Duck and Cover

If there's any multiplayer Fallout, I want to be able to play the game co-operatively. IE: Same game as single player, only with a bunch of other online people. It runs just like Fallout single player, you can save the game, come back to it later and so on.

I think the problem would be that the team would have to be treated collectively. Example: In order to travel on the World Map the "team leader" (most likely the person who started the game) would be the one to trigger it. They trigger the world map and the whole team are dragged along with it.

One of the advantages is that the people playing could all be known to each other. Meaning you can pick and choose who you play with. All the retards can go play their "own teh wastes" game and those who want to do a bit of role-playing can play with those whom they know will offer that kind of experience in their game.

Of course, I doubt I'd actually play it... I just think it's the only variation of "Fallout Online" that is even remotely possible (or is there some major problem I missed?).

mmm... thats exactly what i want, no diablo2 shit, ect...

even if it was only for IPX, or direct cable connection(so old, lol)
that would be cool, cause then me, and my friend (mitten)
could play 2(or more) player fallout! yiipi, that would kick ass

and you should get some sharred exp, like how your npcs get exp even if they never fire a shot.

Yes, yes...That'll be fun. Eaven though some people might kill you, and just stuff everything up, but it'll be fun.

DarkUnderlord wrote:If there's any multiplayer Fallout, I want to be able to play the game co-operatively. IE: Same game as single player, only with a bunch of other online people. It runs just like Fallout single player, you can save the game, come back to it later and so on.

That won't work for the simple reason you can't make it like single player.

I think the problem would be that the team would have to be treated collectively. Example: In order to travel on the World Map the "team leader" (most likely the person who started the game) would be the one to trigger it. They trigger the world map and the whole team are dragged along with it.

So, how many people can join? Would that be based on Charisma? Or are you just tossing Charisma out the window for this?

Also, how do you handle things like speech? Will the host be the only one talking? If not, what's to stop your "NPCs", i.e. the other players, from picking up quests, and screwing them up?

On that note, what happens when you hit an exit grid? If the "NPCs" are free to roam around, are you not allowed to exit? Does it simply force them to stop what they're doing and a world map pop up?

One of the advantages is that the people playing could all be known to each other. Meaning you can pick and choose who you play with. All the retards can go play their "own teh wastes" game and those who want to do a bit of role-playing can play with those whom they know will offer that kind of experience in their game.

Well, the problem is, who is allowed to do the role playing. Look at the problems I've asked about. That's the Small List(TM). If everyone's free to run around and do what they want, you're going to have problems. Scripting won't cut most of that.

Of course, I doubt I'd actually play it... I just think it's the only variation of "Fallout Online" that is even remotely possible (or is there some major problem I missed?).

It's also been brought up on this very forum, look at Heckhoundharry's post.

For Multiplayer i think it would be good to not use the standard SinglePlayer Campaign, but instead, use the same area, but have several differant, smaller, campaigns. For example, there might be one where a Caravan master is trying to exterminate a certain band of raiders, and you and your team are sent to go locate and destroy their main base. The quest's then would be designed with multiple people in mind and could be balanced for that... IE, Tougher encounters, more XP, more Loot, etc. If one person on your team had a differant "alignment" than you it would allow for some good roll playing possibilities And if one person got in a fight, the rest of the team wouldn't be aggroed on, unless they wanted to assist... So if the short tempered gun-freak got thrown out of town, it wouldn't ruin it for the rest. The only problem with traveling is that time is accelerated, which i don't believe there is a good work around. It would be cool if teams could split up, and then plan to meet back at a certain location on a certain date...

To the person who mentioned Charisma, Team size could be defined by (Player 1's CH+Player 2's CH etc etc)/2. That would equal it and put importance on CH. the problem would be things like when one persons talking/stealing from each other. Bartering. . . Basically you would need to monitor what everybody else is doing.