Hey forum dwelleres I'm just wondering which out of dt and dr you prefere and of for some reason fo4 only uses on of them wich would you want.
Me personally probably dr as the bleedthrough nullifies dt and i don't think dt could work aswell as dr if it was used better.

As long as its not possible to create an undestructable PC á la FO3 I'm cool with anything. I think the DT system of FNV is more realistic as u use AP bullets to negate armour protection.

DT because it has a more concrete effects (even with the bleedthrough it feels better - imo). Generally you shouldn't be able to harm a person in powerarmor (for one example) with a baseball bat, 10mm pistol, or any other lower/mid tier weapon. Not without a critical hit.

Although, it'd be better to have them both linked to eachother. With different damagetypes from different weapons, and thresholds and resistances accordingly added to armors.

I'm going to agree with this. I'd rather DT against DR. Though a mix may work.

Which is why I modded my game to use both on some armors, notably Power Armor of various types. You can have the variable resistances to a degree by changing the effects attached to the various armors, and I've done so in a couple of cases, however it's difficult to assign 'proper' values because the combat mechanics force them to be set artificially low to avoid breaking the game.

If I had to pick between the two I'd choose DT, with no inane bleed-through because it counters the point of having DT in the first place.

If I had to pick one: DT.

But it would be ideal to have both.
DT, low DR for Heavy armor.
DR, low DT for Light armor
A low balance for medium armor.
Too bad it would likely confuse the casual crowd.

I believe it was J. Sawyer that said he didn't like DR because it gave weird effects: 9mm pistols still dealing about the same damage, but atomic bombs dealing far less.

For that reason he (or whoever it was) said we should have DT with very minor amounts of DR (say 10-20% possible), and I agree with this.

DT but with variable bleedthrough sth like:

5%-power armor
10%-medium armor
20%-light armor

woud be ideal, 4 me.

J.sawyer said he didn't like dr because it gave weird effects : 9mm pistol still dealing about the same damage,but atomic bombs dealing far less" if he said that then he is mentally challenged .If they both get hit with a 30dr they lose the same effectivness doesn't matter if it loeses 30 dam or 300 itvwill still have 7 dam or 700 ala making the same loss in effectivness it doesn't cripple one then scave the other.Holy shizzle did sawyer receantly have an annurism .I know i'm going on but :facepalm: .

No he means.

If you have 85% DR and you get hit by a 9mm pistol, you take, say, 1 damage instead of 7. Pretty minor difference. At the same time, a sniper may hit you for 9 damage instead of 60 and a Fatman hits you and you take 90 damage instead of 600. So it's as if the armor barely did jack against the 9mm, yet you can survive a hit from an atomic bomb.

DT on the other hand would make the 9mm deal that same 1 damage, yet it would barely do jack against an atomic bomb. You may also take 20-30 damage from a sniper bullet instead of 50: all-around, the effects seem more believable.

But things would work a lot better if they actually had hits that would do no damage. I miss that from Fallout 1 and 2. I want to really be damn near unstoppable in that Enclave Power Armor, but this system makes it feel....dumbed down.

I know that jeez louise but it still takes away the same effectiveness and wtf in.the game would have 85dr and fat man fully repaired is just under 1500 so at 85dr 200 dam aint bad and it would make tough enemys tough this whole pistol argument is absolute stupidity by some.

One thing you can do to get that feel is to mod the bleed-through down to zero (it can be found in the GECK under Gameplay--->Settings; do not delete it, as the game doesn't like missing references), however that only applies if you're on a PC. That was the first change I made, as I couldn't believe they'd actually added such an effect after touting the DT system as preventing the sorts of things the bleed-through allows.

Ok, before you continue being quite so obnoxious, let's have a look at what Sawyer said on his formspring:

(in response to- "Why did you scrap the DR system? Bringing back the DT was a great idea but removing the DR at the same time wasn't.")

"DR has limited scalability (100 points -- or in the case of F3, 85 points). It produces odd effects like shielding you from ten bullets' worth of damage from an explosion but from literally no damage from a low-damage bullet.

Were DR to be used with DT (which some modders have done), I think it should be used in low values (e.g. never higher than 25%, max) as a way to help reduce damage from explosions and other ultra-high DAM attacks while keeping DT the dominant value for reducing DAM on standard attacks.

I zeroed out DR values on armor because we were switching systems entirely and I wanted to limit the number of balancing factors in armor development. For modders, I would suggest establishing a rule for how DR scales with DT and follow that so you're still ultimately balancing one level of protective power. E.g. 1 point of DR for 1 point of DT, or 1.5 points of DR for each point of DT over 5."

http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/232499837243755993

I don't know about you, but after doing some very simple mathematics it's clear to me that he's speaking perfect sense. Let's use his example:

low damage bullet - e.g. Silenced .22 pistol single non-critical shot w/ 100 Guns vs 50% DR: 0.5 x 9 = 4.5 --> 5 damage dealt with the DR system. Protected you from half a bullet's worth of damage (4 dam).

powerful hit - e.g. Annabelle direct hit w/ 100 Explosives vs 50% DR: 0.5 x (150+200) = 175 damage dealt, protected you from over 19 bullets worth of damage (175 dam).

Using JUST DR your leather armor or what have you is just as effective at repelling .22 rounds as it is direct shots from missile launchers.... see the inconsistency here? Not very realistic either.


Now, lets bring in the DT system instead.

Silenced .22 pistol single non-critical shot w/ 100 Guns vs 10 DT: 0.2 x 9 = 1.8 --> 2 damage dealt. Protected you from 0.8 bullets worth of damage.

Annabelle direct hit w/ 100 Explosives vs 10 DT: (150+200) - 10 = 340 damage dealt, protected you from 1.1 bullets worth of damage.

c.f. DR system protecting you from 19 bullets against one attack and 0.5 bullets the other.

In this case the armor protects you from roughly the SAME damage each time. Much more realistic. With DR it's like a magic transforming armor, which, while being as thin as tissue paper against a .22 round, instantly quintuples in thickness and becomes a flak jacket when having to deal with a missile. Now I'm not saying that DT is a better system than DR, I'm not saying that 20% is the perfect bleedthrough for a DT system, nor am I saying that DR is intrinsically a bad thing (in fact I agree completely with Sawyer when he says a small <25% DR limit would be beneficial). All I am saying is that next time you think about accusing the person who pretty much made NV's combat system what it is mentally challenged, perhaps check your facts and the direct quotes? I thought that Adept title below your username meant you know what you're talking about.

Both. FO2 nailed that down.

This isn't my first account on here and this virtually no damage pistol crap :facepalm: it's the exact same aghhh.

DR/DT hybrid, Like Fallout 2


but DT is my choice (poll is racist)

DR just seems a lot more logical in a gameplay context.

Fists should not be able to scratch power armour. THIS IS BLASPHEMY

How? by punching someone with PA with only you bare fist, and making damage in the process? is that logical?, why remove DT and just left DR, when Fallout 2 did a good job with both?

You can do it with dt in fonv oddly enough and dt cripples dps where dr doesn't cripple either.