The Little Things

[suz]

Another thing I want: let me see enemies coming. Maybe my party could have a cone of vision, and the PC with the highest Perception stat could determine how close the enemies are before I spot them? I dunno. I just want some way to run away from enemies without engaging them in a fight.

Yep, your post reminded me of SoZ overworld style - see this thread.
Your party's skills decide whether you detect enemies or not and gives a rough assessment of enemy strength.

[ffordesoon]

That's interesting.

I ask for this because one of the things I really dug about Fallout is that running away was pretty much always a viable strategy. The Temple Of Trials in F2 does suck for any character but a strictly melee-focused one, but even there, you can just dash through and avoid every fight. Contrast that with a lot of RPGs, where combat is the thing you are going to be doing if you see an enemy. Bioware is particularly guilty of this. For a company whose alleged watchword is "player choice", it's especially galling. Even the moldiest old JRPGs offered the option to haul ass to a safe place and regroup. I don't think "less choice than a JRPG" is a back-of-the-box feature.

[CaptainPatch]

One of the things I liked about FO3 and FNV was that you could actually be the _ambusher_ instead of always, always being the ambushee.

[ffordesoon]

One of the things I liked about FO3 and FNV was that you could actually be the _ambusher_ instead of always, always being the ambushee.

That's another thing. Is there already a thread about stuff like sniping and ambushing? Because I can't seem to recall a single turn-based game that's gotten this right, and I'd love for W2 to be the first. Can anyone think of a turn-based game that's done this well? By which I mean, I can engage enemies before they see me. I never played a sniper in Fallout; what was that like?

[suz]

I never played a sniper in Fallout; what was that like?

FO2? rifle + aimed shot to the eye, rinse repeat -> dead
FO3 - rifle, aim for the head -> have the piece of crap aimbot from console-land make you hit the body instead -> run around like a pussy taking VATS potshots

Something that SoZ didn't quite accomplish is sneaking up on someone part - partly because you didn't really want to sneak up on anyone - the encounters were time consuming and giving off really skinny loot.

But I think that could be implemented properly. You can even have drawbacks to large vehicles - you can't sneak up on anything when a V8 roars in the wasteland

[CaptainPatch]

I never played a sniper in Fallout; what was that like?

Well you _couldn't_ do any ambushing in FO1 and FO2. But when FO3 introduced the first person perspective where you actually saw the environment you were traversing, you inevitably got into situations where you crested a hill or rounded a corner and came upon people facing away from you. If you had a scoped weapon, it added that much more range between you and your target, making it that much less likely that they would have a direct line of sight to you. And if the weapon was silenced, it was that much more fun pecking at them when they couldn't tell where the shots were coming from.

[Zombra]

They should pay attention to the scenario where you are running around the map trying to find that last hidden enemy. That could make battles too long.
Maybe after you decimate the enemy by a certain percentage (80% something), the battle is ended if no enemies are visible, indicating that they fled the battle. If they are visible, then keep the battle going until they are all dead or all remaining are hidden.

Once again, Wizardry 8 lights the way. If something like two full combat rounds pass and nobody launches any kind of attack, combat is over. (You or the enemy can start it up again nigh-instantly if desired.)

Well you _couldn't_ do any ambushing in FO1 and FO2.

Are you sure? I remember just clicking on the big weapon button and being able to start combat whenever I wanted. It is possible that I am high.

[Woolfe]

They should pay attention to the scenario where you are running around the map trying to find that last hidden enemy. That could make battles too long.
Maybe after you decimate the enemy by a certain percentage (80% something), the battle is ended if no enemies are visible, indicating that they fled the battle. If they are visible, then keep the battle going until they are all dead or all remaining are hidden.

Once again, Wizardry 8 lights the way. If something like two full combat rounds pass and nobody launches any kind of attack, combat is over. (You or the enemy can start it up again nigh-instantly if desired.)

That depends on how the bad guy reacts. If I saw my buddy beside me die. And then after 2 rounds I decided all was good and stood up again... yeah thats not too smart. What I would be doing is cowering behind cover yelling for my mates (if I have any) or trying to run away as quick as possible.

Well you _couldn't_ do any ambushing in FO1 and FO2.

Are you sure? I remember just clicking on the big weapon button and being able to start combat whenever I wanted. It is possible that I am high.

Yeah I remember that too... I am sure I did that a couple of times in New Reno in the middle of the street just to see what happened... (Such a big fight... lots of fun).

[Zombra]

Once again, Wizardry 8 lights the way. If something like two full combat rounds pass and nobody launches any kind of attack, combat is over. (You or the enemy can start it up again nigh-instantly if desired.)

That depends on how the bad guy reacts. If I saw my buddy beside me die. And then after 2 rounds I decided all was good and stood up again... yeah thats not too smart. What I would be doing is cowering behind cover yelling for my mates (if I have any) or trying to run away as quick as possible.

Sure. Combat/noncombat modes shouldn't be different except that combat actions are only performable in combat mode. It shouldn't force a stance change or deflector shields dropping or anything like that. In the situation you describe, even though 2 turns went by without a shot fired, you'd still be in cover after dropping to NC mode. Then you'd just hit the button to go back into C mode and you'd have 2 more turns to do fiddly combat actions such as medical stuff or maneuvering your other guys to help. Then, if you want, hit the button for 2 more combat turns if the air is still clear of bullets after that. And so forth. I hope that's clear

[CaptainPatch]

Well you _couldn't_ do any ambushing in FO1 and FO2.

Are you sure? I remember just clicking on the big weapon button and being able to start combat whenever I wanted. It is possible that I am high.

I differentiate between _ambushing_ and simply initiating combat. An ambush is when the ambusher is concealed and takes the first shot when the target is pointedly looking the other way. That differs significantly from walking up to someone and pulling a weapon. The latter, at best, would be described as "getting the drop" on an opponent.

[Woolfe]

Well you _couldn't_ do any ambushing in FO1 and FO2.

Are you sure? I remember just clicking on the big weapon button and being able to start combat whenever I wanted. It is possible that I am high.

I differentiate between _ambushing_ and simply initiating combat. An ambush is when the ambusher is concealed and takes the first shot when the target is pointedly looking the other way. That differs significantly from walking up to someone and pulling a weapon. The latter, at best, would be described as "getting the drop" on an opponent.

Fair enough...

[axeldeath]

Not being able to fight with the mouse only, because some action that repeats once or more per combat requires a keyboard input.

I'd make this a bigger issue of not being able to just use a keyboard, or just use a mouse, or a combination of whatever degree of both. I want a device agnostic UI. Anything that can be done with the keyboard can also be done with a mouse context menu. And vice versa.

For the UI- yes, for the rest of the game- no. Having the whole game be device agnostic would be very limiting to the gameplay. I have no idea how you could have actual tactical combat without using a mouse

[paultakeda]

For the UI- yes, for the rest of the game- no. Having the whole game be device agnostic would be very limiting to the gameplay. I have no idea how you could have actual tactical combat without using a mouse

You are presuming the mouse pointer is active when using a joystick/keypad. Like using a keyboard, the mouse pointer is not active using these input devices. If it's a keyboard, or joystick/keypad, moving the analog controller/arrow keys or TAB jumps from character to character rather than control a mouse pointer. The mouse pointer is actually the odd man out in this interface setup.

It might even be faster to use the keyboard, joystick or touchscreen to select a character and move them around since you don't have to move a cursor but just cycle through the characters.

[Ken]

In a party-based game where each party member has different Skill sets and Attributes, I don't want to be stuck with whoever is in the #1 slot to be the party's ONLY "public face". I prefer that whichever member is best for the task at hand to "step up" automatically.

One Caveat. By default pick the most appropriate, but allow me to override that choice.

So if for example you have a beast that needs skinning, but you are trying to improve one of your other characters skinning skills, you can select them instead of the most appropriate character.

What about a skill mode toggle. You click on a shop keeper and select haggle, or you can "radial" out to several sub options: collaborate, train, practice, and then select the characters involved. From then on the default action is the last configured one. So if you have two good barters they can collaborate to get the best price, but they both need to pass skill checks. Or you could have the best haggler train other team member, which is the a more difficult skill check, but the trained members learn something. And practice means that a less skilled member makes the skill check, but it's made easier because of guidance from a mentor.

[CaptainPatch]

Or you could have the best haggler train other team member, which is the a more difficult skill check, but the trained members learn something.

This is something I would very much like to see. It always seemed odd that people working together for a LONG period of time don't try to improve the party's overall Skill set and effectiveness by helping each other to learn/improve valuable Survival Skills. [In Real Life it's called "cross-training".]

[Woolfe]

Or you could have the best haggler train other team member, which is the a more difficult skill check, but the trained members learn something.

This is something I would very much like to see. It always seemed odd that people working together for a LONG period of time don't try to improve the party's overall Skill set and effectiveness by helping each other to learn/improve valuable Survival Skills. [In Real Life it's called "cross-training".]

Agreed... could be difficult to program tho... I'll be interested to see it done.

[Ken]

Or you could have the best haggler train other team member, which is the a more difficult skill check, but the trained members learn something.

This is something I would very much like to see. It always seemed odd that people working together for a LONG period of time don't try to improve the party's overall Skill set and effectiveness by helping each other to learn/improve valuable Survival Skills. [In Real Life it's called "cross-training".]

Agreed... could be difficult to program tho... I'll be interested to see it done.

As a programmer, I don't see this as a difficult task. I doubt this would be too hard to balance, and it might be a design challenge. The big hurdle I see is how it's communicated to the player. I can really see this leading to player frustration because you unwittingly selected the wrong mode, or you are constantly prompted to select a mode

[CaptainPatch]

My biggest concern would be that some/many players would use the mechanic as a way to "grind" PC Skills to assure that each PC has the same max value for each Skill value. I would place limits such as a PC can only teach one of his Skills after he has reached ____ level in a Skill, and then he could only train another PC to improve ONE level in that Skill. That would be enough to assure that each PC has at least ONE in every available Skill. (Which is to my mind, reasonable.)

[Lucius]

My biggest concern would be that some/many players would use the mechanic as a way to "grind" PC Skills to assure that each PC has the same max value for each Skill value. I would place limits such as a PC can only teach one of his Skills after he has reached ____ level in a Skill, and then he could only train another PC to improve ONE level in that Skill. That would be enough to assure that each PC has at least ONE in every available Skill. (Which is to my mind, reasonable.)

I like the idea of cross-training but I'd make it so players still have to spend a skill point to get that initial 1 in a skill to start training. It could even be where characters could train that initial point from a more skilled team member so you don't have to take a trip to a library even. I would make it so automatic increases without use of the skill could only happen up to half of the "teacher's" skill. So character A has 1 lockpick. Character B has 6 lockpick. Character A will eventually hit 3 and will then need to use the skill to continue advancing or Character B would need to get to 8.

[Woolfe]

This is something I would very much like to see. It always seemed odd that people working together for a LONG period of time don't try to improve the party's overall Skill set and effectiveness by helping each other to learn/improve valuable Survival Skills. [In Real Life it's called "cross-training".]

Agreed... could be difficult to program tho... I'll be interested to see it done.

As a programmer, I don't see this as a difficult task. I doubt this would be too hard to balance, and it might be a design challenge. The big hurdle I see is how it's communicated to the player. I can really see this leading to player frustration because you unwittingly selected the wrong mode, or you are constantly prompted to select a mode

Well, good

My biggest concern would be that some/many players would use the mechanic as a way to "grind" PC Skills to assure that each PC has the same max value for each Skill value. I would place limits such as a PC can only teach one of his Skills after he has reached ____ level in a Skill, and then he could only train another PC to improve ONE level in that Skill. That would be enough to assure that each PC has at least ONE in every available Skill. (Which is to my mind, reasonable.)

Also agreed, tho for me its more about the potential cross assistance. Playing off each to receive a bonus sort of thing, is more important than the "training" aspect.