Well I don't think you'd really need a cover system if you're sniping - they shouldn't be able to shoot at you with enough accuracy for that. A cover system may make the combat easier (not that it could be..really.), but I'd rather keep the more fanciful FPS elements out.

I see this either being closed or abandoned, Fallout 4 is about 6 or 7 years away, we'll all be parents or married by then, hopefully. People, Skyrim needs to be released first before this can be taken seriously.

Cover is fanciful?

The idea of sniping and long range combat is to kill them before they can suppress you and maneuver. That means fire from cover. It's not a function of making combat easier... it probably will make combat harder, because NPCs would have cover as well...but to rather make combat more realistic.

Cover is fanciful, the basic FPS elements the game has now are sufficient. Trying to put realistic combat in, when you have the concept of HP is sort of fluffy. And long range combat is to kill them at long range, using a cover system for that means you're not mobile and inviting that maneuver. Cover seems most useful in those full-auto shootouts and close-ish range. Although, the "long range" combat in FO3 isn't really long at all, so it falls in that range too. It might be cool to have, but the game can do without it.

This is for series discussion. Note the key word here. series

Malcador, you're missing the point. The game is Rpg/Sandbox/Shooter. 1/3-1/2 of the game is a shooter, it has to be perfected if the Rpg aspect is little at best.

Besides, some of this could be useful on the ES games, especially if they are creating a new engine for the next couple of games.

Although you could be right, i hope not, for I wish the next Fallout to be completley different from TES.

I sense a paradox coming on here...

Weird. I could have sworn that I've aged since Fallout 1 and have accomplished many great things inbetween then and now yet here I am, still interested in my favorite series. :shrug:

I think I'd like a cover system. That could actually allow for greater difficulty and enemy AI, I'd think.

Raise the average damage rate to encourage keeping behind cover (especially seeing as VATs is already integrated to account for limbs behind cover,) and make it a useful strategy. That's becoming standard in this sort of combat anyways (though they'd likely have to tweak the third-person view a bit: not a bad thing considering some people seemed to have a problem with that view anyway.)

It would also likely improve enemy AI, by giving them some more options in combat. It could also make having companions much more important, to provide cover fire to allow you to move to a better position.

I think it could only make the combat more thoughtful and tactical (which is a selling point of the original Fallouts, at least.) A good cover-based shooter plays almost like a puzzle game, so I think it would fit well with a Fallout game.

One of the most fun aspects of STALKER for me is moving in such a way as maxxing cover. The mobs do it as well, especially in combat. Stalker AI is fairly realistic in that they will suppress you while others move to flank you. Wouldn't hurt FO4 to pay more attention to this.

From what iv'e experienced Brothers in Arms has the best cover system and AI in a game, pretty much ever.

Stalker is pretty much the only FPS I've played, so I can't really comment on any of the others out there.

It does ? I'm happy with the simple combat as is, it's a big part of the game yes, but it doesn't require too much of the player (as it should). So I'm not really seeing the need to morph this into COD or something. Beth needs to focus a lot more on the RPG aspect above all else at this point.

But if we use that argument...doesn't require much of the player, that tends to counter many of the arguments we have been making here, concerning dialogue, SPECIAL, consequences, etc.

It'd require the player to be good at the twitchy aspects if you make the combat more intricate and fun for the, heh, shooty fans, unless we're ok with going to an FPS with RPG attached as opposed to other way around. Dialogue, SPECIAL and consequences doesn't really require much of the player other than to be interested. Cover wouldn't make the difficulty of the game too hard though (played the abomination that is Vegas 2 - the cover system there is neat in a "movie-style" way, but the AI eventually pops up to die), but I'm well aware that some RPG fans might be put off by stuff like that.

Plus, you could tie the cover system into some of the attributes as well. Like you could have Agility determine how quickly you could move in and out of cover, etc. VATs could regenerate quicker while under cover. And you could also open up some more Perks that tie into that, too. Like an ability to blind-fire, a suppressive fire ablity, etc.

Good idea.

I actually think it would go a ways towards minimizing the twich aspects of the game. I'm a terrible FPS player mostly because the pace is so heated. Sometimes there's a lot going on and I'm trying to run around and shoot at the same time and I get overwhelmed. What cover helps me with is giving me a bit more focus to the combat - I can focus on moving from cover to cover as opposed to running around constantly trying to not get hit. Having a button to "stick" you to cover and letting you pop in and out to fire actually simplifies things for me.

It also makes the pacing much more purposeful - you can break the combat up into manageable chunks of going in and out of cover. And using that as a base from which to catch your breath and take stock of the situation. You already have VATs, so you can pause time and look around to get your bearings and plan your next move. (So pretty much what Mass Effect does, but I was a big fan of the way they did things as it applies to cover.)

Plus, if you're going to have shooter combat, you might as well make it as good as you can. The same with any element in the game. If you have dialogue at all, make it good dialogue. If you have a repair system, make it as elegant as you can. If you're going to have Attributes, balance it as well as you can and make it important to the game.

What's wrong with the repair system? All i can think of is that i should be done at a workbench.

Heh, that really doesn't minimize it nor make it less frantic. You'd still have to keep firing and observing them as they, supposedly, attempt to flank while shooting at you - although if the AI weren't to be improved, then I guess it'd make combat a bit less frantic than if it were. Cover system basically just allows you to be in a movie-like gunfight (read : lots of chaotic shooting, etc) and not die. But then again, I'm applying other FPS' cover systems to this (but that's as good as it can be, anyway). The shooter combat doesn't have to be as good as it can be though, it just has to be good as it has to be given the nature of this game. Problem is, as I see it, the more you beef up the shooty parts, the RPG part will invariably suffer for it.

I like to think i'm an intelligent gamer, and having played a wide array of games over dozens of years i'll say this;

Having FPS aspects in an RPG does not make it for stupid gamers/"Noobs" and in cases like this would imporve the game. Alot.

Not all AI randomley pops out, again, i'll point our Brohers in Arms and recomend you play it. (Authentic difficuly).

That's nice, where did I call you or anyone stupid, exactly ? heh. I don't think it'd improve the game alot, it'd make combat a bit easier, for me at least, may prove a bit of an annoyance for people that like the RPG elements more than the twitchy bits. The cover aspect might be a cool addon, but it's pretty much just that. The game's combat isn't really weak, other parts are, so that's a bit higher up the pole for me.

Nothing. I was just using it as an example. Were it broken, one could say that it doesn't matter because that's not a focus of the game, or that other things should take precedence - but it doesn't mean that it should also work right if it's going to be in the game at all. So, the combat elements need to be up to par as well - were it a turn-based game like the old ones it would still need to be as good a turn-based game as possible - if it's not a priority at all, then maybe it's an element that could as well have removed to spare up resources for other parts of the game.

Well, maybe that's just how I play. In Fallout 3 I pretty much just stand still and shoot while waiting for my VATs to charge up. It's already a frantic gunfight with lots of chaotic shooting while keep firing and observing them as they supposedly attempt to flank you. Why not make it bit more thoughtful and tactical, while also allowing the player the opportunity to press a button to lock onto a cover position to slow down the action? And I do think it would pretty much automatically lead to improved AI - it'd be easier to program the AI to make use of cover if that's already an implemented game mechanic.

If the enemy is also being careful and moving in and out of cover, then they won't just be running around the landscape willy-nilly while firing at you. That in itself is going to help make the game less frantic.

I'd agree, there's other things I'd like to see improved if I was going to make a list. But that conversion's being done to death in other threads - I'm more interested in the moment at all things I've like to see next time around and discussing their advantages and disadvantages, without worrying about playing at a video game developer and talking about relative priorities and whether it's feasbile.

I don't understand this: press a button to lock into a cover position?

Well Mass Effect and GTAIV have something similar.