skills over the course of the game, skill choice in generakl would have more specific game impact. No more all-characters-can-do-everything syndrome. Which is fine for a shooter, but pretty much completely antithetical to a crpg.

 

That's actually what I wanted to say It also has been done in FWE (the skill points per level value is configurable and can be made as low as 3 skill points per leve + INT bonus, tag skills give 2 points per point spent) so it's perfectly feasible.

I'm also sure there would be plenty of complaining about it though... in Bethesda's forum there are even users claiming that people who want maxin' all skills to be impossible 'childish and without self-restraint'

[Slowtrain]

in Bethesda's forum there are even users claiming that people who want maxin' all skills to be impossible 'childish and without self-restraint'

 

 

Yeah. I don't get that really. I just think that a crpg should be about making significant choices and then living with the consequences. And that most definitely should include what skills you develop and how far you raise them. A crpg without significant choices is pretty dull.

[TwinkieGorilla]

in Bethesda's forum there are even users claiming that people who want maxin' all skills to be impossible 'childish and without self-restraint'

 

wait...shouldn't that be the other way around?

[Oner]

in Bethesda's forum there are even users claiming that people who want maxin' all skills to be impossible 'childish and without self-restraint'

What.

[Amentep]

Yeah it doesn't make sense. A bit like saying "Combat shouldn't be changed because you don't HAVE to use the minigun, you could use to 10mm Pistol the entire game"

 

(I don't necessarily want the skill system/combat system changed, just for the record. That said, I think it'd be interesting if there was more importance on tagged skills. But then I wouldn't mind a cap on skills based on the level of SPECIAL if it worked within the game system. But mostly I want to have fun and shoot supermutants in the face with a laser rifle).

Edited April 15, 2010 by Amentep

[Slowtrain]

If skills aren't going to be a gameplay factor. ie they are easy to raise and max then why waste time having them in the game?

[Amentep]

If skills aren't going to be a gameplay factor. ie they are easy to raise and max then why waste time having them in the game?

 

They are a gameplay factor in the begining; I guess you could make the argument that as your PC gets more experienced with the ins and outs of the wasteland, they do improve in everything (I think the problem is the perception that being at 100% implies expertise...the trail of broken bobby pins in my wake proves otherwise...)

[Undecaf]

in Bethesda's forum there are even users claiming that people who want maxin' all skills to be impossible 'childish and without self-restraint'

What.

 

"Childish whiners without selfrestraint" was the full label, iirc. And suggestions for a better balance were idiotic, mainly because selfgimping is the way to go.

 

There were some very good arguments in the opposing (the "childish") front, though they kinda went for deaf ears.

[Slowtrain]

If skills aren't going to be a gameplay factor. ie they are easy to raise and max then why waste time having them in the game?

 

They are a gameplay factor in the begining; I guess you could make the argument that as your PC gets more experienced with the ins and outs of the wasteland, they do improve in everything (I think the problem is the perception that being at 100% implies expertise...the trail of broken bobby pins in my wake proves otherwise...)

 

 

I'll agree they are more of a factor at the beginning, which is indicitive of the fact that they are too easy to raise. The skill increase curve is a pretty b0rked.

 

Although if someone just wants to have a god character and kick ass then I guess FO3 is perfect for them. I just find such an approach rather dull. If I can't lose, I don't see any point in playing.

[Oner]

Curious about "very good arguments" vs possible retardation from bethboys

 

Hard choice.

 

..Aw, what the hell, link pls.

If I'm not back in ten minutes, find me and shoot me.

[Slowtrain]

in Bethesda's forum there are even users claiming that people who want maxin' all skills to be impossible 'childish and without self-restraint'

What.

 

"Childish whiners without selfrestraint" was the full label, iirc. And suggestions for a better balance were idiotic, mainly because selfgimping is the way to go.

 

There were some very good arguments in the opposing (the "childish") front, though they kinda went for deaf ears.

 

 

I've tried creating gimped characters in FO3. It's almost impossible. Self-gimping is an idiotic approach to gameplay anyway. If you have to self-gimp then its pretty obviouis that game balance is completely broken.

[Amentep]

If skills aren't going to be a gameplay factor. ie they are easy to raise and max then why waste time having them in the game?

 

They are a gameplay factor in the begining; I guess you could make the argument that as your PC gets more experienced with the ins and outs of the wasteland, they do improve in everything (I think the problem is the perception that being at 100% implies expertise...the trail of broken bobby pins in my wake proves otherwise...)

 

I'll agree they are more of a factor at the beginning, which is indicitive of the fact that they are too easy to raise. The skill increase curve is a pretty b0rked.

 

Although if someone just wants to have a god character and kick ass then I guess FO3 is perfect for them. I just find such an approach rather dull. If I can't lose, I don't see any point in playing.

 

I won't disagree with you; but I will say even with 100% I sometimes can't kill a creature in one shot in my chosen weapon; getting mobbed is a problem and I can still break bobby pins like someone with 25.

 

Now I would have no problem if they changed it so that I could not suddenly be a great hand to hand fighter after focusing on small guns because I have excess skill points to spend. None at all. But having 100% in a skill doesn't equal "auto-win" (or I'm a really crappy player, which with most FPS games is true).

[Undecaf]

Curious about "very good arguments" vs possible retardation from bethboys

 

Hard choice.

 

..Aw, what the hell, link pls.

If I'm not back in ten minutes, find me and shoot me.

 

Forums down for maintenance. The thread was called something like "we can't max out, can we" or something. And "very good arguments" considering to what they are answering.

 

Self-gimping is an idiotic approach to gameplay anyway. If you have to self-gimp then its pretty obviouis that game balance is completely broken.

 

Couldn't agree more.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Undecaf

[Oner]

I've tried creating gimped characters in FO3. It's almost impossible. Self-gimping is an idiotic approach to gameplay anyway. If you have to self-gimp then its pretty obviouis that game balance is completely broken.

I've seen those threads back then. It's not a balance issue, it's role-playing.

Srsly, there were people overjoyed about how they role-played walking around the wasteland instead of fast-travelling, and they were cannibals and everyone totally reacted to it.

 

Forums down for maintenance. The thread was called something like "we can't max out, can we" or something. And "very good arguments" considering to what they are answering.

Got it, thank you. ,o>

(very good arguments was in quotation marks because I was guoting you, not because I don't believe you. )

Edited April 15, 2010 by Oner

[Undecaf]

Got it, thank you. ,o>

(very good arguments was in quotation marks because I was guoting you, not because I don't believe you. )

 

No probs.

 

(And now I got it too )

[Slowtrain]

Let's see:

 

I'll put all my stat points into charisma and perception, lower my endurance and agility to 1, not raise any weapon skills, and run around with the .32 pistol for the whole game while not wearing armor.

 

Wow, FO3 is now so challenging.

 

Unfortunately, roleplaying the village idiot in order to create a challenging experience isn't my idea of a fun or balanced gameplay.

[Undecaf]

Let's see:

 

I'll put all my stat points into charisma and perception, lower my endurance and agility to 1, not raise any weapon skills, and run around with the .32 pistol for the whole game while not wearing armor.

 

Wow, FO3 is now so challenging.

 

Unfortunately, roleplaying the village idiot in order to create a challenging experience isn't my idea of a fun or balanced gameplay.

 

Yeah. "Don't use stims, don't pick up ammo, don't wear this or that. Fallout is supposed to be about choices." Curiously, no-one has suggested missing on purpose to make combat more challenging.

 

I just can't see the appeal in selfgimping.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Undecaf