Combat should be closer to Fallout than WL/Bard's Tale

[killias2]

If there is one thing I'm concerned about, it's that the combat system will be 80's-style classic rather than late 90's-style classic. Honestly, there's a world of difference here. As great as Wasteland was, Fallout provides the potential for better combat. Mix the basic Fallout approach with rather more emphasis on party dynamics (as FO, unlike WL/BT, was mostly solo), and I think you have a game that takes the best from both.

The only worry here is that the battles could get a bit too long/complicated/in-depth, but a modern UI along with some battle length balancing could really go a long way here.

[Gizmo]

I dunno... I'm rather partial to WL2's not copying Fallout too much. They are different series, and making a sequel for one game that is closely derived from another is a slippery slope. Bethesda did this (I found it annoying to no end).

I asked in a different thread last night whether the team was considering phase based combat; where the round would proceed in stages. I'm still not certain that would work well, but I can sort of visualize it.... Combat in Fallout (if considered from the combatant's point of view) could be considered to take place as a smoothly proceeding linear event; where all actions are happening at once (as they do in life), but that the engine breaks it up into segments for the player's benefit. (This is of course, not technically accurate ~but IMO it's conceptually accurate.)

Think... Bank robbery, and of a police investigator watching the recorded playback; he's like the player in Fallout, and he gets to see every action when it occurs ~simultaneously everywhere in and around the bank ~and gets to pause to consider it; and to speculate what might have happened... but in terms of Fallout's combat, it's like he would get to step through the robbery and decide that the guard did not move to the left, but moved to the right, or surprised one thief by locking him into the bank vault... reloaded, and had a full gun before he rounded the corner ~next turn, instead of rounding the corner and ending his turn with an empty gun.

Problem is that the Fallout approach is slightly flawed , and things like suppressive fire are not really possible in Fallout. You cannot pin an enemy down while another character moves to a better position. I'm not suggesting it should either, just that Wasteland was 'phase based' instead of turn based, and would not (might not) have that loop-hole/flaw if the player picked/spent their actions and then clicked 'proceed' and watched them play out...

What bothers me about this though... is that while that's closer to the series combat mechanics, it sounds *very* akin to 'Realtime with pause' ~which I keep telling myself that I shouldn't want.

In the end I just want whatever they feel works best; but I hope it's not necessarily locked into being a clone of Fallout Tactics ~(a game that IMO has the best combat mechanics of the entire FO series as a whole.).

[killias2]

I agree that this game should definitely have its own, separate identity from Fallout. In fact, I see the emphasis on party mechanics as already being a significant departure. (Although, to be fair, the only bits of FO Tactics I remember are of the demo I played a million years ago. Perhaps it's closer to what I'm suggesting than I realize.)

Still, I don't think this should be a copy of Fallout at all. I just think that, on the grand scheme of things, I'd rather see something more visceral, tactical, and 'map' driven (late ~90's style) than something menu-based and text-driven (80's style).

[Gizmo]

I envisioned that it might turn out something like this:

[falloutgod13]

Wall-E? :O lol what is that from? Not the robot but the image.

[Gizmo]

Wall-E? :O lol what is that from? Not the robot but the image.

Photoshop and three or four combined screenshots from Crusader: No Remorse.

[Shaewaros]

Problem is that the Fallout approach is slightly flawed , and things like suppressive fire are not really possible in Fallout.

I personally don't know any RPG that would have a well done suppressive fire mechanism.

[BoomWav]

It should be an original mechanic. I think that something more original would be interesting. I think they should make their own. Descriptive and unique. Use skills during combat.. etc.

[Vryheid]

Fallout combat was fun, but the system was not designed for party based combat. Too often battles came down to huge mobs of NPCs insta-gibbing each other at point blank range with SMGs or assault rifles. There was basically nothing in the way of cover and advanced tactics, and weapon effectiveness was far too dependent on character skills. These flaws can be ignored when you're customizing a lone hero who can singlehandedly wipe out waves of enemies, but in a party based game there has to be some order and strategic options for how you can organize in battle.

Fallout Tactics did a much better job at combat, giving options such as crouching positions and the ability to use cover. Not only that, you could directly control companions, which was a vast improvement over the original game. However, having to repeatedly grind your way through dozens of entrenched enemies in maze-like dungeons is not very enjoyable and really doesn't belong in the Wasteland series at all. There has to be a much stronger sense of pacing and relief to keep players interested.

I'd like to see Tactics' approach with turn based isometric combat mixed with the isolated but intense battles of Wasteland. Wasteland also didn't have as much of a focus on ridiculously overpowered critical hits; I'd like that to move over as well. Other than that though, the general combat system of Fallout could be a good partial inspiration. It definitely is what a lot of fans will expect out of Wasteland 2 who didn't play the original.

[Proton Axeman]

Problem is that the Fallout approach is slightly flawed , and things like suppressive fire are not really possible in Fallout.

I personally don't know any RPG that would have a well done suppressive fire mechanism.

It's fairly useful in UFO:AI, and to some degree in the Jagged Alliance series -- both model morale to a considerable degree, actors take into account fire *near* them, and it's possible for both player characters and enemies to be pinned down (and enemies will even break and run away).

[Shaewaros]

Problem is that the Fallout approach is slightly flawed , and things like suppressive fire are not really possible in Fallout.

I personally don't know any RPG that would have a well done suppressive fire mechanism.

It's fairly useful in UFO:AI, and to some degree in the Jagged Alliance series -- both model morale to a considerable degree, actors take into account fire *near* them, and it's possible for both player characters and enemies to be pinned down (and enemies will even break and run away).

UFO and Jagged Alliance games are not RPGs. They're brilliant games and I love them to death, but still they are not RPGs.

[Frogacuda]

I hope the combat is much faster paced than either.

And by faster paced I don't mean action based, but I don't like waiting/watching or clumsily re-selecting in turn-based games. Combat should be no slower than it has to be to allow for tactical decisions.

[Shaewaros]

I hope the combat is much faster paced than either.

And by faster paced I don't mean action based, but I don't like waiting/watching or clumsily re-selecting in turn-based games. Combat should be no slower than it has to be to allow for tactical decisions.

I agree. It was tedious in FO to wait for all 20 civilians to act in their turn. Especially enemy/civilian turns should work much, much faster.

[Gaelen]

I would also prefer something a little faster paced than the original Fallout. I don't know these systems well enough to give a detailed and insightful description of what I would want, but for me it boils down to this: Give me a modern and intuitive interpretation of the classic turn based combat systems that doesn't sacrifice the depth of the combat. I want to have to think about what I'm going to do next (in combat) without struggling with archaic controls.

[Gizmo]

UFO and Jagged Alliance games are not RPGs. They're brilliant games and I love them to death, but still they are not RPGs.

But what's the difference as far as combat is concerned? I think Fallout could have benefited immensely from additional, meaningful combat options. Fallout still had instant kill criticals ~Its not like all RPGs are required to implement 15 shots to the head in order to kill an NPC, or that a character should not benefit from crouching or cover in an RPG.

It was tedious in FO to wait for all 20 civilians to act in their turn. Especially enemy/civilian turns should work much, much faster.

In this, I didn't mind at all... Indeed, in Fallout 2 I'd often start a three way fight in New Reno ~on purpose.

I want to have to think about what I'm going to do next (in combat) without struggling with archaic controls.

I didn't see Fallout as having archaic controls... Its true that it had a hotkey for just about everything, but you could play the entire game with just the click of a mouse; and the UI was rather clever about it.

[sadisti]

The combat should definitely be in the vein of Jagged Alliance but with the same kind of reliance to character stats and skills as in Fallout. Maybe some system where firing from prone gives you a accuracy boost with some weapons while things like grenades only suffer from it because they are much harder to use from that position. Making yourself a smaller target would of course give the enemy a slight penalty to accuracy.

This would of course work both ways.

[Van Der Muchbetter]

I personally don't know any RPG that would have a well done suppressive fire mechanism.

I reckon the E5/7.62 game had supressive fire-if character was under automatic fire, he wold hit the dirt and his accuracy became abysmal.

It have to be said that the whole series were using real time w active pause, but supression fire was made beatifully-Mgs could cut down men quicky it they were running or walking, but had problems hitting soldiers that laid low so player and Ais had to hit the dirt to stay safe, and with adrenaline mechanics made soldiers fire exceptionally inaccurate when under heavy fire. Most important, this wasn't some superflous trick-this was valid strategy and smart usage of basic game mechanics.

Damn, how could i forgotten about JA. The morale system in squad-based tactics will be great.

[Balthazor]

I enjoyed the party combat of Dragon Age. I would generally put the camera in a top-down zoomed out perspective much of the time, and it reminded me of a 3D, upgraded version of Baldur's Gate, with a wider area of view.

Something like that would be fun, and graphically appealing. The mechanics would be different, given that the developers have already stated it is going to be turn-based, but I'm sure they could apply turn-based party combat using a 'modern graphics' engine like that used in Dragon Age.

[enderandrew]

I enjoyed the party combat of Dragon Age. I would generally put the camera in a top-down zoomed out perspective much of the time, and it reminded me of a 3D, upgraded version of Baldur's Gate, with a wider area of view.

Something like that would be fun, and graphically appealing. The mechanics would be different, given that the developers have already stated it is going to be turn-based, but I'm sure they could apply turn-based party combat using a 'modern graphics' engine like that used in Dragon Age.

I enjoyed Dragon Age as a game, but it was lacking in the vein of tactical, party-based combat.

[Tenebris]

I'd also like to see something closer to FO but of course simply recreating the system will not do at all.

I'd like to see terrain bonuses/penalties and cover put into effect. Basically something to make the positioning of characters actually have some meaning. Beyond the use of doors and corners there wasn't much room for tactics in the vanilla FO system.

Also a more complex damage model with far reaching effects on a character's performance would be nice as well.