Redesigned combat

P

PSPSoldier534

First time out of the vault
Hey everyone. First, allow me to introduce myself since this is my first post; I have been lurking here for years and am a pretty big fan of all the fallout games. I've read many of the articles and forum posts here, and decided it may be time for a contribution.

Anyway, back to the topic, I have been thinking of a system of combat that won't force you back into a completely turn based/action point dependent mode, but still not as god awful as Fallout 3 and by extension New Vegas. Sadly, with the shooter style of gameplay permeating these games, combat skills are not particularly important. It is entirely possible to slaughter any enemy in both games with mid-level weapons and moderate skill investments. So to amend this, I propose a system that doesn't involve any mechanical involvement from the player for the actual acts of attacking.

So firstly, I would like a way of keeping the game in the player's view, making it look and feel like a shooter without being one, with a much greater emphasis on stats, skills, and character development. So my system would work something like this: combat has no traditional shooting. A cover system exists. All of this can take place in first person as well; instead of hitting a conventional "fire" or "attack" button, the player first selects a target or part of a target, with a given chance to hit, using a separate button, and the action is carried out in real time each time the "attack" key is used. Alternatively, you may queue actions and then carry them out immediately upon exit from the interface. Certain special abilities may be chosen with a given weapon and skill instead. Similar to VATS, only without the mandatory slow motion and action points. There is no actual aiming and shooting involved. the player merely selects the target and commands the attack. And the ability to move around through a "planning" type isometric overview is available, letting the player set a waypoint and then moving there in real time once the action is selected. Risk (chance to be intercepted by enemies) will be displayed of this movement and certain skills and stats can mitigate that. Weapons are very damaging and neither you nor enemies are bullet sponges unless enough difference exists between gear and levels (level 1 .22 vs level 50 T-51b.) Companions could be commanded through a similar interface.

Melee weapons and unarmed combat has a certain range where it may be attempted. The closer you are, the higher the chance of a successful hit. If a hit is successful, the calculated damage transfers over to the target, and the player is invulnerable during the attack period. If the attack fails, the player will inflict no damage to anything but will be vulnerable to return attacks from enemies. In the event that the enemy is also performing a successful attack against the player, and the player has a successful roll, the entity with the highest chance of success will be the victor of that particular exchange. If a successful attack doesn't kill the target, there is a short period in which the target is somewhat stunned and cannot return fire, but during this period the player also has a progressively and greatly reduced chance of a successful follow up attack. This period lasts longer than the period in which the enemy is stunned. If the follow up fails, the grace period of player invulnerability from that particular enemy is removed but the increased chance to fail remains. This is intended to result in a period where the both the player and his enemy can retreat into a safe position if they are evenly matched since there is no incentive to spam attacks from the player, and the practicality of melee attacks for the player still actually exists when ranged weapons are available. In the event that one side is more dangerous than the other, this would be a way to compound that difference. If the enemy is better than the player, the player is incentivized to retreat since the damage done wouldn't be worth the risk of an unsuccessful series of attacks, with chances of success being dependent on skills and stats; and if the player is better, then the attack will likely be lethal, but if not, follow up strikes carry reduced risk and are more likely to be successful, once again due to skills and stats. Of course, certain modifiers and abilities, especially through perks can change some of these rules a bit.
 
You kinda lost me with the whole melee aspect but the rest sounds pretty good.

I too daydreamed about ways to make combat in the new fallouts more tactical/strategic. Mostly when Fallout 3 first came out. When combat started it would feature a overview camera and play out queued actions with a bunch of sexy action cam shots with good animations for every type of action. Think similar to a more refined/better animated X-Com. (the new one) But with a different AP system. So using a stimpack or taking a chem would have a little animation play during your turn. Same with reloading, moving from cover to cover, dodging, kill cams. Imagine a new fallout that isnt the crap FPS combat but instead something like you discribe. With different animations for different types of melee weapons, different animations with cool camera shots for criticals for various weapons, such as a zoom in on decapitating people with a fire-axe, kneecapping people with baseball bats, bushido-type katana thrusts, obliterating people with HMG fire. And on and on and so forth.
 
That's exactly what I was using as a point if reference. The new xcom is excellent. To simplify, what I essentially was trying to say about melee is that you need to be close to have a high chance of success and both parties have a chance to recover if the damage is not fatal. To de-emphasize spamming low chance attacks from longer range even further, a failed attack will NOT grant you a grace period, but your opponent WILL get one.
 
(Sees the size and scope of the opening post, eyes glisten) Home...

Ahem, in all seriousness, it's a welcome sight for me to see good thought put into any given post, whatever the topic, without seeing it chopped up into "bite-sized" pieces for internet consumption. I'm a relatively newer member, myself, so perhaps I'm not best suited to say this, but for what it's worth: Welcome to NMA! =)

Your suggestions are interesting, particularly that you want a way to maintain a form of combat that is ultimately still "hybridized", if perhaps functional and balanced/practical. There are a couple RPGs that I personally loved which were, in my opinion, the pinnacle of their respective takes on the two opposite forms of combat: stats-based and skill-based. Those being the original Fallout games, and the Souls series (Demon's Souls and Dark Souls). That's not to say there was no skill in playing the original Fallout, but the skill was mostly utilized in the planning and strategizing, and less so in the execution. Nor is it to say there weren't any stats or that stats were of irrelevance in the Souls games. But in their respective roles, what they perfected played a large role, and worked very well at it. I loved being able to build characters based on numbers and figures, and I equally loved being able to build a character that was largely dependent on my own skills and reaction timing. But while I don't think it's a bad idea, I'm not sure I've yet played what I could consider the "pinnacle of hybrid stats/skill-based RPG". Typically once you venture away from one, you make a game that relies to heavily on being either that it doesn't seem functional. Thus why it's so easy to run around in FO3 and just VATS spam every enemy in the face without taking a scratch, or sprint backwards in FONV swinging a knife and watching "deadly enemies" fall before you. The systems are so mixed, they're easy to abuse because they lack balance.

I've personally fantasized about how nice it would be if a modern Fallout title played like it was a Souls game, because that would be real-time combat based entirely on my skills, and it would be challenging instead of laughable. But this would ultimately mean relegating the role of stats to tertiary importance. Just like better players enjoy beating the Souls games at Level 1 to prove that your skills surpass the need for better stats/items, players would be able to beat such a FO title without relying on their stats as well, despite having stats. Then we have games like the recent XCOM which bear remarkable resemblance to shooters, yet play as classic Turn-Based Strategy games. I wouldn't mind if a modern FO game played like that either, I suppose.

I like the direction you're going with your suggestions, but I suppose I just recalled games I considered "similar" to what you were suggesting, that left a sour taste for me, so I didn't particularly take to all them. I don't like cover systems, for example, because they never work fluidly and dynamically with players. Yet games that simply allow players to make their own cover by utilizing prone/crouched/standing positions next to their environment, not unlike COD4 or FOT, were dynamic and the function worked well. Funnily enough, each of those examples were both champions of skill-based and stats-based gameplay, respectively.

Of course ultimately you're suggesting an entirely new system, and from a cursory inspection it sounds doable. I don't dislike such suggestions, but many here tend towards "eh, it sounds like it would be too much effort, so if the industry won't care, why should we?" responses to that, which is a pity. Well, even if it'll never come to pass, you can always make the ideal game engine in your head, and enjoy the fantasy of it, so why not? If you've still got things to say about what you'd like the system to be like, then keep the conversation going. I think it would be fun. =)
 
Your idea sounds very intriguing. I have had something similar in mind for sometime as a hybrid between turn based combat and real. I agree with everything besides the first person view, i know it doesn't bear that much weight on the combat, but the feel it would give me is of a first person shooter, which really is the last thing i want for fallout, in my perception of what is fallout. Your idea is pretty good though

My vision of the battle was having to choose a sequence of actions during your turn and when you are done you finish your turn by pressing a button that would have an execute purpose followed by a short "sort of cinematic" of your choice of action, the cinematic isn't really different that the actual game play.

I checked the xcom game I must say it seems interesting i liked the battle system, it seemed like something that could go with fallout. I would have liked it better if the camera wasn't that dynamic and if it didnt go to first person. Those new games also tend to be be very colourful and vivid and animated similarly to warcraft and world of warcraft. The same goes for diablo 2 and diablo 3 while diablo 2 looked relatively realistic diablo 3 a little too animated and colourful for me, on the same level fallout 1, 2 and tactics looks relatively realistic, to the extent that graphics allowed it, I'd hate to see a colourful and animated fallout like WoW or the new xcom. Don't get me wrong xcom doesnt even look half bad, but that graphics style is not for fallout

Please excuse me for getting carried away.
 
I liked the systym that fallout 3 and new vegas continued on. Personally I would like to see redesigned enviorments and just more npcs and make the scope and scale of the game larger.
As for the combat make guns a staple of the game like in fallout new vegas dont take away iron sights. Also make a perk such as wepon maitnence which prevents your gun from jamming so easily and more mods please more mods!!!
 
XCOM dudes in Titan Armor could totally be in T-51B armor. They seem closer to Space Marines than anything. Overall though, I understand what you mean. The men are just ludicrously over muscular and shit. Not that the Vault Dweller was or anything.
 
Firstly, thanks for the welcome SnapSlav! Greatly appreciated. Second, it's good to see so far that this idea is actually stirring discussion and not dying. Everybody should just share what they would like the combat to be like, and we may be able to make a hybridized system of a hybridized system. :p

Also, yes, the Titan armor does look like the T-51b. Only there are no appropriate helmets in any of the dlcs for xcom :(
 
Would power armor offer high DR? Or, as in XCOM, large sums of extra 'health'?

Great post, btw. FO3/NV have awful combat mechanics, but frankly, I felt like the FO1/FO2 combat mechanics are terrible too. I don't play 'any' of the FO games for their game play, thats for sure.

Edit: Personal vote is keep power armor as a DR provider. But to balance it a little, maybe make it harder to receive cover while using power armor? Since its so big and bulky. Personally not a big fan of "Armor gives extra health"
 
Actually combat sucks for all(I don't lot about FOT so FOT maybe doesn't include). FO 1 is quite sucks since you can only control 1 charactor. 2 fixed some point(like companion's AI and equipment) but still compare with other isometric RPG, still not that good.
For me, Wasteland2's combat looks fine to use it to new Fallout if it make with isometric turnbased combat.

For FPS, Stalker is best model.
 
I think gameplay like FO1&FO2 and combat similar to the recent X-COM game would be pretty cool,every time someone attacks, their is a fancy camera like in XCOM, showing various movements and attacks in 3D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top