Game News Fallout: New Vegas - By Obsidian, For Bethesda

[FeelTheRads]

VD plans to use VATS in his next game, that's why he tries to make it look good.

 

[raving nincompoop]

On second thought I do want to go with your "what if" with some semantics cherries on top.

APs are time units and thus aren't a TB-only feature. In fact they worked very well in Fallout Tactics (a guy with a magnum and Fast Shot perk could shoot twice as fast as anyone with a rifle or SMG). It worked ok in FO3 too, but the numbers were fucked.

I don’t understand your tangent, in Fallout Tactics the time units are SHARED; they govern both your characters and the opponents, while the opponents in Fallout3 are not. In Fallout3, having a better use for limited supply of time unit doesn’t give you the advantage that it gives you in a game where both you and your opponents are govern by the same mechanic.

It's not the same.

And why it can't work in RT again? Perception based bonus to accuracy and range can be implemented in any system.

The main problem of Fallout 3 persist though, some (if not all) of you suggestions imply almost two whole games in the price of one, one with VATS, which is really full TB underneath, and one with FPS, in the FPS playthrough, jacking up agility isn’t necessary because you really don’t need a constant supply of APs, but in vats playthrough it is.

How it CAN work?

Sequence is a part of any TB system, even the ones as simple as Geneforge. It was also in ToEE. That's the only aspect that mighty be lost. However, there is no reason why a basic "who shoots first" sequence can't be incorporated into VATS.

What about entering VATS in the *middle* of an FPS shootout?

If you are going bother and suggest implementation possibilities, at least think of the trivial problems that arises from you suggestion.

Sniper and bonus rate of fire - not a problem. VATS is AP-based, so anything that involves AP can be more or less easily implemented in VATS.

Explaining again how RoF is not a problem if you don’t mind, I'm not really seeing it.

Again, that's not TB only feature. I'm not sure if Bethesda's VATS can be tweaked to give you a choice of multiple attacks, but any interface can have a simple drop down menu, so theoretically it's possible.

Sure, VATS interface can be made DiabloII style, complete with reconfigurable attack mode hotkeys. But that stills doesn’t count for the fact that the choice on how to spent APs are diluted, unless of course we go back to this two games in one line of thought.

--------

Stuffing TB features into FPS core gameplay, while retaining a balance with FPS combat isn’t *that* easy, if possible at all, if it was we would have seen such a game made by now.

What you are trying to do to SPECIAL (or should I say combat features that are derived from the SPECIAL system) is like what lawyers are trying to do with the truth: see how far they can bend it without breaking it (VATS). It is somewhat amusing, but by the time you will somehow successfully manage to shoehorn SPECIAL into an FPS game, it won't be SPECIAL anymore, it will break and all you have in the end of it are pieces of SPECIAL in a different system, combat features that are like in SPECIAL but the overall system is not quite like SPECIAL, but close enough if seen from a far.

But you are not there yet, and until then VonVentrue point stands.

SPECIAL=TURN BASED

 

[Dionysus]

Or in other words, force TB mechanics (in the classic sense) down VATS throat, and hope it works, and maybe even enjoyable in the same time ("work" doesn't necessarily guarantee an enjoyable combat system), but nice try. I'll guess we will see what the guys and girls @obsidian manage to make of VATS, assuming they keep it in a year and a half (count me down for at least 6 months delay in F:Vegas).

There's a theoretical question and a practical question here. From a practical standpoint, Obsidian would be stupid to try to closely approximate an actual TB battle with a RT system. It would be absolutely retarded to have players freezing in RT if they run out of action points, for example.

But from a more hypothetical perspective, a lot of your concerns are silly. Of course you can implement SPECIAL in RT. For action points, you can just adjust the speed at which all characters act. Different attacks that occur at different speeds are a staple of RT games. PE can affect hit detection (like Morrowind), and if you are really concerned about player skill, there could be a lock-on feature that eliminates aiming. With the exception of the TB nature of the combat, there's nothing in Fallout that I haven't seen in a RT game.

 

[raving nincompoop]

But from a more hypothetical perspective, a lot of your concerns are silly. Of course you can implement SPECIAL in RT. For action points, you can just adjust the speed at which all characters act. Different attacks that occur at different speeds are a staple of RT games. PE can affect hit detection (like Morrowind), and if you are really concerned about player skill, there could be a lock-on feature that eliminates aiming. With the exception of the TB nature of the combat, there's nothing in Fallout that I haven't seen in a RT game.

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to quote myself -

Stuffing TB features into FPS core gameplay, while retaining a balance with FPS combat isn’t *that* easy, if possible at all, if it was we would have seen such a game made by now.

You just broke FPS in order to accommodate TB.

 

[Fat Dragon]

Bloodwar never happened

Well if they rewrite history that's just stupid.

Are you guys sure? I remember reading somewhere that Asmodeus pushed the abyss to the bottom of the elemental chaos and ended the war.

 

[Dionysus]

You just broke FPS in order to accommodate TB.

No, I wasn't talking about FPSs and TB in that paragraph. I was talking about SPECIAL and RT.

Now you are conflating FPS and RT as well as conflating TB and SPECIAL. These things are separable (are Maken X and Metroid Prime FPSs?). Obviously you can't do TB in RT, and it would probably be foolish to try to turn FO3 into a TB game.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Or in other words, force TB mechanics (in the classic sense) down VATS throat, and hope it works, and maybe even enjoyable in the same time...

Much better than the alternative, no?

Overall, I think you missed the point of SPECIAL having TB as core component, meaning you have TB first and then develop the combat mechanics on TOP of it.

SPECIAL is a character system with 7 stats, skills with starting values determined by the stats, and action points. That's all it is. Other than sequence, which plays a very minor role, nothing is TB only. If you disagree, I'd like to see your reasons and arguments.

If, of course, you are not interesting in a coherent combat system, but mashing some cool ideas in a game ...

Given a choice, I'd go with isometric and turn-based. Given a lesser choice: original VATS vs greatly improved VATS, I'd go with greatly improved VATS. Makes sense?

And yes, due to combat being an important part of the gameplay ("u cannot avoid" mama goes here) it obviously had a large effect on SPECIAL, read that as: TB first, SPECIAL later; TB as a fundamental game design decision, SPECIAL as a result, NOT the other way around!

That's your statement. Where are the arguments backing it up?

I don’t understand your tangent, in Fallout Tactics the time units are SHARED; they govern both your characters and the opponents, while the opponents in Fallout3 are not.

Which is why I suggested to fix it by disabling the forced slow motion.

The main problem of Fallout 3 persist though, some (if not all) of you suggestions imply almost two whole games in the price of one, one with VATS, which is really full TB underneath, and one with FPS, in the FPS playthrough, jacking up agility isn’t necessary because you really don’t need a constant supply of APs, but in vats playthrough it is.

How it CAN work?

What seems to be the problem? Compare D2 single-player to D2 battle-net play. Health goes from "just put a few points there every now and then" to "stat numero uno". If someone wants to play FO3 FPS style, they can do so. If someone wants to use VATS, it should have some decent mechanics and if these mechanics would make stats more important.... well, I don't see a problem.

What about entering VATS in the *middle* of an FPS shootout?

There are different ways to handle it. I'd prefer to track all actions' AP and subtract recent actions' cost when entering VATS. So, if I can normally count on 12AP and just fired (burst mode, 6AP) at someone and immediately went into VATS, then I only get 6AP. If I fired, ducked, waited a few moments (enough to have 2AP restored), then I get 8AP in VATS.

If you are going bother and suggest implementation possibilities, at least think of the trivial problems that arises from you suggestion.

Thank you for the advice.

Sniper and bonus rate of fire - not a problem. VATS is AP-based, so anything that involves AP can be more or less easily implemented in VATS.

Explaining again how RoF is not a problem if you don’t mind, I'm not really seeing it.

How can you not see it? BRoF decreases the AP cost. You enter VATS, have 12AP and instead of shooting 3 times (4AP each), you can shoot 4 times (3AP each). Now, since it's VATS and not TB, your opponents will shoot at you too, but if a super mutant has 8AP and uses a 6AP rifle, then in the same amount of time - your 12AP, you shoot 4 times while the mutant shoots once. You still get the advantage. No?

Sure, VATS interface can be made DiabloII style, complete with reconfigurable attack mode hotkeys. But that stills doesn’t count for the fact that the choice on how to spent APs are diluted, unless of course we go back to this two games in one line of thought.

Explain.

Stuffing TB features into FPS core gameplay, while retaining a balance with FPS combat isn’t *that* easy, if possible at all, if it was we would have seen such a game made by now.

Would have seen it by now? Why? Because TB in a shooter is everyone's wet dream?

It somewhat amusing, but by the time you will somehow successfully manage to shoehorn SPECIAL into an FPS game, it won't be SPECIAL anymore...

Proof?

But you are not there yet, and until then VonVentrue point stands.

SPECIAL=TURN BASED

If you and VonVentrue say so.

 

[Eldritch]

I think it's all about the consistency of the vision you have for the game you'll design. What sort of gaming experience do I want to invoke and what will I use for that? More general choices like the genre itself should be decided AFTER making up your mind about what kind of pacing would best compliment the scope of the game linked to the whole feel you want to create. Merely slapping a genre TB or RT around a game that has a design/content that is just WRONG for the choice of genre and does not fit with it is nothing but a fucking waste. Bastardization on the other hand... is a whole different kind of abomination.

ToEE had a great turn-based tactical combat system alone that was utterly WASTED by a game design with a lot of tedious, boring encounters that does not challenge the player enough or require a lot of thinking to exploit the advantages of TB, leaving the slow paced tactical turn-based system without the juice to work its mojo. Fewer, more challenging and intricately designed encounters at crucial points with interesting and more challenging enemies instead of those endless hordes of boring bugbear cannon fodder was required for the system at hand. Why the hell did they go for such a game design with that system? To make it more "action-packed"? To create the illusion of a bigger scope? A fucking wasted potential for what?

...

Inconsistencies. Compromises. Bastardization. At least games with much more simpler RtwP systems like IWD/BG had the right level design, scope, fluid-fast paced gameplay that salvaged whatever it could from a simplistic system like that and FIT WELL with its design. At least they were fun that way and the better parts of certain inf. games like the Durlag's Tower, Severed Hand etc. offered a much more fun and tactical gameplay than a lot of parts of ToEE. IWD on HoF mode is a much more fun, challenging, tactical game with a system that was designated for a Warcraft II-like RTS game for the D&D setting than the turn-based ToEE not because of the complexity of its RtwP combat system, it was because at least the right game was designed around the combat system they were stuck with.

If TB works badly in some games or isn't challenging enough it's like in ToEE, the game should have been balanced in a different way to make it a more thoughtful game, or use a different system. That's the key point here. If a game doesn't need thought to win then a TB system is a waste.

There is no perfect combat system, there is only the perfect game for the right combat system.

Motherfuckers wanted a fast-paced, first person, actiony game that was supposed to be some kind of atmospheric Deus Ex, Bloodlines for the excellent FO universe? Then they should have designed an even better FPS system with stats than both Deus Ex and Bloodlines and fucking stuck with it... Not only have they FAILED in making the proper immershun-inducing atmosphere for the Fallout universe with all the Technopaladins and the other stupidity coupled with a horrid writing they also managed to offer a shitty, bastardized gameplay just for the sake of slapping a dumb feature like VATS because they thought it's enough to make it all Fallouty. If they wanted to make it roll like Fallout then they should have fucking made Fallout. Isometric, hex-based with nicely handcrafted encounters that require some thought to win in a more refined smaller scope. VATS is a testament for horrid game design 101. It's not even a huge wasted potential like ToEE's system with the wrong game designed around it, it had no potential to begin with. It had no place in that game, nor in any goddamn game.

VATS is a joke.

 

[raving nincompoop]

Much better than the alternative, no?

Which are?

Given a choice, I'd go with isometric and turn-based. Given a lesser choice: original VATS vs greatly improved VATS, I'd go with greatly improved VATS. Makes sense?

Ha, Right. If the choice is to buy a house or buy a house and still keep all the money... but you are side stepping, improved VATS is an improved VATS, it doesn’t make it in by itself equal to SPECIAL.

SPECIAL is a character system with 7 stats, skills with starting values determined by the stats, and action points. That's all it is.

Do I really need to explain how to "connect the dots"? That the dots, after you connected them, have more to them then just a random bunch of dots on a piece of paper? (btw if I do need to explain, expect a link, scratch that, find it yourself)

Other than sequence, which plays a very minor role, ...

If you say so.

nothing is TB only.

Unless it is TB only of course.

If you disagree, I'd like to see your reasons and arguments.

Pro quo pro. =)

That's your statement. Where are the arguments backing it up?

It is an interpretation of the final result. Do you disagree with it? (mind you, if you will provide you own interpretation I will also ask for arguments to back it up)

Which is why I suggested to fix it by disabling the forced slow motion.

It’s a start.

What seems to be the problem? Compare D2 single-player to D2 battle-net play. Health goes from "just put a few points there every now and then" to "stat numero uno". If someone wants to play FO3 FPS style, they can do so. If someone wants to use VATS, it should have some decent mechanics and if these mechanics would make stats more important.... well, I don't see a problem.

More important? As apposed to less important or not important? But again better is better, I wasn’t arguing against that. The same goes to implied increase of viable options, more is better, obviously.

But you missed my point, what you are suggesting is two games in one, not that there is anything wrong with that, but if SPECIAL is to live side by side with an RT FPS mechanics within a single game mechanics, something has to give# (here, you seem to ignore asterisk for some reason so I'm trying a different letter, more on that later).

There are different ways to handle it. I'd prefer to track all actions' AP and subtract recent actions' cost when entering VATS. So, if I can normally count on 12AP and just fired (burst mode, 6AP) at someone and immediately went into VATS, then I only get 6AP. If I fired, ducked, waited a few moments (enough to have 2AP restored), then I get 8AP in VATS.

There you go. It's a good start, but following that path would lead to a requirement to give all moving object (or at the very list all potentially opponents) statistics that I don’t think currently exist in most FPS (including Fallout 3), which will result in a significant increase of computational resources due to constantly updating all the relevant information, especially in NPC rich environment. (don’t know much about game design but some about computers, RT can be very demanding CPU wise)

But it can be done.

One of your points will require player (not character) timing though

#1 something has to give.

Thank you for the advice.

You are welcome.

Explain.

In Fallout 3 VATS isn’t a cohesive part of the combat system. As such, choosing a VATS friendly character build is unnecessary for players with good twitch capabilities. There players can invest more or all character advancement resources into other areas, making the optional character build player capabilities dependent (less option - based on player). In a TB system, like SPECIAL, that doesn’t happen.

This will place games with VATS on the opposite side of the scale in which the SPECIAL system resides.

#2 something has to give.

Would have seen it by now? Why? Because TB in a shooter is everyone's wet dream?

Nice, ignoring the "that easy" part (asterisk and all). Well played.

For your question, TripleA title? Probably not. PoC? Sure. Why? Purely statistical reasoning, the easier it is, the sooner it will done.

-------

If you and VonVentrue say so.

The point stands, SPECIAL=TB, and until you can prove (SPECIAL = TB is already a given) that an RT FPS can, at a very minimum, provide the same scope of possibilities game play wise that is provided by prior implementation, it will continue to stand.

Better is better, but in order to prove SPECIAL can be intermixed with RT FPS game mechanic and retain any and all (at the very least) game play possibilities, maintaining you claim that "SPECIAL is a character system with 7 stats, skills with starting values determined by the stats, and action points" you will need to provide an example that can meet and maintain scope established by previous implementation.

Good luck.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Much better than the alternative, no?

Which are?

The unmodified VATS which sucketh ass.

Given a choice, I'd go with isometric and turn-based. Given a lesser choice: original VATS vs greatly improved VATS, I'd go with greatly improved VATS. Makes sense?

Ha, Right. If the choice is to buy a house or buy a house and still keep all the money... but you are side stepping, improved VATS is an improved VATS, it doesn’t make it in by itself equal to SPECIAL.

a) your analogy doesn't work. If you want to go with a real estate theme, I'd compare TB to a nice house and VATS to an apartment, in which case the unmodified VATS is a shitty one bedroom unit in a rent-controlled building and VATS with proposed tweaks is a decent condo.
b) Have I mentioned everywhere that an improved VATS will be as good as "SPECIAL" or Fallout's TB?
c) SPECIAL is a character system. It has nothing to do with combat.

SPECIAL is a character system with 7 stats, skills with starting values determined by the stats, and action points. That's all it is.

Do I really need to explain how to "connect the dots"? That the dots, after you connected them, have more to them then just a random bunch of dots on a piece of paper? (btw if I do need to explain, expect a link, scratch that, find it yourself)

Cop-out.

That's your statement. Where are the arguments backing it up?

It is an interpretation of the final result. Do you disagree with it? (mind you, if you will provide you own interpretation I will also ask for arguments to back it up)

No. That's a statement. SPECIAL=TB. I'm asking (again) for the arguments. No "connect teh dots", "find your own links" bullshit please.

But you missed my point, what you are suggesting is two games in one, not that there is anything wrong with that, but if SPECIAL is to live side by side with an RT FPS mechanics within a single game mechanics, something has to give# (here, you seem to ignore asterisk for some reason so I'm trying a different letter, more on that later).

Another generic statement. What has to give? Why? Sure, VATS could be more challenging due to removing the cheat mode effects and increasing the importance of stats, and pure RT could be easier. That's all. If that's what you mean, I agree, but not overly concerned. If you foresee more dramatic consequences, I'd like to see some arguments and logical conclusions.

There you go. It's a good start, but following that path would lead to a requirement to give all moving object (or at the very list all potentially opponents) statistics that I don’t think currently exist in most FPS (including Fallout 3), which will result in a significant increase of computational resources due to constantly updating all the relevant information, especially in NPC rich environment. (don’t know much about game design but some about computers, RT can be very demanding CPU wise)

Not really. No extra statistics are necessary. Characters take actions. These actions already have AP costs. When mutants fire at you, they fire at AP-determined intervals, not randomly. The only difference is now VATS slows down time for you and starts you with full AP, because that's the retarded cheat mode design, instead of starting you with what you should have.

One of your points will require player (not character) timing though

#1 something has to give.

Give what?

In Fallout 3 VATS isn’t a cohesive part of the combat system. As such, choosing a VATS friendly character build is unnecessary for players with good twitch capabilities. There players can invest more or all character advancement resources into other areas, making the optional character build player capabilities dependent (less option - based on player).

And?

This will place games with VATS on the opposite side of the scale in which the SPECIAL system resides.

#2 something has to give.

...

The point stands, SPECIAL=TB, and until you can prove (SPECIAL = TB is already a given) that an RT FPS can, at a very minimum, provide the same scope of possibilities game play wise that is provided by prior implementation, it will continue to stand.

:facepalm:

It's pointless.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

What can you do in turn-based Fallout during your turn? I mean, we all know that Fallout's combat was very simplistic and can't be compared to juggernauts like XCOM and Jagged Alliance.

Yeah.

So, while VATS is inferior to TB, it's not that far behind that it can't be tweaked.

It's completely one sided right right now. It's only in terms of the player. I'm not even sure if there are things in place for the enemies to use action points. I mean, Fallout 3 isn't based off a turn-based/RTWP core, it's Oblivion. All the enemies do is slow down their real time routines.

VATS was only designed to be a one-way deal, a quick and dirty way to try and say "Hey look, it's the same as turn-based!".

I think so, but it's subjective, so I won't argue this point with you.

Sorry, rhetorical question. The thing is, it's not worth it. Unless you don't have the twitch skills, it simply has less possibilities, and is functionally worse. That's the danger of having two or more combat "methods", that one will simply be inferior or not properly balanced. Has any game ever really balanced these? Arcanum didn't (each was completely broken for certain attack methods). Tactics didn't (turn-based was simply better because of interface lag). Who expects someone like Obsidian or Bethesda to balance things out?

It's a choice.

Yeah, a choice between "Would I like to dominate, or not?". Tough one.

Let's take your ideal of VATS versus real time in Fallout 3.

My level 5 character who is decent with small guns encounters an Enclave patrol with nothing but simple metal armor, and a hunting rifle with a lot of bullets, in a cityscape area. If I use your modified VATS, even to the absolute best, my character will lose. He's just not good enough. Now that's good....except he also has real-time to fall back on. With that, my character can be controlled by me to make him better than his stats. I can hit every shot like my character is the resurrected Charles Bronson in Death Wish 27: Post Apocalyptic Boogaloo. And I can use cover that the terrible AI can't comprehend because it was made for simpler times...times when melee and bows were the only thing to worry about, and maybe a spell or a rocket-launcher staff. Thus the battle goes from impossible, to relatively simple to anyone who has ever played a shooter or two.

How is that not "better" in the gamist point of view? Is "win or lose" a choice? Maybe it's because most of the games I like actually push you to use every advantage and not base challenge just on how much you can handicap yourself by ignoring critical options that I think this is sloppy design.

Some people preferred to play Arcanum in RT, some in TB.

Which was mostly dependent not on preference, but on which one was more beneficial for your abilities (mages real-time, throwers turn-based, etc).

Same here.

Very different. Turn-based and real-time were fully realized in Arcanum, albeit poorly. Real time is in Fallout 3, but VATS isn't. VATS can only be a supplement, as is, and would take a lot of work to be "self-sufficient".

All I'm saying is that it's possible to tweak VATS to make things interesting and give people a good reason to use it.

Very possible, but it would take a lot of work to get it ready. Balancing it against real time might be a problem though.

First, the cover system is already there. Enemies who are behind cover are harder to hit.

True, but it would need work. It was pretty glitchy.

So, choosing a good position will reduce their chance to hit you.

Here's the snag...VATS doesn't work well with cover. Try throwing grenades in VATS while in cover. Sometimes it works....sometimes not so much. Try shooting from behind a building corner. Sometimes it works without a hitch, other times your character shots the wall, and often the game will teleport you out of cover. Not so much a problem when you have damage resistance and AC bonuses...but with them, there goes your tactics.

Sure, you can change it, but it's going to be pretty tricky. It's someone else's engine, and VATS is already unstable as is.

Second, tweak AP costs a bit.

Have fun doing that for a hundred+ items/weapons and balancing things out. It's not just multiplying them by some common factor. Of course with Obsidian's awful balancing/testing jobs....you never know.

Third, single shot and burst modes. And of course, throw out the slow motion shit and cheat mode penalties & bonuses.

These seem like the most do-able.

That's all it would take.

It's still competing with real-time mode.

Solution: tweak VATS.

Better solution, abandon it entirely, or buff it up and make it a fully realized "system" while throwing out real-time.

False. You can easily cancel everything.

Did we play the same game. If I chose to shoot three head shots at three enemies, and press the button, those shots are going off, and I can't switch my targeting mid-way through, if, say for instance, the first shot misses the enemy I considered most critical to kill. I also can't cancel in mid-shot like most true RTWP and get out if I see an enemy aiming a rocket at my character.

Was that a Jedi Mind Trick? Just checking.

These are not the premises you are looking for....*waves hand*

So you never play anything but vanilla parties?

Huge difference there. I think a more apt statement would be that I never do not play my character or party to the most effective they could be. I use every option available to my party within the game's system to get the job done.

It's just Fallout 3 was poorly designed in that twitch skills could override any sort of character weakness. Same with Oblivion. I have twitch skills, am I supposed to not use them?

And I don't expect them to make radical changes. A few well-placed tweaks would be nice though.

It's going to take more than just tweaks.

See the links above.

Fair enough. Real time still exists at full power in all but one of those, and I don't see Obsidian going at all hardcore. They're a big company, then answer to publishers, and they need money. Not to mention any "hardcore" element they've ever implemented was either nearly universally disliked by the people who matter in the industry (spirit meter) or close to bullshit (perma-death in SoZ...except those coins are everywhere). I expect Bethesda and Obsidian to make a quick cash-in with New Vegas. I don't think it will be anything but that, but I would be happy to be surprised.

 

[raving nincompoop]

Give what?

If I fired, ducked, waited a few moments (enough to have 2AP restored), then I get 8AP in VATS.

No. That's a statement. SPECIAL=TB. I'm asking (again) for the arguments. No "connect teh dots", "find your own links" bullshit please

Sorry, more bullshit ahead:
You have not provided any arguments as to why _in your opinion_ SPECIAL is only the character system and doesn't include the peripheral rule sets. Why should I accept your interpretation of what SPECIAL is and where does it start and ends?

It's pointless.

I fully agree.

 

[Jasede]

Why not just take the first step and show us why, in your interpretation, SPECIAL and TB are closely linked, with some arguments? VD would look stupid if he didn't reply with some arguments in return. And I don't buy "Initiative" or "Sequence", even realtime with pause games have that.

 

[elander_]

I doubt that sequence in a TB context means the same thing as in a RT with pause game context. It's used like turn and round with a meaning that only makes sense in TB games. Sequence is a value that helps a character to be the first or close to that in a queue that determines when it's each character turn in a round. Think about ToEE npc queue at the top of the game screen when you are fighting in TB.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You have not provided any arguments as to why _in your opinion_ SPECIAL is only the character system and doesn't include the peripheral rule sets.

What rule set? The combat system? It's very, very basic, especially if you compare it to something like DnD and can hardly be called a rule set. Basically, armor makes it harder to hit you and absorbs some damage; you have a choice of several attacks, including body parts targeting. That's it. There is no depth there. Playing a knife fighter/HtH fighter is boring because all you can do is click on the target until it dies. There is no difference between Swing and Thrust. No reason to use different ammo types. The best parts about the combat are rarely seen in RPGs firearms, special effects, and atmosphere.

So, what rules are TB dependent? The armor makes you harder to hit thing? No. Aimed shots? Nope. Different attacks? What specifically?

If you're looking for specific examples, FOT did a good job transferring SPECIAL combat to RT. The main issues with FOT were fucked up setting, party setup and combat focus which didn't work well with SPECIAL's jack-of-all-trades setup, and the overall design. The combat was inferior, but only because TB is more tactical by default. Not because of SPECIAL.

Why should I accept your interpretation of what SPECIAL is and where does it start and ends?

For several reasons:

- I've offered you a logical "let's take it apart and see what's inside" explanation
- I've offered you an example - FOT
- I've spent the last 5 years tweaking AoD system, which is very close to the Fallout system. I daresay that I understand "SPECIAL" much better than you do.
- You've failed to provide any arguments and repeatedly posted SPECIAL = TB instead, which means that you don't have anything else to add to the discussion.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It's completely one sided right right now. It's only in terms of the player. I'm not even sure if there are things in place for the enemies to use action points.

It is one sided and right now it sucks, which is the main reason why we are having this conversation. Is there a way to improve it and make it less painful? As for things in place for enemies' action points, they do shoot in proper and different (for different weapons) intervals, so it's definitely there.

VATS was only designed to be a one-way deal, a quick and dirty way to try and say "Hey look, it's the same as turn-based!".

Sure. Can it be improved? I say yes and I posted quite a few links that show how.

Who expects someone like Obsidian or Bethesda to balance things out?

Not many people, I agree, and I'm not trying to assure you that Obsidian will, like, totally fix it and save the world and even the universe. My point was that it's easy enough to do (so there is a chance Obsidian will take a look at what's available and incorporate it, the same way they used TonyK's AI mode), and even if Obsidian doesn't do, modders will continue tweaking it, especially if there will be a decent RPG that goes with it.

Yeah, a choice between "Would I like to dominate, or not?". Tough one.

I don't understand it, to be honest. That's like saying "this game has a god mode, so now I have no choice but to dominate and pwn".

Anyway, I'll stop quoting because it seems that our position could be summarized as:

Vince - VATS sucks, it should be tweaked and maybe we'll have something decent.
Eddie - VATS sucks, it can't be fixed and should be purged because RT in FO3 is a better option.

The differences are subjective. I'm sure that many people feel like you do. It's easier to play the game in RT. I'm sure that many people agree with me and will prefer to have tweaked VATS, without being bothered by RT superiority at all. Whether or not Obsidian is planning to do something about it remains to be seen, so let's wait a bit.

We do agree that VATS sucks though, so that's something, eh?

 

[raving nincompoop]

What rule set? The combat system? It's very, very basic, especially if you compare it to something like DnD and can hardly be called a rule set. Basically, armor makes it harder to hit you and absorbs some damage; you have a choice of several attacks, including body parts targeting. That's it. There is no depth there. Playing a knife fighter/HtH fighter is boring because all you can do is click on the target until it dies. There is no difference between Swing and Thrust. No reason to use different ammo types. The best parts about the combat are rarely seen in RPGs firearms, special effects, and atmosphere.

What?
A => B
Where is it?

So, what rules are TB dependent?

There rules are TB period. And it is up to you to prove otherwise.

Aimed shots? Nope. Different attacks?

Different attacks modes in general and aimed shot per se are, in SPECIAL, are joined in the hip to on one side to APs and the other to TB.

In diable2, delays where injected to the system, you can click as fast as you wanted but those frozen orb will only produced in a maximum of pre dictated intervals, in diable2 they injected some TB like mechanics into RT.

The difference is, these delays are skill specific, and are not tied to a trait. In the development of SPECIAL a decision was made, and now in order to enjoy more AP in your turn, in Fallout, you have to invest more points in agility.

In SPECIAL you are limited by you character traits, and you choose, in character creation time what those limits are within the available scope of SPECIAL, in diable2 you, the PLAYER, are limited by the time delays (assuming you can both reach and exceed these limitation).

In combat, under SPECIAL system, you are presented with choices, the choices you are presented with are derived from your character, in diable2 players are limited to some arbitrary delays in order (I assume) to retain a balance between different characters build and/or different characters (not that it matters why exactly these delays where introduced). These delays constituted an artificial constrain, place down on top of the player abilities, in SPECIAL artificial constrain exist too but they are derived from the character.

If you're looking for specific examples, FOT did a good job transferring SPECIAL combat to RT. The main issues with FOT were fucked up setting, party setup and combat focus which didn't work well with SPECIAL's jack-of-all-trades setup, and the overall design. The combat was inferior, but only because TB is more tactical by default. Not because of SPECIAL.

FOT is NOT a good example. It is TB underneath, pseudoRT on top. You don’t aim, you choose a target and the character does the aiming.

- I've offered you a logical "let's take it apart and see what's inside" explanation

Your hand picked parts are a part of a whole.

- I've offered you an example – FOT

Your example does not suffice.

- I've spent the last 5 years tweaking AoD system, which is very close to the Fallout system. I daresay that I understand "SPECIAL" much better than you do.

Is AoD system TB ? Make AoD2 RT while retaining the choices that are derived from combat TB system like SPECIAL, and then will talk.

- You've failed to provide any arguments and repeatedly posted SPECIAL = TB instead, which means that you don't have anything else to add to the discussion.

*Point at Fallout*

Fallout is the equivalent of prior arts, and since, to the best of my recollection, there isn’t any information to support your claim, or to even suggests that SPECIAL and TB are different entities, and/or that SPECIAL was either designed with other combat mechanisms in mind (other then TB) or without TB in mind, I have no choice but to default into the conclusion that SPECIAL=TB as established by Fallout.

If you have any information that support you claim (a developer quote for example) I would appreciate if you could bring it to my attention. Until then your claim, is yours alone and not a fact in by itself.

Since Fallout established SPECIAL=TB by mere existing (not only that, but also by the fact that the creators of Fallout are also the creators of SPECIAL, thus Fallout present the original intent of the creators of SPECIAL), the burden of proof that SPECIAL is just the character system, or that SPECIAL has nothing to do with TB as a combat system lays mostly on you.

And you have not met it.

 

[elander_]

"FOT is NOT a good example. It is TB underneath, pseudoRT on top. You don’t aim, you choose a target and the character does the aiming. "

FOT is not TB underneat or RT on top. The game offers you a choice to play in the system you feel like playing. If you want to play the game in TB you just activate the 3 different available TB modes. If you want to play in RT you select RT. You can activate TB anytime just by pressing a key and there is no need for an enemy to attack.

If VATS worked like FOT, as a switch between two combat systems it would be much more interesting.

 

[Micormic]

What rule set? The combat system? It's very, very basic, especially if you compare it to something like DnD and can hardly be called a rule set. Basically, armor makes it harder to hit you and absorbs some damage; you have a choice of several attacks, including body parts targeting. That's it. There is no depth there. Playing a knife fighter/HtH fighter is boring because all you can do is click on the target until it dies. There is no difference between Swing and Thrust. No reason to use different ammo types. The best parts about the combat are rarely seen in RPGs firearms, special effects, and atmosphere.

What?
A => B
Where is it?

So, what rules are TB dependent?

There rules are TB period. And it is up to you to prove otherwise.

Aimed shots? Nope. Different attacks?

Different attacks modes in general and aimed shot per se are, in SPECIAL, are joined in the hip to on one side to APs and the other to TB.

In diable2, delays where injected to the system, you can click as fast as you wanted but those frozen orb will only produced in a maximum of pre dictated intervals, in diable2 they injected some TB like mechanics into RT.

The difference is, these delays are skill specific, and are not tied to a trait. In the development of SPECIAL a decision was made, and now in order to enjoy more AP in your turn, in Fallout, you have to invest more points in agility.

In SPECIAL you are limited by you character traits, and you choose, in character creation time what those limits are within the available scope of SPECIAL, in diable2 you, the PLAYER, are limited by the time delays (assuming you can both reach and exceed these limitation).

In combat, under SPECIAL system, you are presented with choices, the choices you are presented with are derived from your character, in diable2 players are limited to some arbitrary delays in order (I assume) to retain a balance between different characters build and/or different characters (not that it matters why exactly these delays where introduced). These delays constituted an artificial constrain, place down on top of the player abilities, in SPECIAL artificial constrain exist too but they are derived from the character.

If you're looking for specific examples, FOT did a good job transferring SPECIAL combat to RT. The main issues with FOT were fucked up setting, party setup and combat focus which didn't work well with SPECIAL's jack-of-all-trades setup, and the overall design. The combat was inferior, but only because TB is more tactical by default. Not because of SPECIAL.

FOT is NOT a good example. It is TB underneath, pseudoRT on top. You don’t aim, you choose a target and the character does the aiming.

- I've offered you a logical "let's take it apart and see what's inside" explanation

Your hand picked parts are a part of a whole.

- I've offered you an example – FOT

Your example does not suffice.

- I've spent the last 5 years tweaking AoD system, which is very close to the Fallout system. I daresay that I understand "SPECIAL" much better than you do.

Is AoD system TB ? Make AoD2 RT while retaining the choices that are derived from combat TB system like SPECIAL, and then will talk.

- You've failed to provide any arguments and repeatedly posted SPECIAL = TB instead, which means that you don't have anything else to add to the discussion.

*Point at Fallout*

Fallout is the equivalent of prior arts, and since, to the best of my recollection, there isn’t any information to support your claim, or to even suggests that SPECIAL and TB are different entities, and/or that SPECIAL was either designed with other combat mechanisms in mind (other then TB) or without TB in mind, I have no choice but to default into the conclusion that SPECIAL=TB as established by Fallout.

If you have any information that support you claim (a developer quote for example) I would appreciate if you could bring it to my attention. Until then your claim, is yours alone and not a fact in by itself.

Since Fallout established SPECIAL=TB by mere existing (not only that, but also by the fact that the creators of Fallout are also the creators of SPECIAL, thus Fallout present the original intent of the creators of SPECIAL), the burden of proof that SPECIAL is just the character system, or that SPECIAL has nothing to do with TB as a combat system lays mostly on you.

And you have not met it.

your retarded, everything you've posted makes you look retarded. so stop posting and go wack off to your father.


Anyone who says fot isn't tb should play the fucking game instead of trying to be the next volourn.

 

[Vault Dweller]

So, what rules are TB dependent?

There rules are TB period. And it is up to you to prove otherwise.

Blind fanboism. "I don't want to hear anything! SPECIAL = TB!! The rules are TB period!!!" Sure, whatever.

Different attacks modes in general and aimed shot per se are, in SPECIAL, are joined in the hip to on one side to APs and the other to TB.

Different attacks' speed is measured in AP instead of, say, very RT-ish seconds. FOT demonstrated that time units and RT work together perfectly, maintaining both the speed advantage, high AG advantage, and even combat affecting traits/perks.

In diable2, delays where injected to the system, you can click as fast as you wanted but those frozen orb will only produced in a maximum of pre dictated intervals, in diable2 they injected some TB like mechanics into RT.

Do you not understand what TB is? No TB mechanics were injected in Diablo 2. And I wasn't talking about special attacks' cooldown. I was talking about weapons speed.

http://classic.battle.net/diablo2exp/it ... ords.shtml
^ see the "speed by class" column. There are different speed levels: Very Fast, Fast, Normal, Slow.

In the development of SPECIAL a decision was made, and now in order to enjoy more AP in your turn, in Fallout, you have to invest more points in agility.

And there is nothing here that says it can't/doesn't work in RT. First, characters with high agility start with more AP and can attack more before they run out of points. Second, traits and perks like Fast Shot and Bonus Rate of Fire reduce AP cost and let you attack up to twice as fast. Third, AP regeneration speed should be tied to agility, thus ensuring that characters with high agility will consistently attack more than low-avg agility characters.

In SPECIAL you are limited by you character traits, and you choose, in character creation time what those limits are within the available scope of SPECIAL, in diable2 you...

Have I compared Fallout/SPECIAL to Diablo/Diable 2?

FOT is NOT a good example. It is TB underneath, pseudoRT on top. You don’t aim, you choose a target and the character does the aiming.

FOT had two alternative SPECIAL-based combat modes. One TB, one RT. The RT mode wasn't "pseudo" and it definitely wasn't on top of anything other than bad design.

- I've offered you an example – FOT

Your example does not suffice.

I have a feeling no example would.

- You've failed to provide any arguments and repeatedly posted SPECIAL = TB instead, which means that you don't have anything else to add to the discussion.

*Point at Fallout*

Fallout is the equivalent of prior arts, and since, to the best of my recollection, there isn’t any information to support your claim, or to even suggests that SPECIAL and TB are different entities, and/or that SPECIAL was either designed with other combat mechanisms in mind (other then TB) or without TB in mind, I have no choice but to default into the conclusion that SPECIAL=TB as established by Fallout.

If you have any information that support you claim (a developer quote for example) I would appreciate if you could bring it to my attention. Until then your claim, is yours alone and not a fact in by itself.

Since Fallout established SPECIAL=TB by mere existing (not only that, but also by the fact that the creators of Fallout are also the creators of SPECIAL, thus Fallout present the original intent of the creators of SPECIAL), the burden of proof that SPECIAL is just the character system, or that SPECIAL has nothing to do with TB as a combat system lays mostly on you.

And you have not met it.

Never mind. Have a good day.

 

[raving nincompoop]

Blind fanboism. "I don't want to hear anything! SPECIAL = TB!! The rules are TB period!!!"

Blind fanboism: "I don't want to hear anything, SPECIAL rules are the character system only !! SPECIAL is whatever I say it is, period!!!".

Never mind.

...

Have a good day

Thank you.

----

If VATS worked like FOT, as a switch between two combat systems it would be much more interesting.

Who will do the aiming when you go out of VATS?

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

Vince - VATS sucks, it should be tweaked and maybe we'll have something decent.
Eddie - VATS sucks, it can't be fixed and should be purged because RT in FO3 is a better option.

I think it even boils down to :

Vince - VATS sucks, it could be improved and I think Obsidian might do it.
Eddie - VATS sucks, it probably could be improved, but it would be one hell of a task, and I don't see Obsidian doing it.

I personnally side with Eddie on this. Time will tell...

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

If this thread continue it will soon collapse under it's own weight of butthurt.

 

[elander_]

If VATS worked like FOT, as a switch between two combat systems it would be much more interesting.

Who will do the aiming when you go out of VATS?

You only play FOT in RT mode if you want to. I played FOT entirely in CTB (continuous TB mode) and only switched to RT when the enemy was mostly eliminated. If VATS was like FOT it would be the same.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

I played FOT entirely in CTB (continuous TB mode) and only switched to RT when the enemy was mostly eliminated.

Continuous turn based is Tactics' real time. But nevermind, anyone with half a brain would know what you meant.

Post meant to prevent some stupid "CTB is RT ! You moron !" shit.