Just Curious About the Overall Thoughts on Van Buren

[Old School Role-Player]

I was just wondering what everybody thought about all the changes made from Fallout 2 to Van Buren. I mean, what do you think about the "marksmanship" skill, the "Science Boy" path, the new skill point system, the elimination of gambling, and the paucity of ammo?

I for one, like all of hte changes *except* the "marksmanship" skill. I would have loved to have seen the firearms skill system go back the way Wasteland handled it, with maybe grouping automatic weapons into the single-shot weapon skills (like Assault Rifles combined with Rifles, and such).

What do you guys think about it?

 

[APTYP]

I thought "Van Buren == Fallout 3" was supposed to be a community joke and nothing more.

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

to tell the truth, im just happy their making fallout 3. All the changes could be good, or could be bad but i pretty confident the game will be fun and well worth my money.

 

[Old School Role-Player]

Nope, Van Buren is the Interplay code name for a game which will eventually be renamed Fallout 3.

But if I were you, el_Prez, I wouldn't assume that just because it is going to be created that it will be fun. You should read some of JE Sawyer's ideas on making firearms one skill ("Marksmanship") and then forcing a firearms character to use his perks to do what multiple skills have done for the previous two.

All in all, I think the game sounds good for every character archetype except the Combat character--which will completely suck by using his ideas.

 

[Briosafreak]

You can all now see the first version of the Van Buren FAQ if you need help tracking the proposed features of Fallout3, er, Van Buren

 

[Old School Role-Player]

Ooh, that's a great link. Thanks, Brios! Now you can see how cool Van Buren will be if you play a noncombatant, and how much it will suck if you play a combat character.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I'm not so sure the non-combat characters will have much fun either, especially considering they're going to have to spend lots and lots of skill points on greater diversification than the combat ones.

However, the entire idea of the Marksmanship skill with perks for specialization is total bullshit. Here's what I wrote about it on DAC:

• The main problem I have with it is that it's a Third Edition D&D mechanic that I don't care much for. Why? Because it locks the player in to using one weapon.
  
  You only get one perk every three levels, right? So, if you want to diversify, you have to raise your level three times just to get that extra perk. This is better than having three skills? Please, tell me how this is a better idea. Seriously.
  
  At least with the three skills method, and you branched out to Energy Weapons from Small Arms, you at least are able to actually use a variety of firearms, laser rifles for sniping, pulse rifles for up close, gauss pistols for clean up, and so forth. Under JE's perk deal, you're talking about burning 9 levels just to do that, and missing out on two other perks.
  
  Here's the kicker, in those 9 levels, with getting around 20 skill points per level.. That's 180 skill points. You could raise Energy weapons from 2% to 141%! Without tagging! AND YOU'D STILL HAVE THREE PERKS TO SPEND!
  
  Come on, how the bloody hell is this even REMOTELY better? Please try and explain that. It was a stupid idea in 3E and it's even worse degenerating SPECIAL to be like it. Hell, it even defeats the purpose of JE's argument, that most people end Fallout with one weapon, the Turbo Plasma Rifle, because that'd be the end result because this is a fuckload less flexible.

Yes, I believe playing a gun character is totally going to suck now. It's rather funny his argument for breaking up the speech skill was I fail to see how you should be able to win the game by spending all your points in one skill is balanced and then the guy goes and combines the three gun skills in to just one. I mean.. What the fuck?

Seriously, by his own logic on splitting up the speech skill, there should be the three gun skills.. But apparently the boy has no sense of logic what-so-ever because he's violating his own design idea from Speech when it comes to guns.

 

[Old School Role-Player]

Oh man, I am SO with you there. You should see the resistance encountered on the BIS Board whenever you try to bring a valid argument to their attention. Jesus, I just had a thread locked because of an argument with JE Sawyer, and then some people rallied to his side, some people rallied to my ideas. One chick is either his sister or sucking his cock, because she defends him tooth and nail, regardless of what his ideas are--and then attacks anybody for disagreeing with him (and subsequently her) and hurls constant insults at anybody while accusing them of hurling constant insults at everybody else. It's the most *insane* bullshit I have ever seen.

Sorry, off my rant here now. But you know--at least in 3rd Edition D&D, the Fighter gets bonus perks every even level. If he wants to make you specialize, then you should get a tag skill every 2 levels instead of 3 if you tag Marksmanship. Of course, that opens up a whole new can of worms because Science Boy can just tag Marksmanship and get his extra perks for science-related skills.

Still, it's funny how Stealth Boy, Charisma Boy and Science Boy all develop their character through skills, while Combat Boy is resigned to develop his character through perks. Go figure.

Anyway, good to see you again, St. P.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Oh man, I am SO with you there. You should see the resistance encountered on the BIS Board whenever you try to bring a valid argument to their attention. Jesus, I just had a thread locked because of an argument with JE Sawyer, and then some people rallied to his side, some people rallied to my ideas. One chick is either his sister or sucking his cock, because she defends him tooth and nail, regardless of what his ideas are--and then attacks anybody for disagreeing with him (and subsequently her) and hurls constant insults at anybody while accusing them of hurling constant insults at everybody else. It's the most *insane* bullshit I have ever seen.

Let me guess, Di? It's things like that which are the reason a lot of Fallout fans abandonned the IPLY/BIS forum years ago. It's full of idiots and sychophants. No matter what idiotic and hairbrained thing a BIS person comes up with, it must be the best idea ever! They even get mad when you point out that BIS has very little experience in actually making a CRPG from the ground up - never made a setting, never made a character system, never made a combat system, and so on. To date, they've only made games using engines and settings handed to them.

Still, it's funny how Stealth Boy, Charisma Boy and Science Boy all develop their character through skills, while Combat Boy is resigned to develop his character through perks. Go figure.

It's very odd, considering that both those ideas are found in 3E D&D. Diplomatic skills are developed through a series of skills while offensive combat is developed through feats.

Even his arguments for such changes like the one-skill thing are thin. Saying things like Energy Weapons are the only powerful weapons in Fallout and Fallout 2, when the Bozar and Gauss weapons are more than a match for the best energy weapon in the game, and it's fairly easy to prove mathematically. When you do, he either pulls something out of his ass that's also erroneous or he no longer wants to talk about it, making you even wonder what the hell the point of asking for feedback is in the first place.

The reason he wants DUAL WIELDING PISTOLS is because he says pistols are useless in Fallout and Fallout 2, but you have the .223 pistol which is the easiest Small Arms weapon to beat Fallout with and the Gauss Pistol which can actually outclass the pulse rifle hands down depending on how many AP you have.

 

[Old School Role-Player]

Yeah, Di is pretty much the stirrer of the shitpot over there. One guy flat out said, "I just don't like you." Heh--couldn't have said it better myself. Her arguments are by far the most ill-conceived I have ever heard. Basically she ignores any arguments against her ideas and then puts words into your mouth.

I swear to fucking God, I have never been asked to defend so many straw man arguments as when I am speaking to her. JE Sawyer is bad with that (*really* bad), but she's a LOT worse. Still, I had an ex girlfriend just like her. I realize that you just cannot win, and she will constantly put words into your mouth to prove her own point. Set up the straw man--knock him down. Of course, listening to her arguments how she basically wants to breeze through the game without any decisions, difficult choices or challenges makes me want to vomit at the thought that anybody from BIS is taking her thoughts seriously. Her typical response is along the lines of, "Don't question a BIS programmer's decisions--he knows far more about what we want than we do."

But yeah, there are at least two people who have or are leaving the boards because of her and JE Sawyer.

Anyway, about the D&D stuff. The first thing I noticed about 3rd Edition was that it was basically Fallout again. Perks were called Feats, and the experience table was the exact same thing as Fallout. For that reason, I was actually partial to 3rd Ed. D&D. Fallout is a cultural influence for a cultural influence! Hehe, yeah, simple things amuse me.

The thing about the dual wielding pistols is--I'm not really upset about it. I know it's unrealistic. I know it's screwy. But at least it's only an option to the game and I'm hoping (but not holding my breath) that it will be fairly balanced.

Still, he also said that without the Bozar, Big Guns was a completely useless skill. The only thing I can think of was that he meant the Minigun and the Avenger Minigun were essentially useless. I remember tearing through every Enclave soldier with my Vindicator Minigun--for sure. Hell, I would take the Vindicator over the Bozar any day if ammo were plentiful enough (and it was if you knew the trick about resting/stealing in San Fransisco).

Still, I would think the best way to balance pistols without making them unduly powerful would be to have a few perks available that make pistols (and pistols only) a better option. Imagine perks like this:

Far Shot
Level 6, PER 7, Pistols 60%
Practicing shooting tin cans in your spare time has finally paid off! When using a pistol, all shots within it's maximum range are considered close range.

Gunfighter
Level 9, AGL 6, Pistols 80%
You are the fastest gunslinger in the West--or at least that *you* know of. When firing a pistol, all AP costs are reduced by one. This perk is superceded by the Bonus Rate of Fire perk.

Dirty Harry (yeah, my names aren't good)
Level 12, PER 8, Pistols 100%
You have mastered the pistol as a form of short-ranged death. When using a pistol, your critical hit chance is increased by five times your luck score, and you add your luck score to your rolls for the type of critical hits. This skill is superceded by the Sniper perk.

To me, I think that could help you specialize your character while using several weapons skills and you get your perks like JE Sawyer likes. With something like this, you get your specialization perks with lower requirements for the so-called "weaker" weapons and you can get them at a lower level. Now, your pistolero will be the bees knees and own at the early game. He won't be the most powerful in the end game by any means, but he can definitely hold his own. This way, if you use my proposed system (hand to hand, pistols, rifles, shotguns, heavy machine guns, and support weapons), you will never feel that you've "wasted" skill points by investing in any of these skills. Sure, support weapons and heavy machine guns won't be available early on, but they would also be devastating killing machines (and thus, not have many perks available for them either). Your character may not know how to use them effectively, but that's okay because your character is a deadeye with a shotgun and he has taken a lot of different perks to make his combat shotgun capable of clearing a room.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

"Don't question a BIS programmer's decisions--he knows far more about what we want than we do."

I think the best retort to that kind of statement is, The only thing separating us from a Interplay game designer was that we weren't sitting at an $8/hour quality assurance desk position when another designer quit. That's what all this boils down to, really. It's not because they are masters of the craft, they're simply quality assurance people who get promoted to fill a hole.

Anyway, about the D&D stuff. The first thing I noticed about 3rd Edition was that it was basically Fallout again. Perks were called Feats, and the experience table was the exact same thing as Fallout. For that reason, I was actually partial to 3rd Ed. D&D. Fallout is a cultural influence for a cultural influence! Hehe, yeah, simple things amuse me.

Unlike SPECIAL, 3E D&D is still saddled with a basic 30 year old design and the need for simplicity because it's PnP. Making SPECIAL in to d20 is rather like cutting the wings off a jet fighter to make it more simple, like a car.

The thing about the dual wielding pistols is--I'm not really upset about it. I know it's unrealistic. I know it's screwy. But at least it's only an option to the game and I'm hoping (but not holding my breath) that it will be fairly balanced.

I doubt it can be, not without either making pistol weaker, which would be a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. If you have the skills to dual wield and hit with two pistols, which shouldn't be too hard with only one skill to dump points in to, then you can do ridiculous damage with something like a .223 pistol or a gauss pistol.

 

[Creamdacrem]

Chuck can Kiss FalloutOS Goodbye. He heh he.

 

[PoorYorick]

I really think it's a shame that they're fucking up SPECIAL. And dumbing down a CRPG system is just plain idiotic. It's not as though three or four extra modifications to a shot is going to make one bit of difference to a CPU.

Sawyer's arguments are very thin regarding skill changes. The concept of a perk-based fighter with skill based non-combat classes is sorta strange...

The marksmanship skill may actually be a good idea, IF they give a marksman many, many more perks, AND find a good way to stop people abusing it to the other career tracks. Although classique Fallout can NEVER be beaten.

The quality assurance bullshit is one of the things I hate them for. The massive forum censorship over that console FO game, probably to ensure that no bad PR came out around it, was fucking ridiculous.

I'm also pissed that the pricks still insist on making their games a bitch to mod. Look at NWN. The campaign was mediocre at best, but the community content is friken awesome. I suspect that it wouldn't be too hard to cobble together their devtools into some sort of editor package. Maybe they want people to beg for an addon, which people wouldnt want so much if their was a good source of community content?

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Sawyer's arguments are very thin regarding skill changes. The concept of a perk-based fighter with skill based non-combat classes is sorta strange...

It's really not strange because that's how D&D does it now. Nearly all your combat stuff are feats(which are D&D's "perks"), and things like the speech elements, lore, and other non-combat abilities are skills in Third Edition D&D.

The marksmanship skill may actually be a good idea, IF they give a marksman many, many more perks, AND find a good way to stop people abusing it to the other career tracks. Although classique Fallout can NEVER be beaten.

I fail to see how it will be good when you only can improve combat in your area once per three levels. How would they balance the gun skill as well, given that you only have to dump points in that one area to be good at it?

The quality assurance bullshit is one of the things I hate them for. The massive forum censorship over that console FO game, probably to ensure that no bad PR came out around it, was fucking ridiculous.

I totally agree. It's hurt them more in a number of ways, more than they even know.

 

[Old School Role-Player]

Unlike SPECIAL, 3E D&D is still saddled with a basic 30 year old design and the need for simplicity because it's PnP. Making SPECIAL in to d20 is rather like cutting the wings off a jet fighter to make it more simple, like a car.

Actually, I was saying that I liked seeing 3rd Edition because it was based off of Fallout, not the other way around (that would be just *bad*--yechh!)

With the dual-pistols, I think it could be balanced a little more easily than you think. Just make the penalties more realistic. Instead of -20% like they're proposing, make it -50% or more. That would balance the pistols out by taking points from all your other skills just so you can fire dual pistols accurately (and at close range only--hehe). If you think about it--even the supposed "one-handed" weapons still need two hands to fire accurately. It's like all those ghetto punks and gangbangers who try to shoot a pistol sideways--that always cracks me up seeing a guy miss at point blank range.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

With the dual-pistols, I think it could be balanced a little more easily than you think. Just make the penalties more realistic. Instead of -20% like they're proposing, make it -50% or more. That would balance the pistols out by taking points from all your other skills just so you can fire dual pistols accurately (and at close range only--hehe). If you think about it--even the supposed "one-handed" weapons still need two hands to fire accurately. It's like all those ghetto punks and gangbangers who try to shoot a pistol sideways--that always cracks me up seeing a guy miss at point blank range.

Pistols are pretty balanced now, so the only way to balance dual pistols would be if both weapons had a -50% to fire, regardless of the skill you had, thus meaning you only hit with one of them even though you had two pistols. So, the end result would be... What's the point?