what happened to the big guns skill? : Fallout: New Vegas

» Wed Dec 24, 2008 6:04 am

I did, and I stand by it. Its not the only reason to bash at it, but it is sufficient on it's own IMO.

We'll probably never see eye to eye on this.
It just seems petty to find the lack of one skill (who's use was a bit of jumbled mess) sufficient to bash it on. More reasons sure, but just going 'no x skills game SUUUUUCKS!'

I would want specialized weapon skills, and would actually prefer a "Small guns" skill for commonplace civilian weaponry, and a Big Gun:X skill, picked for each Big gun individually; and have the failure rates per use depend on the skill with each heavy weapon. (meaning you could use any Big Gun, but run a weighted risk of critical failure that is lowest with the one you are most skilled with).

Experimental weapons are flaky and sometimes have problems, it takes a trained professional to consciously fix and/or avoid some of those quirks, and to handle it with known best practices that you only get through specialized training.

I think that most people with hand gun experience could examine a minigun for ? an hour and figure out to get it to fire, but they would not have any non-intuitive benefits from formal training, and probably not know how to clear a jammed belt, or be a decent shot with it. :shrug:

It works better as perks or a sub-skill (with a few points to invest) the way I see it.
Adding a skill for all those weapons seems rather overly complicated. Also I like Obsidians view of having each weapon option a viable choice from the start (though explosives still needs to be fixed).
I'd rather have a dozen meaningful choices, than two dozen choices half of which bring little extra to the table, except that maybe it can be viewed as a bit more realistic.

A perk that allows you to properly use an advanced weapon, either bought as a money sink or chosen (makes for better roleplaying), would be a less complicated option.

» Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:41 am

We'll probably never see eye to eye on this.
It just seems petty to find the lack of one skill (who's use was a bit of jumbled mess) sufficient to bash it on. More reasons sure, but just going 'no x skills game SUUUUUCKS!'

The game is the closest thing we have to Fallout 2, and that's a plus in my book; but its not an improved Fallout 2 (so its not an A+ :chaos:)

It works better as perks or a sub-skill (with a few points to invest) the way I see it.
Adding a skill for all those weapons seems rather overly complicated. Also I like Obsidians view of having each weapon option a viable choice from the start (though explosives still needs to be fixed).
I'd rather have a dozen meaningful choices, than two dozen choices half of which bring little extra to the table, except that maybe it can be viewed as a bit more realistic.

I don't see the logic here. I would prefer 26 meaningful skills to 13 general/merged skills, and that guaranteeing that it not be possible to excel at all skills.
The original Fallout had 18 skills (each with a defined use and effect), some were improvable by books, and some not. Even if a skill was very rarely used, the PC that had that skill developed when the time came to use it, was usually able to succeed in that situation where others would fail. Merging and removing skills messed this up. :shrug:

A perk that allows you to properly use an advanced weapon, either bought as a money sink or chosen (makes for better roleplaying), would be a less complicated option.

Perks were a cheat designed to add customization to the PC ~perks were brilliant originally. They altered the game rules slightly in favor of the PC.
IMO it is unsuitable to use perks as part of the rules themselves. A weapons perk should bend the rule for the PC, not be the path to perfect mastery.

» Tue Dec 23, 2008 10:23 pm

I don't see the logic here. I would prefer 26 meaningful skills to 13 general/merged skills, and that guaranteeing that it not be possible to excel at all skills.
The original Fallout had 18 skills (each with a defined use and effect), some were improvable by books, and some not. Even if a skill was very rarely used, the PC that had that skill developed when the time came to use it, was usually able to succeed in that situation where others would fail. Merging and removing skills messed this up. :shrug:

Yes, but you are suggesting 13 different weapon skills a third of which are meant as late game skills which are useless until you find the appropriate weapon (guns, EW:laser, EW:plasma, BG:minigun, BG:rocketlauncher, BG:grenademachinegun, BG:Flamethrowers, BG:Energy(plasma laser?), Explosives, Throwing, Melee, Melee throwing, Unarmed).
These one weapon skills clutter up the skills screen, while offering nothing meaningful in return.

The original Fallout's way with guns was pretty abysmal. If you wanted to use energy weapons you basically needed to take guns first. After going through a large part of the game investing in guns, you get the option for big guns and some time further down the road you are finally at energy weapons.
All other skills had an immediate effect on the game. I like the skills to be good for something from the get go.

In the end those 26 meaningful skills are quite hard to make, and there is bound to be overlap. This overlap means that it's just there to eat skill points. I'd say if you don't want to excel at all skills you just get less skill points per level.
And let's just say I saw the real world argument in separating first aid and doctor, but besides from a few checks and each having a thing the other could not fix, they were quite identical in purpose. Making those advantage based on how high your Medicine skill is seems more appropriate since it makes investing in the skill seem worthwhile.

I'd rather that investing in a skill will net me advantages other than you do x% more success.

Perks were a cheat designed to add customization to the PC ~perks were brilliant originally. They altered the game rules slightly in favor of the PC.
IMO it is unsuitable to use perks as part of the rules themselves. A weapons perk should bend the rule for the PC, not be the path to perfect mastery.

Well than I suggest sub-skills available after maxing your weapon skill of choice. Not going to a full hundred, but still something you need to invest in so as not to fail with the big gun in question.

» Wed Dec 24, 2008 7:00 am

Some posts have gone away, discussion of child killing is not a topic for these forums, don't bring it up again please.

WTF? you can't be serious? some people are [censored] in the head...the topic title is "what happened to the big guns skill?" :ahhh:

» Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:19 am

Yes, but you are suggesting 13 different weapon skills a third of which are meant as late game skills which are useless until you find the appropriate weapon (guns, EW:laser, EW:plasma, BG:minigun, BG:rocketlauncher, BG:grenademachinegun, BG:Flamethrowers, BG:Energy(plasma laser?), Explosives, Throwing, Melee, Melee throwing, Unarmed).
These one weapon skills clutter up the skills screen, while offering nothing meaningful in return.

No... They would enable the PC to use a specialized weapon that they otherwise should not have skill with. A player would be free to choose to develop that skill or not (favoring some other skill); and perhaps develop it on their next PC instead. :shrug:

The original Fallout's way with guns was pretty abysmal. If you wanted to use energy weapons you basically needed to take guns first. After going through a large part of the game investing in guns, you get the option for big guns and some time further down the road you are finally at energy weapons.
All other skills had an immediate effect on the game. I like the skills to be good for something from the get go.

If you wanted to use Energy weapons, you TAG energy weapons (either at the beginning or later in the game; that goes for any skill you want to be really good at). As for immediate satisfaction from skill choices, I'm neutral to that, but would rather it be plausible than gratuitous. In Fallout you could find energy weapons early in the game (even buy them; even stumble across them in the wastes :shrug:).

In the end those 26 meaningful skills are quite hard to make, and there is bound to be overlap. This overlap means that it's just there to eat skill points. I'd say if you don't want to excel at all skills you just get less skill points per level.

IMO that's no good, because skill points per level are a function of allotted intelligence. Reducing them hamstrings that stat's usefulness.

And let's just say I saw the real world argument in separating first aid and doctor, but besides from a few checks and each having a thing the other could not fix, they were quite identical in purpose. Making those advantage based on how high your Medicine skill is seems more appropriate since it makes investing in the skill seem worthwhile.

The argument is that First Aid was minor bandage treatment, while Doctor was Major surgical treatment. First Aid was quick, garnered low XP, and could not cure major wounding. Doctor took a longer time, garnered more xp's and cure crippled limbs. Together (using both) the PC could heal 6 times per day, but only cure three crippled limbs per day, and was able to apply appropriate healing among injured npcs, based on need. Neither relied on Stimpacks, and only First Aid was improvable with books.

In FO3 Medical guarantees effective healing and actually alters the healing potential of stims, and allows unlimited curing of crippled limbs for having enough stimpacks ~that never healed crippled limbs before (and were not supposed to). FO:NV made a decent compromise as far as crippled limbs go.

I'd rather that investing in a skill will net me advantages other than you do x% more success.

Why?
Fallout 2 had instances where you had to have a certain minimum in a skill (or skills), in order to succeed or to get a better result.

Well than I suggest sub-skills available after maxing your weapon skill of choice. Not going to a full hundred, but still something you need to invest in so as not to fail with the big gun in question.

The way it worked.. you never got a full hundred ~ever. The skill could be pushed to 150 IIRC, but it only applied to strike penalties ~against the modifiers. Accuracy maxed out at 95%

» Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:11 pm

Kinda just throwing it out here but I'd rather they bring in more skills and that they improve on them.
Like Steal, I would love to have Steal back, but it should be improved upon, not the skill itself, but the design of the gameworld and quests.
Have a crapload of character have keys, holotapes and other items that can be used to solve quests by using this skill.
Why not keep it in Sneak?
Cause I don't like merging skills.
One of the things that was absolutely horrible about Van Buren was that they were going to just chug every ranged weapon into "Firearms" skill.
The more you merge skills the less we are left with and the more "clone'ish" our characters become.
With the Steal skill back it means that I can for example be a doctor who is great at stealing stuff and hacking computer but I'm really clumsy and can't sneak for [censored].
How would the actual skill work?
Simple, press crouch button and enter pick-pocket mode, the more you have in steal the better dice roll you get at being successful in your attempt.
I'm all for more skills as long as the game-world is designed so that the skills CAN support themselves.
If a skill is just plain useless then it should be removed or merged because it no longer serves any purpose.
But Steal and Sneak both served their own purposes.

Oh and I'd rather split Science into Mechanics (Merge repair with this one) Electronics, Hacking and Chemistry.

» Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:22 am

I like it. ENTER: THE MECHANIST!

» Tue Dec 23, 2008 10:23 pm

Breaking the major weapons down to Energy and Chemical (bullets) makes sense to me. Bullets are bullets, bursts of energy are bursts of energy. Large Guns in the earlier games bugged me as you had to spend time early on building up a skill that you did not use until later on. Or, you ignored the skill until such time as you needed, but by then it was too late. As for them being an end game weapon, the Skill set required would be enough to make that a viable option. Only they did not do that well enough in New Vegas.

As for Flame Throwers, they are both an Energy and a Chemical Weapon, so where do you lump them? Energy is about the only place that makes any sense as a skill that you want to use in the game. They could have created a seperate catagory for that skill, but where would that stop? We could end up having a skill for each gun subtype and I for sure don't want to manage that. The best compromise was to stick them in Energy rather than require a seperate Skill class that would not take any other weapons offered in the game.

Nah, balance wise they fit better in explosives. EW has a long range (laser/gauss), have a medium range (plasma), have a close range(tri-beam, multiplas) has an AOE (Tesla Canon, Meltdown Perk). Give explosives something! Like the some low tech flame weapons. They need close range weapons. Otherwise, just get rid of em.

I am all for creating new skills or merging skills. After all, you test out what people like and what they don't like. No one would bother with flame weapons if they were there own seperate category. Or having seperate skils for Miniguns. Look you can take this one Gun vs 30 guns with Small Guns. Who the hell would bother with individual weapons?

Not suprised Big Guns were killed, because it usually ranked really low in what skill the players liked in FO3.

» Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:42 am

Nah, balance wise they fit better in explosives. EW has a long range (laser/gauss), have a medium range (plasma), have a close range(tri-beam, multiplas) has an AOE (Tesla Canon, Meltdown Perk). Give explosives something! Like the some low tech flame weapons. They need close range weapons. Otherwise, just get rid of em.

Here's my perspective of how Explosives should be like.

Cons.
* Expensive
* Rare'ish
* Heavy as hell.
* Double edged damage.
* You can easily kill yourself with it.
* You "will" cripple your own limbs.
* Companion killing class.

Pros.
* AOE Instakill on a lot of enemies.

See, what this means is that the weapons are incredibly powerful but they have so many cons that they are balanced, if an enemy gets close to you you better back pedal and drop mines or you better shoot "behind" the enemy so that you don't hurt yourself.
If Flamers are put in Explosives on the other hand the Cons list goes like this if you switch between weapons:
Cons.
* Expensive
* Rare'ish
* Heavy as hell.

The skill no longer has enough cons to make up for that ridiculous damage, they'd have to nerf the explosive weapons damage and the skill becomes crap.
But this isn't how the skill is right now, maybe it'll get patched to be like this, but this is mostly how I consider Explosives and how it should be designed like.

I am all for creating new skills or merging skills. After all, you test out what people like and what they don't like.

It would be nice if they released a "beta" of some sort so we could test out new skill concept and give them feedback.

No one would bother with flame weapons if they were there own seperate category.

If they only have Incendiary Grenades, Flamer and Incinerator then no.
But if they added more weapons to give greater variety in tiers then it would be a more viable skill.

Not suprised Big Guns were killed, because it usually ranked really low in what skill the players liked in FO3.

Still no reason to remove it, if less people used it then so be it, at least it's "there" for people who want to use it.

» Wed Dec 24, 2008 8:28 am

Give explosives something! Like the some low tech flame weapons. They need close range weapons. Otherwise, just get rid of em.

What is explosive related about a flamethrower though? They can ignite dynamite, and they can perhaps explode if mishandled... but they neither operate via explosives, nor damage via explosion. :confused:
They have nothing in common with setting demolition charges, or working with timers, fuses, detonators, or measuring out explosives.

I am all for creating new skills or merging skills. After all, you test out what people like and what they don't like.

I disagree, I think it should be decided based on sound mechanics rather than fickle player preference.

No one would bother with flame weapons if they were there own seperate category. Or having seperate skils for Miniguns. Look you can take this one Gun vs 30 guns with Small Guns. Who the hell would bother with individual weapons?

Those that did get to use it. :shrug: None should be some kind of "birthright" privilege of "patronage to our game". Players should have to specialize (IE. commit) to a given direction for their PC (one that is either an expert in a few skills, or a jack of all trades ~expert in NONE). Making RPGs that allow you to get the best result in every instance during the game is detrimental to replay value, and lessens the impact of any choices made in the game.

Not suprised Big Guns were killed, because it usually ranked really low in what skill the players liked in FO3.

It shouldn't matter, should it? Those that do not want to develop the skill get no benefit from it, those that choose to sink points into it, get the benefit of that choice. Am I reading you right, that you would wish for only homogenized popular choices, and (possibly) for those choices to all provide multiple benefits? How is this not going to lead to choices like the last question of the GOAT ~but game-wide?

» Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:11 pm

Nah, balance wise they fit better in explosives.

That's a good place for them.

If Flamers are put in Explosives on the other hand the Cons list goes like this if you switch between weapons:
Cons.
* Expensive
* Rare'ish
* Heavy as hell.

The skill no longer has enough cons to make up for that ridiculous damage, they'd have to nerf the explosive weapons damage

Not really, there is a flamer that damages the user (is it in this game, I don't use these things much) so that could be the con. Does not always have to be burn related damage, it could be fatigue related as the thing svcks up the availible oxygen (more so indoors than outside for instance). Or, your companions would pause in fighting to turn away from the heat if they were close enough. That way you could leave the other aspects of the explosives alone.

» Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:57 am

@Gabriel
Except explosives currently dont have any pros, Fish. You saying they fit better in EWs? No way, they belong in Explosives.

» Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:55 am

See, what this means is that the weapons are incredibly powerful but they have so many cons that they are balanced, if an enemy gets close to you you better back pedal and drop mines or you better shoot "behind" the enemy so that you don't hurt yourself.

I think backpedaling as a general method of combat, should be dropped altogether and try to find other means to balance explosives (without hindering them too much in their effect). Without it flamer could probably work as a close quarters weapon for explosives - if it starts to feel too beneficial as a skill, the radius of the heat from burning objects could be increased so that a touch sets the PC on fire and getting too close would cause some (not much) damage per second. Not the best possible idea, but I find the backpedaling and dropping mines as one of the lamest forms of combat I've seen.

» Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:15 am

I think backpedaling as a general method of combat, should be dropped altogether

They are solving this in Skyrim by reducing how fast you can move backwards. It would be an easy fix, although I think it should be optional like Iron Sights are.

» Wed Dec 24, 2008 2:07 pm

They are solving this in Skyrim by reducing how fast you can move backwards. It would be an easy fix, although I think it should be optional like Iron Sights are.

Better (IMO) to make it non-optional, but increase the backward running speed based on PC agility.

» Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:57 pm

I'd think it hilarious for backpedaling to be quick but you have a chance to trip. Backpedaling? -Trip- LOLNO

» Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:57 pm

Not really, there is a flamer that damages the user (is it in this game, I don't use these things much) so that could be the con. Does not always have to be burn related damage, it could be fatigue related as the thing svcks up the availible oxygen (more so indoors than outside for instance). Or, your companions would pause in fighting to turn away from the heat if they were close enough. That way you could leave the other aspects of the explosives alone.

But Companions don't turn away from it, it doesn't svck up oxygen and the Incinerator's double edged damage can hardly be compared to that of a grenade launcher.
Still don't see it fit for them to be in Explosives.

@Gabriel
Except explosives currently dont have any pros, Fish. You saying they fit better in EWs? No way, they belong in Explosives.

I know they don't have any pro's at the moment, that list was how I think Explosives "should" work like.

And no, they shouldn't be in EW either, they should in it's own skill or Big Guns.
But due to game balance I see it fit that they stay out of Explosives.

I think backpedaling as a general method of combat, should be dropped altogether and try to find other means to balance explosives (without hindering them too much in their effect). Without it flamer could probably work as a close quarters weapon for explosives - if it starts to feel too beneficial as a skill, the radius of the heat from burning objects could be increased so that a touch sets the PC on fire and getting too close would cause some (not much) damage per second. Not the best possible idea, but I find the backpedaling and dropping mines as one of the lamest forms of combat I've seen.

I see what you're getting at but Flamers at the moment don't have any drawbacks. Maybe that they are DPS weapons but I think that the continuous fire damage burns through DT.
I don't think backpedaling is a great combat tactic either, but Explosives are explosives. If you made the choice to level up a skill where it's weapons "explode" then you just have to suit yourself if an enemy gets close to you.
I believe in action and consequence.
If the player chose Explosives they should be well aware of the fact that explosives are double-edged weapons and that if enemies get close then they are basically screwed.
Frankly, I think the whole system is dumbed down.
Guns being top dogs, Unarmed being way OP, Energy Weapons having to play nice with it's younger brother Guns and follow it's "tier system" and Explosives not being powerful enough.
I iz sad fish.

» Wed Dec 24, 2008 2:13 pm

They are solving this in Skyrim by reducing how fast you can move backwards. It would be an easy fix, although I think it should be optional like Iron Sights are.

I heard something of it, but wasn't sure if I heard right. Good to know.

How would you make it optional and more importantly, why? (Just out of curiosity. I've no qualms about people wanting to sprint backwards, I just don't get the reason.

)

I see what you're getting at but Flamers at the moment don't have any drawbacks. Maybe that they are DPS weapons but I think that the continuous fire damage burns through DT.
I don't think backpedaling is a great combat tactic either, but Explosives are explosives. If you made the choice to level up a skill where it's weapons "explode" then you just have to suit yourself if an enemy gets close to you.
I believe in action and consequence.
If the player chose Explosives they should be well aware of the fact that explosives are double-edged weapons and that if enemies get close then they are basically screwed.
Frankly, I think the whole system is dumbed down.
Guns being top dogs, Unarmed being way OP, Energy Weapons having to play nice with it's younger brother Guns and follow it's "tier system" and Explosives not being powerful enough.
I iz sad fish.

Oh, I'm with you there right to the core of it. Just made up a quick idea to try and replace the backpedaling.

But if thinking through the usefulness of explosives as a skill (if the damage was greatly increased, as with your example, and otherwise too), I think it shouldn't be purely a combat skill - that, like in Fallout 1 and 2, it had more uses than just killing enemies - just to balance out its uselessness in close combat.

» Wed Dec 24, 2008 7:14 am

I'd think it hilarious for backpedaling to be quick but you have a chance to trip. Backpedaling? -Trip- LOLNO

I actually did that in this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUslVGxW_WE.

Backpedaling speed based on PC agility would allow for very agile PC's to benefit from their agility (doing something that requires agility).

» Wed Dec 24, 2008 2:49 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUslVGxW_WE.

How is a gun-toting robo-octopus related to backpedaling and tripping?

» Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:07 pm

How is a gun-toting robo-octopus related to backpedaling and tripping?

That's actually a Mr. Handy Droid, a based off the original art, and the Back Pedaling trip was the First Person view of the viewer (backpedaling, and tripping).

*edit :
Original http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/mr-handy2-1-1.jpg
extrapolated http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/handy-2.jpg

» Wed Dec 24, 2008 7:57 am

Is not backpeddling just an easy game design solution to dodging, weaving, and general avoidence.
If somethig big is after me I'd try to stay out of range, however unlike irl there is no finding a hole or climing a tree.
So you have to be given a chance to avoid it somehow.
I'd rather back peddle in game than reload due to a spawn dropped right on me after a crash, or just popping out of nowhere.

More combat skills ehh if specialisation actually had an effect.
Otherwise it's just like a fps where you beat a level and move on to a new weapon for the next tougher level.

I love NV and its options, however staying neutral and not fighting was not exactly a priority of the dev's.
Many ways to resolve certain mid game fights with speech, but the general pacifist route is..
Ignore this quest because it's all fighting.
Same.
Got a companion let them fight.
Got another companion same.
Don a disguse try not to kill someone.
Same.
This is just the MQ.
The rpg element choices still needs more work than weapons and skills imo.

» Wed Dec 24, 2008 8:07 am

That's actually a Mr. Handy Droid, a based off the original art, and the Back Pedaling trip was the First Person view of the viewer (backpedaling, and tripping).

That was a First Person view? It was kinda flying around a bit, hard to follow, if you dont mind me saying.

» Wed Dec 24, 2008 8:47 am

That was a First Person view? It was kinda flying around a bit, hard to follow, if you dont mind me saying.

I don't

(back then I was lucky to animate it as fair as I did, and the rig took hours to render it. :lol:

)

**As it backs out towards the gear door, the viewer falls and gets back up.

» Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:25 am

Nice clip though Gizmo, when did you make it if I may ask.