Fallout Tactics type combat?

[Drool]

Another thing that would have significantly increased combat speed in Fallout was a superior inventory management UI.

Well, and general speed. I'm replaying FO1, and while assaulting the Raider base, it really dragged down waiting for 6 or 7 raiders, two slaves, Tandi, and Dogmeat to all grind through their turns. Made me miss Wasteland's text which I could scroll up to lightspeed when taking on 100 Temple Guardians with a Proton Ax.

[cyrilverba]

fallout tactics + pause = i'm happy: i think it had an optimal balance between 'tactics' and statistics-derived combat and an opportunity to switch between more tactical CTB and 'crpgesque' turn-based.

[Enclave]

Another thing that would have significantly increased combat speed in Fallout was a superior inventory management UI.

Well, and general speed. I'm replaying FO1, and while assaulting the Raider base, it really dragged down waiting for 6 or 7 raiders, two slaves, Tandi, and Dogmeat to all grind through their turns. Made me miss Wasteland's text which I could scroll up to lightspeed when taking on 100 Temple Guardians with a Proton Ax.

Ah see, this is where tweaking the system comes into effect. I do agree that fights could drag on due to exactly what you mention happening. One solution? Have a fast forward button you can press so the movements happen at an accelerated pace. Maybe somewhere in the UI there'd be a button that looks like this: >>

Click that and everything happens say 5 times faster. Click it again and you're back to normal speed.

See what I mean by UI tweaks?

[sorophx]

fallout tactics + pause = i'm happy: i think it had an optimal balance between 'tactics' and statistics-derived combat and an opportunity to switch between more tactical CTB and 'crpgesque' turn-based.

not happening, so no point in discussing

[cyrilverba]

fallout tactics + pause = i'm happy: i think it had an optimal balance between 'tactics' and statistics-derived combat and an opportunity to switch between more tactical CTB and 'crpgesque' turn-based.

not happening, so no point in discussing

ah, it's convenient to have a person being able to accurately predict the devs' thoughts and decisions for the next 2 years with us. as well as public reactions to potential changes of mind of the aforementioned devs. would be even better if that person learned how to read first.

also, most of the stuff written in religious texts, president candidates' promises, sports column, weather forecast and your physician's prognosis also won't happen ever. we shouldn't discuss religion, politics, sports, weather and health, should we?

[sorophx]

we shouldn't discuss religion, politics, sports, weather and health

I'm glad we're on the same page

[Enclave]

fallout tactics + pause = i'm happy: i think it had an optimal balance between 'tactics' and statistics-derived combat and an opportunity to switch between more tactical CTB and 'crpgesque' turn-based.

not happening, so no point in discussing

ah, it's convenient to have a person being able to accurately predict the devs' thoughts and decisions for the next 2 years with us. as well as public reactions to potential changes of mind of the aforementioned devs. would be even better if that person learned how to read first.

also, most of the stuff written in religious texts, president candidates' promises, sports column, weather forecast and your physician's prognosis also won't happen ever. we shouldn't discuss religion, politics, sports, weather and health, should we?

To be fair, Brian Fargo has repeatedly mentioned turn based. This would suggest that we're certainly not getting Fallout Tactics style combat.

[cyrilverba]

To be fair, Brian Fargo has repeatedly mentioned turn based. This would suggest that we're certainly not getting Fallout Tactics style combat.

that's only true if you see fallout tactics combat mechanics as a real-time one. you could still call it 'turn-based with enhancements', if you'd like, and 'tb+' is still 'tb' after all.

also, brian fargo repeatedly mentioned that they would do what the backers want them to do. he mentioned that even more often than turn-based combat. well, i'm sure if the backers ask for 1st person view and no old-fag crap, we'd be told to go f* ourselves, but let's be realistic:

- fallout tactics had turn-based combat mode (among other options) that could easily be used as a primary one (in fact, some game situations roped the player into using full tb, while none required to use continuous tb);
- fallout tactics combat mechanics is neither too heavy on tactics/statistics, nor has any anti-old-school flavour, so what's wrong with it?

[sorophx]

what's wrong with it?

it completely relies on SPECIAL to work

[Enclave]

To be fair, Brian Fargo has repeatedly mentioned turn based. This would suggest that we're certainly not getting Fallout Tactics style combat.

that's only true if you see fallout tactics combat mechanics as a real-time one. you could still call it 'turn-based with enhancements', if you'd like, and 'tb+' is still 'tb' after all.

also, brian fargo repeatedly mentioned that they would do what the backers want them to do. he mentioned that even more often than turn-based combat. well, i'm sure if the backers ask for 1st person view and no old-fag crap, we'd be told to go f* ourselves, but let's be realistic:

- fallout tactics had turn-based combat mode (among other options) that could easily be used as a primary one (in fact, some game situations roped the player into using full tb, while none required to use continuous tb);
- fallout tactics combat mechanics is neither too heavy on tactics/statistics, nor has any anti-old-school flavour, so what's wrong with it?

Fallout Tactics "turn based" was not REALLY turn based. It was just a modification of the real time combat. It was still built on a real time system.

Besides, there are plenty of people who do not like fallout tactics at all. I am one of them.

[cyrilverba]

it completely relies on SPECIAL to work

so what? just a hint: is gurps that different from special? is ad&d (>=3.0) that different from special? is w1+perks?.. jeez..

Fallout Tactics "turn based" was not REALLY turn based. It was just a modification of the real time combat. It was still built on a real time system.

Besides, there are plenty of people who do not like fallout tactics at all. I am one of them.

i think i'm being trolled here.. but just in case: go to options, select tb instead of ctb, OMG!!!! TURN-BASED!!!11111one

[Drool]

also, brian fargo repeatedly mentioned that they would do what the backers want them to do.

Then this is going to be a weird game as it will be:

1) Both all 2D and all 3D and a hybrid of 2D and 3D
2) Run on about a dozen different game engines
3) Have the exact same combat as: Wasteland, Fallout Tactics, Frozen Synapse, JA 2, XCOM, and about six or seven other games
4) Have state-of-the-art graphics that require a state-of-the-art computer while also have graphics only slightly updated from 1988
5) Be both party-based and single character based
6) Have the players definitely start as Rangers but also have the Rangers be completely optional
7) Start in a specific location while also having at least 4 different starting points
8) Be both top-down (2D style) and isometric
9) Have a non-moving camera that you can rotate
10) Incorporate extensive survival aspects while simultaneously completely ignoring survival aspects
11) Have an extraordinarily detailed inventory system (eg: JA2) while also just having limited slots
12) Have very rare, yet abundant ammo
13) Have a multitude of energy weapons and power armor while having nothing more advanced than 1998 tech
14) Have magic while having no magic
15) Allow you to get married, pursue romantic relationships and build houses while not having any of the "Bethesda crap"

Um. Et cetera. Using "Brian's gonna do what the backers want" is a pretty poor defense of anything. He's going to listen to us, not do exactly what we say. For instance, Point 6 above. Fargo's already stated that you'll start as a party of Rangers, despite some vocal opponents.

[cyrilverba]

Drool, this is all true, but speaking of combat mechanics you're hugely exaggerating: F:T mechanics is still tb, something Fargo wanted to see in W2 right from the start, so if a vast majority of backers wanted W2 to resemble F:T in that aspect (yes, I know it doesn't look like this in reality), I don't think the devs would object. Also, my point was not to say F:T mechanics is the only way to go, but surely a way to consider: Brian's listening to backers was not an argument for the specific type of mechanics per se (that would be absurd, indeed), but for the consideration of one.

edit: ..and as counterarguments I've seen only statements like "nothing to consider" and "F:T was real-time" - weak points, don't you agree?

[Enclave]

Drool, this is all true, but speaking of combat mechanics you're hugely exaggerating: F:T mechanics is still tb, something Fargo wanted to see in W2 right from the start, so if a vast majority of backers wanted W2 to resemble F:T in that aspect (yes, I know it doesn't look like this in reality), I don't think the devs would object. Also, my point was not to say F:T mechanics is the only way to go, but surely a way to consider: Brian's listening to backers was not an argument for the specific type of mechanics per se (that would be absurd, indeed), but for the consideration of one.

edit: ..and as counterarguments I've seen only statements like "nothing to consider" and "F:T was real-time" - weak points, don't you agree?

Not weak points at all. Fallout Tactics was a hybrid real-time/turn-based system. Also it's turn-based system was built upon a real time system and as a result neither worked out super well.

[JerryLove]

it's good that you mention the word "system", because that's the only good thing about FO combat. there was little tactics involved in FO/FO2, since all you had to do was shoot all your enemies in the eyes while standing and taking bullets or cuts from them, popping Stimpacs from time to time. but the actual system (SPECIAL combined with combat perks) gives players so many possibilities, it's so flexible, that you have to admire the designers for coming up with it.

"snipe at range" is a tactic.
"run up and unload an SMG in full auto" is a tactic.
"run up closer and stab them with a knife" is a tactic.
"go into sneak, walk up behind them, and hit them with a power-fist" is a tactic.

FO Tactics' combat is but a minor improvement over the original games. thanks to stances, that aggressiveness toggle thingy, and an actual party under player's control.

*much* more than that. I remember, for example, this house full of deathclaws.
My favorite tactic was to setup my snipers (I always had several) with a clear view (and obstructed run-path: yay rooftops) of the front door.

If you were really good: you could long-range snipe the guy at the front door and kill him before he hit the alarm. If you did, you could go up and plant mines near the entrance. Then shoot (shotgun on full auto) at one of the sleeping deathclaws and run; letting the mines and snipers take them out as they follow.

Another option was a bunch of close-range specialists. Sneak in the back door: and open fire on the room full of sleepers.

There were lots of tactics like that. Because of my love of snipers (over creepers with melee) I would often deliberately setoff alarms to wipe out the incoming (a tactic).

[uber]

also, brian fargo repeatedly mentioned that they would do what the backers want them to do.

Then this is going to be a weird game as it will be...

Drool, I think this list is a great place to start with game requirements LOL. /sarcasm

I mentioned it somewhere else, I liked FO:T turn based version of squad level tactics. I'm okay if they have something similar. I'm also okay with whatever turn based system they come up with. So basically, I have no stance. Well, as long as it isn't real time only (and we know that's not happening).

[sorophx]

(a tactic).

holy crap, Mass Effect is a tactical game! pretty much, any game that has any kind of combat is a tactical game, even Mario Bros!

you're very good at completely missing the point, I'll give you that

[JerryLove]

(a tactic).

holy crap, Mass Effect is a tactical game! pretty much, any game that has any kind of combat is a tactical game, even Mario Bros!

To some level or another you are likely correct... but all of the examples above have fewer tactical options than FO:T. (one supposes, that's why they put "tactic" In the game's title).

If you would like a game with very few tactics: Try wastelend. RTS games are also noted for their general lack of tactics (though they have significant strategic elements... hence the genre's name)

you're very good at completely missing the point, I'll give you that

Why thank you. It's good to be acknowledged by random people as being good at something. Perhaps it's that your point is poorly articulated? I note that you make no effort to clarify what that point may be. Perhaps that's just me missing it again.

[sorophx]

I note that you make no effort to clarify what that point may be

I was about to do just that, but then it hit me: what if by "tactical combat" Brian means exactly what you said, that you'll be able to choose to apply different tactics? for example, even if they took out SPECIAL out of Fallout Tactics and inserted that into a game, its combat could be considered "tactical", as long as there was a way to change your character's(s') position.

anyway, you consider a game's combat "tactical" as long as it gives you the possibility to play tactical, it seems. I consider a game "tactical" only if there's no other option given to the player than to use advanced tactics to win (Rainbow 6 Rogue Spear is a good example of that).

that's why I don't think Fallout-style combat is tactical. you can blaze your way through hordes of enemies with the help of certain items. unless, "using stimpacks when you get low on heath" is also a "tactic".

and that's why you and I will never agree on anything in this thread. so let's just agree to disagree?

[cmagruder]

Then this is going to be a weird game as it will be:

1) Both all 2D and all 3D and a hybrid of 2D and 3D
2) Run on about a dozen different game engines
3) Have the exact same combat as: Wasteland, Fallout Tactics, Frozen Synapse, JA 2, XCOM, and about six or seven other games
4) Have state-of-the-art graphics that require a state-of-the-art computer while also have graphics only slightly updated from 1988
5) Be both party-based and single character based
6) Have the players definitely start as Rangers but also have the Rangers be completely optional
7) Start in a specific location while also having at least 4 different starting points
8) Be both top-down (2D style) and isometric
9) Have a non-moving camera that you can rotate
10) Incorporate extensive survival aspects while simultaneously completely ignoring survival aspects
11) Have an extraordinarily detailed inventory system (eg: JA2) while also just having limited slots
12) Have very rare, yet abundant ammo
13) Have a multitude of energy weapons and power armor while having nothing more advanced than 1998 tech
14) Have magic while having no magic
15) Allow you to get married, pursue romantic relationships and build houses while not having any of the "Bethesda crap."

I kind of want to play this game.