Fallout: New Vegas

[Slowtrain]

I'm not really sold on putting the flamer in the energy weapons category. It's a hard fit in anything but maybe explsoives woud be better since it is more of a specialist demolition-type weapon, similar to explosves and many AoE weapons.

 

Also, speaking of explosions, sometimes setting things on fire causes them to explode, so it's still a weapon that causes explosions, even if indirectly.

 

I think it could also work in repair as sort of a handbuilt gadgety-type device, that's half-weapon, half arcane contraption.

 

 

edit: strictly speaking about avoiding confusion in weapon category, the idea of a flamer as an energy weapon is both confusing and non-intuitive to me.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Slowtrain

[vault_overseer]

Since Heavy Incinerators would naturally fit into explosive category, I believe that flamer should be part of explosive too, due to the fact that the two are essentially the same weapon with different firing modes. Really, there could be a number of uses for flamer fuel, all of which would be easily classified as explosives(even a label on a container of fuel would most likely be "Caution! Explosive Materials!" rather than "Caution! Dangerous Energy Material!") and only one that is a bit tricky to classify(flamethrower)

[Oner]

They should reclassify plasma rifles too, because plasma is just stuff burning extra special hot.

[Slowtrain]

They should reclassify plasma rifles too, because plasma is just stuff burning extra special hot.

 

 

*shrug*

 

Since every weapon is about transferring energy in some form, by reduction every weapon is an energy weapon.

 

Ideally, I think Obs shoud just have one skill called accuracy and leave it at that. Any time something is thrown or shot, the acccuracy skill is checked. In a game like Fallout there's really no reason for anything more granular than that.

 

There's lot of other non-combat skills that would be fun and interesting to include.

 

However, if the devs insist on keeping some sort of weapon skill categorization than it's best to do it in a logical way. Josh has already said that if a weapon uses energy cells of soem srt than its an energy weapon. The flamer does no such thing. So it fails developer logic immediately. As icing on the cake, it also fails real-world logic.

[mkreku]

I don't see why we can't have multiple weapon categories and a huge variety of weapons in the said various categories.

 

What I'm trying to say is if it was an either/or scenario.

We can have both, that's not the problem. But by reducing the skills from having small guns, big guns, energy weapons, melee, throwing, explosives, flaming weapons etc. into one combat skill, you'd avoid a lot of the problems Josh mentioned in his argument for combining small guns and big guns (high tier small guns going into big guns territory and so on).

 

I'm pretty sure I'd be able to roleplay my character without having to meta-game it by knowing beforehand which weapons appear when and where in the game and which weapon belongs to what skill.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Josh has already said that if a weapon uses energy cells of soem srt than its an energy weapon. The flamer does no such thing. So it fails developer logic immediately. As icing on the cake, it also fails real-world logic.

I said energy ammunition, which is whatever we define it as. The defining characteristics are arbitrary but consistent. It's less important that any individual person agree on where a weapon should be placed, more important that we are consistent about where we place things and that they are placed in skills that help balance the lineup.

 

To use another example: working on the internal components of a computer to recover corrupted data. Some people might think that's Science. Others might think it's Repair. Where we put it ultimately doesn't matter outside of the context of a) what the game consistently establishes each skill is used for and b) how often each skill gets used. You want to put things roughly where people expect them to be, but in cases where different people expect different things, the best you can do is make a decision based on game play factors and be consistent about it

[Slowtrain]

The defining characteristics are arbitrary but consistent. It's less important that any individual person agree on where a weapon should be placed, more important that we are consistent about where we place things and that they are placed in skills that help balance the lineup.

 

 

Yep, I do agree that the consistency is the most important aspect by far. Also balance, of course.

 

A lot of confusion can be prevented of course by having info easily available in the UI. So even though I don't intuitively consider jellied gasoline (or whatever FO3 flamer fuel is) as an energy weapon type ammo (other than in the reductive sense I mentioned previously), as long as something in the UI plainly says: "Hey, dummy, this is an energy weapon!) then in the end that is fine.

[mkreku]

To use another example: working on the internal components of a computer to recover corrupted data. Some people might think that's Science. Others might think it's Repair.

And I think it's both (science for software, repair for hardware). DO EET

[Slowtrain]

To use another example: working on the internal components of a computer to recover corrupted data. Some people might think that's Science. Others might think it's Repair.

And I think it's both (science for software, repair for hardware). DO EET

 

 

Or combine the skills into one. Which I personally don't think is a bad idea.

 

 

I would say that if skills are so similar that the boundary between them is pretty iffy, then they should just be one skill.

 

Granularity of skills is fine, as long as it has a very clear point.

[Walsingham]

Monsieur Sawyer makes a good point. This isn't a person 'flight simulation'. This is a game. Realism is necessarily constrained and subordinated to gameplay.

 

Having said that, my ten cents would be that the skill is used to determine probability to hit. Therefore what we're mainly interested in is the skill of controlling the projectile rather than the projectile thrower.

[213374U]

Having said that, my ten cents would be that the skill is used to determine probability to hit. Therefore what we're mainly interested in is the skill of controlling the projectile rather than the projectile thrower.

Group dispersion, reload and jam fixing speed, recoil handling... I'm sure there's a bunch of things that skill % could model.

 

That said, I never actually found out what was supposed to change in FO3, if you kept dumping points onto a certain combat skill. VATS %?

[WorstUsernameEver]

Having said that, my ten cents would be that the skill is used to determine probability to hit. Therefore what we're mainly interested in is the skill of controlling the projectile rather than the projectile thrower.

Group dispersion, reload and jam fixing speed, recoil handling... I'm sure there's a bunch of things that skill % could model.

 

That said, I never actually found out what was supposed to change in FO3, if you kept dumping points onto a certain combat skill. VATS %?

 

Vats %, damage (+55% if you brought your skill to 100.. didn't really make that much of a difference =/), and actually, I think it influences a bit accuracy too, though I actually never noticed, and that's mainly going by what the FWE modders (in the mod configuration panel vanilla it's stated to be influence more damage than accuracy and there's another setting that influences only damage and not accuracy, so it's possible to go further than the vanilla settings in that way.. and of course it's possible to go much further in the way that weapon skills actually influence accuracy, though unless they change the crosshair, it would probably be a bit unintuitive).

[Nemo0071]

The defining characteristics are arbitrary but consistent. It's less important that any individual person agree on where a weapon should be placed, more important that we are consistent about where we place things and that they are placed in skills that help balance the lineup.

Yep, I do agree that the consistency is the most important aspect by far. Also balance, of course.

 

A lot of confusion can be prevented of course by having info easily available in the UI. So even though I don't intuitively consider jellied gasoline (or whatever FO3 flamer fuel is) as an energy weapon type ammo (other than in the reductive sense I mentioned previously), as long as something in the UI plainly says: "Hey, dummy, this is an energy weapon!) then in the end that is fine.

Personally, I would like to see flame/fuel-based weapons under Explosives like others suggested, and I guess there's always room for more "explosives" from a balancing pov (as long as we get more diversity in energy weapons in NV). But like you said, as long as it's clearly mentioned in the UI (and that's the case in NV it seems) then I'm juuust fine. There can never be too much information in a game for those who don't mind reading stuff.

 

 

To use another example: working on the internal components of a computer to recover corrupted data. Some people might think that's Science. Others might think it's Repair.

And I think it's both (science for software, repair for hardware). DO EET

Or combine the skills into one. Which I personally don't think is a bad idea.

 

I would say that if skills are so similar that the boundary between them is pretty iffy, then they should just be one skill.

 

Granularity of skills is fine, as long as it has a very clear point.

"Geek" skill! Yay!

 

Good idea, sort of. But that would be like taking the easy way out (as opposed to combining "aiming" skills, which just comes down to "one skill for pulling the trigger and shooting stuff" and therefore is very reasonable). I'd prefer more oppurtunities / gameplay elements to use Science and Repair skills separately, like mkreku's example, instead.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Nemo0071

[J.E. Sawyer]

F:NV's UI makes it very clear what skill governs the use of any given weapon.

[WorstUsernameEver]

F:NV's UI makes it very clear what skill governs the use of any given weapon.

 

Can you unveil the new statistics that will be shown for the weapons in the pipboy? Pretty please?

[Rosbjerg]

Pruned a bit.. my warning finger is starting to itch.

[Slowtrain]

Good idea, sort of. But that would be like taking the easy way out (as opposed to combining "aiming" skills, which just comes down to "one skill for pulling the trigger and shooting stuff" and therefore is very reasonable). I'd prefer more oppurtunities / gameplay elements to use Science and Repair skills separately, like mkreku's example, instead.

 

 

I think a small number of highly differentiated, cleary defined skills is preferable to a large number of fuzzy skills that overlap in somewhat arbitrary ways.

 

 

The point of an rpg is hacking a computer/repairing an electrical bypass to achieve a particular goal, not simply to use a particular skill.

[WorstUsernameEver]

Good idea, sort of. But that would be like taking the easy way out (as opposed to combining "aiming" skills, which just comes down to "one skill for pulling the trigger and shooting stuff" and therefore is very reasonable). I'd prefer more oppurtunities / gameplay elements to use Science and Repair skills separately, like mkreku's example, instead.

 

 

I think a small number of highly differentiated, cleary defined skills is preferable to a large number of fuzzy skills that overlap in somewhat arbitrary ways.

 

 

The point of an rpg is hacking a computer/repairing an electrical bypass to achieve a particular goal, not simply to use a particular skill.

 

Repair is already a vital skill for firearms-orientated characters though, while science isn't necessarily so, and could be actually linked to crafting (I believe it worked like that in Van Buren) and a host of other things.

So I'd prefer if they kept both skills, not because we have AWESUM MOAR SKILLZ!11!!ONE but because they could expanded into two rather different and equally important gameplay elements that do not overlap.

[Slowtrain]

Good idea, sort of. But that would be like taking the easy way out (as opposed to combining "aiming" skills, which just comes down to "one skill for pulling the trigger and shooting stuff" and therefore is very reasonable). I'd prefer more oppurtunities / gameplay elements to use Science and Repair skills separately, like mkreku's example, instead.

 

 

I think a small number of highly differentiated, cleary defined skills is preferable to a large number of fuzzy skills that overlap in somewhat arbitrary ways.

 

 

The point of an rpg is hacking a computer/repairing an electrical bypass to achieve a particular goal, not simply to use a particular skill.

 

Repair is already a vital skill for firearms-orientated characters though, while science isn't necessarily so, and could be actually linked to crafting (I believe it worked like that in Van Buren) and a host of other things.

So I'd prefer if they kept both skills, not because we have AWESUM MOAR SKILLZ!11!!ONE but because they could expanded into two rather different and equally important gameplay elements that do not overlap.

 

 

Yep, as long as the skills are each useful in their own right, then it's fine.

 

I would argue though that the whole repairing armor/weapons stuff is tedious busywork and adds nothing to the game. Using the repair skill in the gameworld is much more interesting, though it could easily be combined with science.

 

And how granular do you get? DO you separate mechanical repair from electronic repair, for instance? Is repairing something that already exists and once worked different from building something new from scratch?

[Oner]

The defining characteristics are arbitrary but consistent. It's less important that any individual person agree on where a weapon should be placed, more important that we are consistent about where we place things and that they are placed in skills that help balance the lineup.

Yep, I do agree that the consistency is the most important aspect by far. Also balance, of course.

 

A lot of confusion can be prevented of course by having info easily available in the UI. So even though I don't intuitively consider jellied gasoline (or whatever FO3 flamer fuel is) as an energy weapon type ammo (other than in the reductive sense I mentioned previously), as long as something in the UI plainly says: "Hey, dummy, this is an energy weapon!) then in the end that is fine.

Won't stop people from complaining either for the sake of complaining, or because they can't have their dream build.

 

 

Pruned a bit.. my warning finger is starting to itch.

Did something fun happen while I wasn't here? :3

[Nemo0071]

Repair is already a vital skill for firearms-orientated characters though, while science isn't necessarily so, and could be actually linked to crafting (I believe it worked like that in Van Buren) and a host of other things.

So I'd prefer if they kept both skills, not because we have AWESUM MOAR SKILLZ!11!!ONE but because they could expanded into two rather different and equally important gameplay elements that do not overlap.

Yep, as long as the skills are each useful in their own right, then it's fine.

 

I would argue though that the whole repairing armor/weapons stuff is tedious busywork and adds nothing to the game. Using the repair skill in the gameworld is much more interesting, though it could easily be combined with science.

 

And how granular do you get? DO you separate mechanical repair from electronic repair, for instance? Is repairing something that already exists and once worked different from building something new from scratch?

On the flipside, how simple do you get? One would argue that most of the skills (even stats) in the game can be combined under "Survival", for example.

 

Personally I like the current system. 1 Science and 1 Repair skill seems to me like good middle ground. Like I said I just want skills to be more fleshed out / involved gameplay-wise.

 

 

Pruned a bit.. my warning finger is starting to itch.

Did something fun happen while I wasn't here? :3

The usual stuff, nothing to lose sleep over.

[Slowtrain]

I would say you keep it simple enough that each skill has an obvious use that is plainly different from other skills and has worthwhile in-game use.

 

Why is disarming traps in FO3 repair and not science or perhaps explosives or even lockpicking? It seems a very arbitrary choice and when something gets that arbitrary I think its time to go back and review the skill list again because you're doing something wrong.

[Gorgon]

I'm kinda used to skills not making a lot of sense in Fallout so I don't mind so much. As a matter of fact changes would be harder for someone with knowledge of all the FO games to deal with. Just be sure it's all there in the descriptions when you level up.

 

From a design perspective though I much prefer clarity. There are too many RPG games (I'm looking at you Dragon Age) where you only know the system and what tree to advance on your second or third game.

[Nemo0071]

I would say you keep it simple enough that each skill has an obvious use that is plainly different from other skills and has worthwhile in-game use.

No argument there. I meant that I believe Science and Repair meet this requirement, they just need a bit more content.

 

Why is disarming traps in FO3 repair and not science or perhaps explosives or even lockpicking? It seems a very arbitrary choice and when something gets that arbitrary I think its time to go back and review the skill list again because you're doing something wrong.

Just to be fair, there were traps that needed Explosives skill. Many traps. Actually FO3 traps followed a simple pattern: If it's a mechanical trap, you need Repair; if it's explosive based, you need Explosives. Not only it made perfect sense in the game (even in reality) it also gave you alternative solutions to problems (got repair? lose the trapwire. got explosives? snatch the grenade bouquet instead. etc.).

 

edit: And if "making sense" isn't enough, the game gives you information on exactly which skill check you just passed/failed, iirc.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Nemo0071

[Slowtrain]

[Just to be fair, there were traps that needed Explosives skill. Many traps. Actually FO3 traps followed a simple pattern: If it's a mechanical trap, you need Repair; if it's explosive based, you need Explosives. Not only it made perfect sense in the game (even in reality) it also gave you alternative solutions to problems (got repair? lose the trapwire. got explosives? snatch the grenade bouquet instead. etc.).

 

 

That's true. I was thinking about the non-explosive traps when I wrote that.

 

But doesn't it make matters worse then? Having 2 skills that perform the same function?

 

 

Perhaps simply have one "technical aptitude" skill that deals with solving, troubleshooting, repairing, hacking anything of a technical nature?

 

Perhaps combine trap disarming with lockpicking?

 

There's no right answers here, of course, just possiblities, but I think working through a game's skill lists and tightening things up makes for ultimately a stronger game

 

And again, I'm not trying to say that crpgs should be forced to have extremely limited skill lists neccessarily, but rather that the skills just be very definitely DIFFERENT skills rather than several variations on a particular "flavor" of skill.