Duck and Cover

So, where could I get a good, high definition world map?

Should I try to make weapons more balanced? If so, how?

Any requests?

quietfanatic wrote:So, where could I get a good, high definition world map?

If you've got a high speed connection try here.

quietfanatic wrote:Should I try to make weapons more balanced? If so, how?

Well it depends on what you find unbalancing about the weapons, everyone's opinion is different as to what's wrong with them. I think the real unbalancing thing about the weapons is the placement of them in the campaign. All those lovely new unarmed weapons like the razor claws and the punch gun all made worthless because you can get a powerfist too early in the game.

requiem_for_a_starfury wrote:Well it depends on what you find unbalancing about the weapons, everyone's opinion is different as to what's wrong with them. I think the real unbalancing thing about the weapons is the placement of them in the campaign. All those lovely new unarmed weapons like the razor claws and the punch gun all made worthless because you can get a powerfist too early in the game.

Yes, placement was definintely an issue. All of those SMGs were pretty much useless thanks to your squad being liberally equipped with AKs by the end of mission 2, as well. Also the use of Ball ammo type as the most common type of 9mm really emasculated those weapons as well.

My suggestion for weapons balance issues is simply to use the FO2 weapons catalogue and emulate the RPGs in weapons placement. The PCs should not start off with Hunting Rifles, SMGs or Shotguns. Leather Armor should be downgraded to a Leather Jacket. Unfortunately the designers gave the PCs equipment at 1st level that they really shouldn't have had until at least 3rd level.

OTB

The only time u start with weaker equipment is when u first encounter Super mutants and reavers (presuming u never did RE hunting), who mount weapons which are better than yours. Until u pick em up of course.

The first mission u already had an MP5 which is even better than a Uzi, that most raiders use. Starting is more imbalanced imo.

You could have a well balanced game where you started out with better weapons than everyone else, but you'd have to change other things, like add more opponents, drastically reducing the amount of ammo available and perhaps downgrading the effectiveness of all armours but the Power armour.

Say you were going for the approach that the Player had military grade equipment because they were descended from the inhabitants of a surviving military bunker. Everyone else has homemade junk or some surviving pistols and shotguns (until you get to near the end game). Perhaps you'd have a limited catalogue of firearms i.e. a beretta, mp5, m16, m60 and a minigun or rocket launcher. You start the game with all but the really big guns but you have a real short supply of ammo (maybe just enough rounds for one shot per enemy plus a handful leftover) so if you run through the mission with burst fire you'll quickly run out. Everyone else has pipe rifles, shotguns, and later hunting rifles (and perhaps police issue semi-automatic firearms) which all use different ammo types to the weapons your squad is issued with.

You'd either stick with the good weapons but conserve your ammo or have to switch to using the poorer weapons you find in each mission. That coupled with reputation triggers based on how much ammo you conserve could make a more balanced game. Especially if you downgraded the leather, metal and environmental armours so they give less protection, and added more opponents than you would normaly. 5 raiders with pipe rifles can be rather effective if you have little or no armour and only enough ammo for a couple of bursts.

All very useful advice. I think I'll make ammo more scarce, but still let the pc start off with an mp5 and the other stuff.

I have at least got a dodgey world map now.