Duck and Cover

spyder07 wrote:I think that it should be limited. Like your trusty leather armor only protects your chest, but not your hands or groin for example. Or you could like put a metal plate under your jacket to give better protection.

I agree, i was a big targetted shots character in the first 2, i thought it was kinda silly when your wearing leather armour, a shot to the head would be cushioned by the armour, saying this, each part should come with disadvantages also....

say if your wearing a helmet and you want to interact with another character, your charisma should be disadvantaged with a helmet on, take it off to talk, your charisma rises, but your open to a shot to the head, so you would only want to take your helmet off if you knew you were safe.....

some armour could come as sets though or part sets (T-15B power armour body part, and the helmet is separate, and can be taken off, combat armour covers the whole body, and leather armour only covers the chest)

getting into one piece sets, or separate pieces gets complicated

Spyder07 wrote:Or you could like put a metal plate under your jacket to give better protection.

Well.. let's not exaggerate, that would make game more complex than it's needed. Remember - complexity = bugs.

That's exactly what I ment NM. You just took the time to type it.

And... thats exactly what i meant also, meths.. you just said it better and right

Meths wrote:Well.. let's not exaggerate, that would make game more complex than it's needed. Remember - complexity = bugs.

Considering some of your own ideas, I think that's a rather odd sentiment.

cool beans spyder

Doyle wrote:

Meths wrote:Well.. let's not exaggerate, that would make game more complex than it's needed. Remember - complexity = bugs.

Considering some of your own ideas, I think that's a rather odd sentiment.

I'm pretty curious which one you had in mind.

As far as i remember they were all quite simple.

Well you should be able to take the helmet off for power armour. A lot of the bos had their helmets off. Otherwise it should be one suit.

I like the idea of helmets=-charisma and armour corresponding to that body part.

This should also work for critters and mutants. Flip a rad-scorpion onto its back and it will be easy to kill. Throw a spear into a fire geckos neck and he explodes.

Mabye even add targeted shots to weapons in fo3?

...maybe with a targetted shot to the hand which has the weapon you could knock the weapon out of the hand ?

I support the "DnD"-style armors, but it should be done with style. Power armors, just like Lark stated earlier, should not be effected by this change... Or maybe the helm off, but that's just it. And when the helm's off there should be no protection against radiation/headshots (of course not!).

Strapon2 wrote:the armor for items should not be added up, but averaged instead. so if you have a boot, lets say, that has like 10 armor points and a t-shirt with 3 or so, you wouldnt have 13 armor, but like 7 or so.

Just like in Morrowind

is that a bad thing?

I like the idea of separate armor parts. Your character would have to collect worn, rusty, cobbled together wastelandish pieces of armor. Certain armors should come in one piece. What I don't want to see is gauntlets and stuff with special bonuses á la BioWare.

I think I'd prefer to see location-specific armor that only applies to that location, like spyder suggested. So if you get pegged in the arm without any armor there, that armored boot isn't going to do you any good.

Just think a cup would be a must.

Yeah, just think how often that Advanced Powered Jock Mark II would save your life.

Spazmo wrote: Yup. You know, now that you mention it, I wonder if BIS is going to take Reflexive's engine (whose name escapes me at the moment) and then run it into the ground with an infinity (no, not Infinity) or poor to so-so RPGs?

Rumor, I have heard that they could potentially use the Jefferson engine for FO3, in some thread on the old BIS boards. Which means it will probably be their main engine. Although, it is a 3D engine, the good news is that I think (BIG HUNCH), it might support TB combat. The reason, is that there is no doubt that Jefferson is a 3E DnD game, and I have heard Sawyer say on more then one occasion that you can't do TRUE DnD without TB. Anyhow that might be a light of hope to you all.

I don't think Jefferson is going to be turn-based. The engine didn't even support turn-based combat at first.

Doyle wrote:I don't think Jefferson is going to be turn-based. The engine didn't even support turn-based combat at first.

What do you mean? I was under the impression that they were being quite tight lipped about the Jefferson engine. Anyhow, considering the kind of game they are trying to make, it would really be a pity if it wasn't.

EDIT: I just got the confirmation from JES on the IPLY boards. Jefferson engine does have a TB option, and will most may make it into the game. My guess is that this is the engine that they will use for FO3 as well, and definately turn the TB option.

http://www.duckandcover.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3484

Right there, from the mouth, well fingers, of JE Sawyer himself. The Jefferson engine initially made TB impossible.

Quote from JE,

It may have a turn-based option. To be honest, I would like to make the game straight-up turn-based with smaller, more contained battles, but that ship doesn't sail far beyond my office.

The engine can use a turn-based mode, but we still have to gauge if we will have a healthy amount of time to fully implement and test both systems. A lot of people (correctly) say that it takes extra time to implement a turn-based and real-time combat system. When we get into serious combat testing, the amount of time and work we have left will determine whether we push for two well-implemented systems or just stick with one. Two mediocre systems -- that doesn't make anyone happy.

Here is the link,

http://forums.interplay.com/viewtopic.php?t=2301

Its about 7 post down.

Maybe, thankfully, they made changes.