4-Combat
Will the next Fallout be turn-based, or will it be real-time?
A Fallout sequel would almost assuredly have a turn-based mode and a real-time with pause mode, toggled outside of combat.
Why?
Real-time vs. turn-based combat isn´t an aspect of character development, but it is an aspect of gameplay. Some people don´t like playing through combat, even in a good system. Some people absolutely hate dialogue, even when it´s well written. To accommodate different types of players, we do need to spread our resources.
Won’t that take a lot of time and cause balancing issues?
Summary: yes, balancing real-time and turn-based will take time. Yes, real-time and turn-based battles will not play out the same even under the most ideal circumstances. However, enough people are DIE-HARD ADAMANT about only playing one way or another that we believe it is genuinely important to pursue. Will turn-based combat be as balanced as it would without any real-time component? Of course not, but if the difference of that balance is minor, I believe allowing both of the die-hard groups to have a fundamental element of play to enjoy is important.
RT is always going to be, at best, an analogue of TB, not the same thing. The only character that can suffer in this particular translation is the PC. If the player dawdles, he or she may lose the advantage of a higher Sequence than the opponents. But really, that´s not a concern for me. If the player has chosen to play in RT, he or she is responsible for controlling his or her character efficiently. If the player doesn´t like that responsibility, he or she should switch it over to TB mode.
Our main focus on design and balancing will be for turn-based, with real-time as an known option. Being as the " powers that be" insist on having real time in the game, it´s better to have Van Buren have good turn based and okay real time than just real time and NO turn based.
How do you determine what´s the beginning of combat in the real-time mode?
When a creature on a team opposed to another creature enters the combat manager either through declaration of an attack attitude or by actually performing an attack. This really isn´t any different than TB ( two opposed creatures have line of sight on each other, one initiates an attack attitude and combat starts with them going first). If someone initiates combat, their action is always going to go first ( just like the Fallout games), and all other potential participants in the battle fall in line in order of Sequence.
Will Throwing be merged with Melee?
I´ve suggested merging Throwing with Melee. Melee gets a variety of powered and un-powered weapons that can be used close or at range. Damage is the result of the weapon´s inherent deadliness + wielder ST or the result of powered damage ( explosions, electric shocks, etc.). Melee is, not coincidentally, intended to be a middle ground between the " no-ammo", low damage, no maintenance, ultra flexible unarmed attacks and the ammo-driven, high damage, high maintenance, inflexible firearms.
How will unarmed combat be handled?
If the advantage of firearms is range and damage at the cost of ammo conservation, and the advantage of melee is in reliability and good potential damage from powered weapons at the cost of ( usually) range and less overall damage than firearms, then ( IMO), the advantage of unarmed should be in flexibility at the cost of range and damage.
The highly skilled unarmed character should always have at least two moves to perform for each AP level between 2 and 10. Because interface limitations can be overcome in a future Fallout title, the unarmed character should have access to half of these attacks with one click-hold-release. Each move should have its own benefits and drawbacks so that a healthy amount of the moves stay useful throughout the game.
The moves could be split into these groups: hand attacks, hand combos, foot attacks, foot combos and hand-foot combos. For example, the character could have Jab, Cross, Uppercut, Elbow Smash, Backhand, Sucker Punch, Spearhand, and Ridgehand as standard hand attacks, each with their own AP cost, bonus or penalty to hit, DT modifier, and damage. However, the character could also gain " two-in-one" combos.
For instance, Jab-Elbow. The combo would do both moves, each at a different hex. The Jab would go into the targeted hex, and the Elbow Smash would go into the hex back and to the right. The combo would cost less AP than both moves individually, but it would be at a lower chance to hit with each attack, and would incur a fatigue cost. Another combo might be Cross-Backhand-Ridgehand, hitting the first hex targeted, the hex to the right, and the hex two more to the right.
Kicks could have the same general layout ( with different moves, of course). The kicks don´t even have to be crazy wire-fu´ed out. They can just be regular ol´ kicks. Snap Kick, Axe Kick, Roundhouse, Back Kick, Side Kick, Hook Kick, etc. You could have the same sorts of combos. Roundhouse-Hook, Side-Back, Snap-Side-Axe.
The most complex combos would only be available when the character was fighting with no equipment in either hand, allowing hand-foot combos that could hit four, five, or even six hexes. Axe-Backhand-Round-Spear, Cross-Round-Back-Jab-Uppercut, Uppercut-Elbow-Side-Axe-Ridge-Spear. The high-skill complex combo unarmed character is like a mobile low-powered grenade, able to hit the hexes he or she wants when he or she wants from round to round. He or she never runs out of ammo, but has to accept that at high efficiency, he or she is accumulating fatigue and doing less damage than a comparable melee or firearms character. But with more than thirty moves to perform at high levels, never needing to equip or reload weapons, the unarmed character has ultimate flexibility for dealing with any close-range encounter with small to very large numbers of opponents.”
How will critical hits in combat be handled?
Well, overall I can say I´d like to see fewer damage multipliers, more crippled limbs, more severe penalties to hit the eyes.
What changes will be made to the aiming system?
I believe that the different called shots should be made more useful overall. Eyes is clearly " the way to go" in the first two Fallout games. It shouldn´t just be a " well, duh" choice. Limb crippling should be more common, IMO. Blinding should also have even more dramatic penalties, but the chance to hit the eyes should be reduced even more
Will ammunition be more rare then it was in Fallout 2?
I know this might seem crazy, but less ammo in the world also means less enemies using weapons with ammo. Why didn´t Max get shot fifty times driving in and out of the refinery? Because out of all the raiders, only Humongous had one of the two or three guns in the movie. When he actually did fire that gun -- whoa, look out. Everyone else made due with crossbows, melee weapons, and their bare hands.
Fallout shouldn´t be as bereft of ammunition as the Road Warrior, but ammunition should be a commodity -- something the player values, pays attention to, and spends accordingly.
Will weapons in Van Buren be made more realistic?
Not for the simple sake of being more realistic, no. But we might look at " realistic" reasons to balance weapons. A very simple example might be as follows: most semi-automatic pistols have a higher capacity and firing rate than most revolvers. People still use revolvers today because they are often a little more accurate than sa pistols and because they are extremely reliable ( almost impossible to jam). Using a " realistic" element like that to make a certain weapon type more valuable in a specific way is good. But just making something realistic for the sake of being realistic isn´t a good way to go, IMO.
Can we expect to see swords in Van Buren?
No plans for any swords in Van Buren.
Why are the devs talking about 10 mm and . 44 ammo, instead of 9mm and . 45?
The portions of the state of California as portrayed in the previous two Fallout games do not need to represent every part
of the United States, much less the entire world. In our world, 9mm and . 45 pistols are really, really common.
They are also different enough from each other that people favour those ammo types for different reasons.
Civilians, especially ones living in a world where they think they might be overrun by commies, are likely
to have a greater volume of firearms and bullets than law enforcement agents. Chris Taylor picked the 10mm because it is modern.
In fact, it´s only really seen use in the past decade ( 90s) by law enforcement agents.
When I ( and many people, I believe), think of . 45s and 9mms, they see G.I.s running through French fields with Thompsons and
German officers with Lugers -- the era immediately prior to the rise of the atomic age.
And when I say " difference", I don´t mean literal size difference, I mean bullet characteristics.
Though it is often debated, people generally seem to use 9mm for more penetrating power and . 45 for raw tissue
damage.9mm and . 45 were part of Fallout 2, so it´s not like it wasn´t ever there -- it was simply rare in those parts of the world.
10mm was more common. If you go to another region, it might not be the same. There´s no logical reason why it has to be that way.
Anything else about weapons?
I would definitely like it if flamethrowers looked more like flamethrowers.
I´ve thought about rocket launcher back blast. I think it´s a possibility, but I wouldn´t consider it under the
old Small Guns / Big Guns / Energy Weapons breakdown. Rocket launchers were pretty crummy, overall, in the last two games.
I would like to see a long-range electrical weapon based off of that neato " phaser" weapon some company is developing.
