I'm sure I have said this before but would people be interested in a turn based mode using the V.A.T.S as a combat engine/system?

Imo I think using the mechanics from fo1 and fo2 in terms of combat with the V.A.T.S interface would be the best of both worlds.

And it would obviously have to optional.

Could a mod change the title to "V.A.T.S style combat system" I made an error

I mean simply using V.A.T.S as the shell and gutting out everything else, it would be pretty much there for visual purposes only.

Disclaimer:

I am not suggesting a supped up V.A.T.S or V.A.T.S 2.0 I'm suggesting a full fledged turn based combat system using the previoulsy mention system as an interface to engage and fulfill combat, and I don't mean the target eyes thing either in the originals either.

And i'm also not suggesting this "Calling V.A.T.S. turn-based is like calling Call of Duty a proper military simulator"

I'm talking about the creation of a turn based mode using V.A.T.S as merely an interface as I stated in my previous post that everyone has managed to miss and happily and ignorantly bashed my opinion.I mean it was there all along "Imo I think using the mechanics from fo1 and fo2 in terms of combat with the V.A.T.S interface would be the best of both worlds."

I for one love V.A.T.S and would like to see it upgraded for FO4 one idea I had was V.A.T.S effecting objects examples:gas cans / gas spills / ropes / chains / pipes / levers / suport beems ext... a good way to do this IMO would be to click a button for V.A.T.S witch would target npcs dubble click the same butten to target objects.I feel this would open up a huge range of strategic game play and would be real fun as well.

I wouldn't. VATS has no resemblance to turn based combat; all it is is an "I get to cheat, and hit you three times" button
(and gaining a 90% damage resistance while doing it). First off... to be even remotely turned based the opponents would have to get their turn ~to hit the PC three three times(and gain a 90% damage resistance while doing it).

Fallout 1 & 2 did not have the VATS system. What they had was an extra option to choose to carefully aim the at great cost; and great risk if they missed. APs were sparse in the games and few characters had the APs to shoot twice ~certainly not aim twice.


That's a major reason not to do it. To have a worthwhile turn based game the combat requires that fight be balanced to the system; but that balance is usually very different than what's needed for a realtime game. Making it optional would [should!] entail causing a dynamic re-balance of any fight every time you choose to switch modes. This would also probably mean that you could switch combat for certain encounters to gain advantage. not good IMO.

The balance for a real time game can be shifted back to stats, skills and algorithms, but people would not like it. What would happen is a person would aim a gun at something in the game and miss even though they are right next to it if their gun/combat skills were not up to making the shot. People would complain that it's not real to shoot several times at point blank and miss. Even though it kind of is real:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9zy37-_0LU

This is how the Morrowind system worked. You attacked in game, but a calculation determined if you landed the shot, and how much damage was dealt. So, you could hit the character graphically, but miss as far as the game was concerned. This could be easily manipulated with a variable spread based on skill. Of course each gun would have a factor too as some are easier to use than others.

Gismo I respect you but dude your coming off a bit harsh dont you think? I dont think FO games should be all V.A.T.S however if upgraded right it could become a real grate strategic game play mode think about it lets say you take hits in V.A.T.S lets say objects can be set off in V.A.T.S like a npc could hit a rop witch sets off a skid of brick obove you or you hit a pipe seting off steam witch burns npcs in its path you dont think V.A.T.S used this
way would add to the rpg side of the game?note im not saying this is what diviner was going for I just dont think you should shoot his idea down so fast as V.A.T.S if upgraded right could be rpg gold again IMO.

I don't think it could be done in modern times. I'm waiting on Wasteland 2 which is real time with pause. I think that's the best way to go most of the time.

Wasteland 2 is turn-based.

I would love to see a turn-based Fallout 4 or hell even a RTwP Fallout 4 but neither will happen. If either should happen however VATs should not be a model for anything. I would actually be in favor of removing VATs and simply focusing on making the regular real time combat not terrible. If the new Fallout games are going to go the route they are they should do at least do it well.

I kind of have to agree with Gizmo on this one, for the most part at least.

I like VATS, but it's more bullet-time than turn-based. I do think there's room for it's improvement within the mechanics of the game and how it functions, though. And I do like the idea of expanding it to allow for other targeted shots on stationary objects. Could have some cool potential there, possibly.

Like Gizmo said, though - VATS is basically an aimed shot. The biggest difference between Fallout 1 and the targeted shots and Fallout 3's VATS system is that in the prior you were taking a risk with an aimed shot. It cost an extra AP to attempt, often had a lower hit percentage, and could mean a wasted action. (Get your AP to 10 or so, pick the right perks and 2 aimed shots a turn wasn't at all impossible, though.) In the Fallout 3, it's more of a bonus special ability, however - you're not only risking nothing, but have everything to gain in it's use.

For players like myself, it also serves as a convenient "oh crap!" button. Mass Effect kind of taught me the strategy of pausing the game in real-time combat, looking around to take stock of the situation, and then pausing again to plan my next move. VATS kind of simplifies that for me, and allows me to make a couple of attacks all while within that paused state.

I think there's something to be said for trying to bring back some of the risk involved in making an aimed shot. I wouldn't (on paper, at least) be against the idea of bringing damage taken while in VATS back up to normal and encouraging more tactical use of such attacks. I think there could also be some better implementations all through the VATS system.

As far a actual turn-based combat - again, I'm behind the idea on paper, but there are some problems with that (and I say that as a staunch turn-based gaming fan.) My primary feeling is that turn-based functions at it's best when you're in command of a group of characters. It makes the micro-management and tactical planning much easier to digest. There's tactics in turn-based games that I just would never be able to pull off in an RTS, for example.

As Fallout focuses on your PC as the only entity you really need to worry about commanding, it pains me to say that turn-based might not be the most intuitive fit for this sort of game. At least not classic turn-based gaming as we've generally seen. I do think there's some potential for a game mechanic that allows you to select your moves for your character and then see everything play out in simultaneous real-time before returning to your character's planning phase, but that's not something I see Bethesda getting too far into, and probably says more about the sort of games I'd be interested in designing than anything else.

Fallout's probably going to stay real-time, barring some potential spin-offs (that I'm sure I'd eagerly buy, mind you.)

And I really do, if I'm honest, tend to dislike the "just make it optional" compromise you see in a lot of forums. Personally, if the game devs don't feel strongly enough about a mechanic that they don't feel it should be an integral feature of the game, then I'm not sure it'd be a strong enough contribution to warrant its inclusion in the first place. Myself, I feel like gameplay options ought to be limited to difficulty, gore, and the like. VATS is already optional as it is - making a toggle for different "types" of VATS doesn't feel like game design I could really get behind.

I think an X-Com EU style of turn based game could work really well for some sort of Fallout game. I don't think this would be good for Fallout 4. It would be neat to see if Bethesda allows another developer to do a game and if they would allow it to be isometric.

I'd surely welcome another Fallout: Tactics. I'd rather see a 3D camera than isometric view, though (that might be what you meant, however.) I think in this day and age, that could be really neat to see.

I remember when that happened; and yeah that's what's represented by a PC with poor weapon skill trying to hit the target ~even at point blank. In FO3, the reticule is almost [but not quite] just how you choose a target; not where the bullet goes.

Well... I'd have loved a TB Fallout sequel, but VATS simply isn't TB. I just don't see the two mutually exclusive gaming styles being neatly knit together in an FPS.

When someone mentions 3D, they can never know if the reader thinks "First Person" ~~Some only understand 3D to mean "first person".

I would not want to see a sprite based FO title; my ideal [fantasy] future Fallout game would be either via the method Obsidian is using for Project Eternity*, or InXile's approach with Wastland 2. Combat-wise I'd want it far closer to Wasteland 2 than FO3.

*Project Eternity is 3D characters on what I think is a 2D backdrop with some wild shaders on it; WL2 is fully 3D from a hish ISO-style angle.

Some NPCs had far more than 10 APs; Dogmeat IIRC had 17 APs at max level.

Play any Goldbox game and the mercenaries you hire were loose canons on the field; unlike your PCs. Other TB games do this as well, (Kings Bounty has certain troops that are berserk all the time; some just some of the time; and if you have more troops than you can effectively lead ~they go berserk as soon as the fighting starts [uncontrolled]. I have no qualms with some units being uncontrolled. For Fallout ~Lets say FO:Tactics 2 , I think I would have liked it if military NPCs were trained to follow orders effectively, while non-military brawlers and thugs would rarely (if ever) obey, and would be a friendly environmental hazard during the fight.

turn based is old and boring (IMO), just do not over power the VATS system and keep the fallout 3 ,NV formula. I want to enjoy my loot not just see it in animation of the turn based play style.

Calling V.A.T.S. turn-based is like calling Call of Duty a proper military simulator. It's a fundamentally broken cheat mode. New Vegas attempted to rectify the problems associated with it, but the system's foundations are broken.

Pretty much this^^

I think alpha protocol made a pretty nice blend between vats style combat and normal tps. The biggest issue with vats in fo3 was that it was basically godmode. You had ridiculous amounts of ap and weapon accurasy and you gained 150% damage resistance during vats.

New vegas was much better because it actually removed the god like abilities from vats and made so that enemies could move during vats. The problems occur when there are multible enemies as time passes differently for each enemy. For example when you target 1 enemy all the other get to move normal speed during vats cutscene.

No offense but obviously the enemy would have a there turn... it wouldn't be turn based then.

And didn't I say it should have fo1 and fo2's mechanics, did you have 90% damage resistance in fo1 or 2?NO!

You're a "card" i'll explain it simply for the people who don't quite get it.

I am suggesting a TURN BASED MODE USING THE V.A.T.S INTERFACE AKIN TO THE NORMAL TURN BASED COMBAT IN THE ORIGINALS.

Not that target eyes thing I mean the bread and butter combat just using V.A.T.S as an interface to save time and resources than building a new one from scratch.

I mean simply using V.A.T.S as the shell and gutting out everything else, it would be pretty much there for visual purposes only.

I get what you mean, I think - a turn-based Fallout that uses a VATS-inspired interface as the UI, since it's already an existing asset and would be familiar to players.

Like I said, I think turn-based could be made to work in Fallout like that, but I think it would take some concessions to the focus of the game. I honestly don't see a standard turn-based presentation working terribly well if we're assuming that you're still in control of solely your character (and possibly a companion or two.) That is one problem I had with Fallout 1 and 2, honestly - there was a lot of waiting around watching the computer think and move NPCs. Especially in the larger battles. That's not an issue in something like X-Com where you're trading turns between many different characters, or even Fallout: Tactics. But in a game where you control one character, it's a lot of sitting and watching, and not the most engaging way to present things.

There are, however, turn-based systems where movement and actions are presented simultaneously (can't remember the technical term for it.) See Steambirds or the magnificent Frozen Synapse, for example. Each turn, all combatants plan out their moves and actions for a specific segment of time, and then all of that "runs" at the same time once everyone's finished with planning. I think something like that would help keep inertia in the gameplay without bogging down.

With modern technology, I'm sure you could get some pretty cinematic and compelling action out of something like that.

I don't see Bethesda mucking about with pioneering turn-based gameplay concepts, however. It'd be neat, but I just can't see it happening, unfortunately.

"I get what you mean, I think - a turn-based Fallout that uses a VATS-inspired interface as the UI, since it's already an existing asset and would be familiar to players."Completely!

Couldn't we just have a slider for battle speed?

I think Final Fantasy games have something similar.

Again it would have to be optional but wasn't tactics in a similar position having real-time and turn-based combat? How did that pan out (i've barely played tactics) ?

- Tactics had a button that would flip between the two. I rarely used real time except for driving and ambushes ( god those where fun ). -

- I'm sure that Bethesda is looking at how well the new x com did and will have an eye on wasteland 2 and Shadowrun returns. If they do well enough then Bethesda may farm out a Tactics 2. -

- As for the OP. I don't see Bethesda straying towards TB and it will be either a NV style of VATS or no VATS at all -

I think they did a good solution whit it in Fallout Tactics, you hit space and you opend it up for real time, mainly for the big shootouts when you did not need to mowe around, or nore then 1 trooper ot car.

Well, I couldn't tell you how well the real-time combat was in Fallout: Tactics (never tried it, actually. ) My worry with making the type of combat you're going have be an option is that I always wonder if one mode of combat or another (or more likely both) don't suffer from having to be balanced independently. Real-time and turn-based combat are two very different things, each with their own concerns and strategies. I can't imagine a world where it's not incredibly difficult to make every encounter equally compelling regardless of which combat mode you're using.

I'd rather a developer make a game with a specific way of doing things from the start, and tailor the game to that. Like I said above, if the developer doesn't feel strongly enough about a feature they've worked on that they think it doesn't need to be an innate quality of the game itself, then how supportive of it can I be, as a player? I'm just not a fan of "make it optional" as a viable game design philosophy.

As far as slider speed - FO1 and 2 both had those, as I recall. The end result is the same, though. You're still spending more time watching other units move than doing anything on your own. It just tends to make combat a more passive experience than it ought to be. And I'm saying that as a really die-hard turn-based combat fan. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it is a primary consideration if you wanted to make a compelling turn-based combat experience in Fallout. (My suggestion on how to get around this problem is in my post above.)

You cant remove v.a.t.s nor can you have it used 100% of the time obviously so what do you do? you make it better! no way in hell will beth remove v.a.t.s if so why not remove lock picking & hacking YEA! you may as well call it FALL OF DUTY 4.

Yeah you can't use v.a.t.s as we know it 100% of the time but i'm not saying that.

This doesn't make any sense to me [what they did]. VATs if it's trying to be anything like the TB concept, it should always divide/slow time evenly, it's depicting the seconds slower, so all would move at the same rate. To have it otherwise is actually depicting the other enemies suddenly moving way too fast.

Meaning the player enters VATS [as a turn], and spends their APs, then watches [on the fly] cutscenes of their opponents making their own attacks? I wouldn't want that My interest in Turn Based play is restricted to a game like this >> http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/FO3-ish.jpg ; else it lacks the appeal for me.
*Also the VATS interface only allows for attacks with the equiped weapon; Turn Based combat should allow for additional actions (including movement, non-combat actions and inventory access).

For this I would like to see APs be spent for all actions; both in and out of VATS. Meaning that when the player accesses the Pip/Inventory, they spend APs doing it, and are short those APs when they jump straight into VATS after leaving the Pip.

If we retain the concept of regenerating APs, perhaps Character development can be made to affect AP regeneration [Some PC's regenerate faster than others]. Movement saps APs at the regeneration rate, so the PC always enters VATS with full APs ~unless they did something more than just move [like pip-access, jumping, hit the reload hotkey... etc].
In that event, the PC enters VATS short the APs of their recent actions. I'd say that Weight should penalize the available APs; dropping excess weight would increase their APs to normal. (This would work well with the idea of drop-able backpacks.)