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

[JohnyT]

I couldn't agree more - fallout is one man army type of game, balanced for PC to kill loads on NPC, and still stay alive. When we get several one man armies VS other one man armies, "the shit hits the fan", as the game mechanics is not tuned for that type of game.

I am for the pvp mechanics retuning, but I doubt, that Devs will start to do that - its too much work, it would be an almost new game, it would be a lengthy process and no one guarantees success. (as with trading)

[blahblah]

Yes. Instead of pure damage/crit chance/accuracy buffs perks provide an additional abilities which you can use. For example only characters with certain perk could perform eyeshots or disarming shots, because that kind of attacks demand higher than averge skill. Some other perk would allow you to reload your gun while you're running. Maybe some perk could give you additional weapon slot. Perks could give you additional attack methods like "triple strike" for punches and some small guns, "short burst" for big machine guns.

Perks like bonus rate of fire, bonus ranged damage, living anatomy should be either removed or their effect changed. They are too necessary for succesful pvp and force certain characters to take them or do significantly less damage. Same goes for more criticals and better criticals. That kind of perks are in this game because of fonline's singleplayer origin. Character had to become a one man army in order to kill enclave patrols or fight end boss.

In this text you've just said to remove perks that are considered must-have and instead add other perks. Unfortunately, "short burst" and "triple strike" and others would then become must-have perks and the situation won't change. This game is simply not meant for long-term PvP. Have you ever played an RPG where it's the players versus themselves and not monsters? That's what you're trying do to here and it's not working. Players versus players in such a limited universe won't have enough variety and only a handful of options is available because of that. If we had hundreds of balanced perks and weapons with tiers, buffs, additional damage mods, millions of other things, then indeed, PvP would flourish. As it is right now, that's a lost case and no simple removal of perks will help the fact that you need a top-level character to play.

[avv]

Unfortunately, "short burst" and "triple strike" and others would then become must-have perks and the situation won't change. This game is simply not meant for long-term PvP. Have you ever played an RPG where it's the players versus themselves and not monsters? That's what you're trying do to here and it's not working. Players versus players in such a limited universe won't have enough variety and only a handful of options is available because of that. If we had hundreds of balanced perks and weapons with tiers, buffs, additional damage mods, millions of other things, then indeed, PvP would flourish. As it is right now, that's a lost case and no simple removal of perks will help the fact that you need a top-level character to play.

The additional abilities would never do more damage, but simply allow you to deal it in various ways depending on situation. Pvp chars would be more flexible in combat, instead of overpowering. But yes, fonline pvp system is quite hard to balance and it's going to demand lots of work and taking other things than just perks into account.
The fact that no perk should provide direct damage buff could be just one principle of pvp. No man can think of this by himself, if we want to develop a succesful pvp system, many people must throw in their ideas and it should start from thinking of the basics. 

For example we could think of what kind of player skills should affect his effectiveness. Reflexes and aim are out of question because this is not an fps game. Instead of that battles should be solved by strategic use of one's equipment and enviroment.

I support current PvP system as long as you can choose to go there, but changing game mechanics to make it more of a player-speed-clicker-kill game, would probably make turn-based combat unnecessary, and without it you don't have fallout, not in any sense that seems suitable for PvE-players anyway.

No speed clicking needed. We could take the fallout tactics' overwatch feature which worked fine. Then just fuse it with our existing line of sight feature and you are able to watch over an area and shoot enemy immediately when he enters within your LoS. The time which it takes to land a shot would then depend on your character's gun and perhaps some other factors.

[Marko69]

You have a good point there. But how to do it? The dev's are working on something else I think :S

[avv]

You have a good point there. But how to do it? The dev's are working on something else I think :S

In time. It's not necessary to do everything right now. The point of the thread was just point out why the community is split in two groups, explain the reason to this and then suggest a way to fix it. It can be done in various ways, not just this. If devs think that it's okay that the community is split, they will do nothing. But I recall devs telling that they do want the game to be a world where rp/pve and pvp can walk hand in hand. Then there comes the need for slowly rolling the gears towards that goal.

[Solar]

Who wins, 1 level 21 char or 5 level 9 chars?

I don't necessarily agree that you need to be high level with all the perks to be dangerous in combat. If anything I'd say the only one and truely must have perk is better criticals, if you are a sniper char.

You can pump points into your weapon skill early and have reasonable accuracy from low(ish) levels, especially if you're not aiming shots.

Main thing about levelling 12-21 is the HP in my oh-so-humble opinion


Not that I don't agree the whole char levelling system could do with a good beating with the changes stick, just disagree with the prevalent opinion that smallish advantages rule out PvE people from joining in with PvPers. Its a culture difference and any system won't solve it.

[blahblah]

The additional abilities would never do more damage, but simply allow you to deal it in various ways depending on situation. Pvp chars would be more flexible in combat, instead of overpowering.

It does not matter. It gives you an advantage and with a small set of perks only a handful of "ideal" combinations is possible. What sniper would not take a perk to allow him to do eyeshots? Or big gunner to not take faster shooting perk? That's what I'm saying. Your perks offering abilities are just as good and bad as the current ones. And people will always go for the ones which allow them to do most damage.

[Sius]

It does not matter. It gives you an advantage and with a small set of perks only a handful of "ideal" combinations is possible. What sniper would not take a perk to allow him to do eyeshots? Or big gunner to not take faster shooting perk? That's what I'm saying. Your perks offering abilities are just as good and bad as the current ones. And people will always go for the ones which allow them to do most damage.

Imho character development needs some overhaul too and this could be a good way how to rework it.

[corosive]

armour could just work better?

[avv]

It does not matter. It gives you an advantage and with a small set of perks only a handful of "ideal" combinations is possible. What sniper would not take a perk to allow him to do eyeshots? Or big gunner to not take faster shooting perk? That's what I'm saying. Your perks offering abilities are just as good and bad as the current ones. And people will always go for the ones which allow them to do most damage.

Maybe those perks would become must for pvp builds. But the point was to balance the effectivity gap between adventure builds and combat builds. Right now pve builds do less pure damage, are less accurate and have less hitpoints. If perks didn't provide such bonuses and gave additional abilities the signifance between pve and pvp builds would be that pvp would be just more flexible, but only if the player understood to use that flexibility to his advantage.

[blahblah]

Maybe those perks would become must for pvp builds. But the point was to balance the effectivity gap between adventure builds and combat builds. Right now pve builds do less pure damage, are less accurate and have less hitpoints. If perks didn't provide such bonuses and gave additional abilities the signifance between pve and pvp builds would be that pvp would be just more flexible, but only if the player understood to use that flexibility to his advantage.

Unless the amount of perks were to be increased, the situation'd be the same.
PvE chars do less damage because they take perks useful for doing other stuff. Like pathfinder, or bonus move. PvP take toughness and lifegiver instead. So now instead you'd have "learn to aim" perk that PvE chars wouldn't take because they still prefer 'useless' perks and thus pure PvP chars are once more more deadly and PvE less so.