fodev.net
Other => FOnline:2238 Forum => Archives => General Game Discussion => Topic started by: kttdestroyer on October 04, 2010, 04:49:02 pm
-
Lets assume that in pvp combat every AP usage would be equal to amount of seconds of firing time. So, if one makes an action that costs 10 ap, it would take him 5 seconds, if an action that cost 5 ap then it would take him 2.5 second. Meaning, burst of a minigun costs 7 AP which would mean 3.5 seconds, an eye shot with a sniper costs 8 AP and would take 4 seconds to fire and so on.
Ofcourse the numbers are taken out of a hat, i am just trying to make the idea clear not the acual balance (3-4 secs might be too much, but that is probobly hard to tell straight away). What would this change in PVP gameplay? Personally, i believe it would have impact on tactics, slowering the combat and boosting tactics over weapons and builds.
Each kind of build would have its own more defined role in combat:
Sniper would be most effective on very long distances (how a sniper is suppose to be?), but would be weak on medium and very weak on short distance.
Big gunner would be most effective on long distances, but would have troubles on very long and short distance.
Assault gunners would be most effective on medium distances and but would be most balanced in terms weakness/strenght.
SMGs/Shotguns/Pistol users would be most effective on short distances, but would be medicore/weak on medium and very weak on long - very long distances.
In practice i believe it would create many tactical situations and counter situations:
A minigunner would be a lot safer if supported by SMG/Shotgun/pistol combatant, and could defend/advance a position in open, but in urban area the assault gunners and SMG/shotgun/pistols could sneak on him and flank him. If that is not possible, then a well positioned sniper could come to use.
Aswell, i believe it could lead to intresting pvp confrontations, even if one on one only, that one could tell and write more about then just "i just killed 2 players":
What if two snipers met eachother in Klamath? big open ended area with lots of houses. There would be no more point in running forward and instant eye shotting eachother too see who is more durable and who gets that finishing insta critical. Now if one sniper spots the other one aiming, he would be given this time to retreat and change his position, and try to catch the other sniper without been noticed, it could become like a cat & mouse situation, and it would be all about beign the cat. 8)
Lets try us to examine what tactical situations this could lead too, and imagine what pvp confrontations could happand, then write it here and lets discuss!
-
Forgot about medics. Again. Medicrrrrrage.
-
BG should not be weak in close distance. (pointblank burst have x3 dmg mod)
-
I agree mostly.
Why not have big guns mostly effective at medium-long distance?
But problem with these distances is however that players can very quickly change their positions by just running. An advantage received from certain range could quickly be undone by few seconds of running and it's pretty retarded.
Forgot about medics. Again. Medicrrrrrage.
What about them lol? They could surely have some place eventually. Ktt can't think of everything, we gotta limit the thread somewhere.
-
You mean to get rid of the whole AP mechanics.
I think it would take a lot of programming.
Otherwise I dont see anything how it would improve PvP experience. In PvP we want to shoot, run, heal, kill. Not run around like cretins trying to block someone inside house to kill him with shot taking 3secs.
-
..melee? No? Ok :(
-
this would be awesome if you could also introduce an AP drain-over-time on running AND walking, so that you are encouraged to actually stand and fight and not hope for your 1 miracle shot.
-
I and some other guy suggested the same too. Instead of 0.5 second per AP, I suggested 0,1s, but I think 0,5 is fine, cause we can have 2 AP pistoleros ;). Yes I approve of this, this would really balance things out
-
Well, let us examine the details of above stated issues and how they would look in proposed real time combat system and situations that could be the outcome.
Melee? No? (pistacja)
I do not agree, i think for the melee and unarmed the game would just become. Melee/unarmed maybe should not take time to perform (other then AP loose like currently). I think the time it costs to get to its target is equal the time to shoot a weapon, and so it makes it even, however, correct me if you believe my thinking is incomplete.
Distance and running from it (avv):
I agree that Big gunner effectiveness fits Medium-Long range better. In direct confrontation assault rifle user would be a bit weaker. (Assault rifle user would be still more versile)
Yes, i imagine that running will be existing. But let us think about it, in real life, if you would see or recaive information that there is a sniper close by, you would not stand still and most likely try to get some cover.
Big gunner mechanics speculation:
With a Big gunner confrontation (a big gunner meets a closer ranged wepon using person), there are few options how to make big gunner perform. The most reasonable one i can think of right now is that after minigunner fires the damage is sent out in 3 (2?) waves, and depending if the target is still in range he will get or not whole damage of which amount is decided at the beginning of firing the minigun. As an exemple: Minigunner fires, target is visible, the damage is a critt doing 120 damage, 1 second: target recaives 40 damage(120/3 seconds), 2 second: target is still visible but is trying to run away, and recaives further 40 damage, 3 second: target has taken cover behind a building and is not visible, he doesint recaive damage, but if someone else stands close to same hex as the target was last visible he would recaive this damage.
Another way to solve this, could be to make 3 smaller burst over those 3 seconds, and simply divide each of the bursts final damage by 3. The minigunner could then change his target during the burst. If the first target took hiding he could keep firing the last part of the burst on a second target.
The burster i believe should be able to abort his burst but loose the corresponding AP points with it.
Shot, run, heal, kill (OskaRus):
I have to agree, that the battle would be a lot more demanding for players that want to "Shot, run, heal and kill", more demanding on their tactical ability especially. But, personally i was always hoping this mod is aiming/trying to aim more for Role playing, player meeting, intresting confrontations then shot-run-kill simulator.
And yes, this could lead to some changes of current "elit", not nessecery, but i assume some players could suddently loose their strenght in favor of others.
Big gunner on close range (damage x 3)(VongJin):
Well, personally, i dont agree that minigun is a close range weapon. A 3xDamage from point blank i see as a fallou fun part, not something that this weapon made for (in any game, in reality, on diffrent planet it is/would be long range weapon i assume).
However, see no point in change the 3xdamage, i just believe the firing should push the big gunners to their true role. I think making big gunners slow on turning around would also increase the virtual realism (the common understanding of simple psychical rules that are elements of logical conclusions). Exemple: If you run with an SMG from behind on a big gunner, you have right to assume that the biggunner will not turn instantly 180 degrees, an SMG you hold with one hand, a minigun with your whole buddy.
Medics (Whisky Bob):
I believe that medics would by this would be justs given their chance as the battles would be slower in terms of deciding who wins (players would not instantly drop dead in massive numbers i predict). A injured or damaged player could easier retreat to a more safer position (position secured by his team mates for exemple) and meet the medic.
Also, becouse of more options of balancing the game would be present, medics could be rebalanced and maybe use first aid kits or doctorbags to quicker heal partipicants of the battle (quicker then FA which every player on battlefield can use).
-
Yes, i imagine that running will be existing. But let us think about it, in real life, if you would see or recaive information that there is a sniper close by, you would not stand still and most likely try to get some cover.
But in real life a sniper or anyone with semi-auto or faster weapon can shoot dozens of shots when you run 100 metres. But in fonline you can fire like once or twice with any gun before someone is either right next to you, far away or just dead.
There are ways to affect this but I'm worried about posting new too complicated suggestions. However when it comes to walking or running, walking could have a benefit: when walking, you don't need to regen all the aps required to shoot. You could have like 1 or 2 already regenerated aps because when walking you aren't so winded or shaky when you're gonna shoot an encountered enemy.
-
You are trying to change this game too much devs want to make this game as more it can be as original. You can also try make threads like guys in metal armors should be slower then bluesuits etc...
-
Well, let us examine the details of above stated issues and how they would look in proposed real time combat system and situations that could be the outcome.
Melee? No? (pistacja)
I do not agree, i think for the melee and unarmed the game would just become. Melee/unarmed maybe should not take time to perform (other then AP loose like currently). I think the time it costs to get to its target is equal the time to shoot a weapon, and so it makes it even, however, correct me if you believe my thinking is incomplete.
i didnt understood..
-
well with the RT and TB split it is clear that they need to focus on one and "choose" which one is the "real primary combat style" of fonline. til then all we'll have is a bunch of ideas with no direction :/
-
Running / Walking (avv)
Yes, well i assume that if a sniper sees a running target, he will not aim for eyes but for body parts that require less preparations (less time cost/AP) like legs.
I agree with the running feature, that if one is walking then two of all APs still regenerates, this could be aswell usefull in RT for Bonus move (maybe with x2 bonus move forexemple one could have 4 AP that regenerate while walking), which now is useless in RT.
Staying close to originals (MeganFox)
Correct me if i am wrong, but originals were turn-based (both Fallout 1 and Fallout 2). And AP was to represent time. Even the perks say, Bonus rate of fire perk for one; "This Perk allows you to pull the trigger a little faster...". However, in current system, you dont shoot faster, becouse, everybody shots instantly when they have the AP. Thats why, i believe that "staying as close to originals" goes together with the combat system above proposed.
What i ment with melee
That for a melee/unarmed character, i believe main problem is just the current system where players can unleash all fire power they have in 1 second. I believe with introduction of fireing time they would have time to get to their target. So, even without any modification or balancing they would already gain a boost.
Together with this, i think the fireing time for Melee/unarmed characters could even stay as it is (instant). Their firing time would be represented by the time it takes to run forward to the opponent.
-
Medic, what?
You mean those power builds with 250 HP, 200 skill+ in BG and the rest in Doc & Med? Yeah. That's cool.
-
Staying close to originals, rephase:
As for turning a Turn-based game into a Real-time one, i believe currently it has been implemented backwards. I will try to explain what i mean with this.
Turnbased system is to represent a time phase of the battle, lets assume each of this phase is to represent 10 seconds of battle (AP). In this time of 10 seconds, each of players/NPCs in the battle is to do their 10 second part after eachother. But, intentionally, one participant of the battle 10 seconds, are the same seconds of a second participants 10 seconds even if they are moving after eachother, it is still the same phase. Meaning, each of participants movements are happening simultaneously in theory, represented in phases in a turnbased system.
However, how it looks now, the time has been removed to a big part, and only becomes in use after first AP usage (when they reload) and even then they are only working one way (to load your instant ability to fire). The turnbased mode is turned into a instant turnbased mode, it is a turnbased mode without turn stoppage, i believe, it is not a working real time system, but more like broken turnbased system that we currently have. To add, and i do not want to hurt anyones feeling, only explaining, that if one want to convert something and keeping the same spirit then i believe he has to understand the base idea behind the first thing.
Simpler Mechanic Idea:
An easier way to implement this would be to instead of having starting AP, to have no starting AP, and from there what ever action character chooses the AP loads to the corresponding action. The speed of AP loading would be dependant on total amount of AP (like now). (This might be usefull if one wants to do a try out).
Medic, what?
You mean those power builds with 250 HP, 200 skill+ in BG and the rest in Doc & Med? Yeah. That's cool.
I believe such thing is easly regulated by setting a doc skill required for usage of Doctor bag (or making it effective only if 100%+, which would make sense, one has to know what to do with the stuff in it). If someone really wants to play a medic that is, i wouldint.
-
I just started to play at Hinkley and after few days, my experience from it (beside previous TC experience). I can say that the ultimate build is 250 hp big gunner with a rocket and that says it all about how simple the combat system is i am afraid.
-
Game is not that simple as u think. There is no ultimate builds it's all about how skilled u are and how skilled your team members.
-
I just started to play at Hinkley and after few days, my experience from it (beside previous TC experience). I can say that the ultimate build is 250 hp big gunner with a rocket and that says it all about how simple the combat system is i am afraid.
Man u rly are getting intimidated by those guys. Try shooting them twice with plasma in the eyes within one second and listen to their melted body how they swear. xD
-
it's all about how skilled u are and how skilled your team members.
Oh yeah? Then I'd like to see the player who manages to totally dominate in pvp with this build: http://www.nitue.net/fcp/ (http://www.nitue.net/fcp/) load public "mr.skills"
By your logic VongJin, you should be able to use that build to defeat less-skilled enemies with powerbuild chars.
And what comes to teamwork, even if you had 100 of players who played with that build, they still would lose to a dude who had enough ammo to shoot you all.
-
Sorry to but be rude avv but, what a stupid exemple... how a non-combat char is supposed to kill anything ? ... ::)
And for skills for pvp, its absolutley clear that its not that simple as some of these posts mention... being a noob with a good powerbuild will save you from time to time but will loose in the end... moreover in gangVSgang fights...
-
Oh yeah? Then I'd like to see the player who manages to totally dominate in pvp with this build: http://www.nitue.net/fcp/ (http://www.nitue.net/fcp/) load public "mr.skills"
By your logic VongJin, you should be able to use that build to defeat less-skilled enemies with powerbuild chars.
And what comes to teamwork, even if you had 100 of players who played with that build, they still would lose to a dude who had enough ammo to shoot you all.
Dude your post is senseless(butthurt?). your mr.skills build have nothing common with PVP. it's a simple crafting alt.
You wanted to show your intelligence, but showed your stupidity and no ability to engage in dialogue.
-
Sorry to but be rude avv but, what a stupid exemple... how a non-combat char is supposed to kill anything ? ... ::)
Who says whats non-combat char? Isn't fighting everyman's right? It's not even stupid example. VongJin said: There is no ultimate builds it's all about how skilled u are and how skilled your team members.
So if there is no ultimate build, and it's all about skill, then doesn't he exactly mean that no matter the build, more skilled player wins?
And for skills for pvp, its absolutley clear that its not that simple as some of these posts mention... being a noob with a good powerbuild will save you from time to time but will loose in the end... moreover in gangVSgang fights...
I never said that more experienced players haven't got some aces in their sleeves, it's obvious. I just wanted to point out that build is the key factor when it comes to winning a fight. Skill only starts to take place when both sides got equal builds.
Dude your post is senseless(butthurt?). your mr.skills build have nothing common with PVP. it's a simple crafting alt.
You wanted to show your intelligence, but showed your stupidity and no ability to engage in dialogue.
You said yourself it's all about player's skills, not build. I questioned that, isn't it called normal dialogue?
-
Who says whats non-combat char? Isn't fighting everyman's right? It's not even stupid example. VongJin said: There is no ultimate builds it's all about how skilled u are and how skilled your team members.
You were talking about a big gun RL. He was talking about kind of build (small gun sniper, big gun burster, big gun RL, laser sniper, plasma tank etc...), not about build itself. He was obviously thinking only at optimized combat build. He say that all kind of optimized builds are equal, and skill make the difference.
And I agree with him, tough a bit of luck have to been taken into account. Also, due to constant balancing, some are a bit over the other (foe plasma tank when plasma was firing at 30hex, and now big gun are a bit under other because of nerf), but skill still influe enough to give you victory if you play well.
-
Who says whats non-combat char? Isn't fighting everyman's right? It's not even stupid example. VongJin said: There is no ultimate builds it's all about how skilled u are and how skilled your team members.
Oh come on avv, saying that there is no ultimate build doesnt mean that all builds are equal... Useless to say (seems not) that if your build is pure shit for fight (like the the one in your link) you will do shit ...
Anyway for topic issue, pvp (moreover in groups) its far from easy click... and im really not sure "everyone" has mastered it and then justify that we need more complicated new features
-
So there we have it: build is the key factor when it comes to victory, skill cannot overcome better build. When both sides have similar builds, the skill starts to matter. This is what I wanted to see acknowledged, nothing else.
In this paragraph lies the biggest flaw in our pvp. It doesn't matter what kind of build is in question, it is still controlled by another player. This build may still get into fight with another player who has better build. Just because the another player has better build, why does he deserve a victory? If in normal pvp with powerbuilds the more skilled wins, why doesn't this add to all fighting? Making a build doesn't take skill so it shouldn't provide rewards that skill would normally provide: a victory.
There is no other way to influence players than fighting, so a bad combat build cannot pay back in any way no matter how skilled its player is. He cannot compensate his lack of fighting abilities with briliant repair, for example.
-
Build depends on the skill. If you are experienced and you know what you are doing you will probably make yourself better build than someone who plays for a month or never been in any gang. Thus skill depends on the fight's outcome.
-
Even without a perfectly optimized build, with good skill and strategy, you can win against a powerbuild. But it's obvious that you have better chance with better build. But I agree with John Ryder, build is part of skill. In Starcraft strategy is and good micro/macro management is skill. In Quake, fast reflexes, great accuracy, know when you need what weapon is skill. Here, make a good char is part of skill with tacticts.
-
Build depends on the skill. If you are experienced and you know what you are doing you will probably make yourself better build than someone who plays for a month or never been in any gang. Thus skill depends on the fight's outcome.
What if this build was made by someone else? Anyone can just copy each other's builds and that's whats going all the time.
But all the same, you make a build only once but play with it the rest of the gaming time. So saying that the skill and experience invested in build should grant similar benefits as skill normally does, is the same thing as saying that headshots in some fps game should always be scored if you did it once.
Even without a perfectly optimized build, with good skill and strategy, you can win against a powerbuild. But it's obvious that you have better chance with better build. But I agree with John Ryder, build is part of skill. In Starcraft strategy is and good micro/macro management is skill. In Quake, fast reflexes, great accuracy, know when you need what weapon is skill. Here, make a good char is part of skill with tacticts.
The difference between fonline, quake and starcraft skill investments is that in sc and quake player is constantly challenged to do better. In fonline you only need to do this investment once, if you even do it and you will receive rewards for the rest of the gaming time against weaker builds. Add that kind of system in quake or sc and you got a broken game.
Fonline is still slightly about micromanagement, we manage only one char. That's the skill needed in powerbuild pvp. So because I said earlier that adding build-creating system over startcraft would break the game, isn't fonline already broken if it's a mix of build creating and micromanagement?
-
ok last touch and i'm done here:
1)lets take a poor one day newby with BA+avenger+ RL+2 SS 220% BG 150% FA and 110 doc and lets say 240 hp(BG powerbuild)
2)lets take pro player with metal armor + avenger+RL +2 ss 160%bg 100 FA and 80 doc and 170 hp(unfinished regular bg build with 3 cha and for exmpl no brd at all)
3) dumping them in Hinkley Battlezone 1vs1 and making bets.
I will bet for pro player coz:
He will use tactics, not just random shooting.
He will have better screen aim and reaction.
He will always use cover.
He will burst at point blank coz he knows what it have x3 dmg mod.
He will use RL at medium range and avenger at close combat.
Pro player knows his own weak sides and strong sides and he can turn it both for advantage.
There is some % of luck in every battle for sure because of SPECIAL in this system we need to roll 15-20 even for successful breath.
But still... skill takes main part in PvP combat.
-
What if this build was made by someone else? Anyone can just copy each other's builds and that's whats going all the time.
Oh, oh but what if someone does what someone else told him? He does the same tactics, shoots at the same time? Anyone can just copy each other's tactics and moves. :(
Skill shows in a simplistic form how trained you are. So get over it and stop forcing this funny suggestion in your every post.
-
Nah, we just should all begin at lvl 21, with exact same build, amount of HP, skills, perks and stuff to be sure only the true skill decide who win!
Seriously...
-
Nah, we just should all begin at lvl 21, with exact same build, amount of HP, skills, perks and stuff to be sure only the true skill decide who win!
Exists already.
(http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/screenshots/7/192047/quake3_790screen003.jpg)
-
Oh, oh but what if someone does what someone else told him? He does the same tactics, shoots at the same time? Anyone can just copy each other's tactics and moves. :(
Skill shows in a simplistic form how trained you are. So get over it and stop forcing this funny suggestion in your every post.
Can you copy reflexes, aiming or micromanagement? I don't think so. But they for sure are skill. So if build can be copied then how can it be skill? Copying a build is the same thing if you quoted something smart said by someone else and pretended you came up with it.
You can never copy situational adapting. Gaming skill is basically reacting to what's going on in the screen.
I'm not even suggesting anything. I'm questioning the current pvp settings. If you're so certain they are fine in terms of balanced gameplay, you should be able to prove it. So far you got nothing.
Nah, we just should all begin at lvl 21, with exact same build, amount of HP, skills, perks and stuff to be sure only the true skill decide who win!
Seriously...
Isn't this what's going on in powerbuild pvp? Why couldn't it apply to all fighting?
-
Obtaining stuff is part of the skill here. Like on quake FFA for example. And basic strategies can be copied in starcraft, they are actually.
But stop to endless discussion.
You just don't want to play the same game as me. It's just like you can't hear and/or understand me, and I certainly don't understand you.
-
Obtaining stuff is part of the skill here. Like on quake FFA for example. And basic strategies can be copied in starcraft, they are actually.
Obtaining stuff in fonline equals grinding which equals time, not skill. In quake FFA you for sure won't be allowed to gather weapons and armor for hours and hours and then go to fight.
In fonline to get items you only require certain ammount of knowledge about what to do and then you just repeat it over and over again. In quake FFA you constantly fight an enemy who is after the same health, armor and weapons. Admittedly it is might be rather repetitive to race around the same maps but at least it has high skill ceiling due to advanced movement.
Even if certain patterns are copied in starcfat, the winner is eventually who manages to apply the strategies in most suitable moment.
You just don't want to play the same game as me. It's just like you can't hear and/or understand me, and I certainly don't understand you.
Excuse me but questioning and discussing is what beta testing is also about. If devs just had declared that the game is finished and nothing needs changing, I wouldn't be here discussing pvp with you. If devs had declared that pvp is supposed to be what it is now, then I'd shut up too.
I understand you, I guess. You probably think that build-based pvp is okay for whatever reason and I'm against it. So if there's something unclear just say it and I'll try to explain.
-
I understand you, I guess. You probably think that build-based pvp is okay for whatever reason and I'm against it. So if there's something unclear just say it and I'll try to explain.
Well, it's much I think, that yes, build should be a part of PvP, tough i don't think it make it "build based", even if it's important.
-
Nah, we just should all begin at lvl 21, with exact same build, amount of HP, skills, perks and stuff to be sure only the true skill decide who win!
Seriously...
Hmm....wouldn't be the baddest idea i guess...i mean...there could be some feature that every player has the chance to create one PvP-based character. Like in most FFA events he could choose the type before (Sniper, Burster, BG..blah). Those chars then would be the only ones who are allowed to do TC. Of course they would also be restricted to TC areas. But i doubt its the right way in the end at all. There's too much exploiting possibilities and at least it also would destroy the individual gameplay in PvP combat i think.
Beside this i think some of you suggest some more fair way of PvP...like almost same amount of players fighting each other in TC for example...i don't know how that could be done by game mechanics but this would be good imo. I mean the problem is...first gangs who control towns for longer time get some big loot over this period...smaller and or younger factions then have a hard life. They just can't afford to loose everything they got, twice a day or something and at the same time don't mind about that. Here we should have some balance i think. For me its ok, that the gang who builds up fast, after a wipe, and controls cities for first time and also holds them, get some kind of advantage but already after some days the descent between them and some newer faction is big...think u get what i'm trying to explain here ;)
-
There will be domination mode if you want equal fight. TC is more wasteland: harsh. The winner can be the most intelligent, numerous, skilled... No matter how, the main point is to win. Create a big gang or an alliance is harder than people seem to think.
-
There will be domination mode if you want equal fight. TC is more wasteland: harsh. The winner can be the most intelligent, numerous, skilled... No matter how, the main point is to win. Create a big gang or an alliance is harder than people seem to think.
once you got the zerg, the zerglings become too afraid to live without the zerg
-
once you got the zerg, the zerglings become too afraid to live without the zerg
*sniff* I smell a troll.
Btw, what is your gang to say that? If you are CS/rogues, that's mean you were/are still/will be zerg, so kindly stfu.
-
I see a lot people using big words, but when it comes to explaining them, they suddently have no idea whats the question is about.
So i ask. How do we define word Skill? Current combat system is complicated (non-simple)? Word tactics is very often used together with it. So i ask, what are the tactics in Fallout Online? I am asking, becouse if you use this word, then i assume you understand why you use it.
I will bet for pro player coz:
He will use tactics, not just random shooting.
He will have better screen aim and reaction.
He will always use cover.
He will burst at point blank coz he knows what it have x3 dmg mod.
He will use RL at medium range and avenger at close combat.
Pro player knows his own weak sides and strong sides and he can turn it both for advantage.
So, the pro player doesint shot randomly (like, he knows when he will make a good crittical and blind the enemy), you used word tactics, tell me about it.
Yes, he will be clicking faster for sure.
You cant use cover in this game as far i am concerned? Other then hide and reload your ap?
Point blank, if he clicks faster then the opponent. And a pro player clicks faster we have agreed.
So, what we have incommon. 1. Quick clicking 2. Build 3. Knowing the game mechanics. This is Fonline definition of skilled player it seems :)
Build depends on the skill. If you are experienced and you know what you are doing you will probably make yourself better build than someone who plays for a month or never been in any gang. Thus skill depends on the fight's outcome.
Thats not a skill, thats more like knowalge. It could be called experience aswell. To bad that the game must be decided so much by who got more LK or who got more More Critticals as perks.
Anyway for topic issue, pvp (moreover in groups) its far from easy click... and im really not sure "everyone" has mastered it and then justify that we need more complicated new features
Far from easy click, well, tell me about it, i wonder what you mean mastering, mastering what? 8)
Sorry to but be rude avv but, what a stupid exemple... how a non-combat char is supposed to kill anything ? ... ::)
And for skills for pvp, its absolutley clear that its not that simple as some of these posts mention... being a noob with a good powerbuild will save you from time to time but will loose in the end... moreover in gangVSgang fights...
Well, if you find complicated (oposite to simple) to hit-and-run/stand and shot/aim for eyes then you are right.
Man u rly are getting intimidated by those guys. Try shooting them twice with plasma in the eyes within one second and listen to their melted body how they swear. xD
Nope. I am doing quite well with my SG build.
Game is not that simple as u think. There is no ultimate builds it's all about how skilled u are and how skilled your team members.
Oh there is, there is ultimate builds for every weapon class avalible. Please explain word Skill, and how it works in Fonline. What does a skilled player do, and what does an unskilled player do you think?
-
Well, it's much I think, that yes, build should be a part of PvP, tough i don't think it make it "build based", even if it's important.
The problem here is that build's role in combat is such that the character does too much for us. It aims for us, resists hits, dodges them, even turns invisible for us. Too much important combat-related manouvres are handled by the char, not us players. So by build-based I mean that better build has higher chances to win. But in games where similar systems exist, there is no better build, just differend builds with differend styles. In fonline we got various non-combat skills that take high investments but do not pay off the same way as combat skills. This separates us from typical build/class based games because combat is not the only thing to do in fonline. But combat is the only way to harm others.
So unless every skill, perk and stat had some way to harm others directly there wouldn't be much to bitch about. But since it's unlikely we're ever able to science someone to death, the easier way out would be to remove how skills affect our combat performance.
So i ask. How do we define word Skill? Current combat system is complicated (non-simple)? Word tactics is very often used together with it. So i ask, what are the tactics in Fallout Online? I am asking, becouse if you use this word, then i assume you understand why you use it.
There is some micromanagement-skill involved when equal builds clash in real time. Turn based requires even less skill. Team-based fighting might have infinite skill-cap since you can never be good enough in teamwork.
-
The problem here is that build's role in combat is such that the character does too much for us. It aims for us, resists hits, dodges them, even turns invisible for us. Too much important combat-related manouvres are handled by the char, not us players. So by build-based I mean that better build has higher chances to win. But in games where similar systems exist, there is no better build, just differend builds with differend styles. In fonline we got various non-combat skills that take high investments but do not pay off the same way as combat skills. This separates us from typical build/class based games because combat is not the only thing to do in fonline. But combat is the only way to harm others.
Hey man, it's a RPG! Obviously your char do something instead of you: he have skills, it's not you who aim the eyes, it's him, you just tell him to aim it.
Also, you have to see that fight isn't the the only thing in this game, it's far more vast. You have to make choices: be better at fight, or be able to travel faster? Be able to hide yourself, or to heal? Or maybe just to maintain your gear?
In most MMORPG, all your choices are combat based, as you don't need anything to craft/travel. Here it's different.
-
Far from easy click, well, tell me about it, i wonder what you mean mastering, mastering what? 8)
I bet my car you are not in any "big" gang so i understand you have no clue what im talking about... anywawy you should trust gang players when they say what they know... instead of some ironical/smart/sarcasm sentences.
For info : in gang fights, a part from fast clik, you have to manage one/various groups, micromanage same/mix builds , settle postion wisely (we are talking about one hex of precision), aim the correct target regard situation, use max range of weappons/sight range, perfect timings, wisely split groups, scoot properly, manage logisctical issues for getting fast operational, surprise ennemy with new strats, hide/dont some forces, etc..,etc.. tactics/situations are almost infinite
You may say thats not hard or thats not relevent and again its just that you have no clue of what there is going on in gang wars...
-
Hey man, it's a RPG! Obviously your char do something instead of you: he have skills, it's not you who aim the eyes, it's him, you just tell him to aim it.
It's rpg but it doesn't mean anything else except that we play a role in a certain world. We can play that role no matter how the combat works. But for the sake of combat it would be more reasonable that we players were in control of our combat success, instead of our chars doing it for us. This is because when it comes to pvp it's a matter of competition of playerl skills, not the skills of each other's chars.
If aiming is done by our chars then why isn't everything else aswell since it's an rpg? We already have to posess some reflexes in real time, why can't these reflexes come out of our chars since it's an rpg? Since it's an rpg shouldn't a good barter char be able to basically rob items from other players since his char is so good at convincing them to agree to his deals that they can't resist? Shouldn't a skilled female speech char be able to seduce all male chars to lay down their arms for her? Should be pretty easy since most combat builds got so low cha and speech.
Also, you have to see that fight isn't the the only thing in this game, it's far more vast. You have to make choices: be better at fight, or be able to travel faster? Be able to hide yourself, or to heal? Or maybe just to maintain your gear?
In most MMORPG, all your choices are combat based, as you don't need anything to craft/travel. Here it's different.
But you don't kill other players with fast travel, heal or crafting. That's the entire point. Only combat skills have the power to influence other players and other skills are even away from your combat permormance without paying off in sufficient way.
Besides because of alts players don't even need to make any choices since they already have every character in their disposal or at least have access to them.
-
Relax people, lets discuss rather then rage please. And excuse my sarcasm, but i just cant write in other way.
For info : in gang fights, a part from fast clik, you have to manage one/various groups, micromanage same/mix builds , settle postion wisely (we are talking about one hex of precision), aim the correct target regard situation, use max range of weappons/sight range, perfect timings, wisely split groups, scoot properly, manage logisctical issues for getting fast operational, surprise ennemy with new strats, hide/dont some forces, etc..,etc.. tactics/situations are almost infinite
You may say thats not hard or thats not relevent and again its just that you have no clue of what there is going on in gang wars...
I do not see very much tactics here, most of the things you mentioned are either game knowlage (Range, which build is good against what, who to target meaning who is most dangerous against us) or communication issues (where to stand so you can shoot the enemy before he shots you, here comes fast clicking as a factor aswell). And we have logistics aswell, which is working quite well, although not really complicated.
So, lets break this up in smaller parts.
Managing groups and mixing builds, yes, some small tactical elements but currently and unfortunattly not a key element for who wins, no matter how you mix it, its more about not doing some fatal mistakes rather then gain advantage.
Scouting, yes, one needs to know if one can win or not, how big are enemy numbers and where they are/what they have, this not key element though (or it is, in a way of, if you got more people on WM then you can assume your victory/loose, which is kind of simple, and no more tactical then 7>5), becouse its mostly gives back a question: Attack, or not attack and from where?
Next, hex precise placement and range usage, yes, to be able to shoot first becouse you will see enemy before he sees you (and so, you have a lot easier to click first (damn again fast clicking)), not very complicated unless someone linkes to stand 1 hex from door with a rocket luncher, then it might be complicated for that one.
Logistics "Well, someone forgot his armor again?", or "Damn i forgot ammo...". Well, sarcastic, becouse i dont see this as problematic thing to do, i understand you mean to prepare for several attacks and having stuff placed close by to quickly go back to battle in case of need after death/ammo refill situation. Thats pretty simple, isint it? Its like bringing toilet paper to the toilet before... Well, you know what i mean.
Timings of attack, Yes, this could be a tactical element, too bad the battles seldom go on very long time to be able to use this in bigger extansion. To make this work currently it must be used in very small time frame to gain success. Attacking one from behind and front (surrounding enemy) might enable the attackers from behind to get their first shot in, but thats all in terms of advantage.
Hiding forces, why would anyone want to do that? Exept when in defense when you want to cheat enemy by showing them only small amount of your force (so the enemy thinks they can manage them). Thats the only situation i can think of. And currently, this brings it down to amount of numbers vs amount of numbers unfortunatly.
My conclusion:
I see none of those as key elements in combat, exept for the obvious. Most of those things are based again, on Fast clicking, Luck, and/or Builds. And communication which is teamwork.
You take good position and manage range/timing to gain the first click (first shot).
You scout, manage groups and micromanage logistics to manage the amounts of power builds (x vs y, Yes or no) (builds becouse non-power builds are not taken into account).
You hope to get lucky shots in the end, which might turn the tides of the battle.
In my opinion, none of the things you mentioned are key element to final victory unless opposite side completly lacks those. Some of those things you mentioned would be tactical elements, but are nerfed to most simple form by allowing every weapon to be fired instantly. Now, imagine if firing time was in place (what the thread is about), and how it would affect those elements, turning them into key elements, replacing the fast clicking, builds to some extand and even luck could be overpoweredto some point by enchanced tactical elements.
I bet my car you are not in any "big" gang so i understand you have no clue what im talking about... anywawy you should trust gang players when they say what they know... instead of some ironical/smart/sarcasm sentences.
Been there, done that.
-
Well, I am very often in big PvP gang fight. And I can say you, skill and tactics matter far much than you seem to think. Maybe your team/alliance/ennemies haven't used any tactic, this time or all the time. But it can truely decide who win.
-
I give up with you kttdestroyer since you know more about pvp thant pvpers gang...
Yes, i have been in a pvp gang like i said (participated in some biggest battles on the server), so, we should know the same much i assume. My intentions were not to harm your feelings but examine the "tactical" situations and how to extand their power in pvp battles. So, instead of going frustrated, please respond, i will gladly hear your opinion on how to make it happend.
Well, I am very often in big PvP gang fight. And I can say you, skill and tactics matter far much than you seem to think. Maybe your team/alliance/ennemies haven't used any tactic, this time or all the time. But it can truely decide who win.
Yes, and we used god will. It compares to your unexplained word "Tactics" and is of same size. Tell me the tactical elements and we can discuss, otherwise you are just writing magic words and we are far from the land of OZ. ;)
To help you get going: Tell me, how you kill 10 power builds (220-250 hp with CA, 3 snipers, 4 rocket lunchers, 3 minigunners) with your 5 power builds (220-250 hp with CA, you choose what kind) with usage of tactics?
The Scenario looks like this, your 5 are on wm. The 10 enemy in numbers are in Klamath trapper area waiting.
How you build your character should affect how successful it is. There is 0.000001% chance of that fact changing.
However, having said that, there could be a lot more variation inside those builds to open up more options to make combat more tactical - which is what we're aiming to do via the perk revisions, which are being worked on at the moment.
I dont aim the builds on themselves. The SPECIAL is good base for a game. The problem i see, is the one you just said, that tactical options are currently limited a lot to the build. A lot better situation would be, in my opinion, if besides the build, there were extened tactical options (FOV is one of them, which is good, but still more area to improve on) that would allow one to overcome the diffrence in builds/items. Meaning, by using a tactical advantege you as a one char player (no alts) is able to kill a power build. Ofc, this is possible now to, but, 95% of sucess is luck in 1 on 1 situations (a crafter/combat char(no alt) against an alt powerbuild).
-
How you build your character should affect how successful it is. There is 0.000001% chance of that fact changing.
However, having said that, there could be a lot more variation inside those builds to open up more options to make combat more tactical - which is what we're aiming to do via the perk revisions, which are being worked on at the moment.
-
I give up with you kttdestroyer since you know more about pvp thant pvpers gang...
-
Relax people, lets discuss rather then rage please. And excuse my sarcasm, but i just cant write in other way.
I do not see very much tactics here, most of the things you mentioned are either game knowlage (Range, which build is good against what, who to target meaning who is most dangerous against us) or communication issues (where to stand so you can shoot the enemy before he shots you, here comes fast clicking as a factor aswell). And we have logistics aswell, which is working quite well, although not really complicated.
So, lets break this up in smaller parts.
Managing groups and mixing builds, yes, some small tactical elements but currently and unfortunattly not a key element for who wins, no matter how you mix it, its more about not doing some fatal mistakes rather then gain advantage.
Very important, have a group of small range and long range, you have to manage them well to be effective. Big Gun in house: good. Big gun rushing snipers on open space: bad. (stupid example, but it's how it's work). If your ennemy is full sniper in open space, don't bring your big guns...
Scouting, yes, one needs to know if one can win or not, how big are enemy numbers and where they are/what they have, this not key element though (or it is, in a way of, if you got more people on WM then you can assume your victory/loose, which is kind of simple, and no more tactical then 7>5), becouse its mostly gives back a question: Attack, or not attack and from where?
Scouting is one of the most important thing! You know exactly where you ennemy are, that mean you exactly know where you can spawn safely, where you have to go and not go, when they are rushing your back, when there is another force which spawn...
Next, hex precise placement and range usage, yes, to be able to shoot first becouse you will see enemy before he sees you (and so, you have a lot easier to click first (damn again fast clicking)), not very complicated unless someone linkes to stand 1 hex from door with a rocket luncher, then it might be complicated for that one.
It's also having your best range, be sure be able to retreat/flank, see that your friends cannot be hit with you, that you big guns won't make friendly fire, and be able to take damage instead of snipers...
Logistics "Well, someone forgot his armor again?", or "Damn i forgot ammo...". Well, sarcastic, becouse i dont see this as problematic thing to do, i understand you mean to prepare for several attacks and having stuff placed close by to quickly go back to battle in case of need after death/ammo refill situation. Thats pretty simple, isint it? Its like bringing toilet paper to the toilet before... Well, you know what i mean.
Not so easy. Evryone can be surprised by the number of militia you shot, and you miss some ammo. One of your player died by some small attacks, and he have to get back ASAP to be ready for big fight.
Timings of attack, Yes, this could be a tactical element, too bad the battles seldom go on very long time to be able to use this in bigger extansion. To make this work currently it must be used in very small time frame to gain success. Attacking one from behind and front (surrounding enemy) might enable the attackers from behind to get their first shot in, but thats all in terms of advantage.
No, timing is very important, like it allow to everyone to spend their AP on the same time, and make bigger damage to ennemy. if one group attack first, ennemies regenrate Ap (or even heal with enough time) and it really less effective. Yeah, the window for good timing is small, but important, and still takable.
Hiding forces, why would anyone want to do that? Exept when in defense when you want to cheat enemy by showing them only small amount of your force (so the enemy thinks they can manage them). Thats the only situation i can think of. And currently, this brings it down to amount of numbers vs amount of numbers unfortunatly.
Usefull for sudden attack of big guns on sniper from short range foe. Can be deadly.
My conclusion:
I see none of those as key elements in combat, exept for the obvious. Most of those things are based again, on Fast clicking, Luck, and/or Builds. And communication which is teamwork.
You take good position and manage range/timing to gain the first click (first shot).
You scout, manage groups and micromanage logistics to manage the amounts of power builds (x vs y, Yes or no) (builds becouse non-power builds are not taken into account).
You hope to get lucky shots in the end, which might turn the tides of the battle.
I don't agree, for all point above.
In my opinion, none of the things you mentioned are key element to final victory unless opposite side completly lacks those.
I can say you it is, I already win/loose many fights because of tactic, even with unbalanced forces.
Been there, done that.
If you say so. Don't mean you know all of it (tough I don't think it's my case either)
-
Very important, have a group of small range and long range, you have to manage them well to be effective. Big Gun in house: good. Big gun rushing snipers on open space: bad. (stupid example, but it's how it's work). If your ennemy is full sniper in open space, don't bring your big guns...
Yes, but arent those obvious things? Do one have to really sweat his braincells to know that running with a P90 in open against sniper is not good idea? Like you said, its simple.
Scouting is one of the most important thing! You know exactly where you ennemy are, that mean you exactly know where you can spawn safely, where you have to go and not go, when they are rushing your back, when there is another force which spawn...
Yes, that is also obvious, it is just a thing you do before you enter. There is no other way. But is this key to victory? i mean does this decides final outcome of the battle? Or is it just standard procedure, that everybody does, to not make a fatal mistake.
It's also having your best range, be sure be able to retreat/flank, see that your friends cannot be hit with you, that you big guns won't make friendly fire, and be able to take damage instead of snipers...
Yes, dont kill eachother, hit-and-run, and snipers have low hp so, keep distance. Thats about it. That i believe is about not doing stupid mistakes, rather then masterminding a victory. Meaning, its something to do if you simply think rationally, its not dramatic advantage other then avoiding dramatic failure.
Not so easy. Evryone can be surprised by the number of militia you shot, and you miss some ammo. One of your player died by some small attacks, and he have to get back ASAP to be ready for big fight.
Yes, but i dont agree that it is not easy, just put some stuff in common tent near town, how is it complicated? It costs 10 hides.
No, timing is very important, like it allow to everyone to spend their AP on the same time, and make bigger damage to ennemy. if one group attack first, ennemies regenrate Ap (or even heal with enough time) and it really less effective. Yeah, the window for good timing is small, but important, and still takable.
Yes, but imagine if it were even more important. Wouldint the battle be a lot more tactical if this and some other of your/Cha's exemples were enchanced? Right now, every participat of the battle (if not lost somewhere) will still unleash his full ap in those 0.3 seconds. So the advantage gained by surrounding the enemy is limited by this.
Usefull for sudden attack of big guns on sniper from short range foe. Can be deadly.
But never is, becouse why should it? unless some solo snipers stand on spawn without any bg or rocket support. You would gain advantage of first shot, that is true.
I don't agree, for all point above.
I can say you it is, I already win/loose many fights because of tactic, even with unbalanced forces.
Well, most of those you mentioned no matter how you do them, dont have decisive role in a victory or loose (if you dont just skip them, which is hard becouse most of them just come naturally to mind even with medium game knowlage).
If you have 5 players like i said before, waiting on WM and in town you have 10 enemies waiting. All armed to teeth and power builds (220-250 hp). What does any of those things help you? rather then enemies complete lack of those? No matter where you attack from and how, you will still be needing luck to get the lucky shots, you will still need to click fast or do everything you can (choose where to stand) to shot/click first, and you will still need to have top gear/top build in this confrontation.
If you say so. Don't mean you know all of it (tough I don't think it's my case either)
The thing is, i do not believe there is much to know, once you know the engine, everything else is quite obvious, dont shot your team mates, dont try to point blank with a sniper against a minigunner, dont enter spawn with enemies on it, bring some stuff with you to battle... Its like i said, putting toilet paper in the toilet.
However, i do agree that some of those you/Cha mentioned are tactical issues, what i am saying is, that they are very limited in useage becouse of current engine. The Engine only allows a bit of them in other words. Personally, i would really like them to become major points in a pvp confrontation, i believe this would allow for more player and factions to take part in battles aswell. This would reduce importance of amount of players and would focus more on what each player is doing and how, a lot more then current combat system allows to.
-
How you build your character should affect how successful it is. There is 0.000001% chance of that fact changing.
Good to know. But how are you going to balance crafting and fighting being fitted in one char? The skill caps are very high allowing chars become very good at something specific, like stealth or sniping so 180 or even 40 points invested elsewhere than combat skill always means that the crafter-fighter is weaker and therefore encourages alting
-
Well, its not been finalised. I know what I'd like it to be, but there are stages between what I'd like and what gets onto the server ;)
But it would mean you could be a crafter/other things without impacting on your fighting ability at all.
-
On a side note, Fallout tactics even had firing time, although not that advanced as proposed (diffrent by weapon class); a rifle shot took around 1 sec same as smg burst and minigun, a pistol shot was quicker (around 0.7 seconds), and a knife was almost instant (0.2-0.3 seconds).
-
But it would mean you could be a crafter/other things without impacting on your fighting ability at all.
Let's hope we get to this point some day. Gives some hope that devs do acknowledge certain problems with pvp.
On a side note, Fallout tactics even had firing time, although not that advanced as proposed (diffrent by weapon class); a rifle shot took around 1 sec same as smg burst and minigun, a pistol shot was quicker (around 0.7 seconds), and a knife was almost instant (0.2-0.3 seconds).
Fallout tactics isn't that good to compare when it comes to weapons because it had differend guns for differend game stages. Big guns were basically mid-late game weapons. Not that I disagree that weapons should have more detailed roles, but better examples would come out of jagged alliance II. For example a pistol could fire three or four times in the time it takes to turn, aim and fire a light machinegun. But at longer ranges pistols weren't that useful.
-
Well, i think it was good exemple in matter that, Fallout tactics was like this a try to bring a turnbased world over to a real time one, AND it was also a multiplayer game (Hinkley reminds me of Fallout Tactics acually, but is less tactical, more about simple shoting). In fallout tactics this for exemple mean, that if a knife melee char run up to a bg or sniper he could cut him 3 times before sniper fired once, this is not the case in fonline... In multiplayer, if you were hiding and then standing up to shot, a player that stand in front of you waiting would have advantage becouse he would fire faster then you. Meaning, holding a good position was a lot more improtant then here (and tactically usefull element).
JA2 is a totally diffrent level of tactical advancement, i think Fonline will never come close (i hope it would, and it never hurts of trying). Especially that the engine and graphics are limited quite a lot. But yes, i agree, and this is a vital point. The more you aim, the more time it should take, and the better chances of a good shot should be, it is just natural. And aswell naturally, this would be represented by amount of seconds/miliseconds in real time fights. Its for sure a game that many features can be taken, examined and usefull.
-
Well, its not been finalised. I know what I'd like it to be, but there are stages between what I'd like and what gets onto the server ;)
But it would mean you could be a crafter/other things without impacting on your fighting ability at all.
this sounds sooooo goooood, damn i am sick of using alts for crafting and fighting, i want one char who can craft and fight!
wouldnt the easiest solution for this be just to lower the requirements for the crafting skills? so u dont need 180 repair anymore to get level 3 armoroe for example?
-
that if a knife melee char run up to a bg or sniper he could cut him 3 times before sniper fired once, this is not the case in fonline...
It is. ::)
-
It is. ::)
Umm... no? maybe you read his post wrong.