Sawyer and other views from NMA

[Briosafreak]

Once again J.E. Sawyer took the time to reply to a few posts made here on NMA. The replies are in italics.<blockquote>Quote from Saint_Proverbius:
Well, okay, then I'll say that is how it is, not how it seems. Two handed sword profficiency, two handed gun skill, pretty much the same thought train there. Both are realistically based since pistols are different from rifles and long swords are different from claymores, but..<blockquote>A two-handed sword proficiency lets you skillfully use a two-handed sword, that's it. An appropriate analogy would be a skill just for Bozars.</blockquote>Quote from Saint_Proverbius:
To put it in a Fallout perspective, this would be like one character having pistol skills for SMG, and another having rifle for sniping. It takes two characters to make up for both ranged and devastating up close fire. The big problem now lies in that Fallout isn't a party game. Party game dynamics, even though they're based in realism, need to be tossed in favor of something that will allow a player to SMG the bad guys up close and switch to longer range if need be.<blockquote>I think you're assuming a lot to say that any combat character "needs to" be able to do both long-ranged sniping and close up heavy destruction. Short of chasing down wounded opponents, unarmed characters could do fairly well in FO2 with no ranged capability at all.</blockquote>Quote from Saint_Proverbius:
The way Fallout's gun skills are set up now actually works. The only problem with them is that there are no Big Guns and Energy Weapons for low level characters. Make a few low tech energy weapons and big guns for lower-mid level characters, and go from there. A blunderbus would be a great Big Gun for low levels, for example.<blockquote>It sorta works. Even with energy weapons and big guns available early on, you still run into strange inconsistencies that seem more implausible than even weird skill crossover between my proposed big/small guns categories. Sniper rifle vs. laser sniper rifle.

An important thing to remember in all of these discussions is that "it worked and you're messing it up" doesn't really apply in an entirely new engine and new game. We're not building off of any old data or assumptions about how things are placed in the world. It's not like changing any of these skill categories affects, for good or ill, how people play Fallout and Fallout 2. There's a lot of stuff in SPECIAL that doesn't need to be changed at all. But you and I and anyone else shouldn't balk at critically examining the system as though it's going to go into a game for the very first time. Because, from a literal standpoint, it is. We're working with a clean slate, code-wise.</blockquote>Quote from 4Too:
Certianly not to climb a rich and rewarding Speech tree, and sample the FORBIDDEN FRUITS [*] of untraveled pathes of new
Knowledge.

Well no evidence there, so too early to judge.<blockquote>Only if you discount me saying things like, "I think there should be more speech skills" and "I think that science skills should open a new 'science boy' path through the game and be useful all over the place."</blockquote>Quote from 4Too:
Do they anticipate a "third" slot for use of Stealth Boy device in combat? Or. Going to have a "paper doll" inventory screen to dress up like the fantasy RPG's?<blockquote>Piecemeal armor demands more inventory slots, as much as I hate to say it. To be honest, I like the fact that previous Fallout games only had three equip slots, but locational armor requires flexibility for the user or it kind of sucks, in my opinion.</blockquote>Quote from Dragon Warrior:
Please tell me what you all think of my idea, I'd like some feedback.<blockquote>In terms of your damage categories, I do think there needs to be a few more. EMP, in particular, is different from electricity in a way I believe is significant in a game with robotic enemies. I also think that ballistic damage and armor is different enough that it demands it's own category. I don't necessarily see the benefit for making a character right or left handed.</blockquote>Quote from papalegba:
I notice Fallout 2 wasn't mentioned in the discussion, but you might have heard of it. It's the one that everyone raved over and whose sales dwarfed its predecessor's. It included fun things like Bozars, Gauss Weapons and H&K G11s. With such advantages, energy weapons no longer had a huge advantage.<blockquote>I noticed you missed me talking about Fallout 2 weapons. As Saint_Proverbius wrote, the Bozar has no single-shot capability. Also, as I wrote, it eats through ammo really, really fast. .223 ammo, which is sort of plentiful, but nowhere near as much as, say 5mm. Standard miniguns kind of stink in Fallout 2, and the ammo for the Vindicator and G11 are really rare except for a few late game areas.</blockquote></blockquote>Thanks guys, keep them coming, you can see the rest on this thread.

 

[Gwydion]

An appropriate analogy would be a skill just for Bozars.

No, you're actually wrong because just like there was more than one type of two-handed gun, there was more than one type of two handed sword.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

A two-handed sword proficiency lets you skillfully use a two-handed sword, that's it. An appropriate analogy would be a skill just for Bozars.

But there's many types of two-handed swords, just like there are many types of rifles. A katana is basically a two handed sword, as is a claymore. Very different swords, but both would fall under two handed swords just like the bozar and hunting rifle seem to fall under Big Guns under JE Sawyer's proposed idea.

I think you're assuming a lot to say that any combat character "needs to" be able to do both long-ranged sniping and close up heavy destruction. Short of chasing down wounded opponents, unarmed characters could do fairly well in FO2 with no ranged capability at all.

And the big, big problem with unarmed and melee skills in Fallout and Fallout 2 is when enemies decide to run away. If you don't have an uber agility with some perks like Action Boy and Bonus Move, chances are, they'll make it to the edge of the screen and escape before you can get them. Of course, even with those perks and a high agility, they can often get away on smaller maps like the Hub Farmer sidequest map and random encounter maps.

That's why a Small Arms player can use both rifles and SMGs to solve that issue. Hell, you can even reverse that situation in Fallout and Fallout 2. Use the rifle to pop shot an enemy or two to draw a horde of them in to the open, then burst fire.

Even if you don't base it on situational usage and tactics, there's still the issue of having a back up weapon for when ammo is scarce. In the early game, 10MM SMGs are common, and so are hunting rifles. The ammo for the 10MM SMG might be dirt common, but .223 ammo isn't.

It sorta works. Even with energy weapons and big guns available early on, you still run into strange inconsistencies that seem more implausible than even weird skill crossover between my proposed big/small guns categories. Sniper rifle vs. laser sniper rifle.

This is why I actually like involving the three traditional categories further beyond aiming. Believe it or not, a laser rifle is going to be much different than a sniper rifle in a number of areas beyond pointing and pulling the trigger. I'd say a lot of people, especially those lacking knowledge of energy weapons, are probably going to have some issues with loading one, for example. A laser rifle might have some different prepping situations than a sniper rifle beyond locating and turning off the safety. It might have gauges and other things that give feedback on the safe operation of a laser rifle.

That's where creativity comes in. Streamlining a system like this just because you don't think it's "realistic" isn't the way to go, especially when it leads to funky little issues which result in less options that the player is used to having, like being able to swap out that long range rifle for the SMG when danger gets too close and before you get that cool AK-112 Assault Rifle.

An important thing to remember in all of these discussions is that "it worked and you're messing it up" doesn't really apply in an entirely new engine and new game.

It does when that new game is part three of an established series. Tweak it, sure.. But totally streamlining a system which really isn't broken just because you don't think it's realistic enough, or because the designers of the original Fallout decided that at some point, the player probably should swap out to the energy weapons, isn't nearly as well recieved as a more subtle and creative approach to the existing situation.

We're not building off of any old data or assumptions about how things are placed in the world. It's not like changing any of these skill categories affects, for good or ill, how people play Fallout and Fallout 2.

I think I've already provided some examples on how this would change things. I've swapped weapons as a Small Arms character in the exact manner I've described. The SMG and rifle swapping works pretty well through the beginning of Fallout and Fallout 2 for a Small Armser.

Oh yeah, and pistols most certainly don't suck either. One of my favorite ways of getting through Fallout is as a Doc Holiday style trick shot gambler. You don't have to switch to Energy Weapons if you have the right character build, and you can beat the game with a lowly pistol. No need for KEWL ACKIMBO PISTLES.

There's a lot of stuff in SPECIAL that doesn't need to be changed at all. But you and I and anyone else shouldn't balk at critically examining the system as though it's going to go into a game for the very first time. Because, from a literal standpoint, it is. We're working with a clean slate, code-wise.

I wouldn't change the skill categories, period. Doctor and First Aid overlap, so what? Find some things to make them different. Make First Aid a combat oriented, quick patch skill for example, and Doctor the longer term treatment. First Aid might be able to splint a broken leg for movement, but Doctor sets the bone so it heals.

Don't like that idea? Fine. Make Doctor more the surgical skill and first aid the treating scrapes and minor things.

Don't like that either? Try this. Allow Doctors to know things like how to treat addictions, poisonning, and radiation sickness. Allow Doctors to know what particular chemical properties the Broc Flower has and what it will treat. Allow Doctor to create poison antidote from radscorp tails. That's certainly not First Aid.

And before you mention that in real life, a doctor would also know how to do first aid, think about the differences between an EMT and a doctor. Think of the EMT as knowing First Aid at 100% and a physician knowing Doctor at 100%.

Only if you discount me saying things like, "I think there should be more speech skills" and "I think that science skills should open a new 'science boy' path through the game and be useful all over the place.

You mean like 3rd Edition D&D has multiple speech skills? I'd rather keep the Speech skill and then base the type of speech employeed off the attributes the player has. High Speech and High Strength would lead to intimidation style speech. High Speech and High Charisma might lead to smooth talking or silver tonguing. High Speech and High Intelligence might lead to logical debating.

As for the Science routes, good. In fact, I think all the skills in Fallout should have a non-scripted function as well as scripted ones. Doctor making drugs would be a side effect of a High Doctor skill. Making new trinkets or improving existing devices might be the result of a High Repair. Tracking enemies, finding plants and identifying them might be the result of High Outdoorsman. Things like that.

Piecemeal armor demands more inventory slots, as much as I hate to say it. To be honest, I like the fact that previous Fallout games only had three equip slots, but locational armor requires flexibility for the user or it kind of sucks, in my opinion.

The problem with this would be piecemealing power armor. I prefer armor as a suit as well, just for things like power armor.

In terms of your damage categories, I do think there needs to be a few more. EMP, in particular, is different from electricity in a way I believe is significant in a game with robotic enemies. I also think that ballistic damage and armor is different enough that it demands it's own category. I don't necessarily see the benefit for making a character right or left handed.

EMP damage? Ummm.. Imagine a future where the transistor had never been invented. I wish I could remember which Fallout developer said that to describe Fallout's setting, but it's a fairly major concept! EMP really only works well on integrated circuits, re: transistor stuff, which aren't part of Fallout's setting.

 

[4too]

Now Or Never

Now Or Never

Falling behind on my FO homework, these days. Learning about quarter points and property tax eschrow accounts........

Quote from 4Too:
Certianly not to climb a rich and rewarding Speech tree, and sample the FORBIDDEN FRUITS [*] of untraveled pathes of new
Knowledge.

Well no evidence there, so too early to judge.

JE Reply:
Only if you discount me saying things like, "I think there should be more speech skills" and "I think that science skills should open a new 'science boy' path through the game and be useful all over the place."

I am linking this above to the "Brave New" or "Giant Leap" comment JE made in reference to FO 3 being based on it's own unique coding. By
necessity there will be differences, the skill will be proven in how this 'new-ness' enhances the FO STYLE RPG. A genre on to itself these days.

Wondering if the big picture, the "Where's Waldo" one,( or "Where's FO"), will poly morph this game balancing act into other dimensions. Like: Keeping combat lean and compact so there is room for "'science boy' ".

Meanwhile on axis "$": Pitching a chrome bone to the Matrix Wannabee's to placate "the smart money", and sell FO 3
as broad enough a RPG concept to co-opt many game genres. "The devil would be in the details"; the discipline to know when to stop scamming and spamming and start slamming. Mold that mass of carbon into a 50 hour radioactive diamond.

Juggling the dancing dualities.....

""Jugglito ergo sum."" Flying Karamotzoff Brothers

Quote from 4Too:
Do they anticipate a "third" slot for use of Stealth Boy device in combat? Or. Going to have a "paper doll" inventory screen to dress up like the fantasy RPG's?

JE Reply:
Piecemeal armor demands more inventory slots, as much as I hate to say it. To be honest, I like the fact that previous Fallout games only had three equip slots, but locational armor requires flexibility for the user or it kind of sucks, in my opinion.

Keeping armour simple will validate the finding and using of the 'Plus Charisma Sun Glasses' and the 'Stealth Boy'.

The 'paper doll' becomes a designer clothes horse of +3 Deathclaw Gucci Loafers of Dexidrine.
A whole sub game there, might get "The Barbie...." crowd; oh, Matel
lost bigger bucks than I'play in computer games, so forget that.

Lots of folk suggesting this: Color it "new" or color it "stupid"....
A 2nd armor "ACCESSORY" slot for "Stealth Boy" or "Charisma Boy" or a place to stow your I.V. of Nuka Cola. So, the 2 main inventory slots can be "hands" with a 3rd slot as a fast equip houlster .....

.....so St._P. can hose down the unworthy with 10mm logic, after flushing them out with a couple of 'head shots'.


Lot's of high humidity walking tommorrow as was this day, so off to
tank up on the fluids....Club Soda and Lime base... need the "C" and Quinine.

4too

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Small Guns = 1 handed weapons.
Big Guns = 2 handed weapons.

To me, that breaks down the weapons in FO2 into this:

Small Guns
PPK12 Gauss Pistol
9mm Mauser
10 mm Pistol
14 mm Pistol
.223 Pistol
Desert Eagle
.44 Magnum
10 mm SMG
H&K G11
H&K G11E
H&K P90c
M3 A1 "Grease Gun" SMG
Needler Pistol
Alien Blaster
Laser Pistol
YK32 Pulse Pistol
Solar Scorcher
Plasma Pistol


Big Guns
BB Gun
Red Ryder LE BB Gun
M72 Gauss Rifle
Vindicator Minigun
Assault Rifle
Assault Rifle
XL70E3
Minigun
Avenger Minigun
FN FAL
FN FAL (Night Vision)
M60
Pipe Rifle
Hunting Rifle
Scoped Hunting Rifle
Sniper Rifle
Bozar
Light Support Weapon
Tommy Gun
Sawed Off Shotgun
Shotgun
Combat Shotgun
H&K CAWS
Pancor Jackhammer
Flamer
Rocket Launcher
Laser Rifle
Gatling Laser
Plasma Rifle
Turbo Plasma Rifle
YK42B Pulse Rifle

Not much use for Small Guns is there? 9 times out of 10, most people are going to go "Big Guns lets me use better, more powerful weapons (like the shotgun) right from the start of the game. Small Guns gets me.... SMGs? Why bother with that, when I can get assault rifles?"

Small Guns would be like throwing. The only times you go for that skill, is when you want to be different and make a "throwing character".

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I think that's his justification for the KEWL PSITOLZ ACKIMBLO insertion. Because the new categorization would make "Small Arms" less appealling, you therefore must now make them even more appealling by fucking up the setting, game balance, and so on. Yippee.

Of course, enter the new problem.. Instead of having three skill types of character for just guns, followed by subsets of them like the Small Arms Pistoleer, which was the best way to beat FO with the Small Arms skill, you now have two fairly strict skill groupings resulting in the rifle guys and the DAUL PISTEL GUYZ. Again, yippee.

 

[4too]

Small Guns would be like throwing. The only times you go for that skill, is when you want to be different and make a "throwing character".

How about we shot-gun some beers after some vodka jello shots and be ""hurling characters""?

How about we get out our broom sticks and be ""curling chararacters""?
Lock in that demographic close to the Arctic Circle. ""Oh Canada, You frosty fridgid land....""

Are two pistols ""better"" than one SMG? Are are we jus' stylin', my pee-ps?

Let's start lobbying the Defense Dept. with this revelation. Rumsfield Likes the troops to be traveling light.
Get the majority shares of Smith 'n' Wesson, be bigger than "dot com" pyrimids!

Back to radioactive earth now.....

If ""they"" want a weapons skill path for ACCURATE and decissive mucho rate of fire pistolez, a meat grinder at 50 yards,
than make 'em pay for the privledge of being a point target
for any modest marksman at 250 yards.

Are these akimbo advocates asking for a handicap so they can compete against the AI?

Close Quarters Weapons (Pistols) Specialist too much like a Melee
Specialist without the high hit point constitution? Need the Short Armz equivalent of a Super Sledge and knock down
to bash into the end game? Fighting AI here. Need to gimp the AI
so twin pistol peckers can get a free ride to the end game?

If no cheats; maybe the pistol peckers will need SPEECH or CHARISMA Skills to manipulate their way into the final flow chart. Perhaps there could be some linkage with traditional FO paths here.

JE sayz he wants room for a ""Science Guy"" skill path. That's the ultimate game balance we expect from a FO style RPG. Many means to an end. Multi dimensioned parallel paths on the radiated road.

Or: Are are we jus' stylin', my pee-ps?

4too

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I'm still not trusting Interplay to not delete posts, so here's a big one I just threw up on the thread over there.
--------------------------------------

Actually, what you see as the problem here is the reason (or at least one of the reasons) JE has suggested going down to two skills. I'm to lazy to look up specific quotes, but what he has said is basically that the first two games were designed to make Small Guns obsolete in the late game with the Energy Weapons that were strictly better than their Small Guns counterparts. He instead wants your choice of weapon skill to viable through out the game, regardless of what it might be.

The problem is by then, whatever your chosen combat skill is, it will be maxed out completely by the end. In fact, WAAAY before the end in most cases. Case in point is: Fallout 2, Small Guns, Gauss Rifle. And usually, that's only the second time you play, once you know the Gauss Rifle exists.

The Gauss Rifle is the Plasma Rifle of the Small Arms category. Fallout 2's weapons fixed a lot of the problems with Fallout 1's "Small Guns suck" theory. Also, unless you're 100% completely clueless (which from what JE Sawyer has said, most of the BiS designers seem to be), you get an idea in Fallout 1 pretty early on, that the Big Guns and Energy Weapons skills might be pretty useful later on in the game. Especially when you start seeing those weapon stats.

If Small Guns uselessness bothers J.E. so much, here's an idea...
Design an Uber-Pistol.

Problem solvered. Then, any skill you choose to take right from the start, be it Small Guns, Big Guns or Energy Weapons, you can use right at the end.

Hang on... Wait just a darned minute here...

In FO2, that's pretty much how it is. Small Guns lets you use that Gauss Rifle pretty darned dandily, don't ya think?

I agree that the miniguns should be made a little more lethal (30 bullets, close range and all you do is 4 hit points damage) and Energy Weapons, well, if you want to use that throughout the game, you'll need more energy pistols to be found early on in the game, as the Plasma Rifle pretty much clears up any end game problems.

By the way, with all this talk about what's not broken with the 3 gun skills, I hope someone does something about throwing... The number 1 combat skill in BOTH Fallout games that needs a complete overhaul. Or, better yet, just some more weapons to make it useful.

Though I think I'll take your advice and read what Sawyer said.

I honestly think you might need to play Fallout again and see how the weapons break down -- either that or break open a stat book and compare the weapons. The small guns are designed to become obsolete, thus rendering the small guns skill obsolete.

Gauss Rifle? Did you forget the Gauss Rifle? I'd also like to point out that at the end of the game, I'm still usually using my shotgun for raiders. It's just a shotgun thing I have.

Try to think of this from the perspective of playing Fallout 1 for the first time. You don't know where to go to get the .223 pistol as soon as you want it. You don't know all of the patterns for character building that come from playing the game over and over again.

Nope, you don't. So you completely screw it up, right? That pretty much sounds like me with most RPGs I play. You know Arcanum? First three times I played that, I started again. You just don't know enough about character design or the opportunites that will present themselves in-game to know how to build Mr Perfect right from the word go. More to the point, I don't believe you SHOULD know how to build Mr. Perfect right from the word go. It's one of the enjoyable aspects of RPGs / Action RPG type games. That point when you go "I need to re-start". Just like when I first played Fallout, Arcanum and even Diablo.

In the past few weeks, a lot of people in the division have been playing Fallout and Fallout 2 again. A lot of them got close to the end of the game and realized that they had made "worthless" characters -- characters that for whatever reason had skills that were ultimately ineffective for dealing with the challenges they faced. Small guns fell into that category for both games. Watching someone fight the master with a small gun, even the .223 pistol, is a sad affair when compared to someone using a plasma rifle (turbo or not).

If you get to the end of Fallout without realising "Hey, those Miniguns or some of those Energy Weapons might be pretty useful" then you're clueless. No really, clueless. Completely. Small Guns is useful in the end, if you want to conserve ammo for the Plasma Rifle and use your combat shotugn to take out random encounters. But I think I, and everyone else who ever played Fallout, realised that that Plasma Rifle might be a pretty sweet thing to have.

Also, if those characters are worthless, your design boys must have completely ignored speech (talk the Master into suicide) and lockpick (pick the lock, go down and set the nuclear bomb). Remember, Fallout was designed to be a non-combat game as much as a combat game. What were your boys putting all those extra skill points into? Gambling?

If you can explain to me how any of the small guns are as good as their counterparts in energy weapons, I'd like to hear it.

Gauss Rifle?

Honestly, I don't see how anyone other than a masochist would try to go through the game with small guns only when energy weapons are so clearly superior, side to side. It eventually makes the small gun skill less far useful, overall.

So instead of completely re-desiging the system, how about you make an Uber-Pistol? That seems to be what you're all about. You want a skill that's useful. THEN DESIGN WEAPONS THAT USE THAT SKILL BUCKO! You've failed to mention the complete uselessness of throwing. How would you solve that? By removing it? I'd prefer you designed some weapons that made it useful. Just like Arcanum did.

This, basicly, puts more empahiss on combat skills, which is un-needed.

Fewer combat skills means there's more of an emphasis on them? I don't agree with your conclusion, but you can explain it again and I might get it.

More chance of getting a high combat skill. In Fallout 1, you put points to Small Guns as that's what you're using. By the time you hit the Gun Runners, you realise you might need something a bit more powerful. So you have the rest of the game to work towards Energy Weapons.

To me, it's got more to do with balancing the skills. If you have just 1 useful weapons skill (which will be Big Guns, going by your idea) that means more points for the other skills. And what for? To make an Uber Character. That = Not fun. Instead of being forced to make serious decisions about skills, you'll suddenly have a character with Uber Combat abilities in the only useful skill, and plenty of points to throw into everything else. So instead of making the "Am I a thief or a diplomat or a combat" character, you now get to say "Well, I know I'll be good at combat from start to finish, so let's throw some points all over the place". Well-rounded characters aren't supposed to work in Fallout.

they do need 3 categories, just not big, small, and energy...
they need big, small, and huge guns..

I had considered this, but I do think that six combat skills in Fallout is one skill too many. Maybe I'm being overly concerned with that limit.

I think you are too. If anything, either remove throwing (which everyone thinks is crappy) OR, combine the Unarmed and Melee skills.

there ought to be a maintenance thing as well, not an active one, just a degredation of weapons with critical failure possibilities increasing over time.

I wrote up a little subsystem for dealing with some additional weapon elements, but I was afraid it was getting too... overwrought with details. Weapons had a heat threshold, cooling rate, and each attack mode had a heat index. If you fired a heavy machinegun or minigun round after round after round without letting it cool, it would start to suffer penalties and eventually stop working. You'd then need to use Repair or a similar skill to fix the problem. This could also be used with a criticial failure chance based on the overall complexity of a weapon. It might be easy to fire a plasma rifle, for instance, but hard to maintain it when errors pop up. But again, that might be too much detail.

That sounds good actually. Pretty good. It gives more emphasis on what the gun skill is all about (maintaining and using your weapon effectively).

And also using a big gun will mean having both inventory slots occupied. This sucks as hell!

I don't think it really sucks, I think it's just the price you pay for using a heavy weapon.

Are you deliberately trying to suck some of the gameplay value out of the game? Get your BiS fellows who are playing FO again and see how much fun it is for those who use the Plasma Rifle / Sledge Hammer combo to go into inventory every-time they want to switch between the two during combat. When someone gets close to me, I like to, with a simple click of the little red button, switch to the sledge and knock them halfway across the screen. Especially if I'm conserving ammo (the Micro Fusion is pretty heavy, especially in Fallout 1, where you don't have a car to shove everything in).

Your idea might be more realistic, but to me, it's going to suck a lot of the fun out. Removing a fun idea or method of play, to create a more realistic situation = not good. Especially when most of the weapons fit into the "two hands" category.

Miniguns are huge and can level town hall meetings.

Actually, they can't. I think that's your complaint. Close range with a minigun gets you anything from 400 hit points and an instant kill, to 4 hit points and you wondering what the fcuk just happened. You can fix that if you like.

Well, in Fallout, one handed weapons aren't weak, that's the problem. The .223 pistol may not be a turbo plasma rifle, but it's certainly a lofty weapon. Going around with two .223 pistols would be pretty damned uber.

I don't agree. You're right that the .223 pistol isn't a turbo plasma rifle: it's about half of a turbo plasma rifle. 20-30 normal vs. 35-70 plasma per shot. Average damage on the TPR is a little over twice as much. The PPK12 only does 2 more than the .223 (22-32), but it's main advantage is a 4 AP cost for standard attack and a REALLY high range (that I can't really rationalize, to be honest). However, if the dual-wielder is suffering penalties to hit for using two weapons, and using twice the ammo it seems like their potential is fairly close, overall.

What you're saying is that one handed weapons are weak, so you're proposing to put them all into one skill. That skill would then be weak, and, like my earlier point demonstrates, be entirely useless to anyone, other than the few who decide to "make a pistol combat character" just for a bit of variety. Like those games when I try to maximise the throwing skill, just to be different and see where it gets me (which is usually dead because I always run out of grenades. You might want to fix that while you're fixing the miniguns).

That's the main problem with his ideas, here. You're going from a decently balanced system, then doubling the damage potential in one area, claiming it's for balance.

It was never balanced to begin with, IMO. The raw stats of the .223 and PPK12 put them at about exactly half the damage potential of the TPR. Assuming both their attacks hit, the net result would be about the same damage range as the TPR with a greater tendency towards the mid-range (two random numbers generated), but with twice the ammo cost.

Well, the Plasma Rifle is supposed to be pretty sweet. That's its point. Fallout is balanced though. Again, FO2, Gauss Rifle.

Even if you lessened the gauss pistol stats so that dual wield was equivalent to the rifle, you'd end up *beep* the non dual wield user by basically forcing them to dual wield just to get anything out of the skill.

Even if the single pistol could be used while a grenade or other item was in the other hand for easy access? Even if you couldn't make called shots with big guns when within a hex of an enemy?

Yes. If I know that I can't make targetted shots within 1 hex of the enemy with the weapon I'm using, guess what I'll do? I'll use 1 action point and move 1 hex back. Then I'll make my called shot.

Wayhay! I just ruined your system!!

As for another weapon being readily accessible? Uhhh... Right. I'd just duel weild the Gauss Pistols. Why wouldn't you? Especially if your throwing skill wasn't good enough for those grenades.

The problem that results from this is that say early in Fallout, you have a hunting rifle for ranged attacking with Small Arms and a 10MM SMG for up close. Both are relatively early game weapons, and using Fallout's system allows you to switch from one to the other as needed.

... if you chose to take small guns early on. If you didn't, you have no use for them at all. You're making an example based on the fact that you've played the game dozens of times and know that the game biases towards small guns at the beginning.

BINGO! It's what all game players realise with any game J.E. Play any game that involves developing stats to use and in almost all situations, the person who doesn't know the game, screws themself over with character design in the end. It's what adds replay value. You KNOW you can do better, now that you know more about the game, so you start again and make a character that can whup some serious behinds.

To further ruin your example. If I take energy weapons from early on, I'm ruined. If I take Big Guns early on, again, my character is completely pathetic for the early game. Making Big Guns vs Small Guns just means there's only a 50% chance of error in an early game decision.

Of course, if you designed Fallout better by having more Big Guns or Energy Weapons throughout the course of the game, you wouldn't have this problem would you? As Saint would say, attacking a hoarde of ants turn-based late in the game is a game design issue, not something that's inherently wrong with the turn-based system.

That type of thinking also seems to screw up JE's whole rifles > pistols argument. If pistols are so weak, then why the hell would anyone ever pick that skill in the beginning?

Jesus, man. Fallout starts you off with a pistol in your hand. If a player could get a more heavy-handed suggestion to take small guns at the beginning, it would have to be a red marquee banner on the character creation screen. God forbid that a player Tag!s big guns or energy weapons at the beginning of Fallout or Fallout 2 and they've never played the game before. They'll suffer until the Necropolis!

First game I played I tagged Energy Weapons. I think my thought process was something along the lines of "I've got no idea what I'm doing, but "Energy Weapons" sounds kinda cool". Better yet, you don't realise you get a Small Gun in your hand until AFTER you've started Fallout. By then, you've already tagged your skills. But with your system, how long would it take before someone realised that Small Guns are useless and Big Guns is the way to go? For me, that would be about the point I get the hunting rifle, or try to use a shotgun. From that point on, it'd be Big Guns for me baby!

I think the only thing that will change my mind is to see how you break up the weapons from Fallout 2 into a Small Guns vs Big Guns list. Then we can compare. At the moment, all you're doing for Fallout is making one generic "Guns" skill that's going to handle 85% of all the weapons in the game... and for what? Because you don't like 6 combat skills, 3 of which involve firearms of various descriptions.

 

[Dan]

Good post Darky...

I think JE's major problem is that he wants to change the system, at all costs.
All of the problems he mentioned could be fixed with designing new weapons, and changing very small things.

Like I said before, it's a matter of tweaking the system, not re-building it.

Then again, I think he said the game will have a real time option, meaning the game won't be balanced anyway.

 

[4too]

Questions

Questions

Where do you all think JE and the BIS Boys want to take this to?

What other game's mechanics do you believe they are trying to project on
a FO shell?

What recent game do you think they want to replay dressed in FO clothes? Replay? Oh, no, it's the FO fans that are guilty of that, never the I'play fans.

What gaming precedents are they basing these balance tweaks on?
Outside of streamlining the engine and locking in a LINEAR character path
to dun down the gameplay.

Are they fixing FO for Real Time?


4too

 

[Roshambo]

The funny thing is that Small Guns is still quite viable through end game for both Fallouts. A sniper rifle does a lot of damage, especially in the hands of a skilled person and with the right perks.

Then, by Sawyer's method, it essentially now makes one handed guns to be pretty useless and a waste to invest skill points in - unless you're going to spend a shitload of that skill for it to be of any use with his "akimbo" nonsense. By such time, big guns would be much more powerful (and accurate without the akimbo penalties) in the same system. And he doesn't see the glaring problems in that.

<sarcasm>BRILLIANT!</sarcasm>

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Try to think of this from the perspective of playing Fallout 1 for the first time. You don't know where to go to get the .223 pistol as soon as you want it. You don't know all of the patterns for character building that come from playing the game over and over again.

Okay, here's what JE Sawyer seems to be missing. Like DarkUnderlord pointed out, Fallout pretty much guides you in to thinking the Energy Weapons skill is the uber-skill for the end game. However, when you play it through the first time, you might find the .223 pistol and think, Huzzah! Maybe, just maybe, I was WRONG about Energy Weapons being the only good skill for combat! and that's actually the case here. It may not be obvious the first time through that there are more options, but those options add to a little thing called replay value.

Even then, he's making an assumption based that everyone plays the same way. He also assumed once that everyone, their first time through, got the Waterchip, destroyed Mariposa first and the Cathedral second. My first time through, I never got the waterchip because I couldn't find it. I assumed that the waterchip was in the Cathedral, so I went there, beat up the Master, and blew the place up. Not finding the chip, I went to Mariposa looking for it, destroyed that place too.

If someone picked the one hander trait their first time through, for whatever reason, chances are they either restarted or beat the game with the .223 pistol.

In the past few weeks, a lot of people in the division have been playing Fallout and Fallout 2 again. A lot of them got close to the end of the game and realized that they had made "worthless" characters -- characters that for whatever reason had skills that were ultimately ineffective for dealing with the challenges they faced.

Dear lord. I'm speechless. I can halfway understand botching Fallout the first time through, but Fallout 2?! This is even more pathesad if they'd played either game once through already.

Small guns fell into that category for both games. Watching someone fight the master with a small gun, even the .223 pistol, is a sad affair when compared to someone using a plasma rifle (turbo or not).

WTF? The Gauss Rifle in Fallout 2 pretty much spanks the plasma and turbo plasma, especially if you just keep building Small Arms instead of branching out to Energy Weapons. I can't even begin to grasp how inept someone would have to be to have any problems at all with Frank Horrigan using the Gauss Pistol or Gauss Rifle. If you can't beat the game with a weapon that does as damage as the Gauss Rifle does with the bonus from the 2MM EC ammo, then the problem isn't with the system, it's with the user. Seriously.

If you can explain to me how any of the small guns are as good as their counterparts in energy weapons, I'd like to hear it.

Ummmm..

M72 Gauss Rifle damage is 32-43 points just for the weapon. 2MM EC has a damage mod of 3/2, making the raw damage for the weapon and ammo 48-64 points damage. It has a range of 50 and takes 5AP without perks.

YK42B Pulse Rifle damage is 54-78 points, and gets no bonus for ammo damage mod. It only had a range of 30.

Now, to the naked eye, the Pulse rifle looks vastly superior, but factor in that range thing. Because the Gauss Rifle has that long, long range, that means it's a hell of a lot easier to make those aimed shots with, which tend to cause criticals. Do I have to mention the damage bonuses on criticals?

Even ignoring the critical thing, because you took Fast Shot so you can't do aimed shots, the Gauss Rifle still excels for the simple reason you can stick with the Small Arms skill you've already built up. If you spent all those points you would have in both Energy Weapons and Small Arms just to use that Pulse Rifle that you would have in just Small Arms..

And hell, the Gauss Pistol is even better than the rifle because you get more shots with the thing. If you have Fast Shot and Bonus Rate of Fire, you're firing that Guass Pistol, which does 48 damage, every two APs. If you have 10AP, which is highly possible in Fallout 2 given the amount of perks you get due to game length, here's the breakdown:

Gauss Pistol:

48 max damage * (10AP/2AP) = 240 max damage

Pulse Rifle:

78 max damage * (10AP/3AP) = 234 max damage

WELL LOOKIE THERE, JE! YOUR BIG, BAD ENERGY WEAPON IS BEATEN BY A LOWLY SMALL ARMS PISTOL!

Honestly, I don't see how anyone other than a masochist would try to go through the game with small guns only when energy weapons are so clearly superior, side to side. It eventually makes the small gun skill less far useful, overall.

Okay, JE.. Explain this one then.. How would making energy weapon fall under the same skill help people to overcome this issue of ending Fallout 2 with just energy weapons? It wouldn't. The end result of your idea is that everyone will finish the game with the Pulse Rifle or the Gauss Pistol. So, instead of people actually being able to debate why the Guass Rifle is the better choice, you've basically created a system where everyone finishes the same way with no debate possible. There wouldn't be the Gauss Rifle sniper character, because that person either likes sniping or just likes Small Arms better since they started with it.. There'd only be the Pulse Rifle. There wouldn't even be much debate over which is better, the Gauss Pistol or the Gauss Rifle, because they'd be in two different skill categories.

 

[4too]

RPG Tradition

RPG Tradition

Weapons skill developement is akin to tech tree-s.

Example "Seed" weapons........

'Wasteland' 9mm/45cal. , crowbar, ax.

'Mars Saga' (C64) 22cal./switchblade

FO had it's "Saturday Night Special" and 'damn if' FO2 had us back to sharpened sticks in the Temple Trials........ kick boxing scorpions wooo-wooo!

Pipe rifles in FO2 and Zip Guns in FOT, and .......

crowbars, monkey wrenches, AND ball bats to get the newbee through the night, until that first smg or hunting rifle showed up.

By the end game the player character was standing tall, "erect",with a mighty phallus of fire power, the ol' BIG STICK....spewing a hot plasmatic,.......checkmate!

{Aside: Unless in FO1/2's case you sweet talked The Master or had that Squad of Enclave grunts frag the Big H. Interesting this flexibility is not being discussed now. A 'given' in FO or is it to be by passed?}


Unless "they" are considering a ""motor skill" -- "tech skill"" base to
build generic weapons handling, in a hybrid SPECIAL system, via "preformance dividends" dispersed to ""stock-bond-simple savings"" accounts (the 401 plan!), I am quessing "they" are drifting to a desire,
to short cycle to Energy weapons and mid level big guns.


Spread sheet system where the basic "Buff-Smarty Pants-Hyper Active-
Paranoid" HERO puts in a down payment of experiential tokens,
[perhaps suplimented by a "learn by doing" (finite) bonus] and creates
a Ponsey pyrimid of performance security.... quessing "they" are

drifting to a desire,....

.....to short cycle to Energy weapons and mid level Big F'ing Guns.

No looking back, no time to replay, {shifting metaphors here} single phase 120 volt AC, in a system 'wired' for 3 phase 480.

Low voltage RPG 'lite' , all Life's dilemma's come down to the
""less filling versus tastes good"" debates......

Will they stop at ""less is more"" or build a new tower of Babel,
in their own "image" of course.

4too

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Re: Questions

Are they fixing FO for Real Time?

I think that might be the problem they've run into. As Dan mentioned, I think they're trying to make it real-time, and it just doesn't work. We'll have gun speeds popping up now, and, just as in Arcanum, it ends up being the faster the weapon, the better it is in real-time vs the slower more powerful weapons holding the fort in turn-based.

{Aside: Unless in FO1/2's case you sweet talked The Master or had that Squad of Enclave grunts frag the Big H. Interesting this flexibility is not being discussed now. A 'given' in FO or is it to be by passed?}

That's one thing I noticed as well, especially with JE's mention of his BiS boys making worthless characters by the end of the game. There's absolutely no mention of talking or sneaking your way through the end game. Only weapons. They forget that there are other alternatives, especially in Fallout.

Well, okay, so it's only a lame shoot-out in FO2. But I think the Gauss Rifle, the gun turrets and your motley crew pretty much thwart that problem.

Watching someone fight the master with a small gun, even the .223 pistol, is a sad affair when compared to someone using a plasma rifle (turbo or not).

Watching someone beat the Master (combat-wise) with their throwing skill is a sad affair. Watching somone beat the Master (combat-wise) with a Super Sledge is a sad affair. Watching someone beat the Master (combat-wise) with a rusty knife is a sad affair.

That's why there are better weapons. It's called game balance. The reason there are three gun skills in Fallout, are so that you DON'T ace the game too easily. If all the weapons fell under one "Guns" skill, you'd have that up to 300% (or 200%) by a pretty early level and worry about the rest of the skills from there. Forcing the player to, later in the game, switch to a different weapons skills means they don't have some kind of Uber Character maxed out in several stats, and instead have to choose.

Again though, put your speech up to about 80% (I think that's about it, or 120%) and you can end the game with not a shot fired. Problem solvered.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I fail to see how it's a sad affair to watch someone beat the master with a supersledge.

 

[dukem]

switched to energy weapons too later in the game, but the .223 lasted very very long.

ontopic:

great news here the last few weeks. love the thought of having some fo3 sometime.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I fail to see how it's a sad affair to watch someone beat the master with a supersledge.

Well, apparently according to J.E. Sawyer, anyone who tries to kill the Master with anything but the Plasma Rifle (probably the easiest weapon to kill him with) is a sad affair. Seems the guy isn't up too much for challenges.


Here's that quote about Real-time Fallout:

http://forums.interplay.com/viewtopic.php?t=24336

A Fallout sequel would almost assuredly have a turn-based mode and a real-time with pause mode, toggled outside of combat. I'm not even going to bother to justify it either, because if you haven't heard all the arguments from every side already, I'm sure they will all be vomited forth in less than a day. Also, I have never seen anyone change their opinion on this subject even a little.

Then there's this on the 2nd page:

I'm glad they decided to include both but I hope that won't compromise either styles for sake of time and resources.

Ultimately, I believe that above all else, the Fallout games allowed people to play the game they wanted to play it. Giving players choice ultimately means spreading your resources. When a designer develops multiple ways to solve a quest, that spreads out resources. Technically speaking, you could take all the time you used to write a branching dialogue to make a bunch of linear dialogues, or a bunch of dialogues that never took a character's gender, ability scores, race, etc. into account.

Hell, we could certainly make combat well-balanced by eliminating dialogue for characters the player might kill -- or might not want to form an alliance with. But we shouldn't do that, because the player should get the option to do that.

Real-time vs. turn-based combat isn't an aspect of character development, but it is an aspect of gameplay. Some people don't like playing through combat, even in a good system. Some people absolutely hate dialogue, even when it's well written. To accomodate different types of players, we do need to spread our resources.

However, at the beginning of Van Buren, we sat down for a few weeks and made outlines of the various areas you could explore in the game. It was pretty damned big. So, I went back and I looked at Fallout. Fallout only had 13 areas. Fallout 2 had 23 areas. Does Van Buren really need to have 23, or even 20 areas? Personally, I think it would be better off with 15-17 very good areas than 23 really rushed areas. And if, in those 15-17 areas, you can get better gameplay balance than you would have been able to in 23 areas, I think that's a good thing. I would rather have crazed lunatic people complain that 100 hours of gameplay isn't enough than have the majority of people quit the game because the first 10 of its 300 estimated hours just suck.

Summary: yes, balancing real-time and turn-based will take time. Yes, real-time and turn-based battles will not play out the same even under the most ideal circumstances. However, enough people are DIE-HARD ADAMANT about only playing one way or another that we believe it is genuinely important to pursue. Will turn-based combat be as balanced as it would without any real-time component? Of course not, but if the difference of that balance is minor, I believe allowing both of the die-hard groups to have a fundamental element of play to enjoy is important.

And to be honest, any time you try to push the "we can only have one and make it work right" to a distributor or buyer, the one they want is going to be real-time. I'd rather have a real-time and turn-based component at 80-90% of its potential than a real-time component at 100% and no turn-based components. I know it bothers a lot of you guys, but I don't honestly know how else to explain it.

 

[Dan]

I don't like that "Marketing told us" excuse, ToEE will have only turn based, so apperntly people can still make games with TB.

 

[4too]

FOT

FOT

One might suppose that FOT would be a testing ground, concerning what works versus what doesn't. Real Time or Turn Based.

Unless one recalls the short focus the BIS Boys had replaying FO and FO2 concerning weapons' skills.

A clue to their line of thought is the parallel nature of "options", a broad front strategy with in a set limit of "areas" or game size. A manageable region of doubt. A parameterd gray zone. Corraled cats!

Sounds like lots of bug fixes to herd the hoard of felines in the direction it's going.

The storyline must be compelling. dynamic, 'enough' to keep players caring long 'enough' to push through the parts they find personally tedious. Momentum. ""Enough"" is kind-a "gray", wonder what flavors it comes in? Or is it all just "chocalate and vanilla", all ice cream. ""Enough is enough""? We back to ""what is , is?""

If JE can do this slight of hand with "marketing" might fool ""some of the people some of the time"" and depend on the REPLAY ability to keep the rest ""in the game"". Momentum.

Real Time Only Zones and Turn Based Only Zones when the bug is too big to cut out.

Sounds like adding count down-drop dead time limits and jumping puzzles, don't it. Mini games! I still want to Bowl for Bottlecaps under
the giant Pip Boy sign at Chuck's "Carbon Bowling" Alley.....

Marketing: Got this feeling they'll be asking if we want ""fries"" with 'our' FO.

All this 'game in a game' stuff. Is there a Zen Master in the audience?

Saint_Proverbius wrote:

I fail to see how it's a sad affair to watch someone beat the master with a supersledge.

One answer there, when confronted with mass culture: UNITY, UNity,...unity...

4too

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I don't like that "Marketing told us" excuse, ToEE will have only turn based, so apperntly people can still make games with TB.

Real time with pause didn't help IWD2's sales either. You know what sold better? Little turn based Pool of Radiance 2.

In other words, it might be time for Interplay to fire their marketting people, because they obviously pushed for the creation of IWD2 and they're also pushing for real time only.