Fallout: 76 Catch-All

jrralls wrote:
ruhk wrote:

If this truly is a multiplayer survival game all that extra space will definitely be needed and appreciated.

I have zero experience with multiplayer survival games. Why is a lot of space needed in those?

Other players, mostly. Unless resources are instanced too many people in an area can make it hard to find enough of anything to be useful. If there’s pvp larger maps make it easier for new players to stay under the radar of more established players and build up their defenses. It also means that the view from the top of the almighty doom fortress you’ve spent a week building is less likely to be spoiled by the 50 foot tall penises that someone spent a week building the next valley over.

OH MY GOD

November 14, 2018!!!! I want that special edition map. It looks so refreshing over Fallout 3 & 4. I am HYPE.

Budo wrote:

OH MY GOD

This, but also I'm simultaneously not entirely sure how to feel. Nuking other player towns seems like a deal breaker. It's going to be exploited badly.

The dream for something like Fallout or Elder Scrolls was to be able to get into the game with my wife, kid, a couple friends, and follow some quests or explore the maps together. Online is required for something like that. But I also don't want to get griefed by a bunch of kids while I'm trying to relax in my very limited game time.

I'm interested, but I need to see more.

If it's realtime and multiplayer, it won't have VATS targeting. And, if it doesn't have VATS, it's not a Fallout game.

I really want to be on-board with Fallout 76, but one of the things I most value in my gaming time is playing on my own time and not being beholden to other peoples' schedules.

I’m definitely interested but hoping they have some pve only servers or that we can set up a Goodjer server. Having all my stuff blown up at 3 am while I’m sleeping doesn’t sound fun.

jdzappa wrote:

I’m definitely interested but hoping they have some pve only servers or that we can set up a Goodjer server. Having all my stuff blown up at 3 am while I’m sleeping doesn’t sound fun.

You don't want to party like it's 1999?

I’ve went from cautiously optimistic to full-on excited.

I am simultaneously inebriated and super excited. Howard assured the audience more than once that, if you want a single-player experience, it's there for you. I'm really hopeful and will be looking forward to it on day one. It can easily go sideways with griefing but I'm going to withhold judgement until we have more details and I'm sober.

It's incredibly minor, but I'm irritated that they're using a 70s song in their marketing. Not all olde tyme music is the same, Bethesda!

But "76" though. And anyone alive has only ever experienced a *-centenial in 1976, if at all, so...

muraii wrote:

I am simultaneously inebriated and super excited. Howard assured the audience more than once that, if you want a single-player experience, it's there for you. I'm really hopeful and will be looking forward to it on day one. It can easily go sideways with griefing but I'm going to withhold judgement until we have more details and I'm sober.

It appears though, that there are no story based companion characters. And, from what they've shown, it isn't clear that there are any actual NPCs either. I don't think I saw any in the trailers. It looks like it all just PvE monster fighting.

In 10+ years, Bethesda has gone from Radiant AI-driven NPCs creating simulated towns to no NPCs at all.

polq37 wrote:

It appears though, that there are no story based companion characters. And, from what they've shown, it isn't clear that there are any actual NPCs either. I don't think I saw any in the trailers. It looks like it all just PvE monster fighting.

In 10+ years, Bethesda has gone from Radiant AI-driven NPCs creating simulated towns to no NPCs at all.

They mentioned the Overseer several times, but it will likely just be a voice over your Pipboy.

But I think the primary issue here is that you’re looking at this through the lens of their other games when they've explicitly stated that this is something entirely new for them. It’s not a story-based rpg game with some survival and crafting elements like Fallout 4, it’s a survival and crafting game with some rpg and story elements. If you go in expecting this to be Fallout 5 you’ll probably be disappointed. They’ll be back to their formula with Starfield and the next Elder Scrolls, and maybe even include co-op in those games with what they learn about multiplayer with Fallout 76.

I have that damn song from the trailer stuck in my head...

Been walking around my place singing/humming "almost heaven... West Virginia.... blue ridge mountains...."

I bet i'll be doing the same thing at work tomorrow

Hearing Ron Perlman's speech at the end also gave me shivers, it was weirdly uplifting considering what kind of sh*tshow world we live in.

"You must rebuild, not just walls, not just buildings, ... but hearts, and minds, and ultimately America itself..."

muraii wrote:

But "76" though. And anyone alive has only ever experienced a *-centenial in 1976, if at all, so...

Fallout's whole thing is that the 50's never ended. There is no John Denver in the Fallout Universe. Fallout Vegas didn't use Viva Las Vegas even though it was sitting right there, because that wasn't until 1964. This bothers me and I'm not deranged!

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

It's incredibly minor, but I'm irritated that they're using a 70s song in their marketing. Not all olde tyme music is the same, Bethesda!

Right, but just how many explicitly state West Virginia in the lyrics?

I wouldn't be surprised if there are NPCs, but they're tied to certain buildings. Like you can get an NPC guard if you build a guard post, that way your stuff is at least a little defended while you're offline.
I'm tentatively excited, but it's really going to come down to how they handle greifers and what they mean by a single player experience being possible. I mean, I can play any multiplayer survival type game by myself, but most are not fun to play that way.

Please don't make PvP mandatory/unavoidable...

I'd be okay with it being unavoidable, to an extent. Death isn't supposed to be as punishing as it is in other games, and with a map four times the size of Fallout 4 and a player cap of a few dozen, it should be fairly easy to avoid others without going too far out of your way. Hopefully they've got something set up to make people want to team up with strangers instead of shooting them on sight, and also something to counter the "I'll help you for the time being, then shoot you for your stuff later" mindset that tends to run rampant in survival games.

omni wrote:

Please don't make PvP mandatory/unavoidable...

Agreed. I can't yet reconcile in my mind how they are going to do multiplayer yet allow solo and "questing" at the same time. I get a sense it's going to be much lighter in the story/quest department. I'm guessing it'll be a lot of fetchy or raidy type quests.

They're obviously leaning into the building aspect - which can be great. But they're also allowing others to destroy everything you've built? Hmm... not sure about that.

Definitely interested though.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
muraii wrote:

But "76" though. And anyone alive has only ever experienced a *-centenial in 1976, if at all, so...

Fallout's whole thing is that the 50's never ended. There is no John Denver in the Fallout Universe. Fallout Vegas didn't use Viva Las Vegas even though it was sitting right there, because that wasn't until 1964. This bothers me and I'm not deranged!

Oh yeah, didn’t think of it that way.

polq37 wrote:

If it's realtime and multiplayer, it won't have VATS targeting. And, if it doesn't have VATS, it's not a Fallout game.

I really want to be on-board with Fallout 76, but one of the things I most value in my gaming time is playing on my own time and not being beholden to other peoples' schedules.

VATS was added to the game in Fallout 3. For me, at least, Fallout 1 & 2 are definitely fallout games, and they have no VATS

Stengah wrote:

I'd be okay with it being unavoidable, to an extent. Death isn't supposed to be as punishing as it is in other games, and with a map four times the size of Fallout 4 and a player cap of a few dozen, it should be fairly easy to avoid others without going too far out of your way. Hopefully they've got something set up to make people want to team up with strangers instead of shooting them on sight, and also something to counter the "I'll help you for the time being, then shoot you for your stuff later" mindset that tends to run rampant in survival games.

The trouble is, even if it's 'hard' to find other players to kill, people will go out of their way, spend way too much time, and forego other parts of the game just so they can PvP or gank someone or whatever. For some people, that IS the game... and that's fine, for them, it's just not the game I want to play

Dakuna wrote:
polq37 wrote:

If it's realtime and multiplayer, it won't have VATS targeting. And, if it doesn't have VATS, it's not a Fallout game.

I really want to be on-board with Fallout 76, but one of the things I most value in my gaming time is playing on my own time and not being beholden to other peoples' schedules.

VATS was added to the game in Fallout 3. For me, at least, Fallout 1 & 2 are definitely fallout games, and they have no VATS :)

VATS was their attempt to keep the feel of how combat worked in the turn-based originals in a first person engine. It's more accurate to say that Fallout 1 & 2 had no real time combat.

omni wrote:

The trouble is, even if it's 'hard' to find other players to kill, people will go out of their way, spend way too much time, and forego other parts of the game just so they can PvP or gank someone or whatever. For some people, that IS the game... and that's fine, for them, it's just not the game I want to play :)

This is my biggest concern as well. My interest is primarily going to hinge on what they let us do to mitigate the greifers. I'd be somewhat okay with player raiders so long as the game was supremely stacked against those that went that route, or there was an option to play on an invite/friends-only map to bypass them entirely.

omni wrote:

Please don't make PvP mandatory/unavoidable...

There's different kinds of PvP - the obvious and direct 'bash your opponent over the head' kind, but also indirect competition for food, water, materials and salvage, and land for building. Even if players can't damage other players, there's lots of potential for problems. I'd personally prefer the game to be specifically built around co-operative play. A community-built GWJ Vault or small town could be really something.

While I agree, and that matches my gaming desires as well... it just wouldn't shift as many copies in the real world.

I think if a GWJ server is created, it'll be fine. Ranalin was generous enough to procure a GWJ server for Conan Exiles and there is no griefing, just mutual support.

As other have expressed I have my worries about PvP. That is not an experience I am looking for and if there is no way to play a non-PvP version of this game I doubt I will get it. I just replay some of my worst experiences in the Dark Zone in The Division over in my head thinking about PvP in this game. Someone with way more time to play and way more skill and better equipment is just going to be getting their rocks off by ruining it for people like me who just want to explore the world.

Running Man wrote:

At first glance I imagined an Interstate '76 inspired Fallout game, but I see it's 2076. Looks like more of the same, but that's not a bad thing!

I was so excited...

Nevin73 wrote:

I think if a GWJ server is created, it'll be fine. Ranalin was generous enough to procure a GWJ server for Conan Exiles and there is no griefing, just mutual support.

I've done the same thing for the now-barren Ark cluster for about a year or so - those are different in that you can even specify that the servers are PvE.... but a game still needs enough PvE stuff to do, in lieu of PvP, if the game was basically designed as PvP...