Other > Suggestions

PvP balancing, part 0., part 1., PvP Constitution

<< < (5/6) > >>

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 :D

Nice_Boat:

--- Quote from: Sius on April 30, 2010, 08:59:06 am ---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.

--- End quote ---

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:

--- Quote from: FischiPiSti on May 19, 2010, 03:22:43 am ---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.

--- End quote ---

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?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page