Fallout 3 Combat

[Canai]

Yeah the whole 'headshots do same damage as shooting them in the foot' thing really killed it for me. VATS camera angles are terrible as well, always shaking about and showing me an elbow or leg or rock or something.

 

[DannyLove]

Honestly, its fine from an RPG standpoint. This isn't a FPS, if you want that, go play Quake since you keep referencing it.

 

[veri745]

Originally posted by: Izzo
Anyone else feel like VATS is a little unbalanced? It's an automatic win if something sneaks up on me and I have a full AP bar. 2 hits in the head kills everything including supermutants. IMO, if you enter VATS and don't have enough AP to kill all of the enemies, you should be stuck in VATS and not able to do anything until all enemies get a crack at you. As it stands now, you can use VATS to kill one or two raiders, then exit and shoot the rest FPS style. Doesn't seem quite fair.

It sounds to me like you are playing the game on "normal" difficulty. I was bored with the combat on normal as well, but as soon as I bumped it up to "very hard", it got a whole lot more interesting.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: Canai
Yeah the whole 'headshots do same damage as shooting them in the foot' thing really killed it for me. VATS camera angles are terrible as well, always shaking about and showing me an elbow or leg or rock or something.

Wait, no they don't. In VATS the percent damage for headshots is consistantly higher.

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: Canai
Yeah the whole 'headshots do same damage as shooting them in the foot' thing really killed it for me. VATS camera angles are terrible as well, always shaking about and showing me an elbow or leg or rock or something.

Wait, no they don't. In VATS the percent damage for headshots is consistantly higher.

I meant in normal combat. In VATS, you can shoot them anywhere a few times any they die. I usually aimed for the arms, since the % chance to hit was much higher usually.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: 9mak9
I think its more to the point that you can easily max out all your skills if you search around (you can get 60 points in every skill just by using the skill books and bobbleheads). Also there is no way to tell the different between 40-70-100 points in small guns. No measure to say at 40 points you have a __% change to hit the target...I know they have %'s when you look into VATS but I don't think that is greatly affected if at all. Maybe if you are far away it might be like 25% or 50% but otherwise it is usually 95%

Correct me if I am wrong but I can't be sure if the skills affect your attacking in FPS mode

The largest impact to VATS %'s is not weapon skill but distance, modders have changed this but as the default game stands... it's distance.

Oh and when modded to improve %'s at distances by relying on skill points, the game becomes infinitely easier by VATS headshotting w/ sniper rifle at distance.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: pontifex
i have like an 85 in small arms. i still miss just as bad as i do when it was 34.

Are you keeping your weapon condition up as high as possible?

yes

 

[imported_Imp]

Originally posted by: Canai

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: Canai
Yeah the whole 'headshots do same damage as shooting them in the foot' thing really killed it for me. VATS camera angles are terrible as well, always shaking about and showing me an elbow or leg or rock or something.

Wait, no they don't. In VATS the percent damage for headshots is consistantly higher.

I meant in normal combat. In VATS, you can shoot them anywhere a few times any they die. I usually aimed for the arms, since the % chance to hit was much higher usually.

Really? I usually try to aim for the head in normal combat because it takes more shots to kill them when shooting at the torso/limbs. That or the criticals are more often when shooting at the head.

 

[potato28]

Originally posted by: DannyLove
Honestly, its fine from an RPG standpoint. This isn't a FPS, if you want that, go play Quake since you keep referencing it.

That's how I had to think about this game, and for what Fallout 3 is it is quite a good experience.

 

[9mak9]

if anyone has played KOTR, or BG or Torment or most other RPGs you should know that the game is about the combat...Oblivion had clunky fighting but rpgs are made for the environment, characters, story, and the feel of the game. RPGs usually are, you set your sets and click and let the attack commence, thats about it. It is difficult to create a hybrid and focus on the best aspects of the action/fps genre and then the rpg genre...

 

[HumblePie]

Originally posted by: 9mak9
I think its more to the point that you can easily max out all your skills if you search around (you can get 60 points in every skill just by using the skill books and bobbleheads). Also there is no way to tell the different between 40-70-100 points in small guns. No measure to say at 40 points you have a __% change to hit the target...I know they have %'s when you look into VATS but I don't think that is greatly affected if at all. Maybe if you are far away it might be like 25% or 50% but otherwise it is usually 95%

Correct me if I am wrong but I can't be sure if the skills affect your attacking in FPS mode

Incorrect statement here.

Very easy to tell.

First off, the critters in the world, like Oblivion, level UP when you level. Meaning if you are level 1, everything else is in roughly the same relationship of your level. If you are level 10, everything levels to that as well.

There are a few inifnite EXP bugs in the game and it's REALLY easy to prove this point. One of the inifinite EXP bugs is in big town. Take a brand new spanking character with non tag small guns but tagged speech to be around 40 in speech. You need 40 speech to do this bug. So you gun skill should be around 20ish.

Before going to Big Town, which is just north of the Vault, find a nearby enemy in sneak mode to the town. Target it in VATS and see what your percentage is to hit the target. A good spot to do this is at the Sunny Vale elementary of the Bed and Breakfast as there are some raiders there that don't move around a whole lot. This way you can keep the distance factor at a minimum.

Now go to big town, talk to bittercup and then talk to pappy. Pappy will have a [SPEECH] option which gives you 5 exp every stinking time you click on it. And you can click as much as you want. If you are doing this on the PC with a G15 or another macro style keyboard it's not a problem. Just macro up to infinitely hit the ENTER key and place your cursor mouse over the [SPEECH] option and tap the macro. Let it sit for a bit so you level up a lot. Go to level 10 or more.

After leveling up do NOT put any skills into small guns. You may have to put points into sneak though to get close enough to the same raider you were eyeballing earlier though.

Now, go back to that raider and check in VATS how well you have to hit. I bet you'll be surprised. I'll bet you are lucky to have even a 5% chance to hit the torso.


What this proves is that the skills in this game DO MATTER. It is that if you are leveling sooo slow it feels like they don't.

Also, Cover DOES matter in this game in terms of monsters seeing you while sneaking AND while shooting at you. Meaning they also get a lesser chance to hit. To test this out, just try to target something that wanders back and forth from behind cover to out in the open.

The leaning bit is not needed. That is an FPS "twitch" skill ability and not needed in an RPG.

I do agree about the gripes of crappy AI. Most of the AI will run straight at you period. They aren't smart enough to use cover, or use cover and chuck grenades around or strafe. Although, I have seen a few of them strafe once they get close enough while shooting to reasonably hit you 95% of the time. Then they start strafing after they have run close enough for that. Then again in FO1 and FO2, the enemies only ran at you or ran away as well.


As others had mentioned, I really wish the whole game had been completely turned based so we would not get these asinine "FPS" players griping about the game. No, there is zero twitch skill involved in this game and for good reason. It is NOT that style of game. Get over it. If you want that style of game go play something else. There is a plethora of FPS and RTS games for the PC right now to fill your heart's content. My only real gripe is that the whole game isn't completely turn based combat. It could have been done easy enough.

The majority of the complaints so far I've seen about this game are FPS purists who haven't a clue.

 

[9mak9]

well that makes some sense...and cover is def affecting, you can easily hide behind a wall and let them shoot it and then jump out for a few quick shoots and go back to cover...In VATS mode if a mutant is holding a grenade and he goes to pull the pin with his teeth you'll find that you have like a 5% chance to hit it because his hand is blocking your shot, when we is getting ready to release it you will have a much better chance to blow him to bits

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: HumblePie
As others had mentioned, I really wish the whole game had been completely turned based so we would not get these asinine "FPS" players griping about the game. No, there is zero twitch skill involved in this game and for good reason. It is NOT that style of game. Get over it. If you want that style of game go play something else. There is a plethora of FPS and RTS games for the PC right now to fill your heart's content. My only real gripe is that the whole game isn't completely turn based combat. It could have been done easy enough.

The majority of the complaints so far I've seen about this game are FPS purists who haven't a clue.

As far as I'm concerned, once you make the game an FPS you better expect the "twitch" argument. And calling it twitch is kind of silly, since I don't think every FPS that requires you to aim is considered a twitch game, twitch was used in reference to Quake 1 and other games where you had to move extremely fast without thinking, basically you had to hone your skills to the level of reflexes. Getting off my point though, once they made it FPS, the argument for better combat becomes the case, just saying "but this game is an RPG" doesn't excuse bad combat. The closest game to Fallout 3 right now is STALKER and I'd say STALKER did combat better.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: HumblePie
As others had mentioned, I really wish the whole game had been completely turned based so we would not get these asinine "FPS" players griping about the game. No, there is zero twitch skill involved in this game and for good reason. It is NOT that style of game. Get over it. If you want that style of game go play something else. There is a plethora of FPS and RTS games for the PC right now to fill your heart's content. My only real gripe is that the whole game isn't completely turn based combat. It could have been done easy enough.

The majority of the complaints so far I've seen about this game are FPS purists who haven't a clue.

As far as I'm concerned, once you make the game an FPS you better expect the "twitch" argument. And calling it twitch is kind of silly, since I don't think every FPS that requires you to aim is considered a twitch game, twitch was used in reference to Quake 1 and other games where you had to move extremely fast without thinking, basically you had to hone your skills to the level of reflexes. Getting off my point though, once they made it FPS, the argument for better combat becomes the case, just saying "but this game is an RPG" doesn't excuse bad combat. The closest game to Fallout 3 right now is STALKER and I'd say STALKER did combat better.

There were bows and arrows in Morrowind and Oblivion, but nobody compared then. Suddenly when guns are thrown into the mix, FPS combat become the center? If you don't like how the guns work, pick up a melee weapon.

I was really happy with the combat. It seems like a big improvement over Oblivion, and not behind that many pure FPS games. Sure, it's a little clunky, but the game makes up for it with the depth not found in shallow pure SHOOTAN games.

 

[udneekgnim]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: HumblePie
As others had mentioned, I really wish the whole game had been completely turned based so we would not get these asinine "FPS" players griping about the game. No, there is zero twitch skill involved in this game and for good reason. It is NOT that style of game. Get over it. If you want that style of game go play something else. There is a plethora of FPS and RTS games for the PC right now to fill your heart's content. My only real gripe is that the whole game isn't completely turn based combat. It could have been done easy enough.

The majority of the complaints so far I've seen about this game are FPS purists who haven't a clue.

As far as I'm concerned, once you make the game an FPS you better expect the "twitch" argument. And calling it twitch is kind of silly, since I don't think every FPS that requires you to aim is considered a twitch game, twitch was used in reference to Quake 1 and other games where you had to move extremely fast without thinking, basically you had to hone your skills to the level of reflexes. Getting off my point though, once they made it FPS, the argument for better combat becomes the case, just saying "but this game is an RPG" doesn't excuse bad combat. The closest game to Fallout 3 right now is STALKER and I'd say STALKER did combat better.

no idea why you think FO3 is a FPS

consider why Bethesda created the VATS combat system, then realize that FO3 is a RPG with a first person view

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Dumac
There were bows and arrows in Morrowind and Oblivion, but nobody compared then. Suddenly when guns are thrown into the mix, FPS combat become the center? If you don't like how the guns work, pick up a melee weapon.

I was really happy with the combat. It seems like a big improvement over Oblivion, and not behind that many pure FPS games.

The combat in Oblivion sucked. Mount & Blade did FPS style medieval combat a lot better. It was compared and criticized plenty.

Sure, it's a little clunky, but the game makes up for it with the depth not found in shallow pure SHOOTAN games.

I'd rather have good combat and good depth rather than have to pick from both.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: udneekgnim
no idea why you think FO3 is a FPS

consider why Bethesda created the VATS combat system, then realize that FO3 is a RPG with a first person view

FPS stands for First Person Shooter. You don't know why I think it's an FPS? Fallout 3 is a hybrid FPS/RPG just like Deus Ex, Bloodlines, etc. and like all of the hybrid FPS / RPGs, it can take criticism for any aspect of the game.

Bethesda "created" the VATS combat system because it was in the original, which was an SRPG, and it barely makes sense in Fallout 3, it's practically an I WIN button.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: HumblePie
As others had mentioned, I really wish the whole game had been completely turned based so we would not get these asinine "FPS" players griping about the game. No, there is zero twitch skill involved in this game and for good reason. It is NOT that style of game. Get over it. If you want that style of game go play something else. There is a plethora of FPS and RTS games for the PC right now to fill your heart's content. My only real gripe is that the whole game isn't completely turn based combat. It could have been done easy enough.

The majority of the complaints so far I've seen about this game are FPS purists who haven't a clue.

As far as I'm concerned, once you make the game an FPS you better expect the "twitch" argument. And calling it twitch is kind of silly, since I don't think every FPS that requires you to aim is considered a twitch game, twitch was used in reference to Quake 1 and other games where you had to move extremely fast without thinking, basically you had to hone your skills to the level of reflexes. Getting off my point though, once they made it FPS, the argument for better combat becomes the case, just saying "but this game is an RPG" doesn't excuse bad combat. The closest game to Fallout 3 right now is STALKER and I'd say STALKER did combat better.

You on the crack aint ya? Stalker is an FPS. F3 is an RPG. One deals damage based 100% on collision detection, the other rolls dice for probability of determining hits. What don't you get exactly?

F3 is not an FPS, it's an RPG in First Person. An FPRPG if you want.

 

[VashHT]

I don't think its 100% based on rolling dice to hit unless you are in VATs, otherwise I'm positive there is some hit detection involved, making the combat a FPS/RPG hybrid.

 

[imported_Imp]

Originally posted by: VashHT
I don't think its 100% based on rolling dice to hit unless you are in VATs, otherwise I'm positive there is some hit detection involved, making the combat a FPS/RPG hybrid.

I didn't think so either, but it may explain the large range in damage I do to an enemy when shooting at the torso. Sometimes, I know I hit dead on and little to no damage. Other times it's regular, then there are criticals, etc.

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: skace
it's practically an I WIN button.

No, no it isn't.

Too much distance, low guns skill, low gun condition, ability to see target, so many things can affect the damage you do that it's not an instawin button.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

On the subjects of stealth and movement speed, what you have to realize is that both are affected by multiple factors. Stealth, in addition to skill, distance and lighting, is highly affected by the weight of your worn equipment. If you're wearing more then a simple 1 pound overall, you're going to be noisy. Plus, running makes noise even if you're sneak-running, and I doubt anyone really has the patience to use the sneak-walk speed.

Movement speed, again, what armor are you wearing? and more importantly, have you put your weapon away?



As for VATS, I'd say it's main failing is the range effect. Even with a perfect skill in small guns, using a sniper rifle in perfect condition, your chance to hit from anything remotely resembling a distance is just plain bad. Unfortunately, the range to-hit bonus at close range is also out of whack - you get 95% headshots with a shottie even if you've got zippo skill in small arms when they're close up.

When VATS is characterized as an IWIN button, it's generally taking into account that all you have to do is get close, and you'll hit. Given that the distance penalty ensure that almost no fights take place beyond knife fight range....and you've got problems.


Mind you, it's still fun, but it could really use some heavy duty tweaking. Bring back perception's effect on range to hit penalties, and get rid of the crazy huge close range bonus.

 

[HumblePie]

Originally posted by: Imp

Originally posted by: VashHT
I don't think its 100% based on rolling dice to hit unless you are in VATs, otherwise I'm positive there is some hit detection involved, making the combat a FPS/RPG hybrid.

I didn't think so either, but it may explain the large range in damage I do to an enemy when shooting at the torso. Sometimes, I know I hit dead on and little to no damage. Other times it's regular, then there are criticals, etc.

Correct. Another easy thing to test and prove.

Find a Mirelurk in the game. These things have a bunch of armor everywhere except the "face" which is harder to hit even in VATS compared to a normal headshot.

If you are using the sniper rifle, sneak attacking a mirelurk, and manage to do a sneak critical to a mirelurk in the face you will one shot kill it.

However, you do NOT need to use VATS to accomplish this, you can do this with just zooming in with the scope and trying to shoot the face. If you watch, the moment you shoot a roll is done. You either hit the face and one shot kill it, or you hit something else on the mirelurk, such as the torso and don't 1 shot kill it, or you can miss completely. You can get the same thing in VATS. The lower your chance to hit, the more likely you'll hit another body part or miss completely in either VATS or FPS.

Also, If you want I've used the combat shot gun on someone's back, a friendly, in rivet city and completely missed them. I'm serious. I was not in vats, I walked up and put the barrel of my gun at the back of their head and fired. I actually saw the pellets go "through" the head in a miss. Trust me, it is all die rolls going on as you always have a 5% chance to miss at the least.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
When VATS is characterized as an IWIN button, it's generally taking into account that all you have to do is get close, and you'll hit. Given that the distance penalty ensure that almost no fights take place beyond knife fight range....and you've got problems.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Biggest factor on hit % in VATS is distance. It shouldn't be, but it is. Most combat in Fallout 3 occurs at close range despite the fact that it is a shooting game. This is because you fight a lot of enemies that bull rush you, Super Mutants, Radscorpions, DeathClaws, Feral Ghouls, even monsters like Centaurs and Raiders will close a gap even though they have no reason for doing so. And then once you get indoors, your combat is even more restricted. So it's no surprise that VATS is an "I WIN" button and like I said before, part of that is to blame on the monster AI for always trying to rush a player that has a massive advantage at close range.

Originally posted by: jonks
You on the crack aint ya? Stalker is an FPS. F3 is an RPG. One deals damage based 100% on collision detection, the other rolls dice for probability of determining hits. What don't you get exactly?

F3 is not an FPS, it's an RPG in First Person. An FPRPG if you want.

If F3 was RPG only then I wouldn't need to aim at all, I'd just tell my guy which target to attack and he'd attack it. But the fact is that hit collision is in the game, I can hide behind barriers, the enemy can hide behind barriers, I can strafe to dodge or to get that lucky shot and I actually have to aim. These are elements of an FPS because FALLOUT 3 IS AN FPS/RPG HYBRID.

You guys can sit there and say "but noooooo it's just the viewpoint!" all fucking day long and it won't change that fact. Fallout 3 is not immune to combat criticism just because it has some RPG elements (and not even a lot of them -- the skill system is fucking shallow just like Oblivion). Hell, Deus Ex had more unique character builds than Fallout 3. So did Bloodlines. Bloodlines had better dialogue and story too.

And why are you trying to make it immune to such criticism? Because a game labels itself an RPG I should turn a blind eye to half of the fucking content? That doesn't even make sense.

You know what's funny, I'm one of the ones that said Fallout 3 should have been an SRPG. But guess what, it's not, they decided to go the FPS route and now they can deal with the criticism of that decision.

 

[HumblePie]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
When VATS is characterized as an IWIN button, it's generally taking into account that all you have to do is get close, and you'll hit. Given that the distance penalty ensure that almost no fights take place beyond knife fight range....and you've got problems.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Biggest factor on hit % in VATS is distance. It shouldn't be, but it is. Most combat in Fallout 3 occurs at close range despite the fact that it is a shooting game. This is because you fight a lot of enemies that bull rush you, Super Mutants, Radscorpions, DeathClaws, Feral Ghouls, even monsters like Centaurs and Raiders will close a gap even though they have no reason for doing so. And then once you get indoors, your combat is even more restricted. So it's no surprise that VATS is an "I WIN" button and like I said before, part of that is to blame on the monster AI for always trying to rush a player that has a massive advantage at close range.

Originally posted by: jonks
You on the crack aint ya? Stalker is an FPS. F3 is an RPG. One deals damage based 100% on collision detection, the other rolls dice for probability of determining hits. What don't you get exactly?

F3 is not an FPS, it's an RPG in First Person. An FPRPG if you want.

If F3 was RPG only then I wouldn't need to aim at all, I'd just tell my guy which target to attack and he'd attack it. But the fact is that hit collision is in the game, I can hide behind barriers, the enemy can hide behind barriers, I can strafe to dodge or to get that lucky shot and I actually have to aim. These are elements of an FPS because FALLOUT 3 IS AN FPS/RPG HYBRID.

You guys can sit there and say "but noooooo it's just the viewpoint!" all fucking day long and it won't change that fact. Fallout 3 is not immune to combat criticism just because it has some RPG elements (and not even a lot of them -- the skill system is fucking shallow just like Oblivion). Hell, Deus Ex had more unique character builds than Fallout 3. So did Bloodlines. Bloodlines had better dialogue and story too.

And why are you trying to make it immune to such criticism? Because a game labels itself an RPG I should turn a blind eye to half of the fucking content? That doesn't even make sense.

You know what's funny, I'm one of the ones that said Fallout 3 should have been an SRPG. But guess what, it's not, they decided to go the FPS route and now they can deal with the criticism of that decision.

Distance and monster level versus skill level is another big factor. If you use a leveling exploit, like talking to Pappy or the Sandman skill on kids in megaton, and go all the way to level 20 without putting a single skill point in any weapon skill then you aren't going to hit jack crap. I seriously mean that and you can literally have the barrel of the gun in their face and have a 5% chance to hit.

but yes, the game does take distance as too big of a factor in my opinion as well. Way to big. There are mods out there that fix this issue and hopefully bethsuda will give out an official patch doing this as well.