J.E. Sawyer On Fallout Firearms

[Silver]

I think Akimbo should be a possibility. As JE said; you could focus on it with a skill etc, and still it would be a hard thing to do (duh), but it does add a cool factor.

I mean, ever seen Arnie fire that Colt Commando on full auto with 1 hand in Terminator 2. Yeah, that was blanks, and had less recoil, but still. Get a BIG guy and he can prolly wield alot more, wheter then your average 'medic' or 'hacker' in fallout .

[EvoG]

I think Akimbo should be a possibility. As JE said; you could focus on it with a skill etc, and still it would be a hard thing to do (duh), but it does add a cool factor.

I mean, ever seen Arnie fire that Colt Commando on full auto with 1 hand in Terminator 2. Yeah, that was blanks, and had less recoil, but still. Get a BIG guy and he can prolly wield alot more, wheter then your average 'medic' or 'hacker' in fallout .

Um, he was also a Terminator.

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Still, the image of my PC taking a gun from his BACK is ever vivid in my memory. How 'bout one more slot - the BACK slot? You could wield two single-hand guns, or a gun and, say, a grenade, PLUS a rifle on your back. Taking the rfile/shotgun would have an AP penalty somewhere between swapping small guns and going to the inventory, plus you'd have to holster BOTH your small guns.
Alternatively, you could carry one two-handed gun in your hands and the other at your back; swapping them is (btw what verb should I use here?) about 2 AP penalty.
What's your opininon, guys, on the above ideas?

If the current inventory system is kept, more or less as it is now, then there's no point, you've already got the quick pockets perk that allows you to access your inventory for only 2 APs. Why would you spend 2 APs changing a pistol for a rifle, or a rifle for a flame thrower when for only a extra 2 APs you can go into you inventory and swap weapons, reload and use stimpaks or other drugs? And for a cost of a perk that becomes only 2APs.

Since the Fallout inventory is only based on weight, there's no much point adding another slot. If you did have an ap cost for switching between hands anything more than 1AP would make the player choose the quick pockets perk all the time.

Thinking about it, any cost for changing weapons in combat would be better as a temporary accuracy penalty for the round.

[Flink]

Yeah, he was a terminator. But then again... In Fallout there's power armor. PA increases your strenght and probably makes your arms capable of carrying/wielding a lot more. It could also offer more stability when it comes to firing a gun in one hand as the plating cuppled with the hydrolics might be able to compensate for any twitching made by the user.

We just don't know

Speaking of the Terminator, Arnold uses a minigun in the scene where they escape from the office complex in T2.

[PiP]

anything more than 1AP would make the player choose the quick pockets perk all the time.

good point. So how bout 2AP penalty before you get the perk and 1AP after? I guess changing big guns in your inventory and using stimpacks, relading, etc should have a big penalty. Still, as an addition to what you have in hands (e.g. one two-handed weapon) it'd be nice to have another big gun at hand at a lower AP cost than inventory (say, a sniper r. and a shotgun, or an assault r + a plasma pistol + stimpack)

back-slot, aye?

3-item style: familiar, huh?

[peasofme]

lets take the best game ever and change it completely. bleh. theres a reason fo2 didnt change from fo1... fot anyone? arcanum? bleh. sounds like they want to make fo3 more realistic which will change everything. most likely ruin it, horrible idea.

[Saint_Proverbius]

I'll just mirror what axel linked to on this thread here, since I wrote it and all..

About dual pistols:

• Well, in Fallout, one handed weapons aren't weak, that's the problem. The .223 pistol may not be a turbo plasma rifle, but it's certainly a lofty weapon. Going around with two .223 pistols would be pretty damned uber.
  
  Now imagine Fallout 2's weapon set.. and the gauss pistol... times two.
  
  Factor in the One Hander trait, and you have a shitload of potency there.
  
  That's the main problem with his ideas, here. You're going from a decently balanced system, then doubling the damage potential in one area, claiming it's for balance. The end result is you have a system where those pistols suddenly become the Turbo Plasma Rifle of Fallout 3, a weapon that's obviously beyond the scale of the others. Gauss pistols are pretty damned powerful as it stands, debatable on whether they were better than the rifle, so double that and see what problems pop out.
  
  The guass rifle required one additional AP to fire, and did a max damge base of 43. The pistol took 4AP to fire, and did 32 max damage base. So, two guass pistols would be 64 base damage. Factor in that 2MM EC has a 3/2 damage bonus, and you have the weapon doing a base+bonus max damage of 96 points and the rifle does 64 points base+bonus, and it'd take more time to fire. Balance? Hey, where'd it go?!
  
  Even if you lessened the gauss pistol stats so that dual wield was equivalent to the rifle, you'd end up fucking the non dual wield user by basically forcing them to dual wield just to get anything out of the skill.
  
  So, yeah, there's problems with the ideas there. Big ones.

About the gun skills idea:

• Another thing I find problematic about his approach is that it's too much like a D&D deal. Basically, you have pistols or rifles as your choice. Either you have two handed or one handed weapons instead of a distinction based on a more arbitrary classification.
  
  The problem that results from this is that say early in Fallout, you have a hunting rifle for ranged attacking with Small Arms and a 10MM SMG for up close. Both are relatively early game weapons, and using Fallout's system allows you to switch from one to the other as needed.
  
  Under JE Sawyer's proposed idea, you have a choice of a pistol or an SMG if you're using the one handed skill. In other words, there really is less of a choice than in Fallout, since an SMG can also fire single shot.
  
  In other words, just to have the basic choice early in the game, when you don't have gobs of skill points allocated because you've levelled up a dozen or two times.. you have to develop two skills just to use a rifle and an SMG.
  
  This is like the problem with profficiencies in 2nd Edition D&D where you end up locking your character in to a type of weapon at early levels because you haven't had enough points to diversify, so you're running around with one or the other for a long, long time.
  
  That type of thinking also seems to screw up JE's whole rifles > pistols argument. If pistols are so weak, then why the hell would anyone ever pick that skill in the beginning?

Those are my two objections.

[Smiley]

That's the main problem with his ideas, here. You're going from a decently balanced system, then doubling the damage potential in one area, claiming it's for balance. The end result is you have a system where those pistols suddenly become the Turbo Plasma Rifle of Fallout 3, a weapon that's obviously beyond the scale of the others. Gauss pistols are pretty damned powerful as it stands, debatable on whether they were better than the rifle, so double that and see what problems pop out.

I'm wondering... do the dev's *still* consider the gauss-guns good weapons..?
imo, that, and the fry-rifles(pulse or whatever) were the worst weapon-additions to Fo2...

Good explanations, that settled my mind at least.

Another thing I find problematic about his approach is that it's too much like a D&D deal.

Ouch. If you look at it, it's not a fair comparison...
We can go discuss D&D rules to kingdom-come because it really needs a makeover, I grant you that.

First of all, you don't have the selectino of weapon types in standardD&D, as you have in the Fo-universe, so you're kind of forced to spread the skills out on a lot of weapons.
Anyway, I do get your point so I wont press this further.

(what does arbitrary mean? that last sentence in your first point confuses and frightens my sparse vocabulary)

This is like the problem with profficiencies in 2nd Edition D&D where you end up locking your character in to a type of weapon at early levels because you haven't had enough points to diversify, so you're running around with one or the other for a long, long time.

We have to remember that all of the D&D systems are based on team-play...
you take sword, I'll take bow, and you? You just keep firering fireballs out your ass.

I like your objections, but what about suggestions for something better? So far a couple of them have come forth...

Also, how about the slot-occupying proposal wether or not an assault-rifle should take up both slots?
I'd very much like to hear your opinions on that.

[Dan]

[I like your objections, but what about suggestions for something better? So far a couple of them have come forth...

When someone doesn't suggest any alternative, you can understand his alternative is the original system.

lets take the best game ever and change it completely. bleh. theres a reason fo2 didnt change from fo1... fot anyone? arcanum? bleh. sounds like they want to make fo3 more realistic which will change everything. most likely ruin it, horrible idea.

What does Arcanum have to do with it? Arcanum was a different game, why should it resemeble to Fallout?

[Smiley]

When someone doesn't suggest any alternative, you can understand his alternative is the original system.

There's always room for improvement ^^

[Megatron]

i think it'd be better just leaving it as it is, and balance it by adding more big/energy guns.

I'd prefer to see stuff like useless skills tackled. IF IT ISN'T BROKE PLZ DO NOT FIX IT OR MAKE 'UPGRADES' THNX

[Dan]

There's always room for improvement

Yes, small improvments. Not over hauling the entire system for fun.

^^

What does this fucking piece of shit means?

[oldfool]

Man is it ever great to see BIS & Sawyer talking about Fallout 3 more or what.

You know its just recently I've been creeping around boards lot hoping to hear good news. All I've read is bad news in the past week. I think things are starting to look alot more postive on the Fallout 3 front. It's about time.

And I've been doing alot of thinking about the crap thats been churning around these days.

1. MCA getting the boot or quiting.

I think this is a great thing. If anyone read his ideas on the main board they were too extreme. Well what really pissed me off anyhow was his one idea. The ability to pick your class/profession at the start. I mean how retarded is that your suposed to be the wanderer. There is nothing special about you. Your a loser. Theres no hope in the world for you. Now do us a favour and go get us a water chip. :/

2. Fallout Enforcer.

Quite simple this. At least the new Starcraft PS2/XBOX game actually looks good. I mean that game looks like a utter piece of crap. I would be happy to buy a PS2 to try that starcraft game it looks like alot of fun. Fallout Enforcer looks so pathetic its not even funny. I mean if your going to make a crappy game can you at least give it good graphics so I can enjoy it visually.

3. J.E. Sawyer

I like the guy. He seems to be willing to mouth people off. With any luck at least the Fallout conversation system will be as entertaining as ever. And so far I don't think he has announced any changes to the game that we should shun. The weapon changes are a natural evoultion. It should be fun and challenging. Now hopefully the game will be in BETA by this time next year. No rush if there doing a good job and keep in big like the last one. Fallout 1 was too short 8)

[Smiley]

Yes, small improvments. Not over hauling the entire system for fun.

Then it's a good thing I never said anything about that, now isn't it?

What is this fucking piece of shit means?

I'm sure my "^^" baffled you, it does take an iq above 10 to figure that one out.

Now if you would tell me, wtf is your problem?

[Spazmo]

Now if you would tell me, wtf is your problem?

Starts with an S, end in a Y.

lets take the best game ever and change it completely. bleh. theres a reason fo2 didnt change from fo1... fot anyone? arcanum? bleh. sounds like they want to make fo3 more realistic which will change everything. most likely ruin it, horrible idea.

The reason FO2 didn't change anything is because BIS got all of a year--if even that--to make it. There simply wasn't any time to make any significant changes to the engine or SPECIAL and playtest them thoroughly.

[Briosafreak]

I'll just mirror what axel linked to on this thread here, since I wrote it and all..

Saint he already replied to that , check NMA.

[Doyle]

I think To-Hit chances could use some more attention from a tactical point of view.

Why bother? As far as tactics go, the system is fubar anyway. Any decent rifle should be accurate enough that a moderately trained soldier could hit a man-sized target out to 300 meters. Yet, even the sniper rifle has a range of only 1/6 that distance, 50 hexes. Until combat starts happening at longer ranges, making it more tactical is just a headache.

[Rosh]

And before any of you go and say "OH GUNZ AKIMBO INS'T FALLOT! IT"S HERESY!!!!11" : http://www.justinsweet.com/images/PAINTINGS/FALLOU1.JPG

Oh, it's so fun to make stupid remarks and examples when it's taken out of context, isn't it? Here's a Free Cluepon:

That loading screen for Fallout 2 was inspired by a half-joking post on the original Fallout message boards by Old School Role-Player. Those who have been around Fallout for awhile should know of him. He pointed out that it would be interesting to have a flying machine in the Fallout world somewhat similar to that in MM/RW, made from parts put together, and then joked about having to fight it in turn-based combat with machine guns.

Therefore, that was a joke pic, folks. I also would cast into doubt anyrthing from Fallout 2, given the mass of other inconsistencies and crap easter eggs present within.

I think Akimbo should be a possibility. As JE said; you could focus on it with a skill etc, and still it would be a hard thing to do (duh), but it does add a cool factor.

Hooray. And there breaks my wish to go for at least one week without having to read the Idiot's Tag Line. Even if it is not done in verbatim, it still fits.

I mean, ever seen Arnie fire that Colt Commando on full auto with 1 hand in Terminator 2. Yeah, that was blanks, and had less recoil, but still. Get a BIG guy and he can prolly wield alot more, wheter then your average 'medic' or 'hacker' in fallout .

Someone already explained the problem with that. If you have a problem understanding what a Terminator is, direct your inquiries to that brick wall via your forehead for a few hours until it sinks in.

Um, he was also a Terminator.

And that was Terminator, not 50's sci-fi pulp.

[PiP]

Awaiting opinions on my back-slot idea (see my previous posts)

[Viktor]

Awaiting opinions on my back-slot idea (see my previous posts)

That might well be a good compromise between the AP costs of changing to an equipped weapon or to a stored (slung or in back pack) one. Perhaps a holstered pistol or shotgun in a back holster (like Cpl. Hicks Ithaca 37 in Aliens) could allow the PC to draw a holstered weapon (pistol, small shotgun or even compact SMG) for 2AP without the Quick Pockets perk?

As usual, it's all down to how much effort it would take to implement and what effects it would have on the game balance.