Fallout 76: E3 Trailer

[Gizmojunk]

That's why Perks exist in Fallout, Gizmo.

That is not why perks exist. Perks exist because Brian Fargo took the game home to played it, and decided that there was not enough for him to do when he leveled up—so they invented the Perks as an extra feature to click on.

Perks are not skills, or skill customizations. Perks are [technically] sanctioned cheats that bend the rules in the player's favor. Whilst traits are a balance trade off—always including a negative cost along with the benefit, which doesn't happen with the Perks; that are bonus-only... except in the case of Mutate, which changes a trait.

 

[TerminallyChill]

That is not why perks exist. Perks exist because Brian Fargo took the game home to played it, and decided that there was not enough for him to do when he leveled up—so they invented the Perks as an extra feature to click on.

Sorry, didn't realize I had to be so specific. Let me rephrase what I said: "That's why when Brian Fargo asked Tim Cain to put something else in Fallout, he implemented Perks, Gizmo."

Perks are not skills, or skill customizations. Perks are [technically] sanctioned cheats that bend the rules in the player's favor. Whilst traits are a balance trade off—always including a negative cost along with the benefit, which doesn't happen with the Perks; that are bonus-only... except in the case of Mutate, which changes a trait.

Using a plasma rifle technically shifts the odds of combat in your favor. So does wearing power armor and having 10 perception. That's how role playing mechanics work. You get buffs as you progress. When I add skill points to my leveled up character am I cheating?

 

[MPPlantOfficial]

Perks are [technically] sanctioned cheats that bend the rules in the player's favor;

Which become mandatory mid-late game given the game puts you up against armies, 6-to-1 or more opponents with ranged weapons at the same time. Even more so for melee/unarmed in random encounters without cacti to take cover in.
Non-combat perks? Further into the game, higher rolls. I'd say those +10-20 to X skill or gain 1 [Special] are balanced enough.

 

[Risewild]

Next time I play Fallout 2 I will make a Jinx, Unarmed character that focus on Doctor and Traps and won't use any companions. Why? Because I can and I bet I will have lots of fun playing that character .
Just because some skills are not as useful as others, doesn't mean we should get rid of them. In cRPGs where the player makes their own character and it is focused on story, having numerous skills helps the player define the character and make it how they want that character to be.

You guys talk about merging skills and all of that, but that is Power Gamer, Min-Max talk. I am definitely not a player like that, and one of the reasons I love Fallout and consider the classic games my favorite computer games ever is because I can make characters the way I want to, I don't care if I pick useless or less useful skills, I don't care that Small Guns are OP and Unarmed isn't, I don't care what others like, I like crazy builds that make me an underdog, and not a OP death machine because I picked the most useful skills, stats and perks. With that thinking we would have to get rid of all the stuff some people say it's useless or not used enough and then we would have only the "perfect" Skills, Perks and Stats. We would end up with just a handful of perks to pick from, we would end up with just a handful of skills to pick from and we would be forced to make "perfect" or almost perfect builds.

I would go even further and say that Fallout doesn't have enough skills to pick from. I would divide some skills into more:
Speech should have been at least 2 or more skills (Haggle, Bluff, Flattery, Intimidate, etc). Small Guns should (at least) have been divided in One Handed Guns and Two Handed Guns, or we could take it even further and divide it in Pistols and Revolvers, Rifles and Shotguns.
Science should have been divided into several skills too, stuff like Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, etc. Repair should have been several too, like for example: Electronic Tinkering and Mechanical Tinkering or whatever.
Traps should have been several skills too, like Mechanical Traps and Explosive Traps.
Unarmed should have been divided into several skills too, like Boxing, Wrestling, any Martial Art you can think off (Judo, Karate, Kungfu, Taekwondo, Capoeira, etc).
And so on and so on.

But knowing how much time Black Isle had to develop and make both Fallout and Fallout 2, what they had to deal with their technological limitations, the scope of the games (Fallout 1 scope was very small and Fallout 2 was rushed so much they couldn't do all they wanted to), and that computer RPG games will always be more restrictive than tabletop/pen and paper ones. I am quite happy they managed to include some skills that are not "useful". I could only play so many times with a Small Gun/Energy Gun/Speech expert that always picks the same skills and perks and plays the same way... I would have been bored of the classic Fallout games years ago. Instead, I play Fallout 2 pretty much once a year since it was released and play Fallout 1 once every few years too.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Using a plasma rifle technically shifts the odds of combat in your favor. So does wearing power armor and having 10 perception.

These are not the same as the double standard that perks provide. Two equally skilled & perceptive opponents with equal equipment—are not equal when the rules play out differently for each. That's what Perks do; they bend the rules. They make special cases, not a specialized characters.

Which become mandatory mid-late game given the

The player is never forced to pick a perk or chose traits, AFAIK; they are given the option. The game's regular rules work without either of them.

 

[MPPlantOfficial]

That's what Perks do; they bend the rules. They make special cases, not a specialized characters.

Which again complements the way the game is designed because it won't be 1on1.
You have 3-5 Enclave Soldiers with Plasma Rifle users all aiming for your eyes each with a 10% crit chance. A mid-level sniper that played perfectly would get 2 shots of 95% hit chance with 15-20% crit chance.
I'd say it's fair until you get to Sniper/Slayer agree?

Imo it's not really the perks that make the game unbalanced but the inventory system giving you the chance reload 2 weapons and use as many stimpacks as you want.

Either way I'm tempted to do a perkless run now that you mention it. I unintentionally did that when I was about 9 not knowing how to play the game. XD

 

[Gizmojunk]

Imo it's not really the perks that make the game unbalanced but the inventory system giving you the chance reload 2 weapons and use as many stimpacks as you want.

I certainly with agree with that. It was always an exploit.

 

[TerminallyChill]

You guys talk about merging skills and all of that, but that is Power Gamer, Min-Max talk.

It's called being a developer. Just because you can have fun with the system as it currently exists doesn't mean it couldn't be more enjoyable.

These are not the same as the double standard that perks provide. Two equally skilled & perceptive opponents with equal equipment—are not equal when the rules play out differently for each. That's what Perks do; they bend the rules. They make special cases, not a specialized characters.

Ok, I guess those are somehow different things in your world. I'll let you in on a little industry secret though, in a single player game, a slight lack of balance actually makes the experience more fun for the player.

I'd really be curious to play whatever abominations you people would develop, given your current views on game design.

 

[Risewild]

It's called being a developer. Just because you can have fun with the system as it currently exists doesn't mean it couldn't be more enjoyable.

I know, that is why I said I would have liked many skills in fallout to be divided into even more skills. It would make it even more fun .

I'd really be curious to play whatever abominations you people would develop, given your current views on game design.

I developed, edited and recreated RPG systems before and I am in the middle of developing a fully, "made by scratch", original P&P RPG system and "universe". I will let you see the end result of this abomination once it is finished .

 

[TerminallyChill]

I know, that is why I said I would have liked many skills in fallout to be divided into even more skills. It would make it even more fun .


I developed, edited and recreated RPG systems before and I am in the middle of developing a fully, "made by scratch", original P&P RPG system and "universe". I will let you see the end result of this abomination once it is finished .

Alright, in that case you are officially exempt from my wrath, Risewild. I also understand your desire to add more skills too, now that I see you look at things from a tabletop standpoint. Sky's the fucking limit with those systems. Everything just depends on how cool your DM is at that point.

 

[Dr.Fake]

Well, I think perk is a kind of cheat if there's only player perks. If enemy npcs do have perks as well, it's not a cheat.

 

[mef]

Next time I play Fallout 2 I will make a Jinx, Unarmed character that focus on Doctor and Traps and won't use any companions. Why? Because I can and I bet I will have lots of fun playing that character .

i don't really see your point. unarmed is a perfectly valid skill to choose (i've once beat the game without using any weapons, i've even killed frank with my bare hands). jinxed and doctor are also cool things to have. but what's fun about investing in a skill that will bare no relevance for the vast majority of the game? (in fallout 2 it's better than in fallout 1, i've been discussing use of traps in the first game)

Just because some skills are not as useful as others, doesn't mean we should get rid of them.

i said pretty much the same thing but in fallout they should be more balanced

I would go even further and say that Fallout doesn't have enough skills to pick from. I would divide some skills into more: [...]

as i said, i would like to do the very same thing. but all of those skills should have some use in the game and none of them should be underpresented. i will quote myself:

in short:
making all skills valid choices > bethesda merging two skills into one > having two skills unnecessarily

I am quite happy they managed to include some skills that are not "useful". I could only play so many times with a Small Gun/Energy Gun/Speech expert that always picks the same skills and perks and plays the same way

i don't think anyone has meant that. it's okay if some skills are inferior to others or harder to play with but they all ought to have impact on the game

 

[Cobra Commander]

Well, I think perk is a kind of cheat if there's only player perks. If enemy npcs do have perks as well, it's not a cheat.

some of them have. All of them have Critical chances too.

 

[TerminallyChill]

Am I the only one who views Perks as things that give you new abilities and gameplay mechanics to play with? There's the one in New Vegas that lets you see enemy statistics which is awesome. How about Perks that give you unique dialogue options for women, men, and children? Or unlock crafting recipes?

Why could the ability to detect/disarm traps not have just been made into a Perk?

 

[Gizmojunk]

Ok, I guess those are somehow different things in your world.

They are. It's not at all unlike like working at a job where your coworker is the owner's nephew, and what works for him doesn't work the same for you. He gets a pass in situations where you would not, his (identical) mistakes are glossed over, where yours are job threatening. This is what I mean by double standard.

In Fallout, characters with an agility of four are afforded five action points, but a character of the same stats, but with the Bonus Move perk, gets an additional two action points (just because) for their movement—though unwarranted by their agility. Perks are great, but they do bend the rules for the player, by creating exceptions in their case.

I'll let you in on a little industry secret though, in a single player game, a slight lack of balance actually makes the experience more fun for the player.

That's not a secret, that's playing to human nature.

I'd really be curious to play whatever abominations you people would develop, given your current views on game design.

Why not just play the games we'd recommend? For my part, go play the Myth or Homeworld games; by Bungie and Relic, respectively. They are both RTS titles that eschew base building, and encourage tactical control of [a] space. Myth goes one further, in that the player cannot create new units, and must survive with the ones they are given.

Play Disciples 2 (even 3). It's a pseudo RPG turn based game about land snatching with raiding parties. The player converts the land to their own cultural norm—but can have it stolen out from under them. That game implements perks (after a fashion) as classes, where the kind of ruler the player selects makes a change to the systems. Warrior king's army heals up on the field (where all others must heal up in a city), and the Wizard King's army has twice the usual number of spells per day. The Thief king can get supplies for less cost, and has added (nasty) options for dealing with cities—like poisoning the water supply, and making the whole city sick; or stealing the city through assassination.

Am I the only one who views Perks as things that give you new abilities and gameplay mechanics to play with? There's the one in New Vegas that lets you see enemy statistics which is awesome.

That likely stems from Fallout's own Awareness perk; which reveals normally hidden information to the player.

How about Perks that give you unique dialogue options for women, men, and children?

Do you mean special cases?

Why could the ability to detect/disarm traps not have just been made into a Perk?

Because it's a learned skill that comes of experience. Also: skills should fail from time to time; no one is perfect. Even a real life locksmith can fail in the attempt to open the door to his own house with his own keys.

Spoiler

...It happens when he drops them.

 

[Risewild]

i don't really see your point. unarmed is a perfectly valid skill to choose (i've once beat the game without using any weapons, i've even killed frank with my bare hands). jinxed and doctor are also cool things to have. but what's fun about investing in a skill that will bare no relevance for the vast majority of the game? (in fallout 2 it's better than in fallout 1, i've been discussing use of traps in the first game)

I just told you that for me having Traps skill would be fun. If you don't see the fun on being able to trap doors with explosives and then see enemies charging through them and get blown to pieces, then you need to realize that not everyone has fun the same way. We shouldn't be making a cRPG that focus on story and forcing people to only play one or two ways. That is not fun.

I mentioned Unarmed because people here in the past (I can't remember who) said that what's the point in choosing other combat skills since Small Guns is OP. Well the point is that many players do not play to have OP streamlined characters, they play with characters they have fun with. I have way more fun playing with underdogs that are not OP and still beat the game, than playing with OP ones and once again beat the game... That is boring as hell.

i said pretty much the same thing but in fallout they should be more balanced

It could be more balanced yes, but that doesn't mean that having those skills as they are is bad, or useless. They still add flavor and character development opportunities. And for some players, thanks to them being "not so useful" actually adds a "wicked fun" factor to the game.

EDIT:My browser got crazy and posted this before I was done...

as i said, i would like to do the very same thing. but all of those skills should have some use in the game and none of them should be underpresented. i will quote myself:

in short:
making all skills valid choices > bethesda merging two skills into one > having two skills unnecessarily

i don't think anyone has meant that. it's okay if some skills are inferior to others or harder to play with but they all ought to have impact on the game.

This is again the problem. The skills are not unnecessary, and definitely have impact. Every skill in Fallout and Fallout 2 have some use. And they have impact when you can use them. Even if rarely.

 

[TerminallyChill]

They are. It's not at all unlike like working at a job where your coworker is the owner's nephew, and what works for him doesn't work the same for you. He gets a pass in situations where you would not, his (identical) mistakes are glossed over, where yours are job threatening. This is what I mean by double standard.

In Fallout, characters with an agility of four are afforded five action points, but a character of the same stats, but with the Bonus Move perk, gets an additional two action points (just because) for their movement—though unwarranted by their agility. Perks are great, but they do bend the rules for the player, by creating exceptions in their case.

I seriously don't understand why you insist that Perks don't make characters more specialized. Up until this point in my life I would never have guessed a human on this earth could even disagree with such an idea. So I get that you think they're "cheats" (despite the fact that they are officially in the rules), but what the hell line of logic suddenly makes that mutually exclusive from adding uniqueness? If somebody can move two extra spaces, I'd call that a fucking distinct quality!

Why not just play the games we'd recommend?

Because playing and designing are very different experiences. My point was that your perspective on some of these topics would likely change if you actually were to work on a game. No developer ever sets out to have shit like Traps or Gambling in their RPG. They ended up in a good game like Fallout as an oversight, but the skills really don't have any solid justification for being so unpolished. They exist in spite of the game's quality. Presenting arguments for the inclusion of clear design flaws in your favorite series just makes you seem like a biased, ignorant gamer. I am the first to admit when Pokemon or Deus Ex falls flat. No franchise is perfect.

Because it's a learned skill that comes of experience. Also: skills should fail from time to time; no one is perfect. Even a real life locksmith can fail in the attempt to open the door to his own house with his own keys.

Talking smoothly is a learned skill that comes with experience, but that's a perk. You want to talk about double standards?

Also, "because it's like that in real life" is not a valid argument in a discussion about video game mechanics. A feature's primary function is to be fun before it is believable. These are the types of things you would learn from developing but not necessarily playing.

I have way more fun playing with underdogs that are not OP and still beat the game, than playing with OP ones and once again beat the game... That is boring as hell.

You know what's really boring as hell, though? Having objectively better methods of doing something in a game. Nothing should ever be clearly over or underpowered. Like Fallout's moral dilemmas, there needs to always be a level of gray ambiguity in making decisions. It applies as much to the game mechanics as it does with the story.

 

[Hassknecht]

So, anyone any idea when the next bits of news will come out for this?

 

[TerminallyChill]

So, anyone any idea when the next bits of news will come out for this?

I imagine the next big information dump is going to come with the release of the Fallout 76 beta, which should be coming fairly soon. If Bethesda is going to make any meaningful gameplay tweaks after a public test, they're going to want at least a few months between it and the November launch date.

 

[Hassknecht]

Well, yeah, with the Beta we'll get a lot of news and hands-on experiences.
The next bit of news by Bethesda will then be when the beta will launch.
If I had time, I'd consider taking one for the team and preordering so I can get into the beta for NMA news coverage.