Fallout 3 did not ruin the lore established in previous games.

[SajuukKhar]

no one here played fallout tactics.....

Fallout tactics doesn't really exist, 95% of what was said in it was never treated canon by ether interplay or Bethesda.

the only thing from tactics that actually happened is that some BoS members were exiled and ended up in Chicago, and even only that is true because of Bethesda.

 

[Chrinik]

my biggest issue with fallout 3 was that it felt out of place time wise. it felt like it should be set a decade or two after the war not 200 years.

Then you would embark on an epic 5 minute quest as the immense radiation slowly burned your skin while you watch the beautiful sunrise over a barren, completely unpopulated wasteland that housed a couple of surviving wildlife, who have not yet adapted to the irradiated environment and are more dying then alive.

200 years is perfect, it makes room to explain mutations, it gives room to explain fortified settlements, it gives room for preestablished factions.

20 years is too short a time after a nuclear war. There would be nothing established, no bigger Settlements, no trade...no mutated wildlife or super mutants.

Also, all the vaults where some kind of social experiment...with this vault, they wanted to figure out how humans would be like if they stayed isolated for that long a time...

 

[MaulYoda]

Except DT makes all heavy armor in New Vegas pointless.

It was one of the biggest complaints about New Vegas, it got splattered all over the Fallout forums.

DT makes anything except light armor 100% pointless.

And DR makes everything except heavy armor pointless, but DT is more useful with heavy armor than DR was with light armor. DR is also pointless in Fallout 3 to begin with because VATS is the most effective means of reducing damage. Not to mention that DT accounts for the differences in DMG vs. DPS while DT does not. And a few extra points of DT do a lot more than a few extra points of DR

 

[SajuukKhar]

And DR makes everything except heavy armor pointless, but DT is more useful with heavy armor than DR was with light armor. DR is also pointless in Fallout 3 to begin with because VATS is the most effective means of reducing damage. Not to mention that DT accounts for the differences in DMG vs. DPS while DT does not. And a few extra points of DT do a lot more than a few extra points of DR

By that logic DT is pointless to New Vegas because the best way to reduce damage is vats also.

DT ignores DPS actually, it focuses solely on the power of each individual bullet. It doesn't balance between them, it ignores one entirely.

Also I found light armor to be more useful with DR then I found heavy armor to be with DT. With DR + light armor can still negate some attacks entirely.

With DT and heavy armor you still take THE EXACT SAME DAMAGE from low damage weapons, aka most weapons used by NPCs, as you would with light armor due to the bleedthrough caused by the fact that you can only ever negate up to 80-85% of a weapons damage.

DR + light armor = some attacks negated entirely
DT + heavy armor = same damage taken as light armor for 95% of attacks

DR + light armor > DT + heavy armor

 

[Hargrimm]

And DR makes everything except heavy armor pointless, but DT is more useful with heavy armor than DR was with light armor. DR is also pointless in Fallout 3 to begin with because VATS is the most effective means of reducing damage. Not to mention that DT accounts for the differences in DMG vs. DPS while DT does not. And a few extra points of DT do a lot more than a few extra points of DR

By that logic DT is pointless to New Vegas because the best way to reduce damage is vats also.

DT ignores DPS actually, it focuses solely on the power of each individual bullet. It doesn't balance between them, it ignores one entirely.

Also I found light armor to be more useful with DR then I found heavy armor to be with DT. With DR + light armor can still negate some attacks entirely.

With DT and heavy armor you still take THE EXACT SAME DAMAGE from low damage weapons, aka most weapons used by NPCs, as you would with light armor due to the bleedthrough caused by the fact that you can only ever negate up to 80-85% of a weapons damage.

DR + light armor = some attacks negated entirely
DT + heavy armor = same damage taken as light armor for 95% of attacks

DR + light armor > DT + heavy armor

DPS is just the damage of individual bullets multiplied with rate of fire.
And yes, DT does balance between pure DAM and DPS, because a weapon that has higher DPS is not automatically superior like it is in FO 3. If you have only DR, every source of damage is reduced by an equal percentage, making DPS the only thing that matters.

For example: We have two weapons. A Minigun with a DAM of 4 and a DPS of 200 and rifle with a DAM of 100 and a DPS of 100. In Fallout 3 the Minigun would be the superior weapon in every situation, because both are affected equally by the DR.
But if you have a DT of 4, the Minigun is reduced to 40 DPS, while the rifle is only reduced to 96 DPS. If you have no DT (or only DR), the Minigun is the superior weapon. Different guns and ammunition types for different situations.
Balance.

Well, that's the theory anyway in reality, it' a bit more complicated than that. DR still exists in New Vegas, so I don't really know what we are arguing about, since you can use both, one of them or neither if you are so inclined.

EDIT: fixed the links.

 

[SajuukKhar]

DPS is just the damage of individual bullets multiplied with rate of fire.
And yes, DT does balance between pure DAM and DPS, because a weapon that has higher DPS is not automatically superior like it is in FO 3. If you have only DR, every source of damage is reduced by an equal percentage, making DPS the only thing that matters.

For example: We have two weapons. A Minigun with a DAM of 4 and a DPS of 200 and rifle with a DAM of 100 and a DPS of 100. In Fallout 3 the Minigun would be the superior weapon in every situation, because both are affected equally by the DR.
But if you have a DT of 4, the Minigun is reduced to 40 DPS, while the rifle is only reduced to 96 DPS. If you have no DT (or only DR), the Minigun is the superior weapon. Different guns and ammunition types for different situations.
Balance.

Well, that's the theory anyway in reality, [link"http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Damage_Threshold"]it' a bit more[/link] [link"http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Damage_resistance"]complicated than that[/link]. DR still exists in New Vegas, so I don't really know what we are arguing about, since you can use both, one of them or neither if you are so inclined.

Both of those links don't work, and DR only exists on like 3 or 4 pieces of armor in New Vegas.

Also guns with a high rate of fire but low damage per bullet shouldn't be able to do damage against T-51B power armor, that's the whole point of it being armor. Its supposed to be practically bulletproof.

The fact that DT allows for you to do damage against high level armors shows how broken the system is.

Also, the DT system as you described it makes automatic weapons pointless, it doesn't have balance, it literally negates entire weapon types.

treating all guns with an equal damage reduction as DR does is balance, making low damage, fast firing, guns do practically no damage as DT does is not balance.

 

[Hargrimm]

Super Mutants, Enclave, BoS are not fucking Fallout. That's Bethesda's line of thinking. "These things were in the previous game so that's what makes fallout fallout." Yeah just ignore the whole fucking reason 1 and 2 were remotely good at all dur.

When Fallout 2 was made they didn't just resurrect the master, they made something new. The core of Fallout is choices and consequences in quests, around the theme of rebuilding the world. That's what is important and that is what Bethesda ignored.

for someoen who complains about Bethesda not knowing about Fallout you seemed to have made the exact same mistake

around the theme of rebuilding the world.

No it isn;t, in fact it is the exact opposite, its about how humans are destined to destroy ourselves, and the world around us time and time again.

Its Fallout's motto "war, war never changes"

Rebuilding has never been important to Fallout in anything other then a means to destroy it again.

Its why even in New Veags the NCR shows signs of collapsing, and both Marucs and House claim Caesar's legion is just going to fall apart shortly after he dies.

Just because war and humans never change doesn't mean that the world stagnates.

The humans are exactly the same they were before the war. So, they continue to do the same things they were doing before. Building communities, expanding, fighting over resources. Alliances are forged and broken apart. Small, independent communities coalesce to form nation states.
Just like it was before the war.

I do think it is you who is confused about what Fallout is about.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Just because war and humans never change doesn't mean that the world stagnates.

The humans are exactly the same they were before the war. So, they continue to do the same things they were doing before. Building communities, expanding, fighting over resources. Alliances are forged and broken apart. Small, independent communities coalesce to form nation states.
Just like it was before the war.

I do think it is you who is confused about what Fallout is about.

And all that community building ultimately results in the same thing that happened pre-war, total destruction.

Which is exactly what New Vegas hinted at.
-The NCR is fracturing
-Caesar's Legion cant survive without Caesar himself
-The BoS, Super Mutants, and Ghouls are dieing off.

Its the resource wars all over again, and its going to have the same result. Everything we have built in the post-war world is going to be lost, just as everything we built pre-war was, the two largest known post-war civilizations are already breaking down.

And that is the entire point of the game, that is what Fallout 1, 2, and New Vegas have been building up to, that humanity is doomed to repeat the same mistakes and destroy themselves again.

The games are not about rebuilding, they are about the inevitability that we are going to destroy ourselves over and over again over resources.

"War never changes" =/= after getting nuked once humanity is going to learn from it and avoid it, it means "we nuked ourselves once, and we are doomed to do it again".

Civilization cannot succeed in the long-run because of mankinds violent nature and tendencies.

I don't see how you can misinterpret something as simple as "War never changes"

 

[Hargrimm]

DPS is just the damage of individual bullets multiplied with rate of fire.
And yes, DT does balance between pure DAM and DPS, because a weapon that has higher DPS is not automatically superior like it is in FO 3. If you have only DR, every source of damage is reduced by an equal percentage, making DPS the only thing that matters.

For example: We have two weapons. A Minigun with a DAM of 4 and a DPS of 200 and rifle with a DAM of 100 and a DPS of 100. In Fallout 3 the Minigun would be the superior weapon in every situation, because both are affected equally by the DR.
But if you have a DT of 4, the Minigun is reduced to 40 DPS, while the rifle is only reduced to 96 DPS. If you have no DT (or only DR), the Minigun is the superior weapon. Different guns and ammunition types for different situations.
Balance.

Well, that's the theory anyway in reality, [link"http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Damage_Threshold"]it' a bit more[/link] [link"http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Damage_resistance"]complicated than that[/link]. DR still exists in New Vegas, so I don't really know what we are arguing about, since you can use both, one of them or neither if you are so inclined.

Both of those links don't work, and DR only exists on like 3 or 4 pieces of armor in New Vegas.

Also guns with a high rate of fire but low damage per bullet shouldn't be able to do damage against T-51B power armor, that's the whole point of it being armor. Its supposed to be practically bulletproof.

The fact that DT allows for you to do damage against high level armors shows how broken the system is.

Also, the DT system as you described it makes automatic weapons pointless, it doesn't have balance, it literally negates entire weapon types.

treating all guns with an equal damage reduction as DR does is balance, making low damage, fast firing, guns do practically no damage as DT does is not balance.

I don't think you understand what "balance" means in the context of an RPG. It means that different types of builds and pieces of equipment are more useful in certain situations than others. Otherwise, why even bother to make different kinds of weapons if they are all reduced to the same value? It homogenizes your arsenal and negates choices.

AP ammo makes automatic weapons useful. Enemies with many hit points, but low or no DT makes automatic weapons useful.

On the power armour, I agree. Although the bleedthrough does make sense, from a balistics standpoint. The damage of a bullet is not just penetration, but also blunt trauma .How high and to what types of armour this applies to is up for debate, but the idea itself is sound.

 

[SajuukKhar]

I don't think you understand what "balance" means in the context of an RPG. It means that different types of builds and pieces of equipment are more useful in certain situations than others. Otherwise, why even bother to make different kinds of weapons if they are all reduced to the same value? It homogenizes your arsenal and negates choices.

AP ammo makes automatic weapons useful. Enemies with many hit points, but low or no DT makes automatic weapons useful.

On the power armour, I agree. Although the bleedthrough does make sense, from a balistics standpoint. The damage of a bullet is not just penetration, but also blunt trauma .How high and to what types of armour this applies to is up for debate, but the idea itself is sound.

And DT doesn't give you that choice.

DT makes automatic weapons craptastic, and heavy armor pointless.

DR on the other hand makes all weapons viable, and both light armor and heavy armor viable.

 

[Hargrimm]

Just because war and humans never change doesn't mean that the world stagnates.

The humans are exactly the same they were before the war. So, they continue to do the same things they were doing before. Building communities, expanding, fighting over resources. Alliances are forged and broken apart. Small, independent communities coalesce to form nation states.
Just like it was before the war.

I do think it is you who is confused about what Fallout is about.

And all that community building ultimately results in the same thing that happened pre-war, total destruction.

Which is exactly what New Vegas hinted at.
-The NCR is fracturing
-Caesar's Legion cant survive without Caesar himself
-The BoS, Super Mutants, and Ghouls are dieing off.

Its the resource wars all over again, and its going to have the same result. Everything we have built in the post-war world is going to be lost, just as everything we built pre-war was.

And that is the entire point of the game, that is what Fallout 1, 2, and New Vegas have been building up to, that humanity is doomed to repeat the same mistakes and destroy themselves again.

The games are not about rebuilding, they are about the inevitability that we are going to destroy ourselves over and over again over resources.

"War never changes" =/= after getting nuked once humanity is going to learn from it and avoid it, it means "we nuked ourselves once, and we are doomed to do it again".

Civilization cannot succeed in the long-run because of mankinds violent nature and tendencies.

I don't see how you can misinterpret something as simple as "War never changes"

I didn't say they were about rebuilding. But rebuilding is part of the process that is necessary to ignite this kind of conflict anew.
In order for that conflict to arise again, civilazation has to *rebuild* to the point where such a large scale conflict is feasible.
Again nothing *fundamentally* changes, nothing about human nature changes, but that doesn't mean that the world stagnates.

We are basically agreeing with each other.

My point is that Fallout 3 got it wrong because it stagnates *completely*.

 

[SajuukKhar]

I didn't say they were about rebuilding. But rebuilding is part of the process that is necessary to ignite this kind of conflict anew.
In order for that conflict to arise again, civilazation has to *rebuild* to the point where such a large scale conflict is feasible.
Again nothing *fundamentally* changes, nothing about human nature changes, but that doesn't mean that the world stagnates.

We are basically agreeing with each other.

My point is that Fallout 3 got it wrong because it stagnates *completely*.

Except you know... the entire plot of the game.... which showed that the BoS, and later project purity, were being used to hep rebuild everything.

That was literally THE ENTIRE REASON Lyons got basically outcasted from the BoS, because he, unlike everyone else, was helping people rebuild.

Not to mention there were many towns such as Rivet city, Megaton, Arefu supplied by a expansive caravan system. You don't have caravan systems in a place that has totally stagnated.

them not reofrming into a larger nation like the NCR shows, if it shows anything, is that they know what NOT to do in order to ensure they srurive longer.

By staying small, indipendant, towns, with just a little bit of trade between them, they get to void the same disease that destoryed the pre-war peopels, and indeed is destrying the NCR.

 

[Hargrimm]

I don't think you understand what "balance" means in the context of an RPG. It means that different types of builds and pieces of equipment are more useful in certain situations than others. Otherwise, why even bother to make different kinds of weapons if they are all reduced to the same value? It homogenizes your arsenal and negates choices.

AP ammo makes automatic weapons useful. Enemies with many hit points, but low or no DT makes automatic weapons useful.

On the power armour, I agree. Although the bleedthrough does make sense, from a balistics standpoint. The damage of a bullet is not just penetration, but also blunt trauma .How high and to what types of armour this applies to is up for debate, but the idea itself is sound.

And DT doesn't give you that choice.

DT makes automatic weapons craptastic, and heavy armor pointless.

DR on the other hand makes all weapons viable, and both light armor and heavy armor viable.

No, it doesn't and no, it doesn't.

Again, different types of weapons and ammuniton against different types of enemies. This is not a difficult concept.

How does the DR make different types more viable? The only thing that matters is how high the numbers are. The higher the number, the better the piece of equipment. Everything else is inferior.

 

[SajuukKhar]

No, it doesn't and no, it doesn't.

Again, different types of weapons and ammuniton against different types of enemies. This is not a difficult concept.

How does the DR make different types more viable? The only thing that matters is how high the numbers are. The higher the number, the better the piece of equipment. Everything else is inferior.

How does making increasing your DT pointless due to the fact you will always take at least 15% damage not negate armor choice either?

Why bother making high level armor such as the T-51B if it doesn't protect anymore then a normal light armor does?

Ohh wait, there is none.

a higher number = better gear system makes more sense then a "once it hits this number it becomes pointless" system.

At least with Fallout 3 you got constant progression in your armor, with New Vegas armor stopped progressing, yet they still kept making higher DT armor.

 

[Hargrimm]

I didn't say they were about rebuilding. But rebuilding is part of the process that is necessary to ignite this kind of conflict anew.
In order for that conflict to arise again, civilazation has to *rebuild* to the point where such a large scale conflict is feasible.
Again nothing *fundamentally* changes, nothing about human nature changes, but that doesn't mean that the world stagnates.

We are basically agreeing with each other.

My point is that Fallout 3 got it wrong because it stagnates *completely*.

Except you know... the entire plot of the game.... which showed that the BoS, and later project purity, were being used to hep rebuild everything.

That was literally THE ENTIRE REASON Lyons got basically outcasted from the BoS, because he, unlike everyone else, was helping people rebuild.

Not to mention there were many towns such as Rivet city, Megaton, Arefu supplied by a expansive caravan system. You don't have caravan systems in a place that has totally stagnated.

What exactly has been rebuilt? Even with the purifier (that nobody needs)? This goes back to my point on the broken economy in the other thread. No one produces anything. After 200 years. These caravans couldn't logically exist.

It's a mess.

 

[SajuukKhar]

What exactly has been rebuilt? Even with the purifier (that nobody needs)? This goes back to my point on the broken economy in the other thread. No one produces anything. After 200 years. These caravans couldn't logically exist.

It's a mess.

Lets see the entire town of Megaton was built, and places such as Rivet City, and Tenpenny tower do get maintenance.

They aren't trying to build beyond what they need because that's what destroyed the planet in the first place.

Also, just because you don't see them, hunters, fishers, and other people of the sort, do exist.

 

[Hargrimm]

No, it doesn't and no, it doesn't.

Again, different types of weapons and ammuniton against different types of enemies. This is not a difficult concept.

How does the DR make different types more viable? The only thing that matters is how high the numbers are. The higher the number, the better the piece of equipment. Everything else is inferior.

How does making increasing your DT pointless due to the fact you will always take at least 15% damage not negate armor choice either?

Why bother making high level armor such as the T-51B if it doesn't protect anymore then a normal light armor does?

Ohh wait, there is none.

a higher number = better gear system makes more sense then a "once it hits this number it becomes pointless" system.

At least with Fallout 3 you got constant progression in your armor, with New Vegas armor stopped progressing, yet they still kept making higher DT armor.

Heavy armour does matter. 20% is not nothing, but it is certainly less than anything... higher than 20%. And those 20% are still reduced by DR.

Just go to the wiki and do the math. I'm done wasting my time arguing about this.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Heavy armour does matter. 20% is not nothing, but it is certainly less than anything... higher than 20%. And those 20% are still reduced by DR.

Just go to the wiki and do the math. I'm done wasting my time arguing about this.

OFC you are, its been a known and proven fact that Heavy armor doesn't matter since New Vegas was released, there were tons of threads about it on the official Fallout Forums showing the math.

You cannot win against something that has been shown since the game came out to be flawed.

The only time heavy armor ever matters is when enemies use REALLY higher powered guns, which is so rare its pointless.

 

[Hargrimm]

What exactly has been rebuilt? Even with the purifier (that nobody needs)? This goes back to my point on the broken economy in the other thread. No one produces anything. After 200 years. These caravans couldn't logically exist.

It's a mess.

Lets see the entire town of Megaton was built, and places such as Rivet City, and Tenpenny tower do get maintenance.

They aren't trying to build beyond what they need because that's what destroyed the planet in the first place.

Also, just because you don't see them, hunters, fishers, and other people of the sort, do exist.

I already explained this in the other thread. These places could not exist at in this world at this point in time.

Again, broken economy and ecosystem.