Noclip doc:
This basically confirms this is a Fallout 4 conversion/mod.
I mean New Vegas was the same in relation to FO3, so not surprising.
I like it when people try and push themselves, do new things, take chances etc, but I have to say…I think they are putting all their eggs in the areas they have been traditionally the worst at.
-
Combat in these games has always been janky, and to me, the worst part of the games. It’s something you put up with to get to the world building and exploration. The only thing that sort of saved this was VaTs. PvP?..lol. You can see just how much of this is basically a mod…so the same feel, the same types of weapons, the same kinds of mechanics will all be in play. This is one thing when it’s PvE, it doesn’t matter that the mini nuke is 20x more powerful than the pistol etc, but when you introduce PvP, the disparity between weapons and basic power is a huge deal. Who knows, maybe they’ve done a lot of work on this, I wouldn’t bet on it though.
-
Server size/player count. 24-32 ish people??..Seriously? Maybe I misheard this, or missed it, but if this is the case, it will be very very easy for server hopping gankers to have a field day. ‘Hey, my guild of sociopaths from XXX MMO is going to pick a new server every week to decimate’. If this isn’t a thing, I’ll eat my hat. The only way that real PvP and bounty systems work, is if there are enough people around. It will just be way too easy to tip a servers balance.
-
Related to #2, I come from games and guilds that have hundreds of players. If the actual servers are this small, and the in game team size is limited to 4 people, that pretty much eliminates “guilds”, other than co-op, couple of friends things. It just seems like they are trying to shoehorn Fortnight into their game, but without the related mechanics that make that work.
Persistent PvP games can work if all of the right factors are in place. To me, this game looks like it has none of those systems in place. The biggest problem for me, is they have essentially a deathmatch quantity of people, but a persistent world…that’s going to get old very fast. Server dominance will be established very quickly with that low of a player count, and once that happens, people will just move on to a different server, and the “winners” will have no one to fight. I’m going to guess that by the end of day 1 or 2 you’re going to have a bunch of different servers where there are no real conflicts.
This is a game that is essentially built on the idea of players creating “emergent stories” (fuck I hate that phrase), but you aren’t supplying the critical mass of people you need to do that. Asherons Call Darktide was an amazing full on PvP server and game, probably the best I’ve ever played, but it had the number of people required to make something like that work. Persistent PvP is not something that works with a handful of people, you need at least hundreds to make it work.
/shrug. I wish them the best, and I hate to be such a pessimist, but to me, there are so many things that just scream ‘obvious problem here’.
You seem to be assuming a lot of things that were afterward made clear are not true.
Not that it matters a lot to me, but here goes.
Servers are not selected, they are automated. I’m thinking that Sea of Thieves is probably a good example of how they will automatically matchmake (their word) people into the world.
So there’s no specific servers to dominate in the way you describe, and they made it clear that other players can’t permanently destroy what you’ve built or take all your stuff.
So I’m not sure where you are going with any of these ideas.
It’s easier if you think about it like Fallout made a baby with Sea of Thieves because that’s exactly the impression I’m getting as far as the online basic functionality.
I dont understand. Sea of thieves can have that type of dynamic matchmaking because it spawn a boat in the world. Nothing is persistent. But here theres persistence. Will this matchmake me in a server where another dude made the base in the same hill I did?
Saw a few articles this morning that talked about how Bethesda plans on implementing punishments for griefers, which as well all know will be useless but also confirms griefing will be a problem. And if they think punishing griefers (with in-game bounties placed on them; which sounds super easy to game with a buddy and a plan) will stop them, they really are new to this.
Also saw a piece that talked about how the servers will have 24-32 players per server, all players visible at all times on the map. This is sounding less and less like a big RPG you can play with your friends every time I hit up The Gamer’s Post.
In fact, I just realized if this game didn’t have the word “Fallout” in it, I’d have shrugged and ignored it way before now. So I think it’s time to admit defeat, and bow out before I get my hopes up any higher. I really don’t think I’m the target audience for this one.
They gave some details in the noclip documentary. In this situation (which is supposed to be rare, given the size of the game world) your base reverts to “packed up” mode and you redeploy it somewhere else.
Yea, but. What If I really hate a forest. I hate it soo much that I farm for 4 months enough codes to nuke it. I nuke it, but the next time I connect, I join a server where that forest was never nuked.
Do that imply I can’t destroy forest with radiactive hellfire permanently?
I can make sense of the gameplay of death stranding, but this one befuddle me.
I would guess nothing in this game will have permanence, not even player built structures. Some article I read said that the nukes were the “end game” which implies to me there is an end and then re-wipe to the story, and that nukes are something you can only achieve at the high end of a game.
I just realized a “game” could be some sort of 30-minute match where you run around doing as much as you can as fast as you can to be the first to get to nukes.
Gross.
How many variations of NK and Iran-related usernames would there be in such a game? One million? Two?
True, I was just stating this to confirm this isn’t a new game. There were people (not necessarily at QT3) that were going on about how this would be a brand new game from the ground up, contrary to what rumors were circulating (co-developed during Fallout 4’s final stages).
I guess I am not super disappointed, because I never really got super excited. I kind of expected this to be a port at first, and then when Jason Schreier posted that article about sources saying it is a multiplayer survival game in fallout similar to Rust, I figured he was right (usually he is)
Just kinda bleh on the whole thing. I guess we will see how it looks when the beta comes out.
I guess there must be a crowd of people who want to pretend to pvp when there’s nothing at stake and and few to no skills to mechanically learn and be rewarded for.
That’s another reason it reminds me of the idea of Sea of Thieves. Rare seems to want pvp to make a difference and to be exciting, but it’s completely meaningless. They are too afraid to allow real risk beyond whatever junk you might have on your ship that you generally have no more than 15-20 minutes invested in.
If there’s no real meaningful interactions for pvp between people, then why not make it co-op and call it a day? If the pvp is boring, unrewarding and can easily avoided I just fail to see what the purpose is.
Pvp as a concept only works when you have some element of risk, and/or mechanics to master that make the conflict itself interesting. This, like SoT, seems to have neither.
I’m not sure I agree. What level of risk is there in Quake PvP? In World of Warcraft or any other MMO’s?
What game offers the risk that you’re suggesting must be present?
I think games like Rust, Ark and Conan Exiles - games where you build a base but it can be destroyed by other players, etc.
OK, so that’s a specific type of game, one that didn’t exist until recently. I think it would be weird to suggest that real PvP didn’t exist in gaming until survival multiplayer games arrived.
Well, we had checkers… but that was about it for pvp.
Take a fallout game, remove all characters, dialogue and elaborate quests, replace it with kill quests and fetch quests and other humans. What could go wrong?
But if that world they built for this one is nice, I might get it on sale and play on my private server solo, once they make that available. Just for the exploration.
No, it had the second part I wrote - interesting mechanics to master which made the conflict itself interesting. Not just aim, but item control, movement/strafe jumping, map control and so on. Or in cs, timing, utility use, economy, map control, aim, and so on.
If you have zero skill gap because the mechanics are simplistic then you remove any risk, what is there to be excited about and how is it entertaining? The answer is nothing, and it isn’t.
The same things that are “fun” between a good shooter, a fighting game and chess is the mechanics and interactions that exist to make the conflict interesting and present a depth of actions you can learn and improve on.
Without such a system and without any risk you end up with a limp homogeneous pile of boring shit.
Great video Telefrog…thanks for posting it
My biggest question now is there’s 24 people on a server…am I locked onto this server until we’re all high level and bored to tears…or can I change servers…can I take everything with me to another server or do I start fresh
This may very well turn out to be a casual mmo to get that quick 1 hour mmo fix…I did like the part about having a robotic vendor to sell your stuff while you are not there…LOVE THAT !!
Anyway, I’m getting more interested in this title…remember, I was the guy who wanted a fallout mmo just for reference
still can’t wait for Starfield…my gut tells me thats gonna be their magnum opus