Ask us anything

[Zed]

Have you gotten a cease or desist letter from Bethesda lawyers yet?
Are you worried you will?

 

[DosBuster]

I can provide an answer on the female character companion question. I have decided to write a female bisexual compantion, taking major inspiration from BioWare's hit title and quite possible best title in Character development and Plot Mass Effect 3- ok in all seriousness. I don't like to have stronger and weaker characters writing wise (well in a Writing quality sense) so all male/female/everything characters will be written equally.

Oh and as for Bethesda, if they managed to fuck up The Elder Scrolls then I highly doubt they can put pen to paper to write a complex Cease or Desist letter with multiple options and a complex setting.

EDIT: Should specify more on the female subject, sexism, racism and other -ism's exist in the Fallout universe and I intend to subtly portray them as best I can. Some quest givers won't give male/female/other's quests, some merchants won't talk to them. And there may be examples of reverse sexism, over reacting to that specific person/thing will happen.

 

[hexer]

^

Murder/Robbery is such a short term answer for a long term problem. I foresee no problem with that (Choice and consequence, biatches~)

--------------------------------
        laclongquan     
                       
         WANTED FOR   
         MASS MURDER
    OF HONEST SHOPKEEPERS
--------------------------------

Have you gotten a cease or desist letter from Bethesda lawyers yet?
Are you worried you will?

No, we haven't but we switched over to FOnline engine and informed them about that.
We're not worried about them trying to shut us down. Their last email was more friendly than the first one: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...van-buren-spoilers.88296/page-10#post-3047488

Regardless of their last answer, we're not risking it and will remain on FOnline engine.

 

[hexer]

I received a reply from FOnline developers about companion control.

Their behavior is controlled via dialog, and also you can give them (but only all of them at once) some basic commands (like to attack or to move) with alt-click (or maybe it was ctrl). With a bit of scripting it should be possible to do anything Fallout 2 does and much more.

Party system with selecting particular party member like in BG would be more work.

So it's still open to implementation but some basic control is already there.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

Have you gotten a cease or desist letter from Bethesda lawyers yet?
Are you worried you will?

They'd probably think it's not worth the headache of dealing with Codexers in the first place.

Also, it's totally fine to make references about Prosper though. In fact he should be a character somewhere.

 

[Whisky]

Prosper was already in Fallout 3, I think that might have something to do with his current condition. Would he survive another Fallout game?

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Prosper

Spoiler

 

[Trephs]

Obviously, not the same Prosper.
>I think that might have something to do with his current condition.
Thus you are wrong.

 

[DosBuster]

Yeah, that prosper despite sharing a name is not the same person.

 

[hexer]

He could be found modelling 3D on a computer while nearby the Codex Troll spews ear-burning insults concerning Decline.

 

[Crooked Bee]

Are you going to implement a real time with pause mode, like it was originally intended by BIS and Sawyer?

Spoiler

 

[hexer]

Are you going to implement a real time with pause mode, like it was originally intended by BIS and Sawyer?

Spoiler

Hehe, RTwP is already implemented in FOnline. The default mode will be turn-based but if someone prefers RTwP it can be changed in options.

 

[hiver]

I received a reply from FOnline developers about companion control.

Their behavior is controlled via dialog, and also you can give them (but only all of them at once) some basic commands (like to attack or to move) with alt-click (or maybe it was ctrl). With a bit of scripting it should be possible to do anything Fallout 2 does and much more.

Party system with selecting particular party member like in BG would be more work.

So it's still open to implementation but some basic control is already there.

Dont do any more than that.
Individual independent companions are great stuff.

i would suggest that how much you can influence them in combat to be dependent on charisma and intelligence.
Dont know how you can do that but it should be done.

 

[Surf Solar]

How can you enjoy being taken away control from you as the player? :S

 

[hiver]

Because you are supposed to be playing one character. Not all of them.

Because youre not a telepathic omnipotent being that can control others as easy as you fart.
Because erratic or just plain wrong moves each companion does reinforces and strengthens the importance of tactical considerations since its not only the enemy you have to worry about.
Because being more or less worthy in combat should correspond with those characters individuality and overall skills.
Because it increases the individuality and characterization of each character.
Because your skills and attributes should affect it by degrees, believably.

 

[Surf Solar]

I understand that, but disagree. To me it's much more important and most importantly fun to control them on my own instead to just wait for stuff they do. Being active instead of just watching the AI unfold.

 

[vitamin]

hexer - I don't know if you're gonna make new car model for your game but if do maybe this could be a good reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sabre_concept_car

 

[hiver]

I understand that, but disagree. To me it's much more important and most importantly fun to control them on my own instead to just wait for stuff they do. Being active instead of just watching the AI unfold.

Since it is a single player game, it is more appropriate and believable you would or could affect allies. Not directly control them.

It really was an issue only because it was buggy and unfinished, because of the way the game was designed in those days - which we all know now in detail, im sure, thanks to original devs kindly writing excellent essays about it.
Even with fan patches to the games the main issues that got most of players in those overblown uproars about it were not a problem anymore.

If the current team pays just most common sense to the matters of Ai - and with some nice team orders - with a little bit of difference in accepting them and executing them flawlessly or not, between the different NPCs - based on their stats and "personalities", professions, etc.
It would be something that is good and interesting to play with with good effects on the gameplay it affects.

Besides, changing the game to a full party based game would be changing it too much. in my opinion.
It wuldnt be a real 100% Fallouts - Fallout, if you catch my drift.

Even if it would be a Fallout game.

 

[Kaucukovnik]

Less control over companions often means more tedious babysitting. If you can ensure the following, I have little need for direct control:

-They don't waste ammo by bursting miniguns on rats, so you don't have to manage their ammo supply all the time
-They don't fire bursts through friendly targets, especially if they are supposed to be intelligent people and not savages used to spears and stones
-They don't charge into battle when an ally accidentally hits them
-They don't block bottlenecks, refusing to move even when repeatedly asked to

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

Dont do any more than that.
Individual independent companions are great stuff.

i would suggest that how much you can influence them in combat to be dependent on charisma and intelligence.
Dont know how you can do that but it should be done.

Van Buren was actually supposed to have something like what you say, based on Charisma + Persuade. Essentially, you used it to control your NPCs, and prevent them from disobeying your orders during distress and running for the hills. You could even assume direct control. Perhaps have a resource to be spent through that (Respect? Morale?).

This is why I'm pro-division of Speech into Persuade and Deception, because both can do different things. You can't maintain a party in high morale through deception. Also it would be too much stuff in one skill.

 

[hiver]

Less control over companions often means more tedious babysitting. If you can ensure the following, I have little need for direct control:

-They don't waste ammo by bursting miniguns on rats, so you don't have to manage their ammo supply all the time
-They don't fire bursts through friendly targets, especially if they are supposed to be intelligent people and not savages used to spears and stones
-They don't charge into battle when an ally accidentally hits them
-They don't block bottlenecks, refusing to move even when repeatedly asked to

You have to have companions shooting you and each other in the back. Cant have a Fallout game without it.

The thing is that of it isnt a bugged out, unfinished, undeveloped mechanic as it was originally - it wont be so jarring at all.
Especially if it corresponds to a specific character (like Sulik, Mayron or Vic for example) and especially if it happens more while they are at low levels.

Then, if you make it so that you can influence those NPCs to decrease it to some extent - through dialogue and through skill upgrades, - it becomes a worthy gameplay element.

This good effect increases further if the game does not treat companions as pokemons you can collect all at any time or have any of them as easily as you want.
And i hate the system where they all level up automatically to be on the same level whenever you take them - which really negates any sort of choices that could matter about any of it - while the opposite effect happens if the game treats the companions differently.
Namely as originals did - which was perfect and should be used more.

Dont do any more than that.
Individual independent companions are great stuff.

i would suggest that how much you can influence them in combat to be dependent on charisma and intelligence.
Dont know how you can do that but it should be done.

Van Buren was actually supposed to have something like what you say, based on Charisma + Persuade. Essentially, you used it to control your NPCs, and prevent them from disobeying your orders during distress and running for the hills. You could even assume direct control. Perhaps have a resource to be spent through that (Respect? Morale?).

This is why I'm pro-division of Speech into Persuade and Deception, because both can do different things. You can't maintain a party in high morale through deception. Also it would be too much stuff in one skill.

I just cant go with any type of direct control. In this case. Even if it was a matter of spending some resources. Im afraid it would only add a complicated thing to pull off that wouldnt pay off really, in the long run.
I mean... thats better then nothing. But...

I think a lot can be done with the way originals went about it. While it really isnt such a big bad thing as a lot of people think due to bugginess and the way it would happen in originals.
While players making obvious mistakes themselves added to that a lot.

I mean, giving an SMG to a crazed tribal, or running infront of an enraged supermutant wielding a minigun... and then complaining about it. I mean really...
Just that added about 50% to perceived "problems" with it.
While it was the easiest thing to remove SMG from Sulik and give a different weapon to Marcus - and everyone knows it.


As for dialogue, if something like it is already supposed to be in Van Buren or the team can do it... i leave that to the team to decide.
Im fine either way, really.

 

[Johannes]

Will it feature tasteful rape?

 

[hexer]

Good! Good! I already have a huge ass TODO document in the works for the game and most of the stuff you mentioned is already in to be considered for implementation.

Will it feature tasteful rape?

I've seen something like that in one design document.

 

[hiver]

Good! Good! I already have a huge ass TODO document in the works for the game and most of the stuff you mentioned is already in to be considered for implementation.

You referring to my post or someone else?

 

[hexer]

You referring to my post or someone else?

I was referring to your, Kaucukovnik's and vitamin's post

 

[vitamin]

I'd like to bring up the subject of armor and clothing. IMO all more advanced armor should be much more difficult to come by and have extremely high prices. And by more advanced I mean all armor better than the leather one in Fo1 or Fo2. On the other hand, it would be great to have more variety in common clothing like leather jackets (and combat version too which is my favorite one), some coats and head covers, and gas masks too.

For some nice looking costumes check this short video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn7vEV843Pw


p.s.
Making high-tek armor less accessible means that better guns have to follow this way too of course. But it's a good thing (at least in my opinion).