Money equivalents

A

APTYP

Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
1) Chems. They weight next to nothing, everybody wants them and they are pretty expensive for something of their weight.
2) Ammunition. Don't have chems? Don't want to overpay? Bullets don't weight much, and you can almost always find a relatively large amount of them, so it makes them a nice low-value objects for currency.
 
>1) Chems. They weight next to
>nothing, everybody wants them and
>they are pretty expensive for
>something of their weight.
>2) Ammunition. Don't have chems? Don't
>want to overpay? Bullets don't
>weight much, and you can
>almost always find a relatively
>large amount of them, so
>it makes them a nice
>low-value objects for currency.

I think ammunition would be a better commodity. The problem is that ammo weighs a lot.

Maybe weight and size should be a bigger factor in the game. I mean, yeah, you might be able to lift a Bozar, Vindicator and a set of power armor, but imagine trying to fit all that on your back. It should also hamper mobility, I mean imagine the inertia factor when you leap to the left to dodge a knife while carrying 200 pounds of ammo.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
Well, unless you're a buffed-up Schwarzenegger-wannabe (I know, I know, prolly misspelled his name just like millions of others), you shouldn't be ABLE to lift that much. I don't think the "10 miniguns in a backpack" issue is a problem in Fallout, at least that's what my experience is telling me.

As for size, that would make containers such as backpacks much more useful. Oh, and the size of the container could be the maximum size limit of objects it contains. As for really big things - you should have 3-4 "sizeless" inventory slots (two hands, your back, and maybe something else).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top