Fallout 2: I need a shovel!
Toby Newman
somewhere... whoops. Where can I get a new one from? I've had a look in
the stores at Den and Klamath, and at the amenities office in Vault City,
but to no avail.
Does anyone know where I can get one?
--
Toby
~~FA: Quantum Redshift & Luigi's Mansion
~~http://tinyurl.com/34xwk
~~Starts at 10p
Johan salomez
- in arroyo, near the house of your aunt( the one who never liked you)
- in the den, in the bookcase of the house where the ghost wanders at night
- in new reno, with the first quest from the salvatores you can get one
- probably in some shops or merchants you encounter while traveling, but i
don't know that for sure
"Toby Newman" <goo...@asktoby.com> schreef in bericht
news:Xns950F94AE6E9D3...@127.0.0.1...
oo...@oooooooooo.ooo
"Johan salomez" <salo...@skynet.be> wrote:
> Places you can find a shovel:
> - in arroyo, near the house of your aunt( the one who never liked you)
> - in the den, in the bookcase of the house where the ghost wanders at
> night- in new reno, with the first quest from the salvatores you can
> get one- probably in some shops or merchants you encounter while
> traveling, but i don't know that for sure
>
>
> "Toby Newman" <goo...@asktoby.com> schreef in bericht
> news:Xns950F94AE6E9D3...@127.0.0.1...
> > I need a shovel! I used to have one but I must have traded it
> > somewhere... whoops. Where can I get a new one from? I've had a look
> > in the stores at Den and Klamath, and at the amenities office in
> > Vault City, but to no avail.
> >
> > Does anyone know where I can get one?
> >
There's also one in modoc, and maybe one at the broken hills (not sure
about this last one though)
> > --
> > Toby
> > ~~FA: Quantum Redshift & Luigi's Mansion
> > ~~http://tinyurl.com/34xwk
> > ~~Starts at 10p
>
>
--
caffeine (at) altern :: org
Toby Newman
know the answer to my question. Do you really remember where things are
that accurately in the game? How many times have you played it? :D
In the end I found a shovel at Happy Harry's, in the courtyard outside
Vault City. Amusingly, as soon as I used it to dig up a grave, I found
another shovel buried in the grave. Now, why on earth... :)
Bateau
>Thanks for the help fellas. I'm a little concerned how you managed to
>know the answer to my question. Do you really remember where things are
>that accurately in the game? How many times have you played it? :D
>
>In the end I found a shovel at Happy Harry's, in the courtyard outside
>Vault City. Amusingly, as soon as I used it to dig up a grave, I found
>another shovel buried in the grave. Now, why on earth... :)
So he could dig himself out?
--
.-'`-.
/ | | \
/ | | \
|___|_|__ |
||<o>| <o>`|
|| J_ )|
`|`-'__`-'|/
| `--' |
.-| |_
.-' \ / | |`-.
.-' `. /| | \
/ ````' | | \
|_____ | | L
.-' ___ `-. F F | | ||`-.___
.'.-' | `-. `. J J / | || _.>
/ /| | |`. \ | | |/ | ||_.-'
/ / | | | `. `. F F | |==============================
J / | | | \ L J J | | `:::::::. `:::::::.
FJ | | | |L J/ / | \ :::::::. :::::::\
J |() | () | () | () | J L/ | | ::::::: :::::::L
| F | .-'_ \ | | LJ | / L :::::::: :::::::J
| L | / \\ | | | L | | :::::::: ::::::::L
| L || ):|| | | | /| L :::::::: ::::::::|
J | ||:._.'::|| | | |----' | | :::::::: ::::::::| .---.
J | |J:::::::|| | | | _/\ | :::::::: ::::::::| /(@ o`.
LJ | \:::::/ | | | |---'\ | | :::::::: ::::::::| | /^^^
J L | `-:-' | | | F | \ | J :::::::: ::::::::| \ . \vvv
LJ()| () | () | () | F F | \ \--._L :::::::: ::::::::| \ `--'
J \ | | | | J J \ | | :::::::: ::::::::| \ `.
\ \| | | | / / | | | :::::::: ::::::::| L \
\ \ | | |/ /| | | .-'| :::::::: ::::::::| | \
`.`. | | .'.' | | |/ /`L :::::::: ::::::::| | L
| `.`-.____|.-'.-' | | | <`. \ :::::::: ::::::::| | |
| | `-.______.-' | \| |_`::\ `. :::::::: ::::::::| F |
| J\ | | | | /: \::. \:::::::: ::::::::F / |
| L\|--| | _.--|:: `::\ `.:::::: .:::::::J / F
J J |\\|-.____ |__.-' |: \::. \:::: ::::::::F .' J
L \| >|| `--' J |' .`::\ `.:' .::::::::/ .' F
J |//JJ | L |---. .--\::. \---. .---. <---< J
L |< |J |\=/| ( _ \=/ _ `::\ `. \=/ _ \=/ _ \ /
J |\\|J | | / )_) | (_) \::. \ | (_) | (_) | /
\ |--|J |//\\ / //\ //`::\ `./\ //\ / .'
\| |L ` )/ )` `' '|`---// `---// `\::. \ `---// `---' .'
VK________| L_\ ' /___/ ' | |___//______//_____`::\ |___//_________.'_________
F F J`` -'| | | | | \:_|
`-' | "" | J ` |
| | L | |\ |\ /| /| |\ /|
| | \ | | \ | \ // // | \ || |\
J | `. | ||\\ ||\\ // // ||\\ || ||
L F )`---\ || >> || \\ / | << || \\ || ||
| J / `. ||// || || //|| \\ || || || ||
J J ( `-. |// | \ || |/ || \\ | \ || || ||
`-.__/ `---. `. |<< ||\\|| || >> ||\\|| || ||
| J `. ) ||\\ || \ | || // || \ | || ||
/ | `-----' || >> || || || // || || \\ ||
/ F ||// || || || << || || \\||
J J | / |/ || |/ \\ |/ || \ |
J | |/ \| \| \| \|
`-.-' K I N G O F T H E M O N S T E R S
Duke Merc Atreides
"Toby Newman" <goo...@asktoby.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95109932514FE...@127.0.0.1...
> Thanks for the help fellas. I'm a little concerned how you managed to
> know the answer to my question. Do you really remember where things are
> that accurately in the game? How many times have you played it? :D
>
>
die hard fans like myself, who have played the game more than a few times,
can probaably remember where most things in the game are!!
wamingo
> > know the answer to my question. Do you really remember where things are
> > that accurately in the game? How many times have you played it? :D
> >
> >
>
> die hard fans like myself, who have played the game more than a few times,
> can probaably remember where most things in the game are!!
What can you say, it's just an unforgetable game...
Duke Merc Atreides
"wamingo" <foxt...@worldonline.dk> wrote in message
news:cd5re2$1336$1...@news.cybercity.dk...
i can run through both games in various ways, and have no problems at all,
say, did you ever figure out the trick to get power armour mk 2 and a plasma
rifle right at the start of the game?
KC Wong
So here's a challenge...
Let's list out the location of all the copies of Cat's Paw magazine :)
Duke Merc Atreides
"KC Wong" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2loqv8F...@uni-berlin.de...
im good, but no-one is that good, however im sure someone could goto a
walkthrough and get the answer:) But i aint!!
Johan salomez
just mess with the save games a bit, but then again, if you mess with the
savegames, just give yourself that new gauss rifle with plenty of ammo and
the bozar, and,.... then you can scream KEWL! every five seconds while
riddling an ant ful of holes
but then again, than would be cheating,...
"Duke Merc Atreides" <nos...@spamoff.com> schreef in bericht
news:l1yJc.132$Ag6...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
KC Wong
difficult,
> just mess with the save games a bit, but then again, if you mess with the
> savegames, just give yourself that new gauss rifle with plenty of ammo and
> the bozar, and,.... then you can scream KEWL! every five seconds while
> riddling an ant ful of holes
IMHO we're not talking about savegame editing. You can get a power armor and
plasma rifle "legally" in the game - by using knowledge from previous games.
oo...@oooooooooo.ooo
If "getting power armor and plasma rifle at the start of the game" means
going straight to Navarro when you exit the village, that's downright
suicidal IMHO. Or maybe you're talking about the stuff behind the
elevator in the toxic caves (can't remember what there was in there -
and you still need electronic lockpicking gear, which you can't find
early in the game).
Or maybe I'm missing something (though I think I must have played it to
the end half a dozen times...), in which case I'd really appreciate any
hint...
wamingo
I just tried this... SPOILER ALERT!
made a sneaky, high intelligence, low charisma character (I think it doesn't
matter really, but just for the record).
went directly from arroyo to sanfransisco.
talked to brotherhood of steel guy until he gave me quest for vertibird
plans - and more importantly; the location of navarro.
went to navarro.
avoid chris or just say you're leaving...
behind chris is a shack with a secret entrance to underground base. There's
also an air-filtration entrance in the woods on the left, but you need a
keycard from gecko, I think...
down through the shaft and through the long hall and right across the hall
with the round elevator is a room full of goodies including a plasma rifle
and powerarmor 2 and more ammo than you can carry...
no one attacked me except for random encounters, especially near navarro,
had to load several times during my travels and saved in mid-travel (click
on green triangle) a few times...
If you wanna avoid the encounters as much as possible I guess you could
increase your outdoors man skill...
there, carved out in stone...
but I warn you... the game will probably suck if you do this... least I'm
going to use it...
There's a speed demo here, some guy complets fallout2 in like 20 minutes or
so, without saving or loading... he doesn't go to navarro though because
random encounters around there are too dangerous, instead he takes advantage
of a money-replenishing "feature" on a sanfran merchant and gets power armor
mk1 there, I think...
http://www.planetquake.com/sda/other/fallout2.html
silly, but doable... apparently...
Bateau
>getting power armour mk2 and plasma rifle at the beginning isn't difficult,
>just mess with the save games a bit, but then again, if you mess with the
>savegames, just give yourself that new gauss rifle with plenty of ammo and
>the bozar, and,.... then you can scream KEWL! every five seconds while
>riddling an ant ful of holes
>
>but then again, than would be cheating,...
If you're going to hack the savegames give yourself the dual miniguns
that turrets have instead. I think they have a 40 round burst using that
rifle ammo.
Swervy_a
> If you're going to hack the savegames give yourself the dual miniguns
> that turrets have instead. I think they have a 40 round burst using that
> rifle ammo.
If you're going to hack the saved games, give yourself a deathclaw claw
and the end boss knife. It's just so cool!
A stack of Holy Hand Grenades (500 dmg) works too...
Duke Merc Atreides
> I just tried this... SPOILER ALERT!
>
> made a sneaky, high intelligence, low charisma character (I think it
doesn't
> matter really, but just for the record).
> went directly from arroyo to sanfransisco.
> talked to brotherhood of steel guy until he gave me quest for vertibird
> plans - and more importantly; the location of navarro.
> went to navarro.
> avoid chris or just say you're leaving...
> behind chris is a shack with a secret entrance to underground base.
There's
> also an air-filtration entrance in the woods on the left, but you need a
> keycard from gecko, I think...
> down through the shaft and through the long hall and right across the hall
> with the round elevator is a room full of goodies including a plasma rifle
> and powerarmor 2 and more ammo than you can carry...
> no one attacked me except for random encounters, especially near navarro,
> had to load several times during my travels and saved in mid-travel (click
> on green triangle) a few times...
> If you wanna avoid the encounters as much as possible I guess you could
> increase your outdoors man skill...
>
> there, carved out in stone...
> but I warn you... the game will probably suck if you do this... least I'm
> going to use it...
thats the way to do it, makes you nearly level 10, and practiclly
unstopabble, it give you a great feeling of POWER, i love doing that!!
wamingo
> > but I warn you... the game will probably suck if you do this... least
I'm
> > going to use it...
>
> thats the way to do it, makes you nearly level 10, and practiclly
> unstopabble, it give you a great feeling of POWER, i love doing that!!
every man his pleasure...
but seriously, if you by some mishap of (un)fortune went straight for the
super-weapon and outfit and level-skipping xp boosts that you get down south
on the map, the first time you played it, well then you haven't enjoyed the
game at all...
Fallout2 is not that open really, it's pretty linear when it comes to it,
because you were never "meant" to skip places... The quests were not
designed for jumping around...
I mean, does it make sense that you can go do a 5000xp quest with ease short
after beginning the game and then go back and be in a world of hurt with a
500xp one? of course not...
but it can be difficult to design a proper quest system in a level-based
game, I'll give them that...
Duke Merc Atreides
on no, it was the third time i played before i thought about it, and it
worked, but it was not easy, not by a long shot!!
wamingo
> worked, but it was not easy, not by a long shot!!
what about it wasn't easy? - the random encounters?
just 15 minutes from temple of trials and a few reloads and you have
powerarmor 2...
Duke Merc Atreides
the random encounters, getting in the front, saving the deathclaw, getting
the vertibird plans, killing to commander and the doc, rescuing the dog, all
this with a low lvl char!!
Bateau
You could base XP rewards on the player's level so an easy quest always
gives you a relatively small amount of XP and a hard quest always gives
you a relatively large amount of XP.
But players can still get very good equipment when they are not supposed
to and rely on it to complete the difficult quests.
So equipment should not be predetermined either and it should be
generated at a reasonable power depending on how advanced the player is.
This is kind of how it is done in roguelikes. Rewards are loot which is
generated according to the dungeon depth that the player is on and the
player is prevented from getting the best equipment early on by the
deadlier monsters and hazards further down. The player can control how
risky they want to be which determines how fast they can advance.
Playing risky and advancing quickly has an added reward. Experience
rewards from kills are determined by the difference between the level of
the player and the depth (expected depth where the monster USUALLY
appears not necessarily where it does) and level of the monster. Killing
a wolf at level 1 might be worth 50 XP but at level 50 it would be worth
0.00000000000001 XP.
Roguelikes are entirely free roaming and have almost no plot. RPGs with
a lot of plot are usually very linear. Plot is a prewritten, fixed thing
and usually tied heavily to quests so trying to mix freedom with plot
creates the potential of unbalanced gameplay.
Quest rewards and equipment and other character development stuff needs
to be uncoupled from the linear stuff like plot if you want a free
roaming game with a strong plot. This would take a lot of serious
thought. Almost all games are made by filling in a traditional game
structure with your own game elements. Eg an RPG developer looks at
games like Fallout and Baldur's Gate and replaces the plot, quests,
characters, monsters with their own. They change these things but not
really how they work together. The player completes predetermined quests
to progress the predetermined plot.
Back to the loot thing. In a roguelike each weapon type such as dagger,
long sword, crossbow etc will always have the same base xdy damage,
weight and description. But it can have random modifiers and special
effects. A weapon is generated in a dungeon depending on it's "depth" or
how far into the game it should appear. This value depends on it's base
depth for the item type (you are more likely to find a wooden club than
a great axe on level 1) and also all the modifiers and effects it has.
Events and quests can be generated the same way. A large list of basic
types with basic attributes is modified in a large variety of ways and
appear at an place appropriate to how difficult they end up being. Many
free roaming games already do this. The real challenge is to string
those random quests and events into a real story. There's a roguelike
being developed called GearHead which attempts this to some extent.
Players start out with a random background and main objective (or set of
possible objectives) and the details are generated randomly. More
dialogue and other plot enriching elements can be added and made to tie
together in the same way. It just takes more effort. Like chess each
possible move through the plot has to be planned.
The early roguelike games were pretty linear. You start at the top of
the dungeon and you work your way down to the end of the game at the
bottom. If you go down the game gets harder and if you go up it gets
easier but you have to go down eventually to win. Then multiple dungeons
and routes the to end of the game were added.
What I would like to see more of in RPGs is choice. Not necessarily
about the order in which to do quests but the way to do things. So many
times in RPGs I have said "this problem would be solved if I just killed
this guy or blew this up" but the game doesn't let you or it lets you
but doesn't recognise it as a valid solution. It's not just a "wouldn't
it be cool if" thing for me. It's one of the main obstacles to enjoying
a game and it is one of the most enjoyable things in a game when I do
try something the game doesn't explicitly prompt me to do and it works.
It's letting me roleplay how I want to.
Games have so much more potential for this kind of thing than any other
media but a lot of games might as well limit the interaction to turning
the page to see what the writer wants to happen next. Games aren't
books.
Blah blah blah.
wamingo
it
> > > worked, but it was not easy, not by a long shot!!
> >
> > what about it wasn't easy? - the random encounters?
> > just 15 minutes from temple of trials and a few reloads and you have
> > powerarmor 2...
> >
> >
>
> the random encounters, getting in the front, saving the deathclaw, getting
> the vertibird plans, killing to commander and the doc, rescuing the dog,
all
> this with a low lvl char!!
you obviously didn't read my walkthrough properly. :)
the random encounters I can't do anything about, but you don't have to get
in through the front where the guards are who will ask for a password -
which you will only get if you can pursuade chris (requires combat armor?)
behind chris ( the guy at the gas station in purple robe), is a shack with a
wooden lid on.... sneak through there and there you go, just leave the same
way and go back to klamath and kill rats in powerarmor mk2...... ... ....
...... ... ... ... (note the dots!!!) ...
hows that for difficulty?
Duke Merc Atreides
no i didnt read your walktrhrough because i have been doing it like that for
years, and its great fun, just a little bit hard
wamingo
Yeah this is a solution, but randomized loot also sounds kinda sucky...
There can't really be static loot (if I may call it that). Eg a power armor
2 in navarro base...
Instead you will find a powerarmor "anywhere" based on chance... Althought
you can limit it to specific areas of course, but it still takes away some
depth if you can find it "whereever" when there are more 'obvious' locations
where it Should be located; at the center of the bad guys base, of course.
I definately wanna find "Spiders Bane" sword in the spiders nest (Baldurs
Gate) and not some other place less fitting.
Why would I fight my way through the most gargantuan monster as soon as I
can, if all I find is some "leveled" garbage? Sure it may still a bit be
better because of the increased risk, but it won't be the best of the best.
And worse yet, later on find something better on a lesser monster (doh)...
(*see bottom of this post for some thoughts on something of a solution to
what difficulty monsters should have and more).
The Elder Scrolls series (Morrowind etc) has both random and static loot...
Most containers (chests, barrels, etc) are completely randomized based on
your level with small luck percentages of recieving something better than
"leveled". Thing is if you reload your game before checking what was in the
chest the content of the chest will change... And that's that's just plain
ridiculous. Sure loading and saving is already sort of a "cheat", but it
doesn't have to be that freaking exploitable.
> What I would like to see more of in RPGs is choice. Not necessarily
> about the order in which to do quests but the way to do things. So many
Yes, I would like to see choice too, but unfortunately each choice is pretty
much equal to exponential developement time and if you do cross-branching as
well, that's double exponentiality, and while that may not be so bad per se,
it is just Time they don't have...
Thanks to the hardware industry and Carmark type folks the comercial game
industry is pushed in the direction of smaller and prettier... and yet
development costs soars, despite higher level languages, all the resources
you could dream of in form of purchasable assets (engines) and open source
enmassing like never before.
If content creation is really the culprit in all of this (although I think
it's bull), then it will have to be made more automated... And if this
hasn't already been thought about then it's about time that someone does...
Because I'll be damned if I'm going to buy that 15 minute doom3 game... heh
damned... nevermind.
*okay, here's something about my thoughts on "XP", "Leveling" and difficulty
based on it, if you're arsed to read it...
Basicly I would prefer if monsters weren't better "down south" like in
fallout. Sure we should still have the uber-deadly enclave patrols in
certain parts of the area and such. What I'm talking about though is the
commoners shouldn't have laser guns down south when those up north are
fighting with sticks and spears, and then eventually making the ones with
spears pose zero threat to you because you are at a really high level...
Spears still hurt humans no matter how much "experience" (XP) you have.
I'd like that to still be true.
Because I hate cliff racers. and rats. and goblins that you will undoubtly
meet again even after you turned uber and they will just be a pain in the
ass and you wish you'd never seen them...
They pose no threat to you any more and that sucks. It's not real. it's not
even unreal, it's just stupid.
That's why I personally feel the current Level and XP based systems are
crap.
If there is no "levels" of any sort though it may be difficult to keep you
from going straight through the game though by skipping areas, so we do sort
of need them in non-linear games.
However what should stop you is quest-progress (particularly main campaign).
That would be linear, but that's ok as long as you have lots of "choice".
And the way to keep you from skipping areas should be knowledge of them. Eg
can only get to navarro through brotherhood guy - this is a bad example
though because he seems to know you even if you just left arroyo. It would
make more sense if he wouldn't talk before you had a certain high level of
reputation. So that's badly scripted but the principle is good enough.
So finally the way to keep you from getting the knowledge should be simply
"hard work". Fighting, traveling, talking, interacting etc.
Thus theoretically removing all need for real "XP" / "Leveling", and making
the the story and experiences come into focus instead of endless
xp-mining...
However, this will take some serious thought and scripting if to keep it
from being too linear (but doable none the less).
So therefor in combination with the above I will suggest a slightly
different XP system that will keep you - and get this - from becoming Too
Powerful.
Basicly it should just keep you "human", yet still with skills of your
chosing.
You can still be powerful, eg incredible sniper, but you will then lack in
most other things and have a hell of a time doing them... Sacrificing one
proficiency with another, so to speak.
here's how...
Let me just start by saying I believe our characters could be defined by
things somewhat more profound than statistics and numbers... To the viewer
that is.
Fallout tried having something else as well; Traits.
Okay, how traits are different from plain statistics is debateable...
But I find it vastly more intesting to have a "you're jinxed" or "sharp
shooter" or "you're weak but agile" and so on than "x% to whatever".
Especially traits that are both Positive AND Negative are fun.
I'd like to see a learning and unlearning "You are what you eat, do and
experience" system.
That would be a system you don't really control unless you really try to...
It could work with the S.P.E.C.I.A.L categories (intelligence, agility,
perception etc). Each trait would be under one or several of these
categories. Like 'Sharp Shooter' trait would be under mainly Perception and
some parts Intelligence, or similar.
So when you find yourself only using long range weapons, and firing at
objects only/mainly from a good distance your perception would go up a lot
and once it's really high (100% max) you would get traits that would define
your character based on that, like:
'Sharp Shooter' if really high perception, using slow rate of fire but high
precision.
'Chaingun Master' with average perception + high strength if you burst a
lot.
'Pistolero' at average perception + moderate agility (?), if you are more
into single-fire handguns.
etc..
However you should never be able to get 100% of everything, because then you
would end up with all traits and that's no good either. So lets say there
are seven categories (Strength, Perception, Endurance, Charisma,
Intelligence, Agility and Luck), you should be a maximum of 7x100% * 0.5 =
350 allocated points total, ever. (the 0.5 could be anything, just using
example here).
So with those numbers you could tops have 50% of everything if you wanted to
have an all-around character.
And this is where I'd like to see "unlearning" come in, because that would
allow you to mold your character further than: "this is it, no more xp for
you"...
So if you find yourself ONLY shooting at long ranges your perception will go
to 100% and all your other skills will go Down to average of 40odd%.
If you wanted to have a 100% intelligent and a 100% perception then the rest
of your skills would average over the last 150 points. (350-100-100 = 150),
(30% avg).
Personally I think it would be fine if you could also go to Minus -100%...
eg:
100% luck could be never unlucky.
50% luck would be fairly lucky but still occasionally unlucky.
0% would be 50/50
-100% would be incredibly freakin unlucky. you pick up a gun and it WILL go
off in your face.
or something...
Very easy to understand system really.
What Luck in this system would be based on I'm not too sure though. Maybe if
you do things very bad, fail a lot, do jinxed stuff, wear jinxed items, you
will end up with "jinxed" character.
Or instead if you have low intelligence and low agility you're likely to end
up less lucky too cos you're clumbsy. or something....
Okay so you may now be going: "why, why and why?, I like pushing the +/-
dials and selecting traits on every other level on my character sheet!"
But isn't this "feature" really quite redundant?
You play the style that you that you picked anyway, don't you? And if you
don't, you wish you did, right? And worst of all - now you have no way to
undo it...
If you want to play a sniper, but give him all the skills that has nothing
to do with sniping, well, you'll have a very hard time hitting anything...
Why would you want to play an incredibly crappy sniper? Sounds like a bad
comedy movie... I'm a sniper. An incredibly bad sniper. Rated R for:
Retarded...
Instead - you are what you do and you're good at what you do a lot.
And you could still end up doing the opposite of what you're good at, but
then, depending on how long it takes, you would eventually end up being good
at that instead.
The system may be slightly arcady though since you now no longer really have
control over it (you can still have a character sheet, but with no
functionality), but at the same time I believe this would really just
emphasise Role Playing - you are what you do, not what you think you are or
what your character sheet says...
So in sense you can end up being a great sniper, but being a sniper doesn't
necessarily mean being a good short-ranged shooter, so you will lack in
other skills and that's where the challenges will arrise, and keep the game
challenging no matter how long you play.
and then for gods sakes have random encounters that doesn't just involve
combat or barter skills... and make the terrain (obstruction) so that they
often have to be done in specific ways and you can't just snipe your way out
of everything.
ok jeez...
if there's missing a sentence somewhere, sue me...
thoughts?
Hamish
I like it, very well thought out and presented.
You need to go work for a software house ;-) preferably one that
specialises in CRPG's.
Cheers
Hamish
--
Go Strugglers
In this life there are only two tragedies. One is not getting what one
wants. The other is getting it.
4too
wamingo wrote:
>>You could base XP rewards on the player's ...
> ...
> thoughts?
>
>
>
Time and summer allergies allow only a 'relitively' short or shallow reply.
Your assessment of the limits of the "open" ended "wandering",
that must stay with in spitting distance of the plot line "trail".
is accurate, so it's a good base to build up a different model for XP
point generation and so forth.
When XP point rewards and "loot" reaping are linked by a logical
anticipation of what is possible at that moment on the stair steps of
leveling, then the player is shepherded, nudged, nipped, brow beat, and
bitch slapped to travel " ' along the path of the beam ' ".
There is a spoiler here in this thread that is usually exploited on a
second or, ... fifth replay of FO2. I think it's the replay ability of
the FO's that have given them the legend of being "open".
It's the ability to craft the Player Character to negotiate the varying
social and combat situations that aides in taking on say .. Redding
before one has taken out the Raider Base.
Your proposed PC development system and it's example of a sniper would
encourage the need to recruit the NPC's as more than pack mules. Ian and
or Sulik would provide the close support needed to watch your PC back,
assuming that their accuracy improved. Not sure that Ian's did in FO,
but Sulik's small weapons performance did improve in FO2 so that auto
was an option. There are still sadly comic threads on NMA where the
friendly fire issue is replayed like some tragic trauma of childhood.
The anger and resentment seemed too ingrained to be based on a mishap in
a computer game that could have been "fixed" by going back to a recent
'save'. Some still want to be "perfect" squad level technicians at any
level of the skill, technology, or economics tree.
Yes, I am a 'fan' of friendly fire, because there were in game
workarounds or STRUCTURED SOLUTIONS to the problem. Solutions like the
large hand guns for Ian, and Tandy if one got the spoiler of when to
'steal' the weak weapons from her inventory. In FO2 the leveling up
improved skills (judgment and accuracy) for Sulik and Marcus, and
Marcus's Energy Weapon skills allowed him to use that Turbo Laser after
all that experimental excitement of what Big F'ing Gun he'd pull and to
what disastrous or illustrious effect.
My limited experience with firearms may give me a real world respect of
the possibility of jamming, misfire, missing, and hitting an unintended
traget. The level of accuracy attributed to PC's and NPC's at early
skill levels seems guided by dramatic aspirations and hysterical demands
for a mythic proficency of the 'heroes'. A combat proficency skill, and
or combat participation skill (morale, fatigue and time dependant) might
drive home issues behind that confection or 'fudge' called friendly
fire. Maybe a Python inspired 'run away!' script could be augmented by
an effort first to "Duck And Cover" then the arm chair squad leaders
would DEMAND auto fire if it gave the NPC's the confidence to return
fire and not start digging, or running for China.
The party members would be less pack mules and 'meat shields' if their
skill contributions allowed your sniper to hone that point target
deadliness. The group outdoorsmanship could have improved some with an
Ian and a Sulik, and could have been better with a Tyco and a Cassidy.
If the learning could be transferred from the 'party' to the PC, much
like how bonus hand to hand skills were provided by stationary NPC's in
FO and FO2, than the lone PC 'ranger' could cultivate a network of -
mentors - the mobile NPC's could be 'parked' or recruited as necessary.
I like the learn by doing idea, and I recall an Amiga era title that
looked like a 'Gold Box' clone. Possibly it was European. Performing
certain attacks in combat rewarded the ancillary attributes. Hand to
hand and melee weapons improved the base physical strength and agility.
This improvement in strength and agility allowed your 'tech boy' or
'doc' to equip a heavier fire weapon, and have enough 'hand - eye"
coordination to shoot with effect when that was needed in the end game.
The baggage train ...
An interesting reward for loading down your character and the NPC's
with loot, to exploit the barter economics, might be, not necessarily
gaining a point in strength or endurance, or points in Outdoorsman (if
packing and marching skills are deemed 'outdoorsman-like'), but the
increase of weight , (and shape? please no tetrus clone back back
grids!) that can be hypothetically carried. Perhaps there would be, how
the load would affect the march progress and at what price of resources,
as in the necessity of more than one canteen. Perhaps the "packs' would
be 'dropped' in combat with an option to repack on an area inventory
spread sheet after the conclusion. Nearness to 'impedimenta' drop
points would validate whether the NPC or PC could access this resource
and at what "movement point' or time "t" during action.
Time's up!
4too
son...@att.net
4too
target. The level of accuracy attributed to PC's and NPC's at early
son...@att.net
4too
increase of weight , (and shape? please no tetrus clone back pack
wamingo
The system definately encourages NPC's to help you do the things you're not
good at And if you want to be able to go through the game alone, which
should probably still be possible, you would need to be an all-rounder, eg
50% in everything, because the skills required to complete at least he main
quest Should require all skills evenly. Many say they want to be able to
complete the game as a theif or a sledgehammer madman only...But allowing
that is nearly impossible to balance a full length game. I mean how do you
balance that to allow a barterer type character to complete the game?
impossible. And so being forced to be an all-rounder is really a fair
tradeoff for doing everything single handedly.
-
I don't see what the big deal is with friendly fire... Sure it would make
sense if they hit you once they would be intelligence enough to try from a
different angle, but normally all you have to do is move out of the way...
If you want someone to use a powerful burst weapon you'll also have to ajust
yourself to its use and its sideeffects... Perfectly sensible isn't it?
I let my npc's use both burst weapons, rocket launchers and flamethrowers to
great effect... Of course it goes wrong occasionally, but all in good spirit
really. Save often and if possible save before a fight to give you the
ability to prepare and switch strategy if necesssary... Hell, even if I win
a fight, I find myself loading just to see the coolness all over again...
Of course if you can die a lot and very easily, you should also have a very
quick reload feature... something alot of games could really use or improve
on...
-
My main grievance with NPC's though, is there's often too much
micromanagement... Sometimes it's fun - most of the time it's tedious...
Order them to use flamethrower or else whatever gun available and to hoard
their own ammo for the rest, or a pool-together menu you can occasionally
open and let them take turn on who gets what in an automated kind of way, or
a combination or other..
-
Learn by doing though is nothing really new, morrowind for instance also
uses it - using bow and arrow increases your marksman skill etc...
I just think the problem with forever increasing xp is you become way too
powerful and eventually the challenge is taken out of the game. Increasing
the difficulty of enemies, like commoners to have laser guns instead of
spears just seems like a really silly solution...
4too
A big relevation in the FO's was when Outdoorsman was built up enough
and one had more manouvering room during encounters. It must be some
sort of unbearable frustration for the 'uber-shooter" PC to first MOVE
to establish a firing line that minimizes friendly fire. It's the claim
that it unrealistically inhibits their tactical options, and denies them
their constitutional right to arm NPC's with auto fire weapons, that
cripples my empathy brain center. The intolerable suffering of delayed
gratification in shredding opponents with auto fire, because they must
assume the tactical "leadership' and MOVE first, is not anyone's problem
but theirs.
Trade offs with unforeseen dividends in character building:
It wasn't until the second, or so, restart, or, replay, that one
normally sees that a character development system was flexible enough to
allow for changes in style. Average to middle high in certain
attributes could be coupled with "special" items or consumables to
qualify (momentarily) for conditional minimums.
All Around, middle of the road planing might be the best,
first, character if the system allows adjusting player focus "in game".
If Charisma was 'just' high enough, the Magnetic Personality Perk and
the Mirrored Sunglasses allowed for a maximum party size. I'm not sure
if Charisma alone significantly helped bartering in the early game when
the struggle to equip was critical. Any 'plan' to stack the bartering
deck by skill points would meet the basic need of surviving encounters
by fight or flight, or .. the last save. The level up skill points were
channeled to combat skills to achieve a tolerable level of proficiency,
and a limited restart from 'saves'.
The "risk" of spreading points evenly was padded by having good or
better attributes that supported blocks of skills. Agility was an
obvious enhancer, but the sleeper was Intelligence.
Intelligence opened up the dialogue tree, and either made certain quests
available or allowed a cost effective resolution to quests.
Intelligence and science got the computers to open up. Depending on
NPC's only went so far. I'm not sure if Myron was as big a help as Vic
in their specialties. Myron never got me the combat implants or the
best 'bot' brain. Vic fixed stuff.
Doctor might get some points for bone mending on the trail, until the
clue of the Med Computer at Vault City would entice one to increase that
skill to discover the unknown data (combat implants).
Intelligence also increased the number of skill points per leveling.
I think the skill or experience point enhancer perks were too limited,
or broken in the case of FOT, to justify that route. 'Gifted' was a
must trait, and has been considered too 'uber' by some.
At the risk of chemical dependency and, or, long periods of 'hangover'
negatives on attributes, "drugs" were a consumable enhancer. Drugs might
help get the marginal hand to hand character through the boxing quest in
New Reno and the 'Bruce Lee" quest in San Fran. Mentats were worth
trying for those nasty locks or that extra Charisma needed to add an NPC
to the party.
The other consumables, "books" increased first aide, small weapons,
outdoorsman, and repair, allowing leveling skill points to go towards
achieving above average functionality in other skills, like Doctor, or
Energy Weapons, always handy for the end game.
I would prefer a limited 'learn by doing" enhancer. Puts some skills at
a reasonable functioning level and gives a clue on what percentages of
proficiency might unlock quests. A limit inhibits the building of
"Uber" characters that bulldoze through the game, in a defacto "god
mode", unless one wants to invest in experience point mining, and max
out that way. That suits some people's game play but like your dislike
of micro managing NPC's I consider mining spawning grounds as tedious
and boring,
not the pay off I seek in game playing.
There was a "learn by doing" curve in the FO's, the discovery of
all the methods of "stat" building that rewarded the well rounded
character with multiple paths of adventure, without multiple restarts,
all that tedious early levels rat killing ...
4too
Bateau
Then make the base layout and location random.
The original issue could also be solved if the developers had bothered
to put some obstacle that only high level players could get around in
front of the power armour.
>I definately wanna find "Spiders Bane" sword in the spiders nest (Baldurs
>Gate) and not some other place less fitting.
That doesn't really seem like a logical place to find a Spider's Bane
sword though :P
>Why would I fight my way through the most gargantuan monster as soon as I
>can, if all I find is some "leveled" garbage? Sure it may still a bit be
>better because of the increased risk, but it won't be the best of the best.
>And worse yet, later on find something better on a lesser monster (doh)...
>(*see bottom of this post for some thoughts on something of a solution to
>what difficulty monsters should have and more).
That's what "depths" are for - so the reward will match the challenge.
>The Elder Scrolls series (Morrowind etc) has both random and static loot...
>Most containers (chests, barrels, etc) are completely randomized based on
>your level with small luck percentages of recieving something better than
>"leveled". Thing is if you reload your game before checking what was in the
>chest the content of the chest will change... And that's that's just plain
>ridiculous. Sure loading and saving is already sort of a "cheat", but it
>doesn't have to be that freaking exploitable.
Hiding high level equipment in places that you are only meant to know
about when you have progressed far into the game is even more
exploitable.
>> What I would like to see more of in RPGs is choice. Not necessarily
>> about the order in which to do quests but the way to do things. So many
>
>Yes, I would like to see choice too, but unfortunately each choice is pretty
>much equal to exponential developement time and if you do cross-branching as
>well, that's double exponentiality, and while that may not be so bad per se,
>it is just Time they don't have...
That's because they don't write the script until they have already
started development. How many directors start making a film before the
script is written? Almost all PC games are like those "summer
blockbuster" movies. A few hours of the latest special effects and
nothing else. After playing a few times it gets boring so they can sell
you a sequel.
>Thanks to the hardware industry and Carmark type folks the comercial game
>industry is pushed in the direction of smaller and prettier... and yet
>development costs soars, despite higher level languages, all the resources
>you could dream of in form of purchasable assets (engines) and open source
>enmassing like never before.
It's an arms race.
>If content creation is really the culprit in all of this (although I think
>it's bull), then it will have to be made more automated... And if this
>hasn't already been thought about then it's about time that someone does...
>Because I'll be damned if I'm going to buy that 15 minute doom3 game... heh
>damned... nevermind.
>
>*okay, here's something about my thoughts on "XP", "Leveling" and difficulty
>based on it, if you're arsed to read it...
>
>Basicly I would prefer if monsters weren't better "down south" like in
>fallout. Sure we should still have the uber-deadly enclave patrols in
>certain parts of the area and such. What I'm talking about though is the
>commoners shouldn't have laser guns down south when those up north are
>fighting with sticks and spears, and then eventually making the ones with
>spears pose zero threat to you because you are at a really high level...
>
>Spears still hurt humans no matter how much "experience" (XP) you have.
Hitpoints are a weird concept. Getting more hitpoints is supposed to
reflect your battle experience and ability to avoid being killed.
Wouldn't this be better reflected by having the PC avoid being shot in
the head than being able to take head shots without flinching?
>I'd like that to still be true.
>Because I hate cliff racers. and rats. and goblins that you will undoubtly
>meet again even after you turned uber and they will just be a pain in the
>ass and you wish you'd never seen them...
>They pose no threat to you any more and that sucks. It's not real. it's not
>even unreal, it's just stupid.
>That's why I personally feel the current Level and XP based systems are
>crap.
In some games like Arcanum random foes simply run away if you are more
powerful and you don't have to fight them. Do you suggest that the
player never gets any better at fighting and rats are always dangerous?
>If there is no "levels" of any sort though it may be difficult to keep you
>from going straight through the game though by skipping areas, so we do sort
>of need them in non-linear games.
>
>However what should stop you is quest-progress (particularly main campaign).
>That would be linear, but that's ok as long as you have lots of "choice".
>And the way to keep you from skipping areas should be knowledge of them. Eg
>can only get to navarro through brotherhood guy - this is a bad example
>though because he seems to know you even if you just left arroyo. It would
>make more sense if he wouldn't talk before you had a certain high level of
>reputation. So that's badly scripted but the principle is good enough.
>So finally the way to keep you from getting the knowledge should be simply
>"hard work". Fighting, traveling, talking, interacting etc.
>
>Thus theoretically removing all need for real "XP" / "Leveling", and making
>the the story and experiences come into focus instead of endless
>xp-mining...
How is building up a reputation through fighting, questing etc different
to building up XP through doing those things?
If they are already failing at everything how will that make the
character any different to before they were "jinxed"?
>Or instead if you have low intelligence and low agility you're likely to end
>up less lucky too cos you're clumbsy. or something....
>
>Okay so you may now be going: "why, why and why?, I like pushing the +/-
>dials and selecting traits on every other level on my character sheet!"
>But isn't this "feature" really quite redundant?
>You play the style that you that you picked anyway, don't you? And if you
>don't, you wish you did, right? And worst of all - now you have no way to
>undo it...
>If you want to play a sniper, but give him all the skills that has nothing
>to do with sniping, well, you'll have a very hard time hitting anything...
>Why would you want to play an incredibly crappy sniper? Sounds like a bad
>comedy movie... I'm a sniper. An incredibly bad sniper. Rated R for:
>Retarded...
If you wanted to play a sniper why would you make him crap at sniping?
>Instead - you are what you do and you're good at what you do a lot.
>And you could still end up doing the opposite of what you're good at, but
>then, depending on how long it takes, you would eventually end up being good
>at that instead.
>
>The system may be slightly arcady though since you now no longer really have
>control over it (you can still have a character sheet, but with no
>functionality), but at the same time I believe this would really just
>emphasise Role Playing - you are what you do, not what you think you are or
>what your character sheet says...
I agree with what you say about developing skills by using them. It
would be more fun to play a sniping character if you had to train him by
shooting distant things rather than train him by picking locks and then
assigning the XP to shooting. It comes back to having a wide range of
choices. Imagine if you had to become good at lockpicking by picking a
lot of locks in Fallout. There just aren't enough to pick for you to
ever become good.
>So in sense you can end up being a great sniper, but being a sniper doesn't
>necessarily mean being a good short-ranged shooter, so you will lack in
>other skills and that's where the challenges will arrise, and keep the game
>challenging no matter how long you play.
>and then for gods sakes have random encounters that doesn't just involve
>combat or barter skills... and make the terrain (obstruction) so that they
>often have to be done in specific ways and you can't just snipe your way out
>of everything.
>
>ok jeez...
>if there's missing a sentence somewhere, sue me...
>
>thoughts?
--
Bateau
Those are solutions? Steal the dangerous toys away from your retarded
team mates? Or don't give them anything that can be misused?
>My limited experience with firearms may give me a real world respect of
>the possibility of jamming, misfire, missing, and hitting an unintended
>target. The level of accuracy attributed to PC's and NPC's at early
>skill levels seems guided by dramatic aspirations and hysterical demands
>for a mythic proficency of the 'heroes'. A combat proficency skill, and
>or combat participation skill (morale, fatigue and time dependant) might
>drive home issues behind that confection or 'fudge' called friendly
>fire. Maybe a Python inspired 'run away!' script could be augmented by
>an effort first to "Duck And Cover" then the arm chair squad leaders
>would DEMAND auto fire if it gave the NPC's the confidence to return
>fire and not start digging, or running for China.
Accuracy isn't the issue. NPCs shouldn't even be trying to autofire
through their team mates. It's just dumb behaviour.
>The party members would be less pack mules and 'meat shields' if their
>skill contributions allowed your sniper to hone that point target
>deadliness. The group outdoorsmanship could have improved some with an
>Ian and a Sulik, and could have been better with a Tyco and a Cassidy.
>If the learning could be transferred from the 'party' to the PC, much
>like how bonus hand to hand skills were provided by stationary NPC's in
>FO and FO2, than the lone PC 'ranger' could cultivate a network of -
>mentors - the mobile NPC's could be 'parked' or recruited as necessary.
>
>I like the learn by doing idea, and I recall an Amiga era title that
>looked like a 'Gold Box' clone. Possibly it was European. Performing
>certain attacks in combat rewarded the ancillary attributes. Hand to
>hand and melee weapons improved the base physical strength and agility.
>This improvement in strength and agility allowed your 'tech boy' or
>'doc' to equip a heavier fire weapon, and have enough 'hand - eye"
>coordination to shoot with effect when that was needed in the end game.
Jagged Alliance 2 and many roguelikes have this. I think even Wasteland
may have.
>The baggage train ...
>An interesting reward for loading down your character and the NPC's
>with loot, to exploit the barter economics, might be, not necessarily
>gaining a point in strength or endurance, or points in Outdoorsman (if
>packing and marching skills are deemed 'outdoorsman-like'), but the
>increase of weight , (and shape? please no tetrus clone back pack
>grids!) that can be hypothetically carried. Perhaps there would be, how
>the load would affect the march progress and at what price of resources,
>as in the necessity of more than one canteen. Perhaps the "packs' would
>be 'dropped' in combat with an option to repack on an area inventory
>spread sheet after the conclusion. Nearness to 'impedimenta' drop
>points would validate whether the NPC or PC could access this resource
>and at what "movement point' or time "t" during action.
Sounds just like Jagged Alliance 2.
Bateau
>Friendly fire: just endured some venting on that and am happy to share!
>
>A big relevation in the FO's was when Outdoorsman was built up enough
>and one had more manouvering room during encounters. It must be some
>sort of unbearable frustration for the 'uber-shooter" PC to first MOVE
>to establish a firing line that minimizes friendly fire. It's the claim
>that it unrealistically inhibits their tactical options, and denies them
>their constitutional right to arm NPC's with auto fire weapons, that
>cripples my empathy brain center. The intolerable suffering of delayed
>gratification in shredding opponents with auto fire, because they must
>assume the tactical "leadership' and MOVE first, is not anyone's problem
>but theirs.
They are right. If you are about to confront some hostile guys you don't
march up to them in single file. A high outdoorsman skill should mean
more warning which means more time to plan and prepare. I think you
should be able to deploy your NPCs where you want with restrictions
depending on your outdoorsman skill.
It's just dumb to choose to engage some bandits and then attack them in
a little bunch.
>Trade offs with unforeseen dividends in character building:
>
>It wasn't until the second, or so, restart, or, replay, that one
>normally sees that a character development system was flexible enough to
>allow for changes in style. Average to middle high in certain
>attributes could be coupled with "special" items or consumables to
>qualify (momentarily) for conditional minimums.
>
>All Around, middle of the road planing might be the best,
>first, character if the system allows adjusting player focus "in game".
>
>If Charisma was 'just' high enough, the Magnetic Personality Perk and
>the Mirrored Sunglasses allowed for a maximum party size. I'm not sure
>if Charisma alone significantly helped bartering in the early game when
>the struggle to equip was critical. Any 'plan' to stack the bartering
>deck by skill points would meet the basic need of surviving encounters
>by fight or flight, or .. the last save. The level up skill points were
>channeled to combat skills to achieve a tolerable level of proficiency,
>and a limited restart from 'saves'.
Charisma was used in calculating your "Bartering" skill.
wamingo
>to building up XP through doing those things?
They're not necessarily. It's just that with infinite leveling, or as good
as, and no repercussions, your enemies will have to increase in difficulty
as well and then you can just go: What the fuck was the point? Now I can't
even go back to klamath and do the quests there after being in the sierra
army base and sanfransisco because that will just be freakin dull. No
challenge what so ever.
Do you like forever leveling up? Go play an mmog like Everquest and you will
soon understand the pointlessness of it all...
> In some games like Arcanum random foes simply run away if you are more
> powerful and you don't have to fight them. Do you suggest that the
> player never gets any better at fighting and rats are always dangerous?
In a sense, yes, that's exactly what I suggest.
The system I propose allows you to become better at fighting, but only in a
"fair" way to your enemy.
"Fair" meaning you are perhaps very proficient at killing ultra short range
(like rats), but then you will probably not be as good at medium or long
ranges and have a world of trouble killing snipers, for instance.
That way you can still learn to be a better killer, but in a limited way.
If you're now asking yourself why have an xp system at all...
Well we are talking about role-playing games here, where hitting is not
based on your skills with aiming your mouse, but with numbers of chance.
Therefor we need SOME type of leveling otherwise we couldn't roleplay at
all. Without it we couldn't be a sniper, couldn't be a theif, etc.
The difference being you just shouldn't be able to level forever.
> >What Luck in this system would be based on I'm not too sure though. Maybe
if
> >you do things very bad, fail a lot, do jinxed stuff, wear jinxed items,
you
> >will end up with "jinxed" character.
>
> If they are already failing at everything how will that make the
> character any different to before they were "jinxed"?
yeah I know, that's why I said I wasn't too sure...
Basing it on your other attributes (intelligence, agility) is a better idea.
I don't pretend to have all the answers :)
> I agree with what you say about developing skills by using them. It
> would be more fun to play a sniping character if you had to train him by
> shooting distant things rather than train him by picking locks and then
> assigning the XP to shooting. It comes back to having a wide range of
> choices. Imagine if you had to become good at lockpicking by picking a
> lot of locks in Fallout. There just aren't enough to pick for you to
> ever become good.
And that's why it's so damned essential that all skills have quests
distributed in a very even way.
No more only-combat random encounters.
Bateau
>>How is building up a reputation through fighting, questing etc different
>>to building up XP through doing those things?
>
>They're not necessarily. It's just that with infinite leveling, or as good
>as, and no repercussions, your enemies will have to increase in difficulty
>as well and then you can just go: What the fuck was the point? Now I can't
>even go back to klamath and do the quests there after being in the sierra
>army base and sanfransisco because that will just be freakin dull. No
>challenge what so ever.
>
>Do you like forever leveling up? Go play an mmog like Everquest and you will
>soon understand the pointlessness of it all...
So you are fundamentally proposing the same function as XP (to limit
access to later areas) but without the character development? That's
basically an adventure game. Everquest doesn't have an "end". Single
player RPGs do. You don't level up forever in them, you get to the end
of the game. Then you start over.
>> In some games like Arcanum random foes simply run away if you are more
>> powerful and you don't have to fight them. Do you suggest that the
>> player never gets any better at fighting and rats are always dangerous?
>
>In a sense, yes, that's exactly what I suggest.
>The system I propose allows you to become better at fighting, but only in a
>"fair" way to your enemy.
>"Fair" meaning you are perhaps very proficient at killing ultra short range
>(like rats), but then you will probably not be as good at medium or long
>ranges and have a world of trouble killing snipers, for instance.
>That way you can still learn to be a better killer, but in a limited way.
So basically you can only fight the same kinds of critters the whole
game except for one type which you can kill easily? Or when you get good
at fighting one kind do you actually get worse at fighting the others?
I don't get the point of it. You still have to start a new character and
develop a new speciality when you have done everything your current one
offers. Unless you do that unlearning thing which would just require you
to waste time training your new speciality until you could do something
interesting with it.
>If you're now asking yourself why have an xp system at all...
>Well we are talking about role-playing games here, where hitting is not
>based on your skills with aiming your mouse, but with numbers of chance.
>Therefor we need SOME type of leveling otherwise we couldn't roleplay at
>all. Without it we couldn't be a sniper, couldn't be a theif, etc.
>The difference being you just shouldn't be able to level forever.
But why is being a specialist at one thing and crap at all others or
just average at everything better? I don't see how it improves the game.
>> >What Luck in this system would be based on I'm not too sure though. Maybe
>if
>> >you do things very bad, fail a lot, do jinxed stuff, wear jinxed items,
>you
>> >will end up with "jinxed" character.
>>
>> If they are already failing at everything how will that make the
>> character any different to before they were "jinxed"?
>
>yeah I know, that's why I said I wasn't too sure...
>Basing it on your other attributes (intelligence, agility) is a better idea.
>
>I don't pretend to have all the answers :)
Low abilities will already make them crap at everything.
I like letting the player choose it. Then they can have a really good
kickboxer who sometimes breaks his own legs. It's more fun to play.
>> I agree with what you say about developing skills by using them. It
>> would be more fun to play a sniping character if you had to train him by
>> shooting distant things rather than train him by picking locks and then
>> assigning the XP to shooting. It comes back to having a wide range of
>> choices. Imagine if you had to become good at lockpicking by picking a
>> lot of locks in Fallout. There just aren't enough to pick for you to
>> ever become good.
>
>And that's why it's so damned essential that all skills have quests
>distributed in a very even way.
>No more only-combat random encounters.
Basically you have to make a whole bunch of different games for the
different paths and tie them together. It's easier than making several
seperate games because they can share so much stuff. But it's not worth
it to the developers because they only sell one game and by the time
people realise their game isn't replayable its publishing run is over
and they've made their money. This is especially so with reviewers only
bothering to play a game for a few hours before they write their review.
wamingo
> access to later areas) but without the character development? That's
> basically an adventure game. Everquest doesn't have an "end". Single
> player RPGs do. You don't level up forever in them, you get to the end
> of the game. Then you start over.
No, Not to limit access to LATER areas, that has to be done through proper
scripting...
But to keep the open style of the game challenging regardless of what path
you chose, regardless of where you go first and last.
To keep Redding challenging even after Navaro...
Would it be more of an adventure? Definately.
Less need for XP grind? check.
But what exactly is wrong with this picture?
You just don't have to click the dials anymore.
Gear will also have to be dynamic for this to work though...
Eg
Leather suit gives you decent armor rating against melee stuff, but won't
stop bullets and such...
Metal'ish armor will stop bullets but will suck against energy/pyro stuff...
Powerarmor will reflect energy/pyro stuff but someone could easily slip a
knife through the cracks and you fall easily and hard from a blow...
stuff like that.
But it should always have been like this in the first place...
A > B > C > A....
So you won't be able to kick navaro scout patrols ass until you have
powerarmor and you won't have powerarmor until you've worked your ass off
for it... (quest progress, not xp grinding mind you).
yet the powerarmor should probably not help you against spears...
> So basically you can only fight the same kinds of critters the whole
> game except for one type which you can kill easily? Or when you get good
> at fighting one kind do you actually get worse at fighting the others?
> I don't get the point of it. You still have to start a new character and
> develop a new speciality when you have done everything your current one
> offers. Unless you do that unlearning thing which would just require you
> to waste time training your new speciality until you could do something
> interesting with it.
- wasting time, relearning, allocating points to laser weapons and then
don't use your 120% in small guns anymore because lasers are much better...
what's the difference.
Here you would just be able to undo your mistakes and would essentially let
you play a game that never ends and still be able to return to the roots and
still have a fun challenge with it because you never become too god-like.
> >yeah I know, that's why I said I wasn't too sure...
> >Basing it on your other attributes (intelligence, agility) is a better
idea.
> >
> >I don't pretend to have all the answers :)
>
> Low abilities will already make them crap at everything.
> I like letting the player choose it. Then they can have a really good
> kickboxer who sometimes breaks his own legs. It's more fun to play.
well what defines a kickboxer...
relatively high endurance, strength, agility and some perception?
And if he has to be remotely intelligent and charismatic as well, then maybe
there would be no luck left... It could probably work as long as the total
amount of allocation points is low.
> >And that's why it's so damned essential that all skills have quests
> >distributed in a very even way.
> >No more only-combat random encounters.
>
> Basically you have to make a whole bunch of different games for the
> different paths and tie them together. It's easier than making several
> seperate games because they can share so much stuff. But it's not worth
> it to the developers because they only sell one game and by the time
> people realise their game isn't replayable its publishing run is over
> and they've made their money. This is especially so with reviewers only
> bothering to play a game for a few hours before they write their review.
No, you don't have to do that at all. Simply distribute quest requirements
so that there are just as many combat required as there are intelligence and
charisma required etc.
Having only combat related quests contradicts roleplaying - unless you only
have combat related skills in the game of course. Fallout had more than
combat related skills, unfortunately most of them went nearly unused. Maybe
this is fine to you, but why would anyone allocate points to science or
repair if they're are much better spent on combat?
Maybe you don't care about becoming over-powerful, but I think most people
find doing klamath quests after lvl 12 with a laser rifle is pretty
unrewarding... It poses no challenge, you just buldoze your way through what
could've been a very satisfying experience had you only done it earlier....
Duke Merc Atreides
>
> Maybe you don't care about becoming over-powerful, but I think most people
> find doing klamath quests after lvl 12 with a laser rifle is pretty
> unrewarding... It poses no challenge, you just buldoze your way through
what
> could've been a very satisfying experience had you only done it
earlier....
>
even though i might be waering power armour mk2, i still use the hunting
pistol and the g11 most of the way through the game, i only use the heavy
stuff(rockets,plasma) on the ship and the enclave oil rig, and besides just
because i have power armour mk2 does not make me invincible, i have been
killed by geckos(not fire), guards, tribals, all sorts
4too
Bateau wrote:
>
>
> Accuracy isn't the issue. NPCs shouldn't even be trying to autofire
> through their team mates. It's just dumb behaviour.
>
>
NPC's and friendly fire ...
Yes. It was a frustratingly stupid ... ah ... puzzle. At least it
wasn't -another- jumping puzzle. [What god of gaming was "p'ed on" to
have been earned the eternal damnation of jumping puzzles for all gamers?]
In FO-1, the large hand guns and single fire were a compromise necessary
to maintain a party larger than ... one ... and, to continue the game.
We don't have to, have liked doing that. Completing the game was more
important then the "flaw" in NPC AI, whether it was intended or an
oversight.
The "trying (not) to auto fire through their team mates" was partially
resolved in FO-2. At least Sulik would switch to single rounds after he
leveled up, well most of the time. And that's as much of a redemption
as we can expect. Marcus's talent with energy weapons was too valuable
to deny him the Turbo Laser, so although it was 'entertaining' to give
him a variety of big guns to choose from, for he did 'seem' to switch
from time to time, getting on with the game meant limiting his weapon's
options.
.........
FO-1, the trading with NPC's in your party was done by "stealing".
Once I discovered how this was done, how - trading - was done, what it
was called didn't matter. The point, click, and scrolling, and clicking
and scrolling, and so forth, became part of the game. Have seen buckets
of bandwidth wasted on "the horror of" --- "STEALING" --- or rather,
trading, and or bartering with NPC-s in and out of the party.
The horror of stealing(?) ... as if it affected the karma count. Just
another puzzle solved.
4too
Toby Newman
> Marcus's talent with energy weapons was too valuable
> to deny him the Turbo Laser, so although it was 'entertaining' to give
> him a variety of big guns to choose from, for he did 'seem' to switch
> from time to time, getting on with the game meant limiting his weapon's
> options.
In my game, Marcus wouldn't use the laser minigun, nor many other
weapons. I only got him to use the flamethrower (which did about 3
damage towards the end) and his original minigun.
--
Toby
Bateau
>Bateau wrote:
>
> > Accuracy isn't the issue. NPCs shouldn't even be trying to autofire
> > through their team mates. It's just dumb behaviour.
>
>NPC's and friendly fire ...
>Yes. It was a frustratingly stupid ... ah ... puzzle. At least it
>wasn't -another- jumping puzzle. [What god of gaming was "p'ed on" to
>have been earned the eternal damnation of jumping puzzles for all gamers?]
I really like jumping puzzles in platformers. As long as they're not the
"run up and jump at the very last moment" kind. This dude I know from
IRC wrote this one http://modarchivestory.ni2.se/
It's totally kick ass and should be on the GBA. I also liked doing crazy
acrobatic shit in the Tomb Raider games and Flashback.
>In FO-1, the large hand guns and single fire were a compromise necessary
>to maintain a party larger than ... one ... and, to continue the game.
>We don't have to, have liked doing that. Completing the game was more
>important then the "flaw" in NPC AI, whether it was intended or an
>oversight.
I don't think it was intended to be a compromise. BIS just really suck
at coding.
>The "trying (not) to auto fire through their team mates" was partially
>resolved in FO-2. At least Sulik would switch to single rounds after he
>leveled up, well most of the time. And that's as much of a redemption
>as we can expect. Marcus's talent with energy weapons was too valuable
>to deny him the Turbo Laser, so although it was 'entertaining' to give
>him a variety of big guns to choose from, for he did 'seem' to switch
>from time to time, getting on with the game meant limiting his weapon's
>options.
>
>.........
>
>FO-1, the trading with NPC's in your party was done by "stealing".
>Once I discovered how this was done, how - trading - was done, what it
>was called didn't matter. The point, click, and scrolling, and clicking
>and scrolling, and so forth, became part of the game. Have seen buckets
>of bandwidth wasted on "the horror of" --- "STEALING" --- or rather,
>trading, and or bartering with NPC-s in and out of the party.
>The horror of stealing(?) ... as if it affected the karma count. Just
>another puzzle solved.
People weren't complaining because stealing is bad. It did have an
effect on game play - it made it tedious and annoying to get stuff from
your teammates. Especially if your character sucked at stealing.
Bateau
>> So you are fundamentally proposing the same function as XP (to limit
>> access to later areas) but without the character development? That's
>> basically an adventure game. Everquest doesn't have an "end". Single
>> player RPGs do. You don't level up forever in them, you get to the end
>> of the game. Then you start over.
>
>No, Not to limit access to LATER areas, that has to be done through proper
>scripting...
>But to keep the open style of the game challenging regardless of what path
>you chose, regardless of where you go first and last.
>To keep Redding challenging even after Navaro...
>Would it be more of an adventure? Definately.
>Less need for XP grind? check.
>But what exactly is wrong with this picture?
>You just don't have to click the dials anymore.
Ah I see. So by keeping the player nerfed and crap all fights are
challenging. You could also make the enemies tougher. If a player comes
to an area late in the game instead of early the enemies could have
improved, prepared better defences, gotten reinforcements etc. Then if
the player gets to an area earlier than usual it could be less prepared.
It would make the game world feel dynamic as you replay it or just
revisit areas.
>Gear will also have to be dynamic for this to work though...
>Eg
>Leather suit gives you decent armor rating against melee stuff, but won't
>stop bullets and such...
>Metal'ish armor will stop bullets but will suck against energy/pyro stuff...
>Powerarmor will reflect energy/pyro stuff but someone could easily slip a
>knife through the cracks and you fall easily and hard from a blow...
>stuff like that.
>But it should always have been like this in the first place...
>A > B > C > A....
>
>So you won't be able to kick navaro scout patrols ass until you have
>powerarmor and you won't have powerarmor until you've worked your ass off
>for it... (quest progress, not xp grinding mind you).
>yet the powerarmor should probably not help you against spears...
I don't think you could make a game where someone who can take down the
Enclave would be vulnerable to a bunch of primitives with spears. How
would you make something like the Rat King quest challenging for someone
who can take out a raider camp, but also make it possible to complete
earlier on? If you increase the power of the enemies to match the power
of the player then the rat king could have had time to breed bigger and
smarter rats and increase their numbers. They could be a huge army by
the time a high level character tries to finish them off. It's much
easier to make sense of.
>> So basically you can only fight the same kinds of critters the whole
>> game except for one type which you can kill easily? Or when you get good
>> at fighting one kind do you actually get worse at fighting the others?
>> I don't get the point of it. You still have to start a new character and
>> develop a new speciality when you have done everything your current one
>> offers. Unless you do that unlearning thing which would just require you
>> to waste time training your new speciality until you could do something
>> interesting with it.
>
>- wasting time, relearning, allocating points to laser weapons and then
>don't use your 120% in small guns anymore because lasers are much better...
>what's the difference.
The difference is that you don't actually do that. You can complete the
game using small guns.
>Here you would just be able to undo your mistakes and would essentially let
>you play a game that never ends and still be able to return to the roots and
>still have a fun challenge with it because you never become too god-like.
>
>> >yeah I know, that's why I said I wasn't too sure...
>> >Basing it on your other attributes (intelligence, agility) is a better
>idea.
>> >
>> >I don't pretend to have all the answers :)
>>
>> Low abilities will already make them crap at everything.
>> I like letting the player choose it. Then they can have a really good
>> kickboxer who sometimes breaks his own legs. It's more fun to play.
>
>well what defines a kickboxer...
>relatively high endurance, strength, agility and some perception?
>And if he has to be remotely intelligent and charismatic as well, then maybe
>there would be no luck left... It could probably work as long as the total
>amount of allocation points is low.
I'm talking about the Jinxed trait not the Luck characteristic.
>> >And that's why it's so damned essential that all skills have quests
>> >distributed in a very even way.
>> >No more only-combat random encounters.
>>
>> Basically you have to make a whole bunch of different games for the
>> different paths and tie them together. It's easier than making several
>> seperate games because they can share so much stuff. But it's not worth
>> it to the developers because they only sell one game and by the time
>> people realise their game isn't replayable its publishing run is over
>> and they've made their money. This is especially so with reviewers only
>> bothering to play a game for a few hours before they write their review.
>
>No, you don't have to do that at all. Simply distribute quest requirements
>so that there are just as many combat required as there are intelligence and
>charisma required etc.
Then every game will be quite short with the player only doing a few
quests.
>Having only combat related quests contradicts roleplaying - unless you only
>have combat related skills in the game of course. Fallout had more than
>combat related skills, unfortunately most of them went nearly unused. Maybe
>this is fine to you, but why would anyone allocate points to science or
>repair if they're are much better spent on combat?
>
>Maybe you don't care about becoming over-powerful, but I think most people
>find doing klamath quests after lvl 12 with a laser rifle is pretty
>unrewarding... It poses no challenge, you just buldoze your way through what
>could've been a very satisfying experience had you only done it earlier....
So you should be able to complete Klamath using combat, or science, or
sneaking, or speaking etc? That's what I mean about having to make a
bunch of different games for each kind of character.
wamingo
> Enclave would be vulnerable to a bunch of primitives with spears. How
> would you make something like the Rat King quest challenging for someone
> who can take out a raider camp, but also make it possible to complete
> earlier on? If you increase the power of the enemies to match the power
> of the player then the rat king could have had time to breed bigger and
> smarter rats and increase their numbers. They could be a huge army by
> the time a high level character tries to finish them off. It's much
> easier to make sense of.
The enclave is an army of powerarmor dudes wielding lasers...
To beat an army of enclaves you need lots of firepower and lots of kevlar...
but, if you make the armor and weapons to kick enclave-butt vulnerable to
other things you will never have the "ultimate weapon".
Lets say for instance that you need a flamethrower to kill an enclave, but
the flamethrower is only good at a certain distance, not pointblank, nor
long distance, and only effective against less mobile/agile units
(powerarmor = slow), then you will need something other than the flame
thrower to kill rats and unarmored enemies...
A cycle yeah?
Like you can't kill elephant with pea shooter, but you can't kill mosquito
with cannon either.. heh... ;)
> >- wasting time, relearning, allocating points to laser weapons and then
> >don't use your 120% in small guns anymore because lasers are much
better...
> >what's the difference.
>
> The difference is that you don't actually do that. You can complete the
> game using small guns.
You don't "have" to do that you mean.
Some person could easily want to switch skills mid-game because of new found
knowledge, equipment or just plain shift of mood...
> >well what defines a kickboxer...
> >relatively high endurance, strength, agility and some perception?
> >And if he has to be remotely intelligent and charismatic as well, then
maybe
> >there would be no luck left... It could probably work as long as the
total
> >amount of allocation points is low.
>
> I'm talking about the Jinxed trait not the Luck characteristic.
The Jinxed trait is a Luck modifier though.
I'm not talking about having traits like fallout per se. I'd use them as to
define "who you are" type of indication.
You can have traits that could be selectable as well, but then should make
it selectable only from start and/or very limited amount. Then you can
definately have your super kickboxer who occasionally breaks a leg, no?
> >No, you don't have to do that at all. Simply distribute quest
requirements
> >so that there are just as many combat required as there are intelligence
and
> >charisma required etc.
>
> Then every game will be quite short with the player only doing a few
> quests.
Unless you're forced to do them all.
If you can die facing enemies, why shouldn't you be able to die from all
kinds of other things requiring other than combat skills ?
traps, radioactives, electronic malfunctions - fix or you're dead or injured
or similar type stuff.
> So you should be able to complete Klamath using combat, or science, or
> sneaking, or speaking etc? That's what I mean about having to make a
> bunch of different games for each kind of character.
Where did I suggest you should be able to complete quests in multiple ways?
Choice is cool, but not on the account of too much game time.
4too
statements or I'll be trapped in a jumping-platform game!
The puzzle in BG:DA was an interesting exercise in observing the rythmns
of the platforms and then "seeing" the telegraphing shake. Got through
before the kid did, so competition complimented the reward.
"The horror of stealing", I think this was a recent sub text I detected
on a NMA thread. It can't be applied to the majority. You are right,
this work around was tedious. But I think the Mac version, my most
recent replay, was ok if you had 25 or so in steal. Scrolling through
all the FO inventories pushed one to use the keyboard more.
I think there was a thread on Something Awful when Van Buren was
announced that dumped on all the least liked faults of the FO's.
Quite the 'love fest" and amazing in how many warts we have endured to
play these games.
4too
Bateau
>> I don't think you could make a game where someone who can take down the
>> Enclave would be vulnerable to a bunch of primitives with spears. How
>> would you make something like the Rat King quest challenging for someone
>> who can take out a raider camp, but also make it possible to complete
>> earlier on? If you increase the power of the enemies to match the power
>> of the player then the rat king could have had time to breed bigger and
>> smarter rats and increase their numbers. They could be a huge army by
>> the time a high level character tries to finish them off. It's much
>> easier to make sense of.
>
>The enclave is an army of powerarmor dudes wielding lasers...
>To beat an army of enclaves you need lots of firepower and lots of kevlar...
>but, if you make the armor and weapons to kick enclave-butt vulnerable to
>other things you will never have the "ultimate weapon".
But having power armour or kevlar less effective against spears than a
leather jacket is just too stupid for the player to accept.
>Lets say for instance that you need a flamethrower to kill an enclave, but
>the flamethrower is only good at a certain distance, not pointblank, nor
>long distance, and only effective against less mobile/agile units
>(powerarmor = slow), then you will need something other than the flame
>thrower to kill rats and unarmored enemies...
So there is only one weapon that works against each kind of monster? And
the player will be stuck using flamethrowers against the Enclave? That
sounds reaaaaaaaallllly boring. I would think a flamethrower would be
extremely effective against rats alsol.
>A cycle yeah?
>Like you can't kill elephant with pea shooter, but you can't kill mosquito
>with cannon either.. heh... ;)
Well you can but it's overkill.
>> >- wasting time, relearning, allocating points to laser weapons and then
>> >don't use your 120% in small guns anymore because lasers are much
>better...
>> >what's the difference.
>>
>> The difference is that you don't actually do that. You can complete the
>> game using small guns.
>
>You don't "have" to do that you mean.
>Some person could easily want to switch skills mid-game because of new found
>knowledge, equipment or just plain shift of mood...
Exactly. It's a choice. Under your system they would be forced to do it
for every new group of enemies they encountered.
>> >well what defines a kickboxer...
>> >relatively high endurance, strength, agility and some perception?
>> >And if he has to be remotely intelligent and charismatic as well, then
>maybe
>> >there would be no luck left... It could probably work as long as the
>total
>> >amount of allocation points is low.
>>
>> I'm talking about the Jinxed trait not the Luck characteristic.
>
>The Jinxed trait is a Luck modifier though.
I don't think it is. I think it makes your bad luck more extreme.
>I'm not talking about having traits like fallout per se. I'd use them as to
>define "who you are" type of indication.
>You can have traits that could be selectable as well, but then should make
>it selectable only from start and/or very limited amount. Then you can
>definately have your super kickboxer who occasionally breaks a leg, no?
And that's exactly how it is in Fallout. I thought you were proposing
that things like traits are given to the player based on how they play.
>> >No, you don't have to do that at all. Simply distribute quest
>requirements
>> >so that there are just as many combat required as there are intelligence
>and
>> >charisma required etc.
>>
>> Then every game will be quite short with the player only doing a few
>> quests.
>
>Unless you're forced to do them all.
Except you can't because you only have the skills to do a few of them.
Unless you feel like wasting time training up a new speciality for every
quest you encounter.
>If you can die facing enemies, why shouldn't you be able to die from all
>kinds of other things requiring other than combat skills ?
>traps, radioactives, electronic malfunctions - fix or you're dead or injured
>or similar type stuff.
It would have to require some tactics, not just "die if your science
skill is not 75%". That would be boring.
>> So you should be able to complete Klamath using combat, or science, or
>> sneaking, or speaking etc? That's what I mean about having to make a
>> bunch of different games for each kind of character.
>
>Where did I suggest you should be able to complete quests in multiple ways?
>Choice is cool, but not on the account of too much game time.
So you can only complete a certain location in one way? Meaning if you
don't have that speciality you can't complete it, meaning you can only
complete a few quests, meaning it's a short game.
wamingo
> leather jacket is just too stupid for the player to accept.
naw, you judge too quickly. Balance may be hard to grasp, but it can be
done.
light armor = agile, but weak.
heavy armor = tough, but not agile.
That's not too hard to accept I reckon...
basicly compromises related to each type of armor and weapon...
> >> The difference is that you don't actually do that. You can complete the
> >> game using small guns.
> >
> >You don't "have" to do that you mean.
> >Some person could easily want to switch skills mid-game because of new
found
> >knowledge, equipment or just plain shift of mood...
>
> Exactly. It's a choice. Under your system they would be forced to do it
> for every new group of enemies they encountered.
>
unless you're an all-rounder or have npc's with you.
In fallout you couldn't really do everything unless you 'Didn't' specialize
too much, or had npc's with you...
> >I'm not talking about having traits like fallout per se. I'd use them as
to
> >define "who you are" type of indication.
> >You can have traits that could be selectable as well, but then should
make
> >it selectable only from start and/or very limited amount. Then you can
> >definately have your super kickboxer who occasionally breaks a leg, no?
>
> And that's exactly how it is in Fallout. I thought you were proposing
> that things like traits are given to the player based on how they play.
That's right I am.
But you can have both for those types of things as well. That won't hurt the
system.
> >> Then every game will be quite short with the player only doing a few
> >> quests.
> >
> >Unless you're forced to do them all.
>
> Except you can't because you only have the skills to do a few of them.
> Unless you feel like wasting time training up a new speciality for every
> quest you encounter.
You can or you die.
Like if you can't fight, you die.
Sometimes you can run away though, but you still have to come back if it was
critical to the quest.
> >If you can die facing enemies, why shouldn't you be able to die from all
> >kinds of other things requiring other than combat skills ?
> >traps, radioactives, electronic malfunctions - fix or you're dead or
injured
> >or similar type stuff.
>
> It would have to require some tactics, not just "die if your science
> skill is not 75%". That would be boring.
Agreed.
> >> So you should be able to complete Klamath using combat, or science, or
> >> sneaking, or speaking etc? That's what I mean about having to make a
> >> bunch of different games for each kind of character.
> >
> >Where did I suggest you should be able to complete quests in multiple
ways?
> >Choice is cool, but not on the account of too much game time.
>
> So you can only complete a certain location in one way? Meaning if you
> don't have that speciality you can't complete it, meaning you can only
> complete a few quests, meaning it's a short game.
yes, one or a few ways.
JUST like in Fallout You will have that speciality or NPC's with that
speciality or you will come back when you do, or you will die.
That goes for combat, science and everything else too.
Fair?
Bateau
>> But having power armour or kevlar less effective against spears than a
>> leather jacket is just too stupid for the player to accept.
>
>naw, you judge too quickly. Balance may be hard to grasp, but it can be
>done.
>light armor = agile, but weak.
>heavy armor = tough, but not agile.
>That's not too hard to accept I reckon...
>basicly compromises related to each type of armor and weapon...
It doesn't matter if you're not agile when you are inside a walking
tank. Spears still aren't going to hurt you.
>> >> The difference is that you don't actually do that. You can complete the
>> >> game using small guns.
>> >
>> >You don't "have" to do that you mean.
>> >Some person could easily want to switch skills mid-game because of new
>found
>> >knowledge, equipment or just plain shift of mood...
>>
>> Exactly. It's a choice. Under your system they would be forced to do it
>> for every new group of enemies they encountered.
>
>unless you're an all-rounder or have npc's with you.
>In fallout you couldn't really do everything unless you 'Didn't' specialize
>too much, or had npc's with you...
So if an all rounder can do everything why specialize at all?
>> >I'm not talking about having traits like fallout per se. I'd use them as
>to
>> >define "who you are" type of indication.
>> >You can have traits that could be selectable as well, but then should
>make
>> >it selectable only from start and/or very limited amount. Then you can
>> >definately have your super kickboxer who occasionally breaks a leg, no?
>>
>> And that's exactly how it is in Fallout. I thought you were proposing
>> that things like traits are given to the player based on how they play.
>
>That's right I am.
>But you can have both for those types of things as well. That won't hurt the
>system.
Aren't there some traits you can earn during the game in Fallout 2
anyway?
>> >> So you should be able to complete Klamath using combat, or science, or
>> >> sneaking, or speaking etc? That's what I mean about having to make a
>> >> bunch of different games for each kind of character.
>> >
>> >Where did I suggest you should be able to complete quests in multiple
>ways?
>> >Choice is cool, but not on the account of too much game time.
>>
>> So you can only complete a certain location in one way? Meaning if you
>> don't have that speciality you can't complete it, meaning you can only
>> complete a few quests, meaning it's a short game.
>
>yes, one or a few ways.
But you just said you weren't suggesting that you should be able to
complete quests in multiple ways.
>JUST like in Fallout You will have that speciality or NPC's with that
>speciality or you will come back when you do, or you will die.
>That goes for combat, science and everything else too.
>Fair?
I don't see the point in killing the player. In combat dying is the
barrier to success. With a science quest you don't need to kill the
player to stop him succeeding.
wamingo
> >> leather jacket is just too stupid for the player to accept.
> >
> >naw, you judge too quickly. Balance may be hard to grasp, but it can be
> >done.
> >light armor = agile, but weak.
> >heavy armor = tough, but not agile.
> >That's not too hard to accept I reckon...
> >basicly compromises related to each type of armor and weapon...
>
> It doesn't matter if you're not agile when you are inside a walking
> tank. Spears still aren't going to hurt you.
Why shouldn't a spear be able to penetrate the armor, gaps, cracks or
otherwise?
> So if an all rounder can do everything why specialize at all?
That's right.
Why specialize in Fallout if you can do everything as an all-rounder?
- Because you can do certain things better or in more fun ways, that's why.
> >> And that's exactly how it is in Fallout. I thought you were proposing
> >> that things like traits are given to the player based on how they play.
> >
> >That's right I am.
> >But you can have both for those types of things as well. That won't hurt
the
> >system.
>
> Aren't there some traits you can earn during the game in Fallout 2
> anyway?
gecko skinning?
> >> >> So you should be able to complete Klamath using combat, or science,
or
> >> >> sneaking, or speaking etc? That's what I mean about having to make a
> >> >> bunch of different games for each kind of character.
> >> >
> >> >Where did I suggest you should be able to complete quests in multiple
> >ways?
> >> >Choice is cool, but not on the account of too much game time.
> >>
> >> So you can only complete a certain location in one way? Meaning if you
> >> don't have that speciality you can't complete it, meaning you can only
> >> complete a few quests, meaning it's a short game.
> >
> >yes, one or a few ways.
>
> But you just said you weren't suggesting that you should be able to
> complete quests in multiple ways.
I didn't suggest you shouldn''t either... I merely pointed out this was
something You brought up and that requiring a sepperate "game" for each type
of character was entirely baseless and unncessary.
> >JUST like in Fallout You will have that speciality or NPC's with that
> >speciality or you will come back when you do, or you will die.
> >That goes for combat, science and everything else too.
> >Fair?
>
> I don't see the point in killing the player. In combat dying is the
> barrier to success. With a science quest you don't need to kill the
> player to stop him succeeding.
True... replace die with fail and sometimes die :) I mean you have to die
to get the point across sometimes - like the gecko reactor.
Bateau
>> >> But having power armour or kevlar less effective against spears than a
>> >> leather jacket is just too stupid for the player to accept.
>> >
>> >naw, you judge too quickly. Balance may be hard to grasp, but it can be
>> >done.
>> >light armor = agile, but weak.
>> >heavy armor = tough, but not agile.
>> >That's not too hard to accept I reckon...
>> >basicly compromises related to each type of armor and weapon...
>>
>> It doesn't matter if you're not agile when you are inside a walking
>> tank. Spears still aren't going to hurt you.
>
>Why shouldn't a spear be able to penetrate the armor, gaps, cracks or
>otherwise?
It could, but it would be waaaaay rarer than it penetrating a leather
jacket.
>> So if an all rounder can do everything why specialize at all?
>
>That's right.
>Why specialize in Fallout if you can do everything as an all-rounder?
>- Because you can do certain things better or in more fun ways, that's why.
You can't do everything in Fallout as an all rounder.
>> >> And that's exactly how it is in Fallout. I thought you were proposing
>> >> that things like traits are given to the player based on how they play.
>> >
>> >That's right I am.
>> >But you can have both for those types of things as well. That won't hurt
>the
>> >system.
>>
>> Aren't there some traits you can earn during the game in Fallout 2
>> anyway?
>
>gecko skinning?
Yeah, and some sex ones, and made man etc.
>> >> >> So you should be able to complete Klamath using combat, or science,
>or
>> >> >> sneaking, or speaking etc? That's what I mean about having to make a
>> >> >> bunch of different games for each kind of character.
>> >> >
>> >> >Where did I suggest you should be able to complete quests in multiple
>> >ways?
>> >> >Choice is cool, but not on the account of too much game time.
>> >>
>> >> So you can only complete a certain location in one way? Meaning if you
>> >> don't have that speciality you can't complete it, meaning you can only
>> >> complete a few quests, meaning it's a short game.
>> >
>> >yes, one or a few ways.
>>
>> But you just said you weren't suggesting that you should be able to
>> complete quests in multiple ways.
>
>I didn't suggest you shouldn''t either... I merely pointed out this was
>something You brought up and that requiring a sepperate "game" for each type
>of character was entirely baseless and unncessary.
And each way of completing each quest for each speciality needs it's own
scripting and stuff so when you put all these quests together each
speciality is like a different game. But if you don't need to specialize
to complete any quests then there's no point specializing. It's one or
the other.
>> >JUST like in Fallout You will have that speciality or NPC's with that
>> >speciality or you will come back when you do, or you will die.
>> >That goes for combat, science and everything else too.
>> >Fair?
>>
>> I don't see the point in killing the player. In combat dying is the
>> barrier to success. With a science quest you don't need to kill the
>> player to stop him succeeding.
>
>True... replace die with fail and sometimes die :) I mean you have to die
>to get the point across sometimes - like the gecko reactor.
Only because it wouldn't make sense for the reactor to melt down and the
player survive. I think the player can run away after causing a melt
down anyway.
wamingo
coincidentally, on DAC's news page (www.thevats.net) the Trinity project
explained their xp system to some extent...
I'll just paste the whole schmeer...
"You will first choose profession for PC, which he was performing before the
war. By selecting profession you'll gain special abilities (eg. when you
were a woodcutter before the war, now you are stronger than ordinary office
worker). Then you'll choose your favourite skills and traits, like in
Fallout. And it is the end of similarity between Fallout and Trinity. Now
our project will rather act like Morrowind or old MUD ADOM (I don't know if
it's known). Basically, you'll gain experience and you'll raise your skills
by using them. When you will use one skill often and successful, you will
become specialist in this skill, but when you won't use it for quite time -
you'll loose some points in this skill. It's simple and realistic."
Although the usage/neglect feature is possibly for another purpose than
keeping you "leveled", but that's not saying that couldn't work, this just
means it's done.
Bateau
WTF? ADOM is not a MUD O_o
That system lets you become highly skilled in a lot of areas at once if
you keep practicing them all though.