Fallout: 76 Catch-All

This sounds awful. Like an entire game based on the durability mechanic.

https://www.vg247.com/2018/06/13/fal...

It'll depend on how quickly things degrade, and whether weapons/armor can be repaired instead of having to be remade once they're completely broken, but it doesn't seem too terrible to me. If anything, it'll force people to explore and prevent hording.

I'm biased. I think durability mechanics (human or equipment) are the worst. I cannot stand them and mod them out as soon as I can.

For me, it depends on how they're implemented. I liked how they worked in Fallout 3 & New Vegas because I'd collect one of every weapon/armor and use the extras I'd find to repair them. Without that in Fallout 4 I'd just have a ton of weapons/armor sitting in containers because none of the traders could afford to buy them all and breaking them down into scrap parts seemed like a waste.

Amazon just trolled me. Got an email

The Amazon Video Games team thanks you for pre-ordering "Fallout 76"

Use the code above to register for the Fallout 76 Beta

Then get to 76's site and see this:

CONGRATS, YOU'RE ALL SET! AT A LATER DATE, WE WILL CONTACT YOU VIA YOUR REGISTERED EMAIL ADDRESS WITH FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS

Generally dont like weapon degradation, but thought it was nice in Zelda for forcing you to literally fight for your next weapon (at least early on).
Once again I am more reminded of SWG though. But they only seem to mention food and items degrade, not entirely clear what is included in items.

The noclip video did pique my interest, mostly because this seems like such an odd beast to me. I have zero familiarity with survival games so I don't know how this compares to them, but the mix of Bethesda RPG with survival elements, a heavy emphasis on crafting, and a relatively small player count in the open world sounds so odd to me that I'm more curious to see it in action. I hope it does well for them, in any case.

PvP in this game sounds a bit like Borderlands 2 dueling.

The fact that you can't be looted when killed is a pretty huge distinction from other games.
I'm still not sure exactly what he means by "you can say no" to fighting other players. Does he mean you'll be invincible to other players unless you explicitly agree to fight, or does he mean the worst they can do is kill you once and you "say no" by respawning somewhere else and not going back to where they are?
If it's the former then that barely qualifies as PVP and they probably should have led with that in the initial announcement. If it's the latter, that still allows for greifing via objective denial (camping at a quest/resource location to deny everyone else access to it). Either way, it certainly sounds better than I was thinking it was going to be.

Stengah wrote:

The fact that you can't be looted when killed is a pretty huge distinction from other games.
I'm still not sure exactly what he means by "you can say no" to fighting other players. Does he mean you'll be invincible to other players unless you explicitly agree to fight, or does he mean the worst they can do is kill you once and you "say no" by respawning somewhere else and not going back to where they are?
If it's the former then that barely qualifies as PVP and they probably should have led with that in the initial announcement. If it's the latter, that still allows for greifing via objective denial (camping at a quest/resource location to deny everyone else access to it). Either way, it certainly sounds better than I was thinking it was going to be.

I took it to mean you can walk around or just not engage.

Objective denial is a huge part of survival games. That's just baked in and will happen if not playing with other Goodjers.

I think it's more accurate to say objective denial is a huge part of the toxic-abuse-play some people bring to survival games.

ranalin wrote:

I took it to mean you can walk around or just not engage.

That sounds likely. They did say that you'll be able to see every player's location on the map (given that you're all from Vault 76 and have pipboys it even has a sensible in-game explanation), so it's not like you wouldn't know they're there.

Stengah wrote:
ranalin wrote:

I took it to mean you can walk around or just not engage.

That sounds likely. They did say that you'll be able to see every player's location on the map (given that you're all from Vault 76 and have pipboys it even has a sensible in-game explanation), so it's not like you wouldn't know they're there.

It also means potential griefers can stay on you.

thrawn82 wrote:
Stengah wrote:
ranalin wrote:

I took it to mean you can walk around or just not engage.

That sounds likely. They did say that you'll be able to see every player's location on the map (given that you're all from Vault 76 and have pipboys it even has a sensible in-game explanation), so it's not like you wouldn't know they're there.

It also means potential griefers can stay on you.

True, but you could easily lure them into a trap that way. I can't imagine they won't have mines, and you could plunk a turret or two down depending on how portable they are.

IM just scarred from my initial ARk experience TBH. I'm terrified I'll end up suffering something like a griefer continually hounding me and my noob shack with the equivalent of a Gigantasourus while I'm still trying to noob it up. in that context "you can always tell where every player is" sounds like more of a negative than a positive, esp when otherwise there is the potential to hide in the apparently HUGE map w only 24 people on it.

Oh, I'm sure plenty of assholes will find a way to troll and grief. I just hope Bethesda is responsive with giving players ways to counter them. Based on the statement that the map is four times the size of Fallout 4's map, It should take ~160 minutes to walk across the map, and ~40 minutes to run across it. So knowing where someone is and getting to them are two different things.

thrawn82 wrote:

I think it's more accurate to say objective denial is a huge part of the toxic-abuse-play some people bring to survival games.

No, that's playing the objective... It is survival after all and unless you make an agreement to share there's nothing preventing anyone from stopping others to the resources.

ranalin wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

I think it's more accurate to say objective denial is a huge part of the toxic-abuse-play some people bring to survival games.

No, that's playing the objective... It is survival after all and unless you make an agreement to share there's nothing preventing anyone from stopping others to the resources.

IMAGE(https://photos.smugmug.com/Comics/Pa-comics/n-xmQS5/i-TSJZWCn/0/2100x20000/i-TSJZWCn-2100x20000.jpg)

Make FF off option so they can try shoot and blow you up but you take no damage.

Bfgp wrote:

Make FF off option so they can try shoot and blow you up but you take no damage.

At the start this may not be possible. I'm getting the idea that they're having complete control of server configs. Hopefully they'll offer different server options.

I'm not sure what to make of the whole 4x bigger than FO4 and a few dozen PCs in a map.

Let's say everyone rushes out of the vault spawning point at the same time. There's going to be competition for starting area content. Then presumably they will gate the better gear and progress behind content checkpoints across the map (the further the distance the harder the environment). For a casual, you'll be hopping in 30min-60min a day, if that, so you'll barely visit the first few towns in your first week, whereas the dedicated players will probably unlock their first power armour.

Then, what happens when the number of players drops, do they spawn in random people? I don't know. Is there much news yet about how the 24 players thing will work in practice?

For me I think this just isn't a Fallout game I want to play. The landscape, guns, enemies and exploration all looks amazing. I definitely want to explore it. But the fact that it's an online experience that I can't control... it just isn't what I want from my fallout experience. For me, it's about the single player, world exploration at my own pace, finding all the unique things and having fun with a lot of interesting stories. It's definitely got some of those elements, but with the inevitable moronic people just being dicks because that's what they enjoy doing, I just don't play games for that.

I hope it turns into a really great game and works out really well. If they put significant things in place to prevent people from ruining the experience for others then I'd be happy to jump in and give it a go later.

Honestly, I really just wish they remade Fallout 3 with all the fancy new stuff. I'd buy that in a heartbeat.

Honestly, I really just wish they remade Fallout 3 with all the fancy new stuff. I'd buy that in a heartbeat.

Oh I'm sure remasters for everything will come in due time.. if there is money to be made milking existing assets then it will happen.

IMAGE(https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/avOdg2b_460swp.webp)

Is that how people are interpreting what's being said? Didn't they say PVP is optional, you don't lose anything on death, your base can't be destroyed, and you can team up with anyone?

They said pvp is avoidable, which is not the same thing as saying it is optional.

I'd really just prefer a drop-in-drop-out co-op companion mode in the next Elder Scrolls and/or Fallout.

It would be cool if they could somehow just give you a really effective running or hiding tool. Like you could tell somebody is approaching and go full stealth... or press a button and teleport elsewhere (random?) on the map via something like fast travel? A sort of last-resort that maybe even lands you in a bit of trouble. *shrug*

PaladinTom wrote:

I'd really just prefer a drop-in-drop-out co-op companion mode in the next Elder Scrolls and/or Fallout.

i don't know what you meant by this, but I possibly misinterpreted it as being able to play somebody else's Dogmeat. That would be freaking hilarious.

A Division-style Dark Zone, perhaps, for pvp?