This is a very long read, so if you have any pressing issues you would be wise to care of them first. That said, I hope you have time to read through this awfully long proposal/wishlist/begging-post for combat in Fallout 3. So, here goes!
How I would like combat to be done in Fallout 3:
Fallout 3 is not going to be Fallout 2 with just prettier graphics; that much is clear.
However, there is no reason that “updating” the game to be more “modern” has to destroy the original Fallout-feeling we all know and love so much. I do not want combat to be exactly like in Fallout 1/2, and I am sure you can understand that. In my opinion there is room for improvement, without destroying the Fallout-feel.
The aim/goal of the modified system I am proposing is to make combat slightly more realistic, to “spice it up”, making combat (slightly, as it is quite exciting already, the way it is in FO/FO2) more exciting, and also more aesthetically pleasing. I believe this can be done without compromising any of the feel or quality of the current (FO2) system.
So here goes, my wishes for combat in Fallout 3 (Note: the rest of this post assumes an isometric viewpoint and fully animated 3D-characters):
Proposal for new combat-system in Fallout 3: “Pseudo-realtime”:
Now, I would guess that many of you would close your eyes in horror just seeing someone use the word “realtime” in a FO3 suggestion-post, but there is no reason for panic.. You might notice the subtle use of the “pseudo”-prefix, and that is just because I could not think of a better word (give me a shout if you think of one!).
With my proposal for this “pseudo-realtime”-system, I am thinking more along the lines of 75 % turn based, and 25 % real-time combat. That might be a bit hard to understand, but I will try to explain.
In FO/FO2, the combat is perhaps 90 % turnbased. That is, when fighting, everything is played out in turns, but you can still gain an advantage by initiating combat before your enemy has time to (or thinks of) doing so, and ensure that you get to have the first turn. When both sides discover each other at the same time (in a random encounter, for example), who gets to act first is based on sequence, which again is based on agility (if I am not mistaken). Apart from who gets to shoot first, everything is turn-based. Each combatant has his/her turn to act, and no one can stop that person from acting. This works quite well, but leaves a few things to be desired (for FO3).
Ah, I have babbled enough already, lets get on to the example!
For the sole purpose of demonstrating my ideas, I have produced a simple scenario. It is quite simple, really, but holds many possibilities. Really bad ASCII art follows:
As you can see (hopefully
), the scene is shaped as a “T”. That is, a fairly long corridor, with two guards guarding a door in a off-shoot corridor. The player-character is standing in the hallway, out of sight of the guards, which we assume to be hostile (with a “shoot-on-sight”-attitude to intruders). As the guards have not detected the PC, the PC has the element of surprise. These guards have been on guard duty for quite some time now and are understandably a bit bored.
Here comes the first proposed change: With the current system, whoever initiates combat gets to act first. That is fair, don’t you think, but also a bit boring, as whoever initiates combat can act out their entire turn without fear or worry about retribution, and without including the circumstances in the (risk) calculation. This is a good opportunity to add some depth to the system and tension to the situation.
Circumstances vary. A junkie wandering on the street most likely doesn’t expect someone on the other side of the street to suddenly pull out a gun (unless he is paranoid ;P ), and therefore is not prepared to counter it. You could say he is “0 % alert” (or 1% or whatever very small number you prefer). A guard however, who has just begun his shift, would be on guard and alert for any intruders (it is his job, after all). He might therefore be 75 % Alert. A guard, who has just spotted an enemy, will naturally be expecting an attack any second, and there for 100 % alert.
Back to our small example, as you might remember, these guys have been on duty for a while, and might therefore now only be 50 % alert (alertness naturally decreases proportional to time on duty, but that's a minor detail. Feel free to ignore it.). As I haven’t explained that bit yet, you might wonder what this “alertness” stat is good for. Simple: It affects how fast the character can react upon being attacked. An example:
The player, as you might remember, is hiding around the corner, and he decides it is time to wipe out those pesky guards standing in his way. It should be quite easy, as he is a good shooter and has surprise on his side.
With the nice, new FO3 combat interface, he queues up two actions:
1: Pop out from behind the corner (alert check).
2: Fire an aimed shot at guard #1’s head.
He then clicks the “Go” button (or something similar). The queued actions then play out in real-time, as follows:
1: As the PC pops out from behind the corner, the game rolls a check to decide if the player manages to get the first shot off, or if (one of) the guards gets to fire first. The statistics that modify is: The guards’ agility (reflexes, speed) and alertness-level, and the players’ agility (reflexes, speed) (The players’ alertness is naturally at 100 %, as he/she initiated combat). As the guards are in a relatively low state of alertness (50 %) and the player have a higher agility, the check falls in favour of the player (as it would in most similar situations), and the player shoots before the guards can react.
The combat messages might read like this:
Player pops out from behind the corner, taking the guards by surprise. Guard #1 raises his gun to fire, but before he can do anything, Player shoots and hits him in the head with a critical hit for 152 hitpoints, splattering his brains over the nearby walls. Guard #1 was killed.
This all plays out in real-time, as the player already decided on the actions (pop out and shoot), before he actually carried them out. As such, no thinking time is lost. The player can still use as much time as he wants thinking of his actions before he tells the game to carry them out. The main difference from FO 1/2 here is that you can queue actions, and then let them play out in all the style and beauty of real-time action, adding to the feeling of action and aesthetics of the situation.
So, the player has popped out from behind the corner and shot dead one of the guards, all in real time. What now? Simple: Business as usual. If the PC still has action points to spend, he gets to spend them (He would probably want to use them to get behind some cover
). If not, the remaining guard has his turn and get to try to kill the PC.
So, action point spending might turn out like this:
Initiate combat: : 0 AP
Pop-out from behind corner (“combat-move”) : 2 AP
Fire aimed shot with Desert Eagle at Guard 1: 5 or 6 AP
Take cover behind corner : 1 AP*
Total : 8 or 9 AP. Not to unreasonable IMHO
(* = I think that actions like taking cover should have a low AP cost, to reward tactics.)
That was the basic example, but of course there are many variations and possibilities. As you might have understood, the main point here, besides queuing up actions and playing them out in real time (Not the same as real-time combat with pausing and queuing!) is a behind-the-scenes check to decide if the acting character gets to act/fire without anyone interfering (firing first). I am sure you have all seen a western-movie where the most important thing is who can draw and fire quickest (not that is should be like this in FO3! Just an added detail…)
Take note that this check might be carried out at different times. For example, if the PC happened to walk (out of or in combat-mode) into the view of two guards who are suspicious, but not outright hostile, the alertness/retaliation check would be carried out only if the PC tries to shoot/attack the guards, not before. A guard whose view the PC walks into might have an alertness level of 70 %, which is raised to for example 90/95 % if the PC pulls out a gun, depending on the circumstances (a NPC or PC would never have 100 % alertness, except in actual combat). This would also give unarmed character a (well-deserved, in my opinion) bonus advantage, as they have a greater chance of getting the first “shot” in
The proposed changes/additions are thus as follows:
1: Option for queuing actions and playing them out in real-time (with nice 3D-animated moves ).
2: Sequence stat replaced by a check based on agility/sequence and “alertness” whenever combat is initiated (random encounters) or an attack is attempted (above example).
I hope I have managed to convey my idea and thoughts with the above (where the most important information is), but in a pre-emptive strike to try to clarify a few things that I might not have explained very well or forgotten, I will add some more examples and information. If there is anything you haven’t quite understood (which is highly likely, I would think), please read on:
Appendix:
Note that even though I (perhaps misguiding) named the system “Pseudo-real-time” (as mentioned, in lack of a better word), it would still be possible to fight entirely in turn-based mode. Taking the above corridor-with-guards example, one who wants complete control might chose to do one and one action at a time, instead of queuing the actions and watch it play out in real-time.
As in the first example, he would probably want to pop out from the corner (performing what I so smartly like to call a “combat-move*”), and then think some more about what to do next.
So, he spends two action points and successfully** (without stumbling or falling, like a low-agility character might end up doing) pop out from behind the corner. This is where matters are complicated a bit. What should the game do now? Should it immediately run an alert-check to decide if the guards get to open fire (after all, they have a “shoot-on-sight”-attitude), or should it wait until the player does something else (like attempting to shoot the guards). I am of the opinion that there is 3 options here:
1: Nothing happens. Just like in FO 1 & 2, the Player gets to spend all of his action points before the opponents get to act. This way, turn-based get an advantage (but it doesn’t look as cool as doing it real-time).
2: The game runs an alertness-check as the player appears from behind the corner. If both guards fail the check, nothing happens. If the check is successful for one or both of the guards, they get to either fire once each (with any weapon and fire mode that they already have equipped) or get half the AP (to simulate that they have to act quick if they don’t want to get shot, as it isn’t actually their turn) they would get in a normal turn to use on other tasks (like taking cover or equipping a weapon). (The same procedure that is used in the first example, when queuing and then carrying out actions real-time)
3: The game runs a check once as the player comes into view, and then another for each action the player performs (either a normal check every time, or an easier check for each succeeding action the player performs). For example, the player attempts to dash past the guards (instead of attacking them), for each action point he/she spends on moving (moving is business as usual, no changes there) an alertness-check is run, if one or both guards succeed, the same procedure as above is used (guards get to fire once, or get half the AP of a normal turn). After they have had their (half) turn, the player can continue (with either running, or stopping and firing/attacking if he chose/have enough AP). If the check is made successfully, it is not made again until the player is out of view (After a successful check, the guard(s) get a half-turn for every one or two points the opposing player uses on movement (also, the check is made separately for every critter/enemy).
Note: This last example might also be played out in real-time (would look better and cooler, in my opinion), if the player chose to. If you know exactly what you want do (i.e. just run across the hallway), I see no reason not to (although I in no way mean to degrade those who prefer turn-based and/or would never use a real-time feature)
* = Performing a combat move would raise the suspicious/alertness-level of nearby NPC’s, and might even cause some NPC’s to initiate combat. Example: you walk across a hallway were two almost-but-not-quite-hostile guards stand, and suddenly dive for cover (to do so, you would have to enter combat-mode). A bit suspicious, don’t you think?
** = An example of a combat-move gone wrong might be: Player has 3 in agility (and perhaps a bit low luck). He pops out from behind a corner to shoot, but in the process trips over his own feet and falls on the floor, losing the rest of his turn. The turn goes to the guards, who promptly shoot the poor guy dead.
Another similar situation might be one where the player himself does not mess up, but where action from enemies might interrupt the player and screw up whatever action the player was performing. Example:
Player leans around the corner to throw a grenade, but is spotted by a guard (who successfully made an alertness-check). The guard opens fire before Player manages to throw the grenade. The shot misses, but makes Player lose the grenade on the floor. Oops. Duck and cover!
I think small changes and additions like this would spice up combat a bit, and add a bit of much-wanted (for my part, at least, altough I dare to hope that there are someone out there who agrees with me ) tension and actual action to the combat-aspect of Fallout. That is not say that combat in Fallout 1 & 2 is not good. It is great, and much fun! But as I see it, there are always things that can be improved. 
Note that these suggestions/ideas were made/thought up mostly with singleplayer in thought, but I think the system/concept/ideas put forth here could be transfered to a multiplayer enviroment without too much trouble.
I still have a few things left unsaid, but this is a horrible long read already (5 pages in Word! Damn, that went fast!), so I think that can wait for a bit.
Note that I named the post “How I/we[/] would like combat to be done in Fallout 3”, so please add your own suggestions thoughts and ideas.
Also please post any criticism, questions or thoughts you might have about this piece and thank you very much if you read all of this! Especially if you work at Bethesda
How I would like combat to be done in Fallout 3:
Fallout 3 is not going to be Fallout 2 with just prettier graphics; that much is clear.
However, there is no reason that “updating” the game to be more “modern” has to destroy the original Fallout-feeling we all know and love so much. I do not want combat to be exactly like in Fallout 1/2, and I am sure you can understand that. In my opinion there is room for improvement, without destroying the Fallout-feel.
The aim/goal of the modified system I am proposing is to make combat slightly more realistic, to “spice it up”, making combat (slightly, as it is quite exciting already, the way it is in FO/FO2) more exciting, and also more aesthetically pleasing. I believe this can be done without compromising any of the feel or quality of the current (FO2) system.
So here goes, my wishes for combat in Fallout 3 (Note: the rest of this post assumes an isometric viewpoint and fully animated 3D-characters):
Proposal for new combat-system in Fallout 3: “Pseudo-realtime”:
Now, I would guess that many of you would close your eyes in horror just seeing someone use the word “realtime” in a FO3 suggestion-post, but there is no reason for panic.. You might notice the subtle use of the “pseudo”-prefix, and that is just because I could not think of a better word (give me a shout if you think of one!).
With my proposal for this “pseudo-realtime”-system, I am thinking more along the lines of 75 % turn based, and 25 % real-time combat. That might be a bit hard to understand, but I will try to explain.
In FO/FO2, the combat is perhaps 90 % turnbased. That is, when fighting, everything is played out in turns, but you can still gain an advantage by initiating combat before your enemy has time to (or thinks of) doing so, and ensure that you get to have the first turn. When both sides discover each other at the same time (in a random encounter, for example), who gets to act first is based on sequence, which again is based on agility (if I am not mistaken). Apart from who gets to shoot first, everything is turn-based. Each combatant has his/her turn to act, and no one can stop that person from acting. This works quite well, but leaves a few things to be desired (for FO3).
Ah, I have babbled enough already, lets get on to the example!
For the sole purpose of demonstrating my ideas, I have produced a simple scenario. It is quite simple, really, but holds many possibilities. Really bad ASCII art follows:
Code:
| |
| |
| |
---------------- |
| G |
| |
| G |
|---------------| |
|P |
| |
G = Guard.
P = PlayerAs you can see (hopefully
), the scene is shaped as a “T”. That is, a fairly long corridor, with two guards guarding a door in a off-shoot corridor. The player-character is standing in the hallway, out of sight of the guards, which we assume to be hostile (with a “shoot-on-sight”-attitude to intruders). As the guards have not detected the PC, the PC has the element of surprise. These guards have been on guard duty for quite some time now and are understandably a bit bored.Here comes the first proposed change: With the current system, whoever initiates combat gets to act first. That is fair, don’t you think, but also a bit boring, as whoever initiates combat can act out their entire turn without fear or worry about retribution, and without including the circumstances in the (risk) calculation. This is a good opportunity to add some depth to the system and tension to the situation.
Circumstances vary. A junkie wandering on the street most likely doesn’t expect someone on the other side of the street to suddenly pull out a gun (unless he is paranoid ;P ), and therefore is not prepared to counter it. You could say he is “0 % alert” (or 1% or whatever very small number you prefer). A guard however, who has just begun his shift, would be on guard and alert for any intruders (it is his job, after all). He might therefore be 75 % Alert. A guard, who has just spotted an enemy, will naturally be expecting an attack any second, and there for 100 % alert.
Back to our small example, as you might remember, these guys have been on duty for a while, and might therefore now only be 50 % alert (alertness naturally decreases proportional to time on duty, but that's a minor detail. Feel free to ignore it.). As I haven’t explained that bit yet, you might wonder what this “alertness” stat is good for. Simple: It affects how fast the character can react upon being attacked. An example:
The player, as you might remember, is hiding around the corner, and he decides it is time to wipe out those pesky guards standing in his way. It should be quite easy, as he is a good shooter and has surprise on his side.
With the nice, new FO3 combat interface, he queues up two actions:
1: Pop out from behind the corner (alert check).
2: Fire an aimed shot at guard #1’s head.
He then clicks the “Go” button (or something similar). The queued actions then play out in real-time, as follows:
1: As the PC pops out from behind the corner, the game rolls a check to decide if the player manages to get the first shot off, or if (one of) the guards gets to fire first. The statistics that modify is: The guards’ agility (reflexes, speed) and alertness-level, and the players’ agility (reflexes, speed) (The players’ alertness is naturally at 100 %, as he/she initiated combat). As the guards are in a relatively low state of alertness (50 %) and the player have a higher agility, the check falls in favour of the player (as it would in most similar situations), and the player shoots before the guards can react.
The combat messages might read like this:
Player pops out from behind the corner, taking the guards by surprise. Guard #1 raises his gun to fire, but before he can do anything, Player shoots and hits him in the head with a critical hit for 152 hitpoints, splattering his brains over the nearby walls. Guard #1 was killed.
This all plays out in real-time, as the player already decided on the actions (pop out and shoot), before he actually carried them out. As such, no thinking time is lost. The player can still use as much time as he wants thinking of his actions before he tells the game to carry them out. The main difference from FO 1/2 here is that you can queue actions, and then let them play out in all the style and beauty of real-time action, adding to the feeling of action and aesthetics of the situation.
So, the player has popped out from behind the corner and shot dead one of the guards, all in real time. What now? Simple: Business as usual. If the PC still has action points to spend, he gets to spend them (He would probably want to use them to get behind some cover
). If not, the remaining guard has his turn and get to try to kill the PC.So, action point spending might turn out like this:
Initiate combat: : 0 AP
Pop-out from behind corner (“combat-move”) : 2 AP
Fire aimed shot with Desert Eagle at Guard 1: 5 or 6 AP
Take cover behind corner : 1 AP*
Total : 8 or 9 AP. Not to unreasonable IMHO
(* = I think that actions like taking cover should have a low AP cost, to reward tactics.)
That was the basic example, but of course there are many variations and possibilities. As you might have understood, the main point here, besides queuing up actions and playing them out in real time (Not the same as real-time combat with pausing and queuing!) is a behind-the-scenes check to decide if the acting character gets to act/fire without anyone interfering (firing first). I am sure you have all seen a western-movie where the most important thing is who can draw and fire quickest (not that is should be like this in FO3! Just an added detail…)
Take note that this check might be carried out at different times. For example, if the PC happened to walk (out of or in combat-mode) into the view of two guards who are suspicious, but not outright hostile, the alertness/retaliation check would be carried out only if the PC tries to shoot/attack the guards, not before. A guard whose view the PC walks into might have an alertness level of 70 %, which is raised to for example 90/95 % if the PC pulls out a gun, depending on the circumstances (a NPC or PC would never have 100 % alertness, except in actual combat). This would also give unarmed character a (well-deserved, in my opinion) bonus advantage, as they have a greater chance of getting the first “shot” in
The proposed changes/additions are thus as follows:
1: Option for queuing actions and playing them out in real-time (with nice 3D-animated moves
).2: Sequence stat replaced by a check based on agility/sequence and “alertness” whenever combat is initiated (random encounters) or an attack is attempted (above example).
I hope I have managed to convey my idea and thoughts with the above (where the most important information is), but in a pre-emptive strike to try to clarify a few things that I might not have explained very well or forgotten, I will add some more examples and information. If there is anything you haven’t quite understood (which is highly likely, I would think), please read on:
Appendix:
Note that even though I (perhaps misguiding) named the system “Pseudo-real-time” (as mentioned, in lack of a better word), it would still be possible to fight entirely in turn-based mode. Taking the above corridor-with-guards example, one who wants complete control might chose to do one and one action at a time, instead of queuing the actions and watch it play out in real-time.
As in the first example, he would probably want to pop out from the corner (performing what I so smartly like to call a “combat-move*”), and then think some more about what to do next.
So, he spends two action points and successfully** (without stumbling or falling, like a low-agility character might end up doing) pop out from behind the corner. This is where matters are complicated a bit. What should the game do now? Should it immediately run an alert-check to decide if the guards get to open fire (after all, they have a “shoot-on-sight”-attitude), or should it wait until the player does something else (like attempting to shoot the guards). I am of the opinion that there is 3 options here:
1: Nothing happens. Just like in FO 1 & 2, the Player gets to spend all of his action points before the opponents get to act. This way, turn-based get an advantage (but it doesn’t look as cool as doing it real-time).
2: The game runs an alertness-check as the player appears from behind the corner. If both guards fail the check, nothing happens. If the check is successful for one or both of the guards, they get to either fire once each (with any weapon and fire mode that they already have equipped) or get half the AP (to simulate that they have to act quick if they don’t want to get shot, as it isn’t actually their turn) they would get in a normal turn to use on other tasks (like taking cover or equipping a weapon). (The same procedure that is used in the first example, when queuing and then carrying out actions real-time)
3: The game runs a check once as the player comes into view, and then another for each action the player performs (either a normal check every time, or an easier check for each succeeding action the player performs). For example, the player attempts to dash past the guards (instead of attacking them), for each action point he/she spends on moving (moving is business as usual, no changes there) an alertness-check is run, if one or both guards succeed, the same procedure as above is used (guards get to fire once, or get half the AP of a normal turn). After they have had their (half) turn, the player can continue (with either running, or stopping and firing/attacking if he chose/have enough AP). If the check is made successfully, it is not made again until the player is out of view (After a successful check, the guard(s) get a half-turn for every one or two points the opposing player uses on movement (also, the check is made separately for every critter/enemy).
Note: This last example might also be played out in real-time (would look better and cooler, in my opinion), if the player chose to. If you know exactly what you want do (i.e. just run across the hallway), I see no reason not to (although I in no way mean to degrade those who prefer turn-based and/or would never use a real-time feature)
* = Performing a combat move would raise the suspicious/alertness-level of nearby NPC’s, and might even cause some NPC’s to initiate combat. Example: you walk across a hallway were two almost-but-not-quite-hostile guards stand, and suddenly dive for cover (to do so, you would have to enter combat-mode). A bit suspicious, don’t you think?
** = An example of a combat-move gone wrong might be: Player has 3 in agility (and perhaps a bit low luck). He pops out from behind a corner to shoot, but in the process trips over his own feet and falls on the floor, losing the rest of his turn. The turn goes to the guards, who promptly shoot the poor guy dead.
Another similar situation might be one where the player himself does not mess up, but where action from enemies might interrupt the player and screw up whatever action the player was performing. Example:
Player leans around the corner to throw a grenade, but is spotted by a guard (who successfully made an alertness-check). The guard opens fire before Player manages to throw the grenade. The shot misses, but makes Player lose the grenade on the floor. Oops. Duck and cover!
I think small changes and additions like this would spice up combat a bit, and add a bit of much-wanted (for my part, at least, altough I dare to hope that there are someone out there who agrees with me
) tension and actual action to the combat-aspect of Fallout. That is not say that combat in Fallout 1 & 2 is not good. It is great, and much fun! But as I see it, there are always things that can be improved. Note that these suggestions/ideas were made/thought up mostly with singleplayer in thought, but I think the system/concept/ideas put forth here could be transfered to a multiplayer enviroment without too much trouble.I still have a few things left unsaid, but this is a horrible long read already (5 pages in Word! Damn, that went fast!), so I think that can wait for a bit.
Note that I named the post “How I/we[/] would like combat to be done in Fallout 3”, so please add your own suggestions thoughts and ideas.
Also please post any criticism, questions or thoughts you might have about this piece and thank you very much if you read all of this! Especially if you work at Bethesda
