Base Management

Discussion about the upcoming Wasteland 3!

Moderator: Ranger Team Alpha

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3334
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Base Management

Post by Gizmo » July 14th, 2017, 12:14 am

Drool wrote:
July 13th, 2017, 10:20 pm
Not exactly. The water chip timer remained. It was the invisible, unannounced timer for the Master invading the vault after the water chip that was removed.
That's what's the shame about it. There is even a trade-off in the Hub, where the player can ~in foolish desperation... extend the waterchip timer, but at the cost(s) of having a water caravan show up at Vault 13.

Besides spending the money, this meant that the Master's army would learn the location of the vault; and get there faster.

User avatar
Grohal
Adventurer
Posts: 951
Joined: April 26th, 2013, 9:51 pm

Re: Base Management

Post by Grohal » July 14th, 2017, 12:27 am

As I have read this several times in this thread: Fallout had a manageable base?

Or are we talking about the player home mods of Fallout 3, New Vegas, 4 here?
Hell is no place, hell is a condition.

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3334
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Base Management

Post by Gizmo » July 14th, 2017, 12:48 am

Mole204 wrote:
July 13th, 2017, 11:52 pm
...there's been a long history of RPG flexibility about when you get there. Sometimes you just want to stop and look around.
This has always been a bit of a peeve for me. In Oblivion there is a town—it's on fire. It will stay on fire for months (or years?) until the PC deigns to pay it a visit. In Oblivion you might be expected to meet someone at an agreed upon location... The player can decide not to show up indefinitely; but when they do, the NPC acts like they went straight there. Hypothetically, the PC could be trying to catch a purse snatcher running towards the harbor... and get distracted by an Oblivion Gate, or a neat statue, or getting mugged by a criminal wearing more wealth than the PC ever had. The player can wander off for the rest of the game, but as soon as they enter the harbor, that thief would begin running for the boat out of town... even months later. :evil:

In Fallout 1&2 there are caravans. They run on a schedule. If the PC wants to hire on to one, they might tell them to come back in two weeks; if they come back in fifteen days—they missed the caravan. Travel in Fallout 1&2 can take weeks. You can lose the game—waterchip in hand, because the PC cannot get back to the vault in time to save them. In Fallout 2, there are elective medical procedures that take weeks to complete and recover from. You take them at the PC's own risk; they take time, in exchange for their specific benefits. Fallout also had snares (to use the BT term). Interactions that could end with an RT timer that results in death if the PC doesn't vacate the area. IIRC, the timers respect combat rounds that may happen while escaping; so (presumably) the PC loses time per round, but not per turn.

One of these snares is beautiful—no timer, just common sense; the PC can elect to loiter in a known dangerous area long enough to get themselves killed for it. It's a real face-palm moment.

Fallout was turn based and respected the passing of game time, both inside and outside of combat. I haven't seen one Bethesda title that respected the passing of time. FO3 records the hours that passed while traveling via the map (I doubt many know that), but it does nothing with it, none of it matters in the game. :(

Games that gloss over the passing of time by not holding the player accountable to the consequences of ignoring urgency, always feel cheapened and conciliatory. It's a significant strike against them with me, and any esteem I may have had or built up while playing, drops a notch for it once encountered.

**I believe that Dragon Age:Origins did allow the party to arrive late to certain encounters they were sent to... IRRC the people could be dead, for having not been helped in time; because the player didn't bother to go there until it was convenient. That impressed me when I noticed it.

Remo
Scholar
Posts: 144
Joined: April 24th, 2017, 3:16 am

Re: Base Management

Post by Remo » July 14th, 2017, 5:08 am

Grohal wrote:
July 14th, 2017, 12:27 am
As I have read this several times in this thread: Fallout had a manageable base?
Blasphemy :evil: But I am pretty sure he meant FO4 and I corrected the misconception while addressing what I believe was his main point about.
Grohal wrote:
July 14th, 2017, 12:27 am
Or are we talking about the player home mods of Fallout 3, New Vegas, 4 here?
Not exactly. We are talking about the new Ranger Base in Colorado, discussing various aspects of how bases in other RPGs were handled with examples like BG2, NWN2, PoE, FO4 and others thrown around.

The OP suggested various ways how to put the player in charge of managing the new Ranger base from staging area until it reach a full scale, long term fortified, self-sufficient base with staff and equipment. While others argued against such base/resource management mechanics citing poor experience they had with certain games.

I am arguing for more interactivity and plot reactivity, build upon the foundations of what we seen in WL2 Ranger HQ and adjusted to the situation of WL3 setting (and mainly have been trying to show that this isn't an 'either or' proposition concerning things others felt strongly about.) And @undecaf suggested random encounters to that effect.

Given that we are not devs there is some confusion around as we try to find common language. Also there is some topic leakage from other thread and people going off on a tangent sometimes.

User avatar
Grohal
Adventurer
Posts: 951
Joined: April 26th, 2013, 9:51 pm

Re: Base Management

Post by Grohal » July 14th, 2017, 5:17 am

Remo wrote:
July 14th, 2017, 5:08 am
Grohal wrote:
July 14th, 2017, 12:27 am
As I have read this several times in this thread: Fallout had a manageable base?
Blasphemy :evil: But I am pretty sure he meant FO4 and I corrected the misconception while addressing what I believe was his main point about.
Grohal wrote:
July 14th, 2017, 12:27 am
Or are we talking about the player home mods of Fallout 3, New Vegas, 4 here?
Not exactly. We are talking about the new Ranger Base in Colorado, discussing various aspects of how bases in other RPGs were handled with examples like BG2, NWN2, PoE, FO4 and others thrown around.

The OP suggested various ways how to put the player in charge of managing the new Ranger base from staging area until it reach a full scale, long term fortified, self-sufficient base with staff and equipment. While others argued against such base/resource management mechanics citing poor experience they had with certain games.

I am arguing for more interactivity and plot reactivity, build upon the foundations of what we seen in WL2 Ranger HQ and adjusted to the situation of WL3 setting (and mainly have been trying to show that this isn't an 'either or' proposition concerning things others felt strongly about.) And @undecaf suggested random encounters to that effect.

Given that we are not devs there is some confusion around as we try to find common language. Also there is some topic leakage from other thread and people going off on a tangent sometimes.
Yeah, I got that Rem. The "Or are we talking about the player home mods of Fallout 3, New Vegas, 4 here? " was second part of the quesionst "Fallout had a manageable base?".
I played Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 even several times, and I never saw one. But still sometimes find new things in a new try - so I thought you never know... :D
Hell is no place, hell is a condition.

User avatar
fuzzyballs01
Novice
Posts: 40
Joined: April 4th, 2017, 9:56 am

Re: Base Management

Post by fuzzyballs01 » July 14th, 2017, 10:35 am

all I suggested is a feature that can be small, but still takes up some time
I'd like something like Metal Gear Solid V-ish where you build squads, then send them on missions with a success% or a losses% and getting rewards to keep building the base alongside small rewards for your rangers (like faster heal time or better selection in the store)
and after the mission has been completed, there'd be a fatigue timer before rangers can be sent out again, or a wounded timer if some rangers in the squad got wounded
maybe even expand on that a bit like in that squad cohesion XCOM 2 mod, if rangers fight together, they earn (individual) cohesion points which add tiers of bonusses (small bonusses please, I hate it when games go "TAKE THIS 5% BONUS TO MAKE IT EVEN EASIER THAN IT ALREADY IS") and if someone were to die after a certain cohesion level, the rest of the squad takes it hard and require more off-duty time when they get back

that'd be super, but I know I'm asking too much

small and simple feature with tiny rewards so in the end I can look at the base and say "I did good", that's all I need
maybe even settle in multiple locations or move to bigger/more defensible locations that gives your base more room to grow

User avatar
undecaf
Explorer
Posts: 395
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 5:48 am

Re: Base Management

Post by undecaf » July 14th, 2017, 11:41 am

Mole204 wrote:
July 13th, 2017, 11:52 pm
I don't know about time limits for missions, that's exactly what I meant about (one of) the reasons why restoring from backup freely is needed. "Oh, I went to get enough ammo to survive the trip. ... What do you mean I won't have enough time left to succeed in the mission?" or something to prevent other variations of "But I've been playing the mission for over (time)! What a ripoff!"
"Timelimit" need not always mean "You fail", and "You fail" need not mean case closed.

As well as giving a goal in your calendar, time might mean that the situation lives (despite of you the player), and if you arrive late you might witness an event that's a result accordingly, but not the end of it.

Also, failure can be made interesting as a result. You might not get the XP and loot you wanted, but you might get reactivity down the line that you otherwise wouldn't (and perhaps with that, new loot and XP to cover up). For instance, constantly failing at lockpicking or other RNG challenges (refusing to savescum them) might, in time, earn you a specifc (possibly ranked) perk that'll net you little bits of reactivity here and there throughout the rest of the game (e.g. NPC's might comment on it, the PC being a "pro at failure" might lessen the severity of crit fail, etc). Or, if you get info about a gang attacking a settlement in two weeks, you agree to help but ingore it for too long and as you arrive back there, the survivors are held captive in pens (you might then let things be and deal with the new masters of the settlement, or still try to help the old ones to escape and settle anew somewhere else).

Although, sometimes a failure is just a failure and it shoudl be allowed to be that too; both when it's about time and when it's not.
"A human being in his last extremity IS a bag of shit."

User avatar
fuzzyballs01
Novice
Posts: 40
Joined: April 4th, 2017, 9:56 am

Re: Base Management

Post by fuzzyballs01 » July 14th, 2017, 1:49 pm

dude
no time limits whatsoever
don't even time my gameplay, I hate games who do that, which then affects scores, or autofails you if you don't finish within the time limit
let me take my time
let me explore

also why are you talking about letting the player cheat for failing skill checks? and what makes you think an indie game would have that much direct consequences to choices or refusal of choices

make a bad choice = you are now stuck with your choice
make a good choice = you are now stuck with your choice
I want my second playthrough to be my perfect game, everyone happy and saved, not half happy and saved and half murdered, raped and eaten because I didn't walk fast enough

also I hate games with completed % in the save file
they should add that after you finish the story, not while you're playing
"oh, I've only played one day and only have 30% of game left, yay"

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3334
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Base Management

Post by Gizmo » July 14th, 2017, 7:35 pm

undecaf wrote:
July 14th, 2017, 11:41 am
NPC's might comment on it, the PC being a "pro at failure" might lessen the severity of crit fail, etc).
That had me thinking of Orr, and him practicing getting his plane shot down; to become an expert at it. ;)

+1 from me for timed gameplay. Not necessarily timers for timer's sake, not overused, but for things that simply do not make sense if ignored in the short term. If an NPC says, "I will meet you at the mine shaft at midnight", that should not mean every night & day for a month—if the PC doesn't show up; that should mean one very ticked off NPC, who will think better of dealing again with the PC; after they pull a stunt like that.

User avatar
Drool
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9117
Joined: March 17th, 2012, 9:58 pm
Location: Under Tenebrosia, doing shots with Sceadu.

Re: Base Management

Post by Drool » July 14th, 2017, 9:07 pm

Gizmo wrote:
July 14th, 2017, 12:14 am
That's what's the shame about it. There is even a trade-off in the Hub, where the player can ~in foolish desperation... extend the waterchip timer, but at the cost(s) of having a water caravan show up at Vault 13.
I'm guessing you didn't have your first playthrough the game made utterly unwinnable by a hidden, unannounced timer.
Alwa nasci korliri das.

I neither work, nor speak, for inXile.

Not too late; make it eight!

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3334
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Base Management

Post by Gizmo » July 14th, 2017, 10:21 pm

Drool wrote:
July 14th, 2017, 9:07 pm
Gizmo wrote:
July 14th, 2017, 12:14 am
That's what's the shame about it. There is even a trade-off in the Hub, where the player can ~in foolish desperation... extend the waterchip timer, but at the cost(s) of having a water caravan show up at Vault 13.
I'm guessing you didn't have your first playthrough the game made utterly unwinnable by a hidden, unannounced timer.
I may have. I know it happened to me... I didn't think anything of it. I've also lost trying to get back from Necropolis with the Chip. Lost by getting dipped. Lost by not listening to Cabot when he warned about the Ancient Order. I've even arrived at the Necropolis and found everyone dead before I explored, or could talk to anyone in it.

The PC is supposed to know they are on a tight schedule; where the only people in the world they can call family will die if they don't hurry up and return with the necessary machine part. It's absurd (and a betrayal) to do anything else until that's dealt with—first. It doesn't matter if the player thinks that's the end of the game... That's what nearly any Vault dweller would try their best to do.

**And if the player decides that their character abandons the vault to death by dehydration... Why should the game bother to continue off script? It doesn't for long. The player has one job, and (an incredible) five months to accomplish it... How can anyone take issue with that, the player has nearly half a year in the game, with the option to extend it beyond that.

The alternative is ridiculous to me; an anxious vault in eternal need of a drink... for no matter how long the player ignores them. This would (and should) include the Master's army eventually finding them with or without the PC's willing, unwilling (or even unintentional) aid. The Master's Army invasion was almost sixteen months after the start of the game; unless the PC did something careless. This should be long after the player knows they exist, and after Jacoren speaks of his fear of the mutant threat.

BTW: I thought the ending clip for the Master's invasion of the vault was the best clip in the game; excepting the intro.
___________

In Wasteland 3, the Rangers assign the player's squad a mission that needs to be done within four weeks, how is that an insult to the player? How is it not an insult to the player if it's a meaningless fake deadline that results in nothing if missed? Not having these ~rather directly means not having real-word plausible missions that make sense, and can become moot with a missed deadline. IE... "Take the ridge by Sun up, or our landing party could get slaughtered". They don't show up.. the landing party takes heavy casualties, or doesn't survive.
Last edited by Gizmo on July 14th, 2017, 11:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Mole204
Scholar
Posts: 204
Joined: May 6th, 2013, 3:17 pm

Re: Base Management

Post by Mole204 » July 14th, 2017, 11:03 pm

Gizmo, you're right about how the time doesn't sync up and that it's a little strange sometimes.
But we've just got to accept that and move forward. To do otherwise is just what I said about sooner or later the existence of a timer means losing the mission, or the game because the programmers can get away with it because they had the timer used earlier and no-one complained, etc. Once apon a time there was a genre of text based games where everything had to be perfect. Not just timed down to the moment, but PERFECTLY perfect. You could be unlocking the door and the game tells you you failed because you weren't off in some other building baking a cake. Stuff like that. I don't want anything to be like that in any of the Inexile games. Not even a little. There is a difference between "the player got Ryouga shot and now you have to keep healing him with your lousy level-1 medic skills until you get to the doctor.", and "the program is counting the steps you make, waiting for the thing you don't know to go time's up." You're right but we need the flexibility to take our time to get our act together before rushing to the big Hurry Now thing that's going on. Isn't that why (someone, where did that go) was talking about the "fight's over, now here's the Time Until Death clock" switch was so jarring? Or unannounced timer events like Billy drowning in the algae pond at Rail Nomads?

Undecaf- Failure can lead to some VERY interesting discoveries. Loopholes. Program random number discoveries. But it can also lead to unwinnable situations. In WL1 we had to use the 4 keys to blow the base. If I'd dropped one, that's it, the game would have no resolution. It's not a matter of getting your butt kicked, it's a matter of not being able to get the result needed for Some Thing elsewhere. I will admit WL2 did a good job of making sure that most everything had enough paths to keep the game going. But there were those dialogue options that were skipped over and never to come up again. No-one should have to replay a 4 hour game to that point just to ask about the thing the guy in the place was talking about.
Some of the most interesting games I've had involved trying to keep running for your live while the Do Not Lose HQ burned. I just want WL3 to avoid getting the player locked into a dead end, or mistakenly punishing completely normal player flakiness. And game-makers are too focused on looking good over being fun, so any other mistakes are just right along the same line as that. They're worrying more about what's "in style" instead of what they clearly should do. I like timers for the "you were at this for X long and X many keystrokes", like Nethack has, not for punishing someone for pausing and taking the trash out or cooking dinner one day.

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3334
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Base Management

Post by Gizmo » July 14th, 2017, 11:14 pm

Mole204 wrote:
July 14th, 2017, 11:03 pm
I like timers for the "you were at this for X long and X many keystrokes", like Nethack has, not for punishing someone for pausing and taking the trash out or cooking dinner one day.
That's simply bad design. A TB game shouldn't increment the clocks at least until after the turn. A realtime game should offer a pause feature. RT games that are not paused... might allow for the PC(s) to be discovered and attacked... but the game wasn't paused; that's the player's fault. TB games can allow the same if they have realtime exploring (like the Bard's Tale, Fallout, and Wasteland series), but even then they would stop on the first turn. (And they might just as likely have a pause feature as well.)

I remember that Arx Fatalis has a kidnapping quest. It is very possible for the PC to arrive too late, and not save her from being demon sacrifice, by the murderous cult that took her. IRRC that game does have concession that you always arrive in the area while she is alive. The setup is such that the player can't know moment when she was taken... and so couldn't know when the clock started ticking; (a figure of speech~there isn't a clock).

User avatar
undecaf
Explorer
Posts: 395
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 5:48 am

Re: Base Management

Post by undecaf » July 15th, 2017, 12:06 am

Mole204 wrote:
July 14th, 2017, 11:03 pm

Undecaf- Failure can lead to some VERY interesting discoveries. Loopholes. Program random number discoveries. But it can also lead to unwinnable situations.
I would allow the player to screw up. If he's been careless that's the payoff, live with it. But like I tried to give examples for, I'd keep the timelimits flexible for situational reactivity, living circumstances, and varying results so as to make things feel organic and less of strictly polarized "success/failure".

And @Gizmo, that's what I was going for. Timelimits where they make sense. Not overdone and not constantly running against the clock. And more contextually longer limits than short ones; I can very much understand the frustration if the player is time and again pushed forward with a bayonet via a 5 minute deathclock.
"A human being in his last extremity IS a bag of shit."

User avatar
fuzzyballs01
Novice
Posts: 40
Joined: April 4th, 2017, 9:56 am

Re: Base Management

Post by fuzzyballs01 » July 16th, 2017, 3:21 am

I had another thought
so I mentioned recruiting staff out in the field and such, and assigning them in the base to the right category and sending squads out with a timer and getting rewards and stuff a few hours later
and that's all MGS V things

so my thought was, "you can abduct enemies and recruit them", so I figured instead of just shooting enemies and turning them into piles of goo or meat, you could maybe not totally kill them every time, kinda like how GTA IV did it
so they'd be on the ground, wounded, surrendered, which would give you some options

- ignore, the neutral choice, he'll die when the characters vision fog crawls over him
- kill, bad karma, but you get his crappy loot
- bandage wounds, good karma and he can sit there and leaves when you do
- convince him/her to join the rangers, which first requires a heal check so they survive those 5 bullets you pumped into their chest, then a speech check so they agree to your offer followed by a random roll (influenced by the speech success and luck) to see if he actually shows up or just leaves the area and goes back to being whatever he/she was doing, never to be seen again

of course I mentioned the Final Fantasy X Blitzball recruitment thing where you can see his stats before you decide to try and recruit him
go ahead and tell me each and every one of my idea so far have been amazing but won't make it into the game because this isn't a base management game alongside an RPG, it's just an RPG

Remo
Scholar
Posts: 144
Joined: April 24th, 2017, 3:16 am

Re: Base Management

Post by Remo » July 16th, 2017, 4:27 am

fuzzyballs01 wrote:
July 14th, 2017, 10:35 am
all I suggested is a feature that can be small, but still takes up some time
I'd like something like Metal Gear Solid V-ish where you build squads, then send them on missions with a success% or a losses% and getting rewards to keep building the base alongside small rewards for your rangers (like faster heal time or better selection in the store)
I am not familiar with Metal Gear Solid V, but judging by the wiki entry it seems to offer similar build mechanic to Pillars of eternity, one where you can also assign staff to various teams (R&D, Medical, intel, security etc) and also offers various gameplay abilities (affecting leveling curve)

Overall I have no problem with something like that, but it largely depends WL3 gameplay mechanics of which we know very little atm. The only thing specific that jumped at me was the brig: "The holding place for various soldiers who were rowdy and/or various captured soldiers who weren't initially willing to join Diamond Dogs." which might hold interesting possibilities for us.

Btw if you are going the build menu path, it need not be linear. I am currently looking at 'Expeditions Vikings' game, where you can build upgrades for your humble village in Denmark. These offer various benefits to your power and reputation, as well as other handy rewards. And are split in two branching paths, where you can choose one or the other based on the type of playthrough you are going for.

Such option to choose something to play into your strength or complement your weakness can be nice too. In the other thread @undercaf suggest something like that for NPCs as well.

----
Gizmo wrote:
July 14th, 2017, 12:48 am
This has always been a bit of a peeve for me. In Oblivion there is a town—it's on fire. It will stay on fire for months (or years?) until the PC deigns to pay it a visit. In Oblivion you might be expected to meet someone at an agreed upon location... The player can decide not to show up indefinitely; but when they do, the NPC acts like they went straight there. [..]
To be fair, virtually all RPGs has this unchanging static quality with everything that is happening conveniently waiting for the player to arrive. That inclue Fallout in which no matter what virtually everything stayed frozen in the exact same state for ever, and in that regard Beth actually do way better than average in creating a sense of less static world.
Gizmo wrote:
July 14th, 2017, 12:48 am
Fallout was turn based and respected the passing of game time, both inside and outside of combat. I haven't seen one Bethesda title that respected the passing of time.
To be fair, original fallout 'respect of time' came down to a simple countdown clock --a poorly communicated one in the first and too lenient to have a significant effect on gameplay in the second-- a mechanic to enstile a sense of urgency. Now, Urgency can be a great a tool, but (1) there' lots of ways to create sense of that without a countdown clock and (2) it shouldn't be overused making the player feel rushed to the point where they can't enjoy the game for the long list of due dates, (3) it shouldn't be poorly communicated to avoid frustration and unwinnable dead-end that waste our time, and/or (4) always keep inmind the reality of limited dev resources, and that timelimit == locked content.

Overall this is why games with significant sandbox elements largely deemphasize the importance of time. Even WL2, didn't relay on timelimits, the Ag Center/Highpool/Rail Nomads radio tower trio was set early on as tutorial-ish mission with rather lenient (poor Kathy have been pleading for help for a loong time while I have been dragging my feet around enjoying the sights ) and was set early on to allow players easily access it that content.

-
As for beth games, I think you are correct they don't care much about the passing of time, just your progress. We all have different play styles and they do not punish those who enjoy exploring the setting, messing around, or just take their time about it. For example in FO4, they the radio to convey a lot of the information through, and looped recorded messages to make quest waiting for you a little more plausible. Also the pool of quest and the random encounters that you may stumble upon is affected by your progress through the plot, actions and decisions so it change over time. And finally they still they have few timed events, but as far as I can tell these are limited to personal quest or plees by settlers from settlements you invested in.

Bottom line, you are wayy too salty about Beth ;)
Last edited by Remo on July 16th, 2017, 11:27 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
fuzzyballs01
Novice
Posts: 40
Joined: April 4th, 2017, 9:56 am

Re: Base Management

Post by fuzzyballs01 » July 16th, 2017, 8:36 am

I don't see how strengths and weaknesses matter when you don't get to build a base but unlock/upgrade rooms when you get more staff/continue the game
also in MGS V the first base can hold 1.000 men I think, everyone not assignable goes into the waiting room until you've got 4/4 platforms for every platform type
now W3 is post-apocalyptic, so I'd reduce the scale to 100/300 for a fully upgraded base (which is still a high endgame number) but the whole recruiting the occasional surviving enemy or random event recruits compliments any characters you might miss/lose/kill/don't recruit/replace with low skill rangers
and that's another thing, you shouldn't fire ranger base staff, you should put them somewhere else, or give them a good reason like "sent on a far away expedition" or "sent back to California" so you know they're still out there in a way, but they won't be returning

the only way I think time limits should be installed is if it's mission-limited, not a timer on the full game because that just makes me rush and miss content
like AG Centre or Highpool
pick one or the other, or pick neither and lose both, that was a good way to handle it
but then when it doesn't matter like "meet this NPC here at night" I don't think they should add extra time to code in a timer and finish W3 because one guy thinks it makes sense to not let him wait a week without him getting upset (and still being able to continue the quest)

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3334
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Base Management

Post by Gizmo » July 16th, 2017, 2:05 pm

Remo wrote:
July 16th, 2017, 4:27 am
To be fair, original fallout 'respect of time' came down to a simple countdown clock --a poorly communicated one in the first and too lenient to have a significant effect on gameplay in the second-- a mechanic to enstile a sense of urgency.
Possibly a slight misunderstanding... What I was referring to wasn't the waterchip or the invasion timers. It was that time inside of combat passed at the same rate as outside... but per turn/per-round. So if you were running out of the Cathedral (on the clock) and had several fights on the way, the clock didn't tick out in realtime during the fights. Presumably it could expire during combat, but not during a single turn...afaik. Also... things like the caravans (and other events) requiring the PC to appear at certain times—or they miss their chance. I think it was two weeks between times you could hire on to the caravans. Junktown wouldn't admit anyone after dark.

Also (like Oblivion later), the NPCs could have schedules where they went somewhere else at certain times.
Bottom line, you are wayy too salty about Beth ;)
With years worth of reasons.

But mainly their choice to cherry-pick certain names from the IP, to drape what is effectively Oblivion 2.0 in the Fallout setting. Them flippantly deriding the Fallout fanbase, while at the same time exploiting them for word-of-mouth hype before the game shipped... Never intending to deliver proper sequel; and virtually* chiding fans as dinosaurs & grognards for not accepting the abuse they'd done to the franchise; Namely, the taking of a venerated roleplaying IP, noted for the precept of freedom with consequence, and re-imagining it as freedom without consequence; secondarily, gutting core design (premise) turn-based mechanics of the series, and replacing it with ego-franken-shooter gameplay that includes an "I-Win" button, for a game mode they cheesily titled after a location in Fallout (V.A.T.S. was a place... The Vats).

(* Their forum community did this more blatantly; often, and it wasn't noticeably discouraged IIRC.)


They had the gall to imply that V.A.T.S. was a throwback to Fallout's turn based roots... when it is not derived of turn based anything, much less Fallout. The PC gets to stop time and shoot at people for free, while being granted a 90% damage shield; after which the targets of this never get a "turn" to shoot back with the same benefits; (and in a few moments the PC can do it again!). In Fallout combat was double edged equal treatment. NPCs could run out of ammo, could break their ankle trying to attack; jam their weapons same as the PC. In FO3, they had unlimited ammo, shot like robot snipers; could take 30 shots to the head, and keep acting at full ability... It was nuts.

**I haven't even touched on the part about living with the consequences of one's actions. In Fallout, the PC could (by their own hand) be vilified in a town—for the duration of the game; tough, go elsewhere. In FO3, the player can buy back their good will (globally) by giving out filthy bottled water to vagrants for free; and they can get away with shooting BOS knights in the face if they wait a while for them to forgive them. They can even return afterward and ask to join the BOS. It's absurd. Try that in Fallout with the guards at the BOS Bunker.

BOS... The BOS were a ruthless xeno-phobic cult that the player didn't even need to find; first contact with them one was given a suicide mission to get rid of you. Bethesda made them into the shining knightly order of the wastes, and mandatory to deal with.

Nukes... Fallout franchise revered nukes. There were maybe three or four in the two games (I can't recall at the moment; without looking it up). Nukes destroyed the world, and in all cases, the PC's use of nukes in Fallout was with the irony of trying to save the world. Todd's motto for FO3 was "Violence is F$%^# funny!"... and they stuffed mini nukes all over the landscape as ammo for a gun, and made detonating the big one a whimsical affair that conveniently converts the town, rather than destroys it. In Fallout 1 & 2, nukes wiped the location off the map!

Bethesda took a granfathered RPG series (often ranked in the top slots of 'all time' lists), and made a mock-parody of it. It's not even set in the Fallout I setting, they changed that too. Fallout was set in a world bent to their expectations of their future; while FO3 is set in a world locked in assumptions of their past.

User avatar
Drool
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9117
Joined: March 17th, 2012, 9:58 pm
Location: Under Tenebrosia, doing shots with Sceadu.

Re: Base Management

Post by Drool » July 16th, 2017, 9:54 pm

Gizmo wrote:
July 16th, 2017, 2:05 pm
made detonating the big one a whimsical affair that conveniently converts the town, rather than destroys it
If by "converts" you mean "utterly destroys Megaton", then yes. It converts it.
Alwa nasci korliri das.

I neither work, nor speak, for inXile.

Not too late; make it eight!

User avatar
fuzzyballs01
Novice
Posts: 40
Joined: April 4th, 2017, 9:56 am

Re: Base Management

Post by fuzzyballs01 » July 17th, 2017, 12:33 am

you're one of those people who make things look worse so you can win an argument

you get 80% damage resistance, not 90%
you can't do it again in "moments"
Karma was a pointless system that did nothing but make you pat yourself on the back for being good/bad
dice rolls in turn based games is only logical, dice rolls in a real time shooter? that's a whole other thing, bud
shooting something in the head 30+ times and have it not die is a good thing? what? I used a 5x damage mod just so I could not dislike Fallout 4 enough to quit mid-playthrough
I haven't played Vanilla F3 in ages, but if I want to play F3, I play Tale of Two Wastelands, which makes "shooting a BoS paladin in the face" a consequence you can't undo due to how factions work
I wasn't a fan of the good guys BoS either, but stories have to move forwards, bub, you can't expect them to make, what is it? 6 canon games and have the BoS being the same in every one of them? at least they sold it in a sorta acceptable manner, not like how they handled the BoS in 4
I don't use mininukes, but you can't blame someone for wanting a bigger boom for his buck
are you still talking about Fallout 3 at this point? you don't convert Megaton, you blow that eyesore off the map


the shooting part of the shooter does suck, and they did add a built-in cheating system, but if that bothers you then don't use VATS, I know I don't
and now people are saying the shooting in F4 is the best in the series and I don't get that either, crippled limbs just heal themselves and you can pick up food anywhere to heal
and then there's the BoS, they just kinda uprooted and left DC, killing off both the Lyons?
fuck man
they should have made it so Sarah stayed behind, in charge of the DC chapter, still recruiting and expanding their influence, helping the people help them
and that way they'd have reinforcements for the frontlines, and that's needed considering how vertibirds are apparently made out of paper
also the T-60 power armour
they just "found it"?
what the fuck whichever asshole wrote that?! in F3 they pretty much destroy the Enclave in DC, and that scribe tells you "we've been using the Enclave power armour to boost our own T-45's while you were asleep for two weeks"
THAT could have been the T-60
T-45's that were upgraded with superior, destroyed power armour

not just a random warehouse find with a couple thousand suits not in active duty


I've felt since the start that the people who wrote for Fallout 4 have never played a Fallout game or just didn't care about the lore
like that one guy in F2 who claims he invented Jet, but then you go to the company that creates drugs and they invented Jet, that just fucks over both games




also this has gone off track
get back to talking about base building now mmmkay thanks

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests