FO3 Combat

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 6:57 pm

I think 1 in 5 enemys should have a gun. Not too rare, but not too useless as well as leaving the player enough space not to be surrounded and combat to be like fighting dogs or something.

Briareus · Post by **Briareus** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 7:13 pm

Slave_Master wrote:My question is, how exactly would you implement such a combo system with the real-time combat? Even if you have a decent interface, you're still getting shot at while making your attacks.

Well, it is RT with Pause, so you could always pause the game and select your attack.

As for getting shot, without the combo system you'd still be getting shot so it really doesn't matter if we have the combo system or not; we're still faced with the problem of melee/unarmed/ranged attacks beind done while getting shot anyways.

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 9:34 pm

Megatron wrote:I think 1 in 5 enemys should have a gun. Not too rare, but not too useless as well as leaving the player enough space not to be surrounded and combat to be like fighting dogs or something.

Agreed. Less guns = melee / unarmed / throwing skills are more valuable. (Not so few guns as the beginning of FO2, though).

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 1:07 am

I think it would be awesome if guns were as rare as in the beginning of FO2. I like the idea of guns/ammo/technology being extremely rare and valuable. But knowing IPLY, this will never happen, because they will always make it so that the morons on their forums can enjoy killing things with deagles in their games.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 10:34 am

I'd like not many guns, but if you think about it...it's not a very good idea? Like at metzgers in fo2 he has about 20 bodyguards. If they didn't have guns you'd just get surrounded and every enemy you knock down there'd be another one wanting to replace him.

So I think guns should be rarer in fo3, but not too rare. Combat would drag out, random encounters would just be charging at each other. I'd prefer a lot more low-tech guns, like pipe rifles or double-barrelled shotguns that have a 50/50 chance of not firing. So long as the player isn't overloaded with crappy guns by the end of the game and the enemy isn't enclave/mutant-like it should be intresting.

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 9:30 pm

The thing is, with Fallout 2, it's like no guns at the beginning.. then after Vault City or so, it's like WHAM BAM GUNS EVERYWHERE YO. Not very balanced; guns your character finds should get better at a more even pace. I agree with both of ya though.

Strap · Post by **Strap** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 10:23 pm

If you think about how there are (for the most part) no new guns being made, and this next game will take place even farther in the future than fo2 does, wouldn't that mean that there would indeed be a diminished number of functional guns?

Unless of corse you reach the east coast and after this long it has become habitable and has cities, or at least large towns with semi-good technology.
Plus, there's always vaults cracking open and making communities. (not that any vaults would open now, this far in the future. Unless that was one of the Vault's variables) those communities could have the tech to make [new] guns.

overall, less guns would be better. more like, having them be less availible, and highly prized.
(along with ammunition, but not as extremely)

tai · Post by **tai** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 10:44 am

Actually there's a historical solution staring you in the face. (atleast how I see it) Fallout 3 is set after fallout 2, correct? Well, it was mentioned in particularity that the game will be divied amongst those that use old world technology, and those that live anew on their own. I'd imagine that without full knowledge, or the industrial mining abilities of modern day, making guns that would work could be difficult. I mean, likelyhood is the weapons in fallout 2 were found, and the only actual source of new stuff was the brotherhood, and for a short while the enclave. It's perfectly reasonable to have ammo and guns in decline in Fallout 3 to opt for a more versatile system. Long rifle, bap 'em on the head, jab 'em in the stomach, kick 'em down, and blow out their knee caps or head, if your'e not so merciful. That there's a snazzy combo of both.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 10:49 am

you could just shoot him

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 9:20 pm

atoga wrote:The thing is, with Fallout 2, it's like no guns at the beginning.. then after Vault City or so, it's like WHAM BAM GUNS EVERYWHERE YO. Not very balanced; guns your character finds should get better at a more even pace. I agree with both of ya though.

But the problem is that the game is non-linear... There would be severe districtions (besides tough enemies and hordes of monsters) to many places.

airsoft guy · Post by **airsoft guy** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 11:32 pm

Firearms are extremely easy to make, all you need is a metal tube, a projectile and something that burns fast, like gunpowder. All through history the first firearms for a particular line were handmade. All you need is some simple tools, some metal and a little know-how. Hell, a few diagrams couldn't hurt either, and those are plenty easy to find if you have a book on firearms, not necessarily a book on making them, although those are easy to get hold of too, but on the history of firearms or something on modern firearms. Of course melee weapons should play a larger role, especially combination firearms and melee weapons, rifle with a bayonet or beating someone with the butt of your shotgun, and lets not forget the ever popular pistol whip.

I don't like the idea of Fallout 3 taking place after Fallout 2, after 160 years the whole survival thing kind of loses it. But if it wasn't after Fallout 2 then it would a be a prequil, wouldn't it? Damnit, they screwed me over.

If you go read my thread about Boom Bugs in the Tactics sub-forum you'll see where I stand on weapons. I dislike the idea of lasers and plasma rifles and fun shit like that, even though it is totally kick-ass, and there should be fewer fully-automatic firearms and more civilian guns and semi-auto versions of assault rifles (you know, the scurry "Assault Weapons"). Things like pump shotguns and bolt action hunting rifles. A wider variety of things average people use for hunting, self defense, and fun, since I don't think very many people will be getting hold of Combat Shotguns after that pesky 1934 Gun Control Act.

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 5:06 am

Kashluk wrote:
atoga wrote:The thing is, with Fallout 2, it's like no guns at the beginning.. then after Vault City or so, it's like WHAM BAM GUNS EVERYWHERE YO. Not very balanced; guns your character finds should get better at a more even pace. I agree with both of ya though.
But the problem is that the game is non-linear... There would be severe districtions (besides tough enemies and hordes of monsters) to many places.

Regardless, Kashluk, the developers can have a better balance and flow of what weapons the players will find, when and where, know what I'm saying?

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 12:38 pm

Megatron wrote:I'd like not many guns, but if you think about it...it's not a very good idea? Like at metzgers in fo2 he has about 20 bodyguards. If they didn't have guns you'd just get surrounded and every enemy you knock down there'd be another one wanting to replace him.

Realistically, you SHOULDN'T be able to just assault a heavilly guarded slavers' compound and expect to win. Also, less guns doesn't mean you have to go HTH.