Disbanding removes comrades from the game

[CaptainPatch]

I kind of liked how New Vegas handled it. You could send them back to their home or, if you had it, you could send them back to the Lucky 38 which was your base of operations. I found it handy when you were managing several companions to be able to have them all in one place when you needed to swap them around.

I never quite felt comfortable with that particular game mechanic. After all, these are supposedly people after all. Most of them had their own motivations for following in your footsteps, along with their own goals and ambitions. If YOU joined a party that seemed to be working towards some of those goals, how would YOU react to being told, "We don't need you right now. Go back to main base and hang out. We _might_ need your help again...some day...perhaps. You know, just in case"? I would think that the majority of people would be much more likely to say, "In that case, I will be getting back to my own life. See you again if our paths ever cross maybe." That is, they would return to their own lives, which would take them who-knows-where.

It might actually be interesting to kick someone loose and then encounter them again weeks or months later. They could regale you with tales of what they have been doing while the party was doing its thing.

[suz]

FONV had a really bare bones base of operations, ranger HQ may have something more to do than drink free cocktails and hit on robotic barmaids and the NPCs you encounter might or might not be inclined to help out at base, a chicken scientist NPC might even prefer the base to the field.

Portal mechanic for NPC travel away from base is a bit detached from reality but IMO implementing something beyond X% chance for the NPC to die before they reach HQ is overkill.

[Zombra]

One thing I actually really love in Fallout 3 and NV is that NPCs actually do walk all the way across the world, just like the player. If you tell Raul to go wait for you at the Lucky 38, he turns and starts walking towards Vegas. If you follow him you can watch him walk all the way there, getting into fights on the way, etc. I found this especially interesting for non-companion type characters; I would sometimes follow them all the way to their destination to protect them along the way.

Not saying we need this for dismissed companions, but it was certainly interesting.

[suz]

Not saying we need this for dismissed companions, but it was certainly interesting.

Well as I gathered the issue that bothered people isn't the walking but the fact that the companion was invincible once they left the player's vicinity.

[PaulEMoz]

Personally, I like the concept of keeping the NPC hires salaried -- in order to have them fulfill tasks outside the group, be it missions, improving themselves, fixing guns/armor, etc. OR disassociating them from the Desert Rangers all together --possibly making them an enemy or, if they left on good terms, a powerful ally in a town somewhere that can broker a deal between the Desert Rangers and the town. If you cut someone on good terms, it would be nice to have a possible chance to rehire some. This doesn't have to be dealt with in a micro-managerial sense either. You could simply disassociate through dialogue options and let the NPC's personality decide how to react:

DR: "Hey Slug."

Slug: "Hey, [DR]."

DR: "We really appreciate all you've done for us, but we can't afford to keep you around anymore. You're free to stick around, but we can't pay you. We know you joined us because you're hard-up on cash, so we understand if you've got better places to go."

Slug: "Aight, I'll ed back to Dust Well. You err need summin', you gimme a holler."

DR: "Thanks, we'll keep that in mind."

--OR--

DR: "Slug."

Slug: "Wut."

DR: "Your weak ass is dragging us down. You've served your time as a pack-mule and you've been a waste of rations. How bout you go fuck off now?"

Slug: "I ain't n'err been so diserrspect'd in mah live. I ain't gonna ferget this niethur. You'll be seen me round... it'll be th'last yew see, too... fuckers."

DR: "Uh-huh... we'll keep an eye out for you. You go fuck off now..."

That reminds me of Commodore 64 game Law of the West, where depending on how you treated the doctor, if you got shot he could either be out of town or drunk if you got shot and you'd die, or he would treat your wounds and you would survive.

I like it, and I think that retaining NPCs in the world after they've been disbanded would really add to the game.

[Zombra]

"So, the tin-horn sheriff got shot, eh?
Sorry folks, nothing I can do for him."

[CaptainPatch]

Doesn't it seem odd that while you may have the power to tell a follower to return to base and wait for you to return and possibly be used again, you do NOT have the power to direct them to perform some other function on your behalf? For instance, your party (A + B + C + D) has been joined by E + F + G to round out the party. Later you are subsequently joined by H + I + J, whose Skills are significantly better than those of E, F, and G. Given how quests work, some will be "needs to be done ASAP" and others "whenever". So what happens if you have multiple ASAP quests? YOU can only be in one location at one time. Given however much of the alphabet you have sitting around at base camp, wouldn't the _logical_ thing to do be to send excess party members off as a sub-team to deal with one ASAP quest while the primary team deals with another?

[Zombra]

That idea makes sense realism-wise, but gameplay-wise maybe not so much. Personally, I would love it if we could build multiple teams and have them all operating "simultaneously" (maybe using a "meanwhile, in Needles" chapter sort of system), but I think that's kind of beyond the scope of W2.

But hey! If it's not already decided, I vote for the ability to have any number of 7-man parties!

[CaptainPatch]

Being as how the game is YOU-centric, I figure you only get to manage your own party. But if you dispatch a subsidiary team to handle a quest, you _don't_ get to see how it goes nor have the tiniest bit of control on which actions should be taken. Instead, all you get is a report as to how things went when your paths cross at base camp again.

[Zombra]

Being as how the game is YOU-centric, I figure you only get to manage your own party. But if you dispatch a subsidiary team to handle a quest, you _don't_ get to see how it goes nor have the tiniest bit of control on which actions should be taken. Instead, all you get is a report as to how things went when your paths cross at base camp again.

Actually that is a very interesting idea - to be able to send NPCs to deal with certain quests, particularly if you have more than one on timers. Since "you" are not there, you don't see the consequences until you go to the site of the quest, or find those NPCs again. Maybe they succeed, maybe they fail, maybe they die trying.

Not to get philosophical, but the first Wasteland wasn't actually "you-centric" in the sense of having a single "camera". You could split your party up into two (or three?) teams and send them to opposite corners of the map, maintaining full control of each. There was never any reason to do it that I can remember (except maybe for one or two "turn two switches simultaneously" doors), but it was one of those groundbreaking gameplay options I haven't seen in a game since. I believe it was mentioned in the Kickstarter and I'm expecting to see it return, maybe with a reason this time. If you have multiple quests on timers, maybe you can split into two teams and control them both.

Personally, I think of all my PCs as "me". I hope to be able to split up into four independent teams at a time, moving in four different directions. I really enjoy it and find it very interesting for the story when a party gets separated, such as in Final Fantasy VI & VII. What if my combat monster falls down a well and has to find his way out of some caves, and the other guys can't reach him? Then the other three come to a town suffering under a mind control ray? My diplomat takes two NPC bodyguards to the villain's fortress to try to talk him into letting the town go, while my medic stays in town with the remaining NPC sidekick to try to help the townsfolk and my thief strikes out on his own to try to break into the fortress and disable the mind control machine. Obviously these ideas are half-assed, but having plausible side stories each for a single character would be really cool and bring me a lot closer to each PC.

Kind of wandering off the topic of firing NPCs, sorry

[Drool]

Most of them had their own motivations for following in your footsteps, along with their own goals and ambitions.

Yes, but most of them were also leaving their own life behind. Obviously, the robotic ones (Rex and ED-E) wouldn't complain, but even the human ones had little else to do. Rose had abandoned her caravan, Veronica had abandoned the Brotherhood, Boone left his life behind. Raul and Arcade would probably be more resistant, but the others really had nothing better to do.

[Mandemon]

Most of them had their own motivations for following in your footsteps, along with their own goals and ambitions.

Yes, but most of them were also leaving their own life behind. Obviously, the robotic ones (Rex and ED-E) wouldn't complain, but even the human ones had little else to do. Rose had abandoned her caravan, Veronica had abandoned the Brotherhood, Boone left his life behind. Raul and Arcade would probably be more resistant, but the others really had nothing better to do.

Raul had pretty much nothing else at the moment. You save him from crazied Super Mutant Nightkin. As for Arcade, he pretty much follows you to figure out whenever or not leave his Enclave past behind and to see the world.

[CaptainPatch]

You could split your party up into two (or three?) teams and send them to opposite corners of the map, maintaining full control of each.

Actually, it was possible to have SEVEN one-man "parties" operating independently. There was actually only one situation where you absolutely had to have four parties operating at one time, and they were in fairly close proximity to each other.

Now you got me wondering just how widely separated those seven parties could get before the game had a nervous breakdown. Hmm. Leave one in Highpool. Another at the Ag Station. Another at the Desert Nomads. Another in Quartz. Another in Needles. One in Vegas. And the last one at the Sleeper Base. Of course, if any of those one-man parties encounters pretty much _anything_, it would be toast.

Hmm. Now that I think about it, if you split the party at one location, it may be that once any split-party tries to leave, you might have been told, "You must gather your party before venturing forth."

[Drool]

Actually, it was possible to have SEVEN one-man "parties" operating independently.

I believe the limit was actually 4 parties.

Now you got me wondering just how widely separated those seven parties could get before the game had a nervous breakdown.

Once you left the specific map, time froze for the other parties. Since they just turned into static background data (like loot bags) they weren't going to suck down too many resources.

[Woolfe]

Actually, it was possible to have SEVEN one-man "parties" operating independently.

I believe the limit was actually 4 parties.

Now you got me wondering just how widely separated those seven parties could get before the game had a nervous breakdown.

Once you left the specific map, time froze for the other parties. Since they just turned into static background data (like loot bags) they weren't going to suck down too many resources.

I'm sure they could do this mechanic better with todays tech.

Maybe allow up to 4 player controlled parties of PC+0-3 npc's

And up to 3 No control NPC parties. Send a thief on a theif's job sort of thing...

[CaptainPatch]

Actually, it was possible to have SEVEN one-man "parties" operating independently.

I believe the limit was actually 4 parties.

I stand corrected.

Disband lets you break your party into separate, smaller parties (up to four).

Should have looked before I leaped.

[Akira28]

Riiiight....

Ok who said anything about micromanagement. Once you drop player from party, you no longer should have any direct control over that player.

Woah, an idea so good I had to log in.

I love the idea that you disband a character and they go off with all that ranger philosophy you've been learning them, and find themselves in a whole mess of trouble, or find ways to help the cause their own way. Like you disband Ace and hours later while playing you get a message that Ace is in trouble, and get the option to take direct control, or to let him handle it. He's surrounded by a bunch of gangers he's been following, and you can either control the fight for him, or travel to the location to back him up if your party is close enough.

It makes the game almost like a serial novel with cutscenes and all of that. Totally optional, but the idea that disbanded NPCs can still go around and help you out, nothing gamebreaking, but they could barter with you with extra ammo and guns or other loot from the random encounters they get into, etc. I think it'd be a nice touch.

I was actually in a situation just like this once when I had to disband one of the team to go take another to a doctor, then the main team got into a prolonged gunfight where they were massively outnumbered. Ace and Thrasher had one hell of a time making it back to Vegas, being only two people against everything else.

I also don't want the disbanded NPC to just disappear forever. Let them go back to their favorite bar or to a local Ranger outpost or just roam around between towns if they're no longer with the party. So you can still have the option to pick an old NPC back up once you're done testing out the new NPC.

[AgentTate]

It's very interesting to imagine taking control of a disbanded team member for a side-plot event. That would be a really cool way to introduce environmental changes to the game that happen only if an NPC is disbanded and certain convo trees were activated. That by itself would really capitalize on replayability.

[CaptainPatch]

I love the idea that you disband a character and they go off with all that ranger philosophy you've been learning them, and find themselves in a whole mess of trouble, or find ways to help the cause their own way. Like you disband Ace and hours later while playing you get a message that Ace is in trouble, and get the option to take direct control, or to let him handle it. He's surrounded by a bunch of gangers he's been following, and you can either control the fight for him, or travel to the location to back him up if your party is close enough.

I'm thinking more along the lines of the movie "The Postman": A character spends time in your party, but you eventually go your separate ways. Later, your paths cross again and you discover just what it is that he has been doing in your name while you were apart. May be Good; may be Bad. Either way, there are consequences of _his_ actions that rebound onto YOU.

I can NOT see being able to take control of a departed team member once you have officially parted ways. That would be taking the 7-member MAX limitation and making the actual accessible number to be ANY _large_ number. You could literally be in charge of an army by game's end if this was allowed.

[Zombra]

I can NOT see being able to take control of a departed team member once you have officially parted ways. That would be taking the 7-member MAX limitation and making the actual accessible number to be ANY _large_ number. You could literally be in charge of an army by game's end if this was allowed.

I can see it working as long as the 7 limit was enforced. Ace is in trouble and you can take control of him again, but you have to dismiss someone else to do so. Offhand that looks very clunky, but maybe it could be smoothed out some. Maybe these opportunities wouldn't even arise unless you had a free slot.