Development Info A taste of the patch

[Trash]

Troika? Hmmm, they show a lot of potential that they didn't necesarily made true. Arcanum was great for character interaction and role playing. Though the game was ultimately unbalanced, the combat wasn't to write home about and the dungeons boring. Toee has some great dungeons, the best combat in any rpg too date but really lacks in the quest and npc interaction field. And then I'm not even talking about Troika's less than perfect QA history.

Then again, their games have been a constant source of joy and fun for me. Lets see what they'll come up with next.

Trash

 

[triCritical]

Fallout's combat was slow and extremely unbalanced (particularly when compared to JA2, for example)

I don't think Fallouts combat was slow. Certain encounters in FO2 took very long to complete. But that was the ridiculous stuff like the den, NCR when everyone would get involved, or the rats, geckos and ants, which were just horrible encounters.

As far as unbalanced, I don't think combat was unbalanced either. What was unbalanced was that you can reach level 20 in a game that could be beat at level 6-7. But then again that is non-linear for you.

 

[Sammael]

Fallout's combat wans't unbalanced. At least not when I played.... You must have a different version...

What, you never got killed by a single critical hit from a plasma rifle fifteen times in a row? Fallout's critical hit system, an integral part of the combat subsystem, was ridiculously unbalanced.

 

[Volourn]

No, no I did not. I have never died 15 times in a row in any game. Sorry to dissapoint you.

 

[Sammael]

No, no I did not. I have never died 15 times in a row in any game. Sorry to dissapoint you.

Happened to me quite often. In fact, I daresay that there was not a single late-game battle in FO2 which I did not have to reload at least once due to getting killed by a critical hit.

 

[Volourn]

Hmm.. Overall, I foudn the later levels much easier than the lower levels. It didn't take muche arly on to ddie due to having crappy armour, and weapons. Late in the game, I felt like a literal tank.

 

[triCritical]

Fallout's combat wans't unbalanced. At least not when I played.... You must have a different version...

What, you never got killed by a single critical hit from a plasma rifle fifteen times in a row? Fallout's critical hit system, an integral part of the combat subsystem, was ridiculously unbalanced.

Its just as unbalanced as DnD at low levels. And the crits only start happening that way at later levels, and IMO a source of frustration. I think they would have been better off using the their broken limb engine instead of the instant death. Especially in FO where encounters were relatively smaller.

Also I don't think it is a source of unbalance, just a source of frustration. A player can choose to unbalance this by getting the right perks and weapons. However, the Fallout was very much equiped to deal with issue by giving the power armor. For those characters that did not need power armor like sneak-boys and diplomats, then you really did not have to worry about this if your played your character right.

FO2 OTOH, was not designed as well, and was much more unbalanced. But then again I don't endorse Feargus' foozle-fest.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

No, no I did not. I have never died 15 times in a row in any game. Sorry to dissapoint you.

Happened to me quite often. In fact, I daresay that there was not a single late-game battle in FO2 which I did not have to reload at least once due to getting killed by a critical hit.

WHAT!? YOU DIED!?? OH MY GOD!! What's going to happen next, quests might get too hard? You might, shock horror, actually have to THINK at some point during the game?

OH NOEZ!!11!

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

What, you never got killed by a single critical hit from a plasma rifle fifteen times in a row? Fallout's critical hit system, an integral part of the combat subsystem, was ridiculously unbalanced.

Are you the guy that said Luck wasn't important in the SPECIAL system on Fallout games?

 

[Sharpei_Diem]

Can't remember having that much problems in FO, but in arcanum my tech guy killed himself more than anyone else did....he couldn't look at a gun without setting off a critical failure that blew part of his body somewhere.....Of course, it was mostly my fault: I'll never pick that 'enduring makes you stronger' perk ever again.

 

[Seven]

No, no I did not. I have never died 15 times in a row in any game. Sorry to dissapoint you.

Happened to me quite often. In fact, I daresay that there was not a single late-game battle in FO2 which I did not have to reload at least once due to getting killed by a critical hit.

But that's the whole point isn't it? One lucky shot and your life is just as meaningless as any's in the wasteland. Lets be honest, a common bandit with a simple 9mm could end it for you in FO and a farmer with a pipe gun could destroy you in FO2 with a lucky shot. I think it emphasized the harshness of the world; however, JE with his determination to change things just for the sake of change disagrees.

 

[Sammael]

But that's the whole point isn't it? One lucky shot and your life is just as meaningless as any's in the wasteland. Lets be honest, a common bandit with a simple 9mm could end it for you in FO and a farmer with a pipe gun could destroy you in FO2 with a lucky shot. I think it emphasized the harshness of the world; however, JE with his determination to change things just for the sake of change disagrees.

I think any half-sane person would agree that a game system which relies on the reload button is not a good one.

 

[Sammael]

What, you never got killed by a single critical hit from a plasma rifle fifteen times in a row? Fallout's critical hit system, an integral part of the combat subsystem, was ridiculously unbalanced.

Are you the guy that said Luck wasn't important in the SPECIAL system on Fallout games?

Did I? I may have said that I didn't want Luck to be a stat, and, frankly, I still don't. But SPECIA sounds awful.

However, removing Luck from the system and therefore reducing the frequency of critical hits (along with removing such perks as Sniper, for example) would be way better than leaving it as is.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I think that a system which regulates how often you critically hit and how often you are critically hit yourself should exist, but i believe that dumping it on a single stat, in this case, Luck, isn't necessarily the best way. But i also agree with triCritical, it isn't a source of unbalance, just a source of frustration. After all stats have to regulate one, or, preferably, more, things.

Meanwhile, totally unrelated, but... Sharpei_Diem, why don't you use the original Monty Python quote in your signature?

 

[Elwro]

I played FO and FO2 many, many times. I never had any such problems as Sammael mentioned. The games definitely DON'T rely upon the 'reload' button. If they do for you, it seems that you've taken Luck 1 and "Jinxed" trait or somehow your computer screws randomization up.

PS. I always take Finesse, so it's mostly me who has criticals .

 

[Walks with the Snails]

I think any half-sane person would agree that a game system which relies on the reload button is not a good one.

I don't quite see the deal. I just ambushed my enemies and tried to use range and terrain to my advantage in Fallout, and it invariably worked except for a few rare lucky hits. Simplest way to not get armor-bypassing crits is to kill all the bastards first. Even if by the numbers you can probably take a few hits from a super-mutant with a minigun as long as you wear power-armor, nothing's guaranteed. I do think the all-or-nothing criticals and armor bypassing hits should have been tweaked, though. As well as the fact burst fire usually meant all the bullets hit or none did. Getting hit for either 0 or 100 is a bit much.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Here's a fun question, since critters will no longer be drawn to attack Spiritual Weapon spells, will anyone cast it? I never found a use for that spell other than as a decoy because it rarely ever hits.

However, removing Luck from the system and therefore reducing the frequency of critical hits (along with removing such perks as Sniper, for example) would be way better than leaving it as is.

Well, I always play with a high luck character, and I've never had much trouble getting critically hit. Even toe to toe smacking Frank with a hammer, he rarely did a critical on me.

 

[Psilon]

Luck 4 never really did much to me either.

 

[triCritical]

What, you never got killed by a single critical hit from a plasma rifle fifteen times in a row? Fallout's critical hit system, an integral part of the combat subsystem, was ridiculously unbalanced.

Are you the guy that said Luck wasn't important in the SPECIAL system on Fallout games?

Thats me! And it pisses me off to this day that luck is tied to crits. Crits should be a result of the perfection of ones skill not some half ass non-intangible stat that really isn't a stat. They might as well include karma in the combat calculations as well.

IT'S STUPID

IT'S STUPID

IT'S STUPID

News flash, there is not such things is luck! Its just something we use to categorically use to reference events in our lifes. I mean people are truly not lucky or unlucky. I realize its a game. But it is kind of stupid, and there is really no need for it.

OK, I feel better now.

EDIT: I don't mean to sound hostile, but I once mentioned the removal of luck for FO3, because it would make my gaming experience better. And I recieved like two pages of flames on the IPLY boards from Johnny-come-lately-fans, which really pissed me off because they are the ones that were also consequently saying FO SHOULD BE MOER LIEK MAD MAX!

 

[GreenNight]

News flash, there is not such things is luck! Its just something we use to categorically use to reference events in our lifes. I mean people are truly not lucky or unlucky. I realize its a game. But it is kind of stupid, and there is really no need for it.

Well, I partly disagree. I find that I am more on the luck side, while some people I know are on the unlucky one.

I have been several times on the right place at the right time, answered the right thing at the right moment without any information, and several other things. On the other hand several people I know (two girls) have had several not-good experiences, like a case of pigeons choosing one of them to shit on her, several times, and things like being at the wrong time in the wrong place.

Perhaps it's more a matter in how you perceive the world, but I do think that something like luck or karma exists.

Now to talk a bit about the patch I do really like that at last I won't have to pass my objects from all the characters to the one that has more appraisal, loosing a lot of time.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Hang on, lemme get this right. We have a bunch of people here who don't like dieing in computer games and having to reload? Okay... right.

I *loved* Fallout's "death can get you at any time" system. I knew I could survive any battle with anyone if they didn't hit me for much damage (Stimpaks are free to use in inventory). It was the critical insta-death that made it fun and made you take out the guy with the Gauss Rifle first, rather then the one with the hammer who was closer.

Luck is an intangible "statistic" used to define various things in a game that's based on chance. If you're dieing too often, get a higher luck. Seriously though,. if you're dieing 15 times in a row (or rather, dieing in the same situation every-time you reload) try something else (like, run away). The definition of insanity is trying the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.

Also, I can't say I've ever had the same issue and I usually play a low luck character (1). RPGs are funny things, if you don't pick the stats to allow you to play the way you want to play, then you can't play that way silly boy. You sound like a retard who tags Big Guns, boosts it up to 300% and then uses his hammer everywhere. Now you're complaining that you can never hit anything with it.

 

[JanC]

S
Of course, the astute reader, will mention that without the public beta testing, all the problems would not have been picked up. Owning over 5 Atari titles has made me realize that their QA is not very good. LOL.

I reckon that Atari's testers are probably no better or worse than any other testers. The bugs are fairly simple, obvious ones that anyone could find, such as the 'Save and Exit' menu option not working in Ironman mode. I think that the QA team probably found plenty of bugs, but Atari decided to ship it anyway, for some kind of bizarre business reason. The testers probably filled a database with bugs and some manager said "Does it reformat your hard drive? No? Then ship it!"
Perhaps they thought that D&D fans would put up with any old junk with a license slapped on it. Perhaps it was for accounting reasons. Perhaps they have some new "No Game *Ever* Released Late" policy. Perhaps the guy who comissioned it left Atari, and his successor didn't care and just wanted to get it out the door. We might know eventually.
The tragedy is that there is a really good game in there. I play it a lot, and enjoy it. But it could have been a classic.
The only other Atari game I own is NWN. I found that game much better in terms of blindingly obvious bugs (there were none that I noticed), but much worse in terms of unpredictable crashes and corrupt savegames.
I wonder if Atari will ever understand that they are getting a bad name, and it is hurting their sales? I was very excited about MOO3 but when I heard about the bugs I didn't bother buying it. How on earth could they fail to sell MOO3 to a rabid MOO2 fan like me? They must be really talented to manage that!

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

News flash, there is not such things is luck! Its just something we use to categorically use to reference events in our lifes. I mean people are truly not lucky or unlucky. I realize its a game. But it is kind of stupid, and there is really no need for it.

I would disagree. Some people are better at being in the right place at the right time than others. But, if it makes you happier, just think of it as QUANTUM PERCEPTION and move on.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

News flash, there is not such things is luck! Its just something we use to categorically use to reference events in our lifes. I mean people are truly not lucky or unlucky. I realize its a game. But it is kind of stupid, and there is really no need for it.

I would disagree. Some people are better at being in the right place at the right time than others. But, if it makes you happier, just think of it as QUANTUM PERCEPTION and move on.

That would make it SPECIAQP :shock:

Strangely i also don't agree with luck (even if i must admit i cannot see how some moments in my life were anything other than luck). What i mainly think is that there is no luck, merely outcomes to every single thing we do. The outcomes can be microscopic, or earth-shattering, but everything you do will come back. As for calling it luck... i think we call it luck because we do not expect certain things to happen, but i'm sure that if we think about it, those lucky events happened because we did something, and not because of some random cosmical thingie that "blessed" us.

 

[Trash]

But you'll never know for certain now will you? :D



The only thing that bothered me about the combat system in fallout was all the freaking times I got killed by a burst from one of my party members. Kept me a bit edgy that one....