The Node Map System : Fallout Series Discussion

» Thu May 03, 2012 1:14 pm

So I've been playing Fallout Tactics quite a bit lately (not having any success in beating it but having fun noetheless) and was wondering A: is the map system in Tactics the one the dinosaurs keep refering to when they say we need to go back to the old Node System from previous games? B: if so, how would this be incorperated in a 3D game, and C: what exactly about this system do you like?

Personally, I've gotten fairly tired of it before I even got to St. Lious (which is somewhere around the halfway point?) The random encounters are so tedious. No I don't want to have a random encounter with a bunch of Wolves and Ghouls. What do you mean I have to anyways? I just killed some thousand Raiders, why do I have to fight a bunch of Beast Lords? This is particularly a pain in the ass when the mission is a gajillion little squares from the bunker.

Am I missing something? Fast Travel is wierd and unrealistic, but it's a lot less agrivating than thirty random encounters on my way to some horrific death match with the Super Mutants.

So what do you think? Fast Travel? Node System? Something else alltogether? and if so what?

» Thu May 03, 2012 9:44 am

The node system allows for a wider scope - Tactics takes as far east as Chicago, and as far west as the Rockies - although games live Daggerfall and Arena had a huge area scope, at the current art and tech standard demanded for 3D games, I'm not entirely sure this is feasible - yet. One of these step forward requiring a step back things I suppose.

On a basic level, it doesn't have to really work any different than it does in Fallout 1 or two. You keep walking until you reach the end of the map, and then your arm raises up, revealing your Piboy's map screen. You then select your next location as per Fast Travel currently.

As for the random encounters, your ability to skip these is determined by your outdoorsman skill in 1/2/Tactics. Boost this, or find a NPC with the skill tagged.

» Thu May 03, 2012 3:40 am

The node system allows for a wider scope - Tactics takes as far east as Chicago, and as far west as the Rockies - although games live Daggerfall and Arena had a huge area scope, at the current art and tech standard demanded for 3D games, I'm not entirely sure this is feasible - yet. One of these step forward requiring a step back things I suppose.

On a basic level, it doesn't have to really work any different than it does in Fallout 1 or two. You keep walking until you reach the end of the map, and then your arm raises up, revealing your Piboy's map screen. You then select your next location as per Fast Travel currently.

As for the random encounters, your ability to skip these is determined by your outdoorsman skill in 1/2/Tactics. Boost this, or find a NPC with the skill tagged.

Didn't it also involve luck? I think it did with encounters that were to difficult for you.

» Thu May 03, 2012 6:49 am

Encounters also pop up quite a bit more in Tactics. Like 10-13 in one square sometimes depending on the area.

» Thu May 03, 2012 9:42 am

What agent_c said.

Also, it offers more plausible way to implement higher degrees of visual variety and settlements, which, in turn, greatly boosts narrative and storytelling possibilities as well as possibilities for quest design -- this makes for far more interesting experience (imo) than one relatively small and monotonic playground in which everything, in order to feel plausible in the setting, are throwing distance away from each other (yet still try to depict desolation and isolation).

» Thu May 03, 2012 9:29 am

Picture it this way, imagine that each of those mission areas you have in Tactics is the size of say the pit, to the big empty. with major location the size of say the NV area?

So not onyl can you represent larger distances and seamless integration of varying terrain you have multiple DLC sized maps or more to explore.

» Thu May 03, 2012 5:00 pm

Still having troule with St.Louis? I tried to make a video on how to play it but it slowed down by computer big time. Best advice is just do the mission asked of you. Get the squad and get out. Have your squad stay in the APC at all times. When you do leave the APC, only have one guy go out. Load up on repair kits and give them to your best repair guy. Put a kit in one of his/her weapons slots. They can repair the APC from the inside. Have everyone prone.

The APC can be repaired if the tracks get blown off. Only until it blows up and your guys get thrown out, is when it can't be fixed and the mission fails. Have some of your people good at heavy weapons. Auto Shotguns are good weapons. Snipers are good. There is a sniper rifle in a chest. Sometimes its best to just sit back and snipe the mutants. They run out of ammo, and they will come to you.

Watch out for mines The best guy with the perception will see them. Shoot the mines from a distance.

You can buy repair kits from the mechanics inside the bunkers. Or gamble for them. Kinda cheating way to win everytime ===>

Spoiler

gamble wasn't really well thought out in Tactics. A trick you can do is save before you talk to the person. Bet one dollar for one of his dollars. If you lose, then do it again till you win. Once you win, load the save and bet again. This time bet for all of his repair kits and what every else he has. Make sure you have equal value or close to it. Remember that pattern. So if you won on the first try that is when you make the big bet. If you won on the third try that is when you make th big bet. So just bet a dollar for the first and second. Hope this makes sense.. Note it doesn't work for everyone but it does for the mechanics.

St.Louis isn't the half way point but its close to it. One other thing you could do is turn down the difficulty.

» Thu May 03, 2012 3:00 pm

Didn't it also involve luck? I think it did with encounters that were to difficult for you.

IIRC luck was used to determine the chance and type of a special encounter.

» Thu May 03, 2012 10:56 am

Still having troule with St.Louis? I tried to make a video on how to play it but it slowed down by computer big time. Best advice is just do the mission asked of you. Get the squad and get out. Have your squad stay in the APC at all times. When you do leave the APC, only have one guy go out. Load up on repair kits and give them to your best repair guy. Put a kit in one of his/her weapons slots. They can repair the APC from the inside. Have everyone prone.

The APC can be repaired if the tracks get blown off. Only until it blows up and your guys get thrown out, is when it can't be fixed and the mission fails. Have some of your people good at heavy weapons. Auto Shotguns are good weapons. Snipers are good. There is a sniper rifle in a chest. Sometimes its best to just sit back and snipe the mutants. They run out of ammo, and they will come to you.

Watch out for mines The best guy with the perception will see them. Shoot the mines from a distance.

You can buy repair kits from the mechanics inside the bunkers. Or gamble for them. Kinda cheating way to win everytime ===>

Spoiler

gamble wasn't really well thought out in Tactics. A trick you can do is save before you talk to the person. Bet one dollar for one of his dollars. If you lose, then do it again till you win. Once you win, load the save and bet again. This time bet for all of his repair kits and what every else he has. Make sure you have equal value or close to it. Remember that pattern. So if you won on the first try that is when you make the big bet. If you won on the third try that is when you make th big bet. So just bet a dollar for the first and second. Hope this makes sense.. Note it doesn't work for everyone but it does for the mechanics.

St.Louis isn't the half way point but its close to it. One other thing you could do is turn down the difficulty.

It's not that I can't get passed it, it's that I havent had time to play in weeks. Thanks for all the help Styles :smile:

@Agent C and Undecafinated: So in a 3D game you'd have a map system from leaving your base of opperations/town/Vault/etc. Would you be able to go from one node spot to another without going through the map screen?

Also wouldn't that leave the game feeling less open and more confined? Yeah, you have this massive world to explore in, but only in one section at a time. In the node system in Tactics, each node was seperate from the next, so if I'm being chased by thirty deathclaws all I have to do is go to the next node to get away. Alternatively, if I can't leave the nodes until the deathclaws are dead, the map becomes tiny. If the deathclaws can chase me from node to node, how would that work? Would both groups be teleported to a certain spot?

» Thu May 03, 2012 3:38 pm

@Agent C and Undecafinated: So in a 3D game you'd have a map system from leaving your base of opperations/town/Vault/etc. Would you be able to go from one node spot to another without going through the map screen?

It could work that way too, but I'd prefer to have a visible traveling with random encounters (because of the random encounters and an increase sense of actually traversing through the vast emptiness of the wasteland) -- although, how would you find all the nodes (those that are not marked on your map by NPC's; or if you decided to go off the main path and just explore (at your own peril of course)) without going through the mapscreen and traveling there? There's also no need for a "base of operations".

Also wouldn't that leave the game feeling less open and more confined? Yeah, you have this massive world to explore in, but only in one section at a time. In the node system in Tactics, each node was seperate from the next, so if I'm being chased by thirty deathclaws all I have to do is go to the next node to get away. Alternatively, if I can't leave the nodes until the deathclaws are dead, the map becomes tiny. If the deathclaws can chase me from node to node, how would that work? Would both groups be teleported to a certain spot?

I don't see how it would feel any less open as any location would be open to you from the get go (and if the maptraveling was retained as it was, the whole map - every inch of it - would be at your disposal - with an included risk of stomping over something you can't yet handle, though). In Fallout 1 and 2 you could escape battles simply by running to the exit grid (sometimes it didn't work as the foes would catch and kill you, or just shoot you, though), I don't see how that wouldn't work with "3D". For example, by replacing an exit grid with an edge of the map and prompting: E) Enter worldmap.

I made a suggestion regarding this in the Fallout 4 speulation and suggestions -thread. It's not all-conclusive or holeless, but I think it would be fine middleground between what was and what we have now:

Spoiler

Map and Travelling:

A return to the classic worldmap system (with some tweaks to make it look more... erm, "modern"). The actual FPP/TPP playground area would be roughly about 2x the size of Fallout New Vegas; and the area is divided into 5-7 (or so) hubs scattered in the worldmap which vary in size and content. General gameplay in those would be about the same as in F3 and F:NV, run around and do local quests and explore.

When you enter the node you could spawn at any "formidable" (as in settlementlike in size) location you've already found. The first time entering a node you would spawn at the side of the map on special spawnpoint for that purpose (which could be used later on too, of course).

Outdoorsmanskill is reintroduced (or merged within the Survival skill) and works similiarly to Fallout 1&2 with the difference that nonhostile encounters are always avoidable should the player so decide (to decrease the amount of loadscreens).

The worldmap itself is zoned in couple of ways:
- The farther away from the starting position, the harder the enemies and vice versa; but there is still a (small) chance to encounter harder enemies on starting grounds and vice versa, based on outdoorsmanskill, luck and placement of the zone (but still keeping the MQ areas within reasonable range of enemies).
- The map is zoned into territories, which each have their set of unique enemies as well as a few commonones that can be found on every zone.

Each zone has about 5-7 small maps for random/special encounters, which are either hostile or nonhostile, and are based on the topography of the location in the worldmap and the contents of the encouters would be based on the zone in which it occurs.

The visitable locations on map would be as follows: A settlement - with explorable wasteland around it to provide smaller sidequest and exploring. Or just a visitable location like a majorsized building, militarybase, factory etc. They could even include two settlements, but in general all towns would be much bigger than those in Fallout 3 or New Vegas.

Each settlement has its own set of architecture (not too different from other settlements, but so that one can tell the difference), general theme and mindsets. These are small things, but they would add a lot of variety to the game.

Entering worldmap from a node would happen through the edges of the map. In Fallout 3, when you bumb to an edge of the map, you get a popup message that says: "you cannot go further that way" - now it would be like this: "e) enter worldmap".

To not have to always run to the edge of a map, you could use the minimenu command "Enter Worldmap", which could not be used indoors, during combat or if there are enemies nearby. However, escaping combat through the edge of the map would be possible.

Fasttravel through world map would offer options for pacing (could be enabled by a perk, or be an ability from the get go). Such as "Cautious", "Casual", and "Rushing". Where "Casual" would be the normal travelspeed with no bonuses or hits, "Cautious" a much slower, but with giving a bonus to outdoorsman in determining avoidance of an encounter, and "Rushing" much faster, but with giving a hit to outdoorsman. There would also be related quests, solving which could be easier by utilizing this system (to make it have a bigger point).

» Thu May 03, 2012 7:11 pm

The continued evolution of game engines is going to allow maps to keep getting larger and new expansive, as we've seen with Skyrim.

A map node system is a horrible idea in this modern age of gaming. Not only does it provide all the problems you listed and more-we really don't have the space here in the States to cover such large territory every game, and you'd be hardpressed to find many avid fans who want to see the game leave the US.

» Thu May 03, 2012 8:19 am

A map node system is a horrible idea in this modern age of gaming. Not only does it provide all the problems you listed and more-we really don't have the space here in the States to cover such large territory every game, and you'd be hardpressed to find many avid fans who want to see the game leave the US.

Says you who doesn't think it throug. :shrug:

» Thu May 03, 2012 2:57 am

@Agent C and Undecafinated: So in a 3D game you'd have a map system from leaving your base of opperations/town/Vault/etc. Would you be able to go from one node spot to another without going through the map screen?

Depends on the situation. If theres a rail station or caravan job it would make sense.

» Thu May 03, 2012 6:19 am

Depends on the situation. If theres a rail station or caravan job it would make sense.

See this is how I think the entire node system (if it is to be implemented) should work. Instead of "teleporting" from one spot to the next, there should be systems in place for getting there, allot like the DLC add ons. You have to go to a specific spot to get to the next node. There could be "hub" spots that can take you to multiple nodes, as well as special nodes that can only be accessed through particualr means.

The continued evolution of game engines is going to allow maps to keep getting larger and new expansive, as we've seen with Skyrim.

A map node system is a horrible idea in this modern age of gaming. Not only does it provide all the problems you listed and more-we really don't have the space here in the States to cover such large territory every game, and you'd be hardpressed to find many avid fans who want to see the game leave the US.

Personally I disagree. First of all, Fallout maps thus far have been grossly undersized. Las Vegas alone is some five miles wide, not somehting the average person can cross in a three minute stroll. Second: There's plenty of space to cover, even if you keep it domestic. Just covering any encounter between the NCR and the MWBoS would occupy more than enough space. Lastly: I don't think the avid fans would mind if Fallout crossed the border once or twice. If it were set in Chicago, for example, it would be a massive waste to NOT cross into Canada. The same if it was in California and it didn't cross into Mexico. Just becuase we can make big maps now (personally Just Cause 2 and Opperation Flashpoint have two of the biggest freaking maps ever) doesn't mean it needs to be limited to just one large arena.

» Thu May 03, 2012 9:18 am

The continued evolution of game engines is going to allow maps to keep getting larger and new expansive, as we've seen with Skyrim.

Oh? You mean the cities that looks like towns?
Or the towns that look like villages?
Or the villages that look like settlements?
Or the settlements that looks like one lonely house on the prairie?

Fallout was never meant to be an exploration game like TES is, it's about exploring the cultures, mutations, relations, tribalisms, laws and justice that was born out of the nuclear fire.
Going back to a node-based system would improve the Fallout of Fallout and remove the cancerous growth that is TES from it.

"It's worse!"
No, it's not, it's different.
Instead of them spending countless hours on detailing a lot of walking about and dungeon crawling they could spend that time on actually developing a RolePlayingGame.
It's not a sightseeing tour, it's an RPG about exploring how humanity has changed since the Great War.

» Thu May 03, 2012 6:43 pm

Fallout 3 was my first Fallout game, so I really don't think I'm qualified to have much of an opinion. It sounds interesting.............. I'm not sure if I'd trade a completely open world for it......

» Thu May 03, 2012 2:52 am

The continued evolution of game engines is going to allow maps to keep getting larger and new expansive, as we've seen with Skyrim.

This is actually not completely true. Elder Scrolls 1 and 2 had larger, more expansive maps than skyrim.

» Thu May 03, 2012 10:04 am

Node-based would be good. Could still have the mini-nodes of 'dungeon' areas, like Toxic Caves in F2. Random encounters would just need an 'appropriate' terrain layout, which could be randomly generated to keep it fresh. Some encounters could include the option of entering a cave or a small ruin to fight more of the enemies than just the ones that ambushed you (like in F2 with its gecko caves).

This would have several benefits. For starters, and probably the biggest benefit...other than encounters that get permanantly added to your map, like the Cafe of Broken Dreams, the game would be able to completely unload a random encounter map after its done...no need for save bloating, or the game to track ash and goo piles forever. The wider expanse of the map would alleviate any immersion concerns about how many enemies there are compared to citizens, because we're not jamming 6 towns into the equivalent of 1 small RL city, and it would no longer be just a short in-game time to run between towns. The greater expanse would make skills like Survival mean more than 'alternate version of stimpacks' as well. It would be nice to once again be able to click to use my skills to evade an encounter, rather than relying on my (the player's) craptastic stealth methods.

Finally, it would allow for a greater variance in setting between the nodes.

» Thu May 03, 2012 7:05 am

Oh? You mean the cities that looks like towns?
Or the towns that look like villages?
Or the villages that look like settlements?
Or the settlements that looks like one lonely house on the prairie?

Fallout was never meant to be an exploration game like TES is, it's about exploring the cultures, mutations, relations, tribalisms, laws and justice that was born out of the nuclear fire.
Going back to a node-based system would improve the Fallout of Fallout and remove the cancerous growth that is TES from it.

"It's worse!"
No, it's not, it's different.
Instead of them spending countless hours on detailing a lot of walking about and dungeon crawling they could spend that time on actually developing a RolePlayingGame.
It's not a sightseeing tour, it's an RPG about exploring how humanity has changed since the Great War.

Except here's the thing:

It is now, whether you like it or not.

Exploring a vast open world is now a part of the Fallout franchise. It is now a staple of it. One of it's trademarks. It isn't the 90's anymore, and it never will be again. Fallout will never again be an ancient 90's relic product of it's generation. It will continue to progress. If it incorporated all the silly elements you want back to soothe your nostalgia gland-it would be considered by the gaming community as a regression, rather than a progression, and products that regress just aren't successful my good man, and since we are discussing the progression of the game, a map node system that encompassed vast amounts of territory in only a couple of games and filled the entire United States up rapidly and gave every territory within it it's own piece of lore that nostalgiatards would scream and pout about if it altered even the slightest bit, isn't a good idea.

Exploring and surviving are now trademarks of the Fallout franchise.
You can either accept it and quit whining, or get out, because God only knows how tired I am of of every post you make being a temper tantrum. The ball is in your court.

» Thu May 03, 2012 2:51 pm

Except here's the thing:

It is now, whether you like it or not.

Exploring a vast open world is now a part of the Fallout franchise. It is now a staple of it. One of it's trademarks. It isn't the 90's anymore, and it never will be again. Fallout will never again be an ancient 90's relic product of it's generation. It will continue to progress. If it incorporated all the silly elements you want back to soothe your nostalgia gland-it would be considered by the gaming community as a regression, rather than a progression, and products that regress just aren't successful my good man, and since we are discussing the progression of the game, a map node system that encompassed vast amounts of territory in only a couple of games and filled the entire United States up rapidly and gave every territory within it it's own piece of lore that nostalgiatards would scream and pout about if it altered even the slightest bit, isn't a good idea.

Exploring and surviving are now trademarks of the Fallout franchise.
You can either accept it and quit whining, or get out, because God only knows how tired I am of of every post you make being a temper tantrum. The ball is in your court.

So basically: [censored] Fallouts original concept and it's long-term fans?
How about you accept that Fallout should not be a copy-pasta of TES and that it should be it's own franchise and stop whining about how it's moving "backwards" to have a map node system?
Cause it's not moving backwards, it's taking a step to the side, a step to the right side if I may.
Exploring a sandbox world is for TES, not Fallout. You don't like it then go play TES.
But saying that a sandbox map is superior to a map node system for Fallout is ridiculous.
Cause Fallout wasn't designed for sightseeing or dungeon crawling, it was designed to explore humanity.
Having map node system means we can be have bigger towns without them being too close together and we can explore a lot of different kinds of areas and varying cultures.

"Exploring and surviving are now trademarks of the Fallout franchise."
Uh-huh, those trademarks are cancerous growths that should be cut off as they don't belong.

You don't like it? Then go play TES, go play GTA, go play Saints Row, go play Just Cause.
But don't come lecture me what Fallout is about and what is better for it.

[edit]

And I didn't realize that a node system was outdated, I guess I just imagined it in Deus Ex: Human Revolution. :rolleyes:

» Thu May 03, 2012 5:01 am

Cause it's not moving backwards, it's taking a step to the side, a step to the right side if I may.
Exploring a sandbox world is for TES, not Fallout. You don't like it then go play TES.
But saying that a sandbox map is superior to a map node system for Fallout is ridiculous.
Cause Fallout wasn't designed for sightseeing or dungeon crawling, it was designed to explore humanity.
Having map node system means we can be have bigger towns without them being too close together and we can explore a lot of different kinds of areas and varying cultures.

"Exploring and surviving are now trademarks of the Fallout franchise."
Uh-huh, those trademarks are cancerous growths that should be cut off as they don't belong.

[edit]

And I didn't realize that a node system was outdated, I guess I just imagined it in Deus Ex: Human Revolution. :rolleyes:

Personally I don't see how the Node System and Exploration are mutually exclusive. I my head, I have this image of a set up like the CW in Fallout 3: node areas that are seperate from each other, and accessable via certain entry and exit points. Obviously it would need larger areas (I think one semi-large city with a sruounding countryside, maybe some dungeon-y kind of areas around (like a Vault, or Raider camp) to add some veriety) and more travel options.

Mostly, what I don't like about the node system is how much it feels like teleporting from one spot to the next. Yeah there's a little travel animation and a little dot moves across a map, but then "poof" you and your groupies appear in some spot in the node. I don't get to choose where I enter, nor do I get to choose the method of entry (stealthed, guns blazing, etc.) I'm just there.

I also disagree that Fallout games, even the old ones, were not sand-box, exploration based. Exploration may not be as encouraged in early games as it is in the 3D ones, but it was still available.

» Thu May 03, 2012 3:21 am

Fallout 3 was my first Fallout game, so I really don't think I'm qualified to have much of an opinion. It sounds interesting.............. I'm not sure if I'd trade a completely open world for it......

Fallout and Fallout 2 are open world. You can go anywhere you want in them. You can stop in the wasteland if you wish. You run into encounters. The Map node system allows use to go to more then one city. Fallout 3 and New Vegas are based around one city and have many small "cities" crammed way to close to it.

The map node system gives the "Wasteland" feel to the game. Locations are many (game) days apart. Sperated by miles of wasteland. I don't get a wasteland feel from Fallout 3 or New Vegas because there are locations over every hill.

With the map node system the next game can cover entire states. Have many large cities instead of just one. Fallout 2 goes from San Francisco to Southern Oregon.

» Thu May 03, 2012 4:06 am

1. Mostly, what I don't like about the node system is how much it feels like teleporting from one spot to the next. Yeah there's a little travel animation and a little dot moves across a map, but then "poof" you and your groupies appear in some spot in the node. I don't get to choose where I enter, nor do I get to choose the method of entry (stealthed, guns blazing, etc.) I'm just there.

2. I also disagree that Fallout games, even the old ones, were not sand-box, exploration based. Exploration may not be as encouraged in early games as it is in the 3D ones, but it was still available.

1. Well I don't care much for 'immersion' so for me watching a dot move across a map is fine.

2. Yes, it was there, it was available and had to be used, but it only served as a purpose to bring the player to the next map node. From one quest zone to the next. In the newer games exploration is far more emphasized than what it used to be.

So yeah, all games technically had "exploration" in them, but exploration in the past games was all about finding the next quest node and to give the player an ideaof how far apart each node was.
In the newer games exploration is about dungeon crawling, loot hunting and killing crap.

So all games had exploration, but it was handled differently in the past games and was never a huge emphasis on the gameplay but merely served as an aestethic feature to give players an idea of how far apart each node were with a sprinkle of random encounters.

» Thu May 03, 2012 6:39 am

A game with a map node system can have TES style exploration. So I don't see why people are freaking out.

The space between the nodes can have smaller nodes, that can only be found through wandering around the world map. Come across caves and smaller towns and ruins of cities that aren't connected to the main quest line. Hidden locations that can only be found through doing quests. Like in Fallout 2 where you have to find the location of Vault 13. The Stables of New Reno.

Hell take a page form the Mod Fallout: 2238 and give us the ability to make tents in the wasteland wherever we want.

» Thu May 03, 2012 11:42 am

I think the only situation where Bethesda would use a node based map, is if a Fallout game was set in Hawaii. Then they could make each island its own seperate map.

Though I wouldn't want it like the originals. The map would change when you go to a boat or something and travel to another island.