You're missing the point of Science! and Fallout's game design.Vox said:
What weapon do you think fallout is missing the most?
- Thread starter Muff
- Start date
Generic weapons good, specific weapons baaad. FOT made the mistake of real-world weapons, and not only are some of them backassward and strange (the Colt .45 barely doing more damage than a Beretta? Please!), but they don't feel 50's-ish.
I could seriously dig a chainsaw, though. But I would require a healthy supply of Bruce Campbell one-liners to make it fully complete.
I could seriously dig a chainsaw, though. But I would require a healthy supply of Bruce Campbell one-liners to make it fully complete.
The problem is not mass weapon amounts, there are plenty or even teh appearacne/description of the weapons, some weapons are redundnat, whilst this is not always bad (wakasashi blade, BB gun, rock etc) some weapons should be good, like grenades or rocket launchers or flamers, so i owuld surgest something strange, yes these weapons alck being effective arly in the game but later they are better, as in much better. How could this be done? Well power armour attacthments anyone? 
What the hell are you talking about? For god's sake, use the spellcheck and try to make some coherent sentences.
From what I can decipher, I think you like the wakizashi blade (erm, why?), and you think that there should be weapons that are useless early on and very powerful later.
Again: why? Someone will then just pick it up at a later stage instead of using it early on. I really don't get why you would want to do this.
From what I can decipher, I think you like the wakizashi blade (erm, why?), and you think that there should be weapons that are useless early on and very powerful later.
Again: why? Someone will then just pick it up at a later stage instead of using it early on. I really don't get why you would want to do this.
Kan-Kerai
Still Mildly Glowing
Yeah, but the Ripper doesn't rev in that oh-so-satisfying way. It just kind of goes... thunk. With a small rattling chain sound spliced in.
Bah, suppressors would give the player and unfair advantage.
A Smith&Wessen Victory would have been cool, although wouldn't really be used by anyone(.38 cal, 6 shot revolver.)
A Sten would be a nice addition (9mm machine gun) Just for the fact the games had a lack of guns using 9mm ammo.
Boys Anti-tank Rifle would have been a decent adition, but somewhat oddly placed, since it was never employed by the U.S. (.55 cal 5 rnd bolt action.
A Smith&Wessen Victory would have been cool, although wouldn't really be used by anyone(.38 cal, 6 shot revolver.)
A Sten would be a nice addition (9mm machine gun) Just for the fact the games had a lack of guns using 9mm ammo.
Boys Anti-tank Rifle would have been a decent adition, but somewhat oddly placed, since it was never employed by the U.S. (.55 cal 5 rnd bolt action.
Hotel California
Mildly Dipped
Any suppressed firearm that was implimented properly would have made parts of FO2 a lot easier and more realistic. For instance, in the ranch you could shoot Westin from the window with any damn weapon you pleased. Consider that these would have made a big bang that should have brought all the ranch hands running and you see the need for a silencer.
Whilst anyone with a LOS should be able to detect the gunshots anyone outside of the room or 10 or so hexs (who can't see the PC) should be totally unaware of the PC's actions. FO3 needs more silenced weapons.
Whilst anyone with a LOS should be able to detect the gunshots anyone outside of the room or 10 or so hexs (who can't see the PC) should be totally unaware of the PC's actions. FO3 needs more silenced weapons.
Barrett's should suit your tastes nicely. (it might not be anti-tank, but it's anti-material (and anti-personel if you're twisted enough) and it'll punch through the armor of an APC or a light armored tank if you use the correct ammo)Argonnot said:
Argonnot said:
Why shouldn't they? You walk down the empty main street of a ruined town, suddenly a window pops up, "You have died, I)gnore, R)eload or Q)uit?"
Edit: Of course, since the bullet from a sniper rifle travels faster than sound, it makes little difference to the player. But the NPC would have a harder time getting their revenge. Oh well.
Sorrow
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
1) Atom Rifle
2) Atomic Desintegrator
3) Atom Blaster
2) Atomic Desintegrator
3) Atom Blaster
SuAside said:
Its pretty much the same, weapon, the Boys just fire's a larger round. Using tungston(Sp) rounds, I could punch through the Medium armour of Panzer tanks, course, tungstun(Sp) rounds only can around after the Nazi's were defeated. Plus wasn't the Barret made in the 70's-80's?
Kan-Kerai
Still Mildly Glowing
Yes they could.
If an enemy were sneaking they could, say, be able to fire on you without breaking their cover and also gain a bonus to their critical rate. Depending on your PE and LK you have a chance to break their sneak, and depending on your IN and PE you have a chance to break it every time they fire (your character figures out where the bullets are coming from by mapping out angles, etc). You could bring skills into it too, obviously. Like Outdoorsman if it's in a wilderness setting, and Sneak to help to by factoring in your knowledge of hiding and cover.
You could try to get away by sneaking (Sneak, LK), run away and hope for the best (LK and AG), spray fire wildly and hope you hit them (LK, Weapon skills), hide and pray your party members can do the job (Their stats, abilities and equipment, Divine Favor), rush them with your party (Weapons, AG, LK, etc.), try intimidating them or negotiating (Your equipment, kill history, faction standings, Speech, CH, IN), hope their gun blows up (very high LK, Pariah Dog) or just die very horribly (Bloody Mess). Choices and consequences and nonlinearity and all that jazz.
This way enemies can use what you can use against them, neither side has an unfair advantage. Stats are the only determining factor, the player's sight, hearing, etc. don't enter into the equation. Just like most of us seem to want.
The first Barrett was made in 1982, the first good Barrett was made in 1986. Yeah, a Barrett itself wouldn't fit the setting, but a rifle with effects analogous to it might be OK.
The greater size of the round isn't enough to override the fact that the Barrett has a far higher muzzle velocity, giving it far higher penetration.
In any case, a rifle like the Barrett already exists in Fallout- the first time I saw the Bozar, I immediately thought of the Barrett. Change the Bozar's ammo type to .50 and make it a single-shot rifle and there's your Barret-alike.
The FO2 developers just copied the look of the XM109 Barrett variant (fires 25mm rounds instead of 12.7mm) and called it a Bozar. And in their slam-dump! way, decided it should be a machine gun that fires the far smaller and less powerful .223/5.56mm.
Dead ringer, huh? Just put a clip in the XM109 and flip the Bozar's bipod down.
Kan-Kerai
Still Mildly Glowing
You're right, my mistake. But that doesn't change the fact that the Barrett is lighter, has an effective range five times greater than the Boys (up to eight times depending on conditions and skill), less recoil, a higher capacity magazine, a 10x scope (compared to none), and better penetration (The Boys can penetrate 20mm of armor at 90m, a Barrett can do the same at 250m). They're not "pretty much the same weapon".Argonnot said:
I'll quit derailing now.
I think that Fallout needs a ray gun like the one in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. Also, more pistols and low-power rifles. And needs more improvised melee weapons.
More pistols and low-power rifles due to the fact that most civilians would've had them and not military-grade hardware, and improvised melee weapons because they just fit the setting. Like being able to use a shovel in combat or even just hit someone with a cinder block if you're desperate.