JE Sawyer on SPECIAL

[James]

Actually, no, a tighter range of weapon damages wouldn't be good. Look at Fallout 2, even with that broad range of weapon damage, how many weapons were there that were redundant?

This is an interesting point, I think, and a good argument for more generic weapons.

After all, in "real life" you can shoot someone with your 9mm sig or .45 1911 and they will most likely be in a somewhat comparable state afterwards. Especially when you apply the digitisation and loss of resolution which is inherent when trying to convey the fine points of the different pistols and ammunitions in a game.


Of course in reality, two very similar guns (in terms of things like stopping power or effective range/accuracy) could perform in a very different manner depending on user preference and experience.

But this is far to subtle to model well in a game, IMO.


I think that the way to go is to make things like ROF and range more dependant on the users skill, and less on the weapon.

[Rosh]

*sigh*

Bishop, yet again you seem to be arguing in a way that just makes more work for yourself. Instead of adjusting a few items, you were seeming to argue to change game mechanics. Kind of your earlier...sorry...I can't keep a straight face about this. Your earlier preposterous "argument" for including RT combat alongside TB, where NOBODY has made a balanced and faultless parallel combat system to date, is along the same lines - instead of doing the MUCH easier job of making sure that the powerful character shouldn't be in a position of having to face a multitude of simplistic enemies without an alternative to bypass it.

You don't make more work for yourself than you NEED to. KISS! Then again, knowing things like this comes with experience in game design.

Gareth:

Now you know the reason why SPECIAL is great for single-player, but not multiplayer competitive.

[Crow of Ill Omen]

If maths aren't the conclusive proof you'd hoped, perhaps we could move away from it? It seems S_P and WwS are quoting similar figures to justify opposite points.

Am I right in thinking people are broadly agreed that DT/DR together are problematic, in that they unbalance the damage requirements? WwS and JESawyer are fairly clear that they believe this and would like to get rid of DR. Saint_Proverbius' figures also suggest it, but I believe he has stated he doesn't want to remove either DT or DR. Are you suggesting, S_P that we could keep both attributes and still fix the problem (possibly by scaling down the values for each)?

If the question IS "Together they're problematic, which one should go?" I'd rather ditch DR. Armour should have a certain amount of ability to prevent damage altogether. It's almost the raison d'etre for many armours. Plus, the impact of DT will be easier to control, since it is a constant for each armour vs damage type.

[Deathy]

If the question IS "Together they're problematic, which one should go?" I'd rather ditch DR. Armour should have a certain amount of ability to prevent damage altogether. It's almost the raison d'etre for many armours. Plus, the impact of DT will be easier to control, since it is a constant for each armour vs damage type.

If one had to go, I'd say it would have to be DT.
If DT stayed, a whole bunch of weapons would be totally ineffective vs certain armours. a minigun (if I remember correctly), has 7-10 damage per bullet.
If a certain armour has a damage threshold of 10, then the minigun would be ineffective vs that armor, while a lesser gun, say the 10MM SMG (Or pistol, if you want to get that far) would still be able to give damage.

However, the DR has a far more balanced outcome. By virtue of its ability to let each bullet through to cause damage, low damage, high fire rate weapons have a chance, rather than being ineffective altogether, and it is now possible for a minigun to cause real damage on a non-critical.

[Walks with the Snails]

I think miniguns would be better reworked if possible, since they are definitely a problem anyway. As it is, you often seem to either get hit with every bullet or none at all. That's why the damage per bullet is usually so low compared to what the rounds would do in a single-shot weapon. That's not what autofire is for, you're usually trying to spray the area with bullets in the hopes that a few will hit their target(s), not to ground a single target to hamburger by putting 50 weak bullets in him. It's especially silly when you're going after more than one target, since it's not like the bullets change course after exiting the first enemy to punch into the others. Autofire is there to sacrifice accuracy for more rapid fire. You'll waste a lot more bullets, but overall you'll hopefully get more hits per second and have a better chance of surviving. If they upped the damage of miniguns while reducing the number of bullets that hit each target, it would still be worthwhile. Perhaps they could roll for each bullet. While it's impractical in PnP, there's no reason a computer couldn't do it.

[Crow of Ill Omen]

I don't think there is anything wrong with some weapons being ineffective versus some armours. It makes equipment selection a less linear/obvious process. Isn't that the rationale behind Tesla armour, as it stands?

Also, would the minigun really be ineffective? I don't know whow it worked, but I would have thought critical chances were applied to each round, giving a miniguns killing potential outside of normal damage.

[Walks with the Snails]

It looked like the critical was only rolled once. Invariably it seemed, when a mutant hit you with a minigun, you either took 0 damage or 200, making it pretty much a save-reload fest. If each bullet rolled crits separately, even that would be better as you'd probably get some bullets to penetrate PA but nowhere near all of them.

I don't mind having some weapons ineffective against certain armors, either. If enemies can change tactics, that would be even better. Maybe the mutant decides to chunk a grenade if his minigun is just splattering against your power armor.

[Crow of Ill Omen]

Groups with mixed weapons would also add a small dimension to combat tactics

[Saint_Proverbius]

Not when you do the math. Here, I'll demonstrate.

Metal: 6/75
Combat: 8/60
APA: 19/90

We still want to do 10 damage to the guy in APA.

Let x = the raw damage required
10 = (x-19)(1 - .90), x = 119

You might actually have a point if lasers could actually DO 119 points damage. However, their max damage value is 50 points.

• APA: (50 Damage - 19) * (1-90%) = 3 (19 lost to DT, 28 list to DR)
  Metal: (50 Damage - 6) * (1-75%) = 11 (6 lost to DT, 33 lost to DR)

Again, this backs up my claim that DRs help the weaker armor more than the powered armor.

[Crow of Ill Omen]

Coupla questions:

Does that include gatling lasers?

Also, why are you arguing that we need to "help weaker armours?" Weren't the problems claimed (rightly or wrongly) an over-effectiveness of higher level armours and a lack of differential between some of the lower armours?

[Rosh]

I believe it's more the armor's "character". Have weaknesses and strengths to each that give a reason to plan on wearing one or the other at certain times.

[OnTheBounce]

Hell no. The Gauss pistol is 22-33 damge. The Gauss rifle is, as I stated, 32-43.

Prov, you're forgetting something: the ammo. Base damage for those weapons is as you state, but there is a Damage Modifier of 3/2 for the 2mm EC ammo type, so the effective damage figures for those weapons are:

• Gauss Pistol: 33 - 49.5
• Gauss Rifle: 48 - 64.5

(I'm not sure if the game rounds damage values in favor of the attacker or defender, so I left the decimal value.)

I meant to address this when you posted something similar in the FO3 forum, but it slipped my mind.

Basically, there are a lot more balance issues to weapons in FO than simply damage and range. The ammunition can make a target easier to hit (AC Mod), lower the target's DR as well as modifying the base damage of the weapon. Weapons also modify critical hit chances as well as the base chance to hit. So there are a plethora of factors to consider other than what's available at a glance on the inventory screen. You could also factor in things like differnt ROFs in burst mode for some weapons when comparing them.

In some cases I'm not sure why they did this, particularly the 2mm EC and 4.7mm Caseless weapons, since there's only one type of ammo they could have simply set the Dam Mod at 1/1 and then adjusted the base damage for the weapon. However, I must admit that there could be some mechanical voodoo there that I'm unaware of.

I'm going to try to convince MCA to post the complete weapon stats in a Bible update, that way we can get a better picture of exactly how some of these issues were handled.

OTB

[Saint_Proverbius]

Well, gauss(2mm EC) ammo also reduces the DR value. In fact, most ammo types have that, but they don't have a DT modifier. A lot of the ammo types have damage mods of 1/1, so I often ignore it. Of course, JHP ammo normally has a modifier vs. FMJ, which is why ammo has modifiers to begin with. It allows you to have two types of ammo for the same gun with differences.

The question is, why does 2mm EC have that when it's the only gauss weapon ammo in the game?

[OnTheBounce]

• FN FAL does 11-22 Damage, Single Shot 5AP, Burst 6AP
• G11E does 13-23 Damage, Single Shot 5AP, Burst 6AP
• CAWS does 15-25 Damage, Single Shot [5]AP, Burst 6AP

Looking at the weapons above and factoring in the ammo's Dmg Mod you're actually looking at:

• FN FAL: 9 - 18 (11 - 22 is for the HPFA version)
• G11E: 19.5 - 34.5 (4.7mm Caseless Dmg Mod 3/2)
• CAWS: 15 - 25

After that you still have to factor in the following:

• 7.62mm: AC Mod: -5; DR Mod: -10
• 4.7mm: AC Mod: -5; DR Mod: -10
• 12 ga.: AC Mod: -10; DR Mod: 0

Then you can compare ROF in burst mode as well, but you should get the point by now: there is plenty wrong w/the weapons catalogue of FO2 - mainly so many "un-Fallout-y" RW weapons - but redundancy due to similar damage values isn't one of them.

You're right about the DT not being affected by anything. That's why AP ammo was reduced to barter material in the RPGs. The "Penetration" factor assigned to ammo in FoT which affected both DT and DR was a better system. One that should be seriously considered for inclusion in FO3.

OTB

[Red]

The Ammo AC mod more or less takes care of the DT mod... Since there's less AC to penetrate it's just as if you lowered the DT.

Unless of course the AC is already down to zero, in which case you're right.

Which brings up a question.

Last I remember, DT worked like this: say you have a DT of 10, and the effective damage at that point is 11. Then you get the full 11 damage, Where if you got 9 at that point, you got 0 damage.

Course I might be all wrong I really don't remember where I got that idea..., but then why bother making an armour with ALL DT values >1 when you could just raise the AC to the minimum (and thus only raise the higher DT values)...

[Saint_Proverbius]

I'm just waiting for someone to suggest a skill that allows you to beat the game with a pipe rifle.

[Vergilius]

That would be Small Guns..

[Saint_Proverbius]

That would be Small Guns..

Umm.. You missed the point. You can have a Small Arms skill of 300% and it's not going to let you win the game with the pipe rifle - because it's one of the first weapons you can get and it's weak.

[Vergilius]

Nope, I get the point, you just fail to understand that you can beat the game with a weak weapon.. (No offense intended)

[Dan]

How excactly are you supposed to pass a single enclave patrol with a pipe rifle?