Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lordus]

Only way to make it possible is to rework leveling/advancement system completly.

Stage 1) PvP Constitution - the major ideas, ideas standing over ideas, the basic principles. Supportive question is: "What kind of PvP in fonline we would like to have?"

Stage 2) Ideas concretization - the measures, concrete ideas, changes,.. Supportive question is: "How can we realize the PvP Constitution ideas?" Proposals at stage 2 must be compatible with PvP constitution ideas.

 We are not at stage two (part 2). Dont hurry

[Drakonis]

Stage 1) PvP Constitution - the major ideas, ideas standing over ideas, the basic principles. Supportive question is: "What kind of PvP in fonline we would like to have?"

Stage 2) Ideas concretization - the measures, concrete ideas, changes,.. Supportive question is: "How can we realize the PvP Constitution ideas?" Proposals at stage 2 must be compatible with PvP constitution ideas.

 We are not at stage two (part 2). Dont hurry

thread name got me confused. it says part not stage

[avv]

Lordus I pretty much agree with your basic constitution. If nobody has anything to add here we could slowly move to stage 2 and start discussing ways and measures to reach our constitution. Change the stage when you feel like it.

10) We are unable to balance 3 firearms classes and melee and unarmed class together. Lets focus on firearms and throwing.

Actually it is possible. Melee chars could be sneaky sneakers who take out invidual enemies. Much in the same way as predator or some horror movie knife murderer does. Predicts his enemies perfectly, appears from nowhere and disappears when least expected.

And if the player can afford it, he can become an armored tank with super sledge, taking out people with ambush attacks. Nothing like power armored dudes beating each other with powerfists and super sledges.

So let's just take a little freedom to bend reality when finding ways to mend it along with other fighting styles.

Besides, many npc encounters use melee so we gotta find a way how they are handled in our future fighting system.

[Lordus]

thread name got me confused. it says part not stage

 I am sorry, i invented the names after i created the topic..

Actually it is possible. Melee chars could be sneaky sneakers who take out invidual enemies. Much in the same way as predator or some horror movie knife murderer does. Predicts his enemies perfectly, appears from nowhere and disappears when least expected.

 
 Ok, it will be harder.. Actualy, i think that melee and unarmed skills should be used in different occasions than real PvP fight, but we can discus it at stage 2.

[Admiral Zombie]

 c) fight style - the result of combat should not depend on your character stats, but it should depend on your fight style. Even if enemy has bigger firepower, you should be able to defeat him, if you use your merits and enemy disadvatages

fallout was originally a turn based RPG. Isn't the whole point about character build and stats? If i wanted a game where it was based on skill of aiming and reaction times then I would play an FPS. I'm here because I enjoy the tactical and role playing aspect. I like carefully planning out my character build and thinking of the various intricacies that are a part of it. Not simply "lol lets just pump some random skills here and i should be able to contend with someone who carefully planned out his build for a couple of hours" Don't get me wrong i don't care much for the current system of "put everything into big guns and simply make a crafting alt" but i don't like the idea of "everyone is equal" also.

7) The economy. Time the player spend in game.
  a) Economy benefits. Benefits from player ingame wealth, plurality of resources, should mean that player has bigger variety of choices, not that he has possibility to get more powerfull gun (in all or major attributes)

As it is now the extremely rich do have options. Having multiple bases with multiple stockpiles of supplies means they can jump into the action whenever, or at least very quickly if they die in combat. To me thats where the economic bonus comes in. Unless you're working completely solo it isn't hard at all to accumulate the "top tier" weapons/armor. Its simply a matter of getting a stockpile of the stuff so that i can jump into the action again right away.

8 ) Everybody, not only power builds, should be able to join PvP combat.

This is the most perplexing comment. I don't know how to view it exactly. I have 2 characters, with my main being a doctor who is built for bursting with small guns. I have only 5st, 6pe, 4en, 5ch, 7in, 8ag, 6lk. Maybe i've just had a long streak of being lucky, but i've always fared well enough in a firefight. Granted I know i'm not suited for combat 1v1, but many builds aren't meant for 1v1. Are we trying to balance it so that its setup that way? I've always viewed my build far from being "power build" if i was power build I would drop 1st (p90's only require 4) drop all my CH, get more endurance, etc. But i don't, and i do just fine without toughness even. I'm not running around combat armor all the time, i generally go with the metal armor my faction makes. (the perks i've grabbed certainly aren't required, awareness, double bonus damage, lifegiver, brof, and 2 more left, i figured either double action boy or the doctor perk with something else)

11) We should focus on realtime combat, not turn based.

Why can't we have a healthy mixture of both?.

a) Everybody is wide term, in my point of view, it is somebody who has enough hit points, chars skill to use weapon's best effect and brain to use player fight style and maximalize the effect of this gun. Everybody is not nolifers only.

What does this mean because have no idea what you're trying to say here.





Please note: Don't necessarily think i'm simply out to stop what you're doing. To me the best means of achieving a working system is to question the ones being suggested. They need to stand up on their own. I'm simply pointing out my experiences and thoughts/questions, but I do wholeheartedly agree that some changes are necessary.

[Midnight]

 * Should we create multiplayer PvP system or not?
Yeah i think a Fallout game without being able to attack a critter PC or not is not really a Fallout.

 * Should we balance the current system or desing new (balanced) one?
I think we should balance the actual system, maybe tweaking some parts, but for a RPG Video game, the system is not that bad, it's even pretty good.

 * Should fights be longer, or quicker?
Can't really awnser to that, i think sniper combat insta kill or so (knockout) are too short, for the other combat it was ok, i think if powerbuild are not in game, they are ok.

 * Should there exist balance over the weapons or some of them will be better with all (most) of their aspects than others?
I think there should be a balance between weapon of the same tier. For exemple a XL70E3 and a P90c should be 2 different ways to play the game, but not one stronger or weaker.

 * Should economy balance the weapons or not? They should but not on a linear scale.
If you have a weapon doing 12-16 and cost 500 the one doing 24-32 can't cost 1000 but really more ...

 * Should there exist a at least 2 kinds of guns in every weapon skill usable in PvP or not?
If possible but it will be hard to do so for throwing.

 * Should the future pvp be balanced for "everybody", not just pvp builds?
PVP power build should still have a little advantage, they are made for that, but powerbuild should not be the only way to go, letting player make more creatives build and still do it in PVP. Anyway i think that when you have "powerbuild" in a game you have great balancing issues (yeah it's almost the definition).
.
 * Should the result of PvP combat depends on the player skill or avatar skill (stats)?
Both? I mean avatar is designed to give oppotunities to the player. So some avatar skills should allow new options others should be unavaible. Then the player should do at best using his skills and those of his avatar, basically it's tactic.

 * Should there exist variety in combat or not?
Yeah i awnser right before i think. There should be opportunities to do different things, and not simple, kill be killed or runaway.

 * Should there exist at least little similarity between real world and game world? Why not, there are similarities with Fallout 2 and our world, but seriously, the most important is gameplay, no matter if this is not the same as our world. But yeah if we have the choice, why not?

 * Should we design this system to realtime combat?
Real time is actually a big problem, a build can be godlike in TB and suck in RT, the 2 should be more alike. There are too many disresemblance between the two mods and actually TB is the one using the more possibility of the game and offering the more tactic.

 * Should there exist a turn based combat?
Hell of course, this question should be for realtime

[Nice_Boat]

I see you did not get the point here. No its not trolling but simple fact. FOnline needs shitload of radical changes if it ever wants to be balanced since current system is designed for single player but it does not work in MMO. As it was said in topic in my signature current 7/5 step char development can't satisfy anyone. Same goes for PvP/PvE that are kinda flat compared to any other game (not in matter of content but in possibilities that used mechanics offer). Just try to imagine some PvE dungeon. Lets say toxic caves from F2. How should it be designed? Only get in, kill everything in your path, get out? No real need for medic/1st line "tank"/engineer/support dps etc? Just take some 3-4 maniacs with enough ammo and lets rock? Sorry but I believe that FOnline can offer much more than that.

It wasn't designed for singleplayer, it was designed for pen and paper RPG game system called GURPS. GURPS' creators didn't want their system to be associated with graphically depicted violence, so Black Isle didn't get the license for Fallout and came up with SPECIAL - but basically SPECIAL and GURPS are to each other like 2nd and 3rd editions of D&D. If you talk simple facts, at least get your info straight.

Anyway - you're talking "tank"/engineer/support in a game that has combat involving firearms. Sorry, you won't get the fantasy/medieval character classes for the same reason a spear isn't a popular choice for PvP. What you get are more or less realistic tactics and emphasis on teamplay - and it's already there. And while the game could use some sort of added cover and suppression mechanic, the way combat works is determined by a) high lethality and b) human psychology. It's just funny how many real military tactics apply to FOnline combat with its quite arbitrary system, really. The only thing that's missing is fire and movement, but then again even if their characters can't be suppressed players still can - seeing entire gangs getting pinned because they lost a man is a common occurence in bigger TC battles. Same with cover - yeah, you can't really lean "vertically" over a window, but smart people are still taking cover behind walls and pop out only to discharge their firearms. I mean everybody is moaning that the system is too simple and offers little choice in terms of strategy forgetting about the wonderfully complex group apect - the difference is there and it's as large as between a defence shooting in a mugging gone wrong scenario and squad tactics used in Afghanistan. 1v1 in FOnline is as simple as draw-> shoot, which is exactly how it is in real life and how it should be when modern firearms are being modelled. The only problem is the consistently high hit rate resulting in relatively small ammunition expenditure, but then again it really helps with eliminating the luck factor and fits well with the lack of partial cover.

If anything, the low tier of weaponry should be somewhat improved to make stuff like pistols actually usable for anything other than trolling. I mean yeah, you can instakill with a 10mm pistol, but when it doesn't crit it's not really doing much - and that's just wrong. Every weapon should be capable of killing a player in a full-AP attack, they should just differ when it comes to details like range or accuracy. If we had a damage overhaul that's in line with what weapons realistically do, we'd have the Assault Rifle being the assault rifle, and not a toy useful only for plinking at rats. That's like the only thing that feels wrong about fighting in this game - and it's practically nullified by players using the top tier stuff only. Another nice thing that's in line with such damage change would be increasing the rate of injury related incapacitation to death - it'd be nice if being taken out in combat didn't necesarily mean being killed - increasing the number o -HP you could be on while staying alive and increasing the replication time would mean more realism (and probably cause a massive amount of whine from permanoobs that can't move from one end of the NCR to another without risking being killed, lol).

[FischiPiSti]

Theres a squad based tactical mmofps called planetside out there. With firearms. They have medics, engineers, hackers, they dont have "tanks" but there are different kinds of armor thats made to fit that role, and -get this-, even sneakers wearing no armor, but are invisible, and... *gasp*, they are HtH armed with nothing but a knife. Everybody has their own role.
Just watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Twyfcncurg&feature=related, stop at 1:51, there are the character roles/classes.
Something like fo:tactics...Sorta.

Another game, anarchy online, is an mmorpg, and has medics, engineers, hackers, heavy armored "tanks", and even - get this -, even sneakers wearing no armor, but are invisible, and... *gasp*, they are HtH armed with nothing but a knife. Everybody has their own role.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6sa3c75kJk
Like a traditional mmorpg...

It seems to me, that special, with its arsenal of skills could feature these roles, but currently, cant. So whats the difference? Well...To me, and sius, and a few others, FOnline refers to an mmorpg. To you, it refers to fo:tactics. Problem is, that FOnline is NEITHER. It seems that not even the devs know what they want with this game, make it an mmo, or fo:tactics. Crafting system is allmost mmo-ish, combat system is allmost tactics-ish.

Bottom line: Both views are valid, so dont bash. Its politics. But if you want FOnline:Tactics, the game still needs some standard mmo cliches.

[Nice_Boat]

Theres a squad based tactical mmofps called planetside out there. With firearms. They have medics, engineers, hackers, they dont have "tanks" but there are different kinds of armor thats made to fit that role, and -get this-, even sneakers wearing no armor, but are invisible, and... *gasp*, they are HtH armed with nothing but a knife. Everybody has their own role.
Just watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Twyfcncurg&feature=related, stop at 1:51, there are the character roles/classes.
Something like fo:tactics...Sorta.

Another game, anarchy online, is an mmorpg, and has medics, engineers, hackers, heavy armored "tanks", and even - get this -, even sneakers wearing no armor, but are invisible, and... *gasp*, they are HtH armed with nothing but a knife. Everybody has their own role.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6sa3c75kJk
Like a traditional mmorpg...

It seems to me, that special, with its arsenal of skills could feature these roles, but currently, cant. So whats the difference? Well...To me, and sius, and a few others, FOnline refers to an mmorpg. To you, it refers to fo:tactics. Problem is, that FOnline is NEITHER. It seems that not even the devs know what they want with this game, make it an mmo, or fo:tactics. Crafting system is allmost mmo-ish, combat system is allmost tactics-ish.

Bottom line: Both views are valid, so dont bash. Its politics. But if you want FOnline:Tactics, the game still needs some standard mmo cliches.

I'm not saying that having different classes is bad, I'm just saying you won't get too much variety if you keep combat lethal - at the end of the day it's various kinds of "riflemen" (because that's what a powerbuild really is) duking it out using a more or less bastardized version of military tactics - which for me is fine because it's interesting and deep. You just won't have it any other way without decreasing the damage considerably and getting boring run and gun instead. Introducing crew served weapons or vehicles would add another layer and change things a bit, but I don't think this game would profit from further "militarization" as it'd just increase the distance between the leading gangs and your typical crafter.

Basically, it's weapon capabilities (specifically, their lethality) determining the way combat unfolds. In such environment the character classes will always be determined by weapons they're going to deploy, and not by some arbitrary cliche. You could increase the usefulness of some weapons that currently are not receiving the love they should (like explosives), but the core won't change a lot even if you switch SPECIAL for something else - at the end of the day it's still going to be about small unit tactics, proper positioning and coordination.

[Archaeon_dude]

4) The combat should be more tactical.

 Do you remember Fallout: Tactics BoS? Terrible, ain't it? But it had a certain grace to it. The stance swiching system. You know, your character could lay on the ground, crouch or stand up straight, these different postures would have an influence over your characters basic attributes.That's kindo neat, iseth?
You say our game could be a little more tactic? Maybe they could do something like the aforemention'd system that doesn't totally suck?

[FischiPiSti]

First step in tacticalishness™ is AP regeneration. Switching weapons->Big penalty leading to death in RT.
http://fodev.net/forum/index.php?topic=4416.0

[Midnight]

Yeah and in tactics, changing stance cost APs and take time, that would simply lead to snipers crouching and killing from long range everybody trying to change stance. (that was the case in tactics)
Combat are too short against powerbuild to let this be of any use and in the case of hard balanced combat, don't think you can afford to loose 2 AP to change stance.
In tactics not everyone add 150% like it's the case in FOnline, that would be really terrible to balance this, and could lead to nonsense like someone unable to shoot a guy crouching sneaking right next to him :/

[avv]

Yeah and in tactics, changing stance cost APs and take time, that would simply lead to snipers crouching and killing from long range everybody trying to change stance. (that was the case in tactics)
Combat are too short against powerbuild to let this be of any use and in the case of hard balanced combat, don't think you can afford to loose 2 AP to change stance.
In tactics not everyone add 150% like it's the case in FOnline, that would be really terrible to balance this, and could lead to nonsense like someone unable to shoot a guy crouching sneaking right next to him :/

Yeah in tactics snipers were pretty strong. But that was because every char had 360 degree vision and instantaneous reaction in overwatch mode.

Besides, stances aren't absolutely must if more strategy ir required.

[pagemaster]

It seems to me like classes already do exist in FOnline, in terms of combat specific classes. You have disablers (snipers, missile launchers) and damage dealing characters (Mini-Guns). The disablers try to knock other characters down, cripple them, or deal critical damage, and in essence, play on chance.

Perhaps trying to differentiate the different weapons classes to play to strengths already inherent in these classes, and also trying to work within the two naturally occurring combat classes (disabler/damage dealer) would make it much easier to balance the game.

For instance, big guns have always had good area of effect. Perhaps their current problem is that mini-guns don't have enough spread to play to this strength, and instead deal such concentrated damage that they become the end all and be all of damage dealing weapons. Then, small guns can compete with mini-guns not by doing comparable total damage, but instead allowing a more concentrated application of damage. This would also make battles last longer, because as is, the reason they're short is insta-kills from mini-gunners.

I don't know where energy weapons would play into all of this, though. Melee and unarmed are a challenge because of the limitations of the game's engine, from what I can tell (no running to perform an action, etc.), but they're actually fairly well defined in terms of the two natural weapons classes (melee more easily deals damage, unarmed is better for crits).

Also, perhaps part of the answer to reducing the amount of alt-ing that occurs is to more substantially limit the benefit of pumping all of your points into your weapons skill. This might make the game more chance based by doing things like increasing the importance of AC (just an example, since it depends on how you enforce the limit), but that wouldn't effect big gunners if they're more splashy.

 I'm not trying to make specific suggestions though. I guess I'm trying to point out what classes already exist, but need more definition, and how you could play off of mechanics that people are already trying to use in order to re-balance things.