Fallout 76. Worried? Excited? Both?

[Calemyr]

I like this idea. Normal cities could be those safe zones. You could technically kill someone but you'll receive hell for doing so

Possibly not "cities" per se. There really should only be one or two official cities, a vault city created around the vault, and possibly a ghoul settlement or two, but there are other options. For instance, police stations and/or military bases could have a robotic peace-keeping force that makes PvP a costly choice, making those sites ideal for "safe" settlements. A particularly talented and/or organized raider group could still overcome such a settlement, but it would be an epic battle to capture and a constant battle to keep as powerful robots programmed to gun down raiders would keep spawning over time. On the other hand, the constant noise created by the robotic forces (rocket engines whining, clanking steps, preprogrammed banter) could make it so that these "safe" settlements can get annoying and the robotic forces limit what can be built in their domain, making it a tradeoff between having a relatively secure home and having the freedom to do what you want in peace. Possibly have the official cities offer "Home Plate" like housing zones where you can built in more complete safety, but the limited options for crafting and the even more limited available space keep this from being a default solution.

[GloatingSwine]

Of course, from everything I've heard this game is going to be about as canon-friendly as DBZ made-for-TV movie, so I don't think I'm going to be stressed out about it.

I think we're reaching more like the Hollywood live action Dragonball movie when it comes to the canon of Fallout....

I guess I'm currently putting the odds at 2 to 3 against the game being much fun, given my hatred for PvP. My only hope is that there will be "safe zones", regions where PvP isn't allowed, but the lack of space makes it unpleasantly crowded - you want to branch out on your own, but doing so would leave you vulnerable to 76ers that just decided "screw it, raiding is the smarter way to do things". That said, say 50 people spread out over a space 4x the size of Fallout 4's map? If cost/reward is balanced so that raiders are a rarity, say 10% of a population on the high side, you can probably go a long time between problems.

The fact that the game is intended as a PvP game means that PvP is going to be the most rewarding way to play. There are going to be no safe zones other than private servers (not available at launch), and the evidence of basically every other game they're copying is that outside of private servers griefers will dominate no matter what they try and do to mitigate it.

[Antonok]

Regards to PvP, it may not be as bad as people think.

Well, we are still tweaking how it works but as I said in an interview PvP is kinda like issuing a chalienge to someone. If you don’t want to deal w them they can’t keep killing you over and over. Todd is better suited to explain the specifics

[Brookshw]

Regards to PvP, it may not be as bad as people think.

Well that wouldn't be too bad.

[Calemyr]

The fact that the game is intended as a PvP game means that PvP is going to be the most rewarding way to play. There are going to be no safe zones other than private servers (not available at launch), and the evidence of basically every other game they're copying is that outside of private servers griefers will dominate no matter what they try and do to mitigate it.

That's just it. It's not intended to be a PvP game. Howard and Hines have both said this, now. There is PvP in it, yes, but that is not the focus and they're adamant about not wanting it to become a major factor. If I read it right, the option is primarily for the "just wanna see the whole world burn" crowd and to pay service to the "royally effed up world" theme of Fallout, not as a particularly rewarding endeavor in its own right.

I've played games where PvP is the focus and games where PvP is simply a thing, and 76 has been stated multiple times to be in the "simply a thing" category. There will be players that want to cause havoc, that's just a fact, and they'll be allowed to. The focus of the game, however, is survival and rebuilding, however you want to pursue it.

I've been doing the online thing since Ultima Online. Since Ultima Online was actually good, I mean. I've also played WoW. In both games I came across player killers that reveled in ruining someone's day. Sometimes they did, others I beat them back. Heck, sometimes I went right ahead and killed them right back and was kinda proud of myself for it. But it was rare and it was never the core experience of the game. That is what I envision when I hear what Hines and Howard talk about their plans for PvP.

I mean, you can romance companions in FO4. I still wouldn't call it a dating sim.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Regards to PvP, it may not be as bad as people think.

Until I see some mechanics backing that up, I'm calling that a pure attempt at damage control, because what we saw in the trailer was completely opposite (dude randomly walking around, then Suddenly Rocket Launcher).

Also, read that quote VERY carefully, and note the caveat 'over and over'. In other words, his proposed solution to a griefer is to log off. Which is about as helpful as 'lrn2play n00b'.

[Rynjin]

That's just it. It's not intended to be a PvP game. Howard and Hines have both said this, now. There is PvP in it, yes, but that is not the focus and they're adamant about not wanting it to become a major factor. If I read it right, the option is primarily for the "just wanna see the whole world burn" crowd and to pay service to the "royally effed up world" theme of Fallout, not as a particularly rewarding endeavor in its own right.

I've played games where PvP is the focus and games where PvP is simply a thing, and 76 has been stated multiple times to be in the "simply a thing" category. There will be players that want to cause havoc, that's just a fact, and they'll be allowed to. The focus of the game, however, is survival and rebuilding, however you want to pursue it.

I've been doing the online thing since Ultima Online. Since Ultima Online was actually good, I mean. I've also played WoW. In both games I came across player killers that reveled in ruining someone's day. Sometimes they did, others I beat them back. Heck, sometimes I went right ahead and killed them right back and was kinda proud of myself for it. But it was rare and it was never the core experience of the game. That is what I envision when I hear what Hines and Howard talk about their plans for PvP.

I mean, you can romance companions in FO4. I still wouldn't call it a dating sim.

Considering repeatedly getting ganked in Ultima Online is what initially turned me off of MMOs for years (now I avoid them because I hate grinding, so not much lost I guess), you're not really making a good sell.

[Erloas]

It is one thing to say "we want to avoid griefing" and something completely different to actually be able to do it. It is really easy to say, it gets said all the time, it is seldom successful.

I also don't see how it would be possible to have any safe zone of any sort if you're going to give players access to city leveling atomic weapons. I guess there is always the god-mod option of "this safe area has AA/some sort of shield so it can't be nuked" which works as a game mechanic but can't be done without throwing a huge hole into the setting.

If you don't get anything of value from killing other players, like "wow look at all the cool things they have, lets take it" and then you kill them and all they drop is a rusty knife and not the armor or all the obvious weapons and ammo they have, then that will mitigate farming people as the easiest way to advance but kind of kills the point.

Maybe they will find the perfect balance, but I'm having a hard time seeing the space between "high levels of griefing" and "this would have been better served to just have a 4-8 player drop-in/drop-out cooperative multiplayer design."

[Cheesegear]

I've played games where PvP is the focus and games where PvP is simply a thing, and 76 has been stated multiple times to be in the "simply a thing" category.

That's not how anything is playing out.
"They don't want griefing, but they do want drama." - same link as above.

PvP is an intended part of the game, from the ground up. Anything said after the E3 trailer may as well be considered damage control and walkbacks.

Whnt they want, is another Battle Royale game. We know that. It's obvious.
What we're going to get - and have gotten already - is several walkbacks and future promises. But what they saying (after the fact), isn't what we saw. That's a huge problem.

But they still wanted to make a Battle Royale from the start. They can't take back their original intentions.

My best comparison example would be what WoW does, with multiple servers:
Some servers are all PvP, all the time.
Some servers have PvP, but only in selected zones.
Some servers never have PvP.
...But that requires multiple servers.

WoW pretty much solved the World PvP griefing problem, by having no in-game reward for doing the griefing. This isn't how survival-PvP games work. Killing other players gets you more stuff. That's the actual game loop. Griefing is actually encouraged by game design. Regardless of what any developer actually wants. If you offer a reward, then people will do the thing required to get the reward.

[Brookshw]

WoW pretty much solved the World PvP griefing problem, by having no in-game reward for doing the griefing.

It's been quite a while but that's not the WoW I remember, people still were happy to gank just to do it, no reward was necessary. If you give players the option, they'll take it regardless of incentive.

But let them walk it back, maybe they'll put in a good system before the game actually goes live (not talking beta). Since it keeps coming up it seems clear they're realizing fans aren't happy about an open pvp game.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

It's been quite a while but that's not the WoW I remember, people still were happy to gank just to do it, no reward was necessary. If you give players the option, they'll take it regardless of incentive.

But let them walk it back, maybe they'll put in a good system before the game actually goes live (not talking beta). Since it keeps coming up it seems clear they're realizing fans aren't happy about an open pvp game.

I don't think it is remotely possible for them to walk it back at this point. Looting other players for their stuff is a key, central, core mechanic of the game. That's not something they can just handwave away. That alone is going to ensure the toxicity of the upcoming dumpster fire.

[Brookshw]

I don't think it is remotely possible for them to walk it back at this point. Looting other players for their stuff is a key, central, core mechanic of the game. That's not something they can just handwave away. That alone is going to ensure the toxicity of the upcoming dumpster fire.

Where are you getting that from? We watched a guy get killed, the killing player got some caps, we don't know if it was from the dead player, and we didn't see any stuff get taken.

[Erloas]

I didn't specificially remember seeing any looting going on, but several of the Pipboy videos very specifically imply that someone might try to kill you to get your stuff.

In WAR you did get loot from killing other players, but it wasn't their loot, it was randomly generated like all other kills and based on class/race but tended to be higher quality. Of course that game was designed around player conflict, but it was also based around two distinct sides with only some mutual areas. Not really a design they can copy.

I think they're running into the same problem many developers run into, thinking the players will play the way they would and that "our playerbase isn't like that." The players on the other hand know what other players are like, especially when there is anonymity. How many developers, when testing in alpha builds, do you think are going to try to grief? Attack each other? Sure, that will happen, they'll test things out. But someone that takes making other people miserable as their goal in a game? Not likely.

Even in EVE, where there are "safe" spaces but 3/4 of the total area is free PvP there are people who go out of their way to build suicide groups to gank people in "safe" space simply because they can. The world is also so big that it is not that hard to find "PvP" areas where you are actually pretty safe, not by mechanics but simply by the fact that it isn't worth the time and effort required to find and kill you, there are other targets closer. But I can't see this game getting anywhere near the size required for that to happen, at least not given the nature of the game. Also the *only* reason EVE works at all is because of the market, and that's not a feat I see anyone replicating any time soon. The very nature of the market it what makes the game work, it is also the biggest barrier to entry and gives the game a very niche appeal. Which seems to be the opposite of what Bethesda is going for.

[Calemyr]

I don't think it is remotely possible for them to walk it back at this point. Looting other players for their stuff is a key, central, core mechanic of the game. That's not something they can just handwave away. That alone is going to ensure the toxicity of the upcoming dumpster fire.

Hines, in an interview, specifically said that you won't be able to loot other players. "You don't lose your progression, you don't get looted, you don't lose any of that stuff. We don't want it to be hardcore in terms of 'you lose progression when you die'. It's supposed to be, you know, Todd used the word 'softcore'. It's supposed to be fun. It's supposed to be a role playing game."

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Hines, in an interview, specifically said that you won't be able to loot other players. "You don't lose your progression, you don't get looted, you don't lose any of that stuff. We don't want it to be hardcore in terms of 'you lose progression when you die'. It's supposed to be, you know, Todd used the word 'softcore'. It's supposed to be fun. It's supposed to be a role playing game."

There must be a very confused herd of cattle wondering where their droppings went, because I haven't seen a bigger pile of BS in all my days.

"PvP is purely optional, it's like a challenge. If you see a deathclaw, you can try to take it on, or you can just avoid that"

Problem: A Deathclaw works on a basic AI. A Player doesn't have any such limitation. I see absolutely *NO* way to *AVOID* being griefed by someone sniping you from cover if you don't see them first. A player is not going to care if your stealth trait is high enough, if he sees you, he sees you, and I see no possible way you can avoid action if the aggressor is insisting on it.

In short: he's either ignorant of basic mechanics, or he's hopelessly naive that people would *permit* such passive playstyles.

[Antonok]

I'm thinking it's going to be more along the lines of The Division;s Dark Zone. Specified places where it's a free for all.

[Calemyr]

There must be a very confused herd of cattle wondering where their droppings went, because I haven't seen a bigger pile of BS in all my days.

"PvP is purely optional, it's like a challenge. If you see a deathclaw, you can try to take it on, or you can just avoid that"

Problem: A Deathclaw works on a basic AI. A Player doesn't have any such limitation. I see absolutely *NO* way to *AVOID* being griefed by someone sniping you from cover if you don't see them first. A player is not going to care if your stealth trait is high enough, if he sees you, he sees you, and I see no possible way you can avoid action if the aggressor is insisting on it.

In short: he's either ignorant of basic mechanics, or he's hopelessly naive that people would *permit* such passive playstyles.

It doesn't sound hard to implement. You get killed by a PK, you can't be harmed by that player again for a set period of time (an hour, perhaps) unless you re-engage them in combat. That could be done as simply as a debuff: "Killed by PGarvey. Cannot be harmed by PGarvey for 56.36 minutes or until you deal damage to PGarvey." Simple enough.

Or "You've been killed by PGarvey! Do you want revenge?" If yes, player stays in that instance. If no, player (possibly along with allied players and/or structures) are moved to a different instance. Might have some collision issues, but if the server selection process checks for that first, it would always place you in an instance with zero conflicts or, should none exist, spin off a new instance. Either way, the odds of running into a PK you chose not to engage again is slim.

They never said once that you can't be PKed. Only that you don't lose anything because of it and that mechanics are in place to make repeat encounters optional.

Of course, this is Bethesda. Their word isn't particularly good when it comes to promotions like E3. Sometimes it doesn't "just work", and some times it really was scripted to begin with. Whether you dismiss that as miscommunications between staff and presenter or hold it high as a banner of bald-face lying to your fans, you can never be 100% certain of anything Howard says.

But I think a good bit of this is everyone seeing what they want to see. I want to believe the game will be fun, which Bethesda games (for all their myriad faults) usually are. So I'm being generous. Others want PvP, so they're seeing evidence of it and discounting any evidence limiting it. Others just want to be mad (or at least stay mad) and interpret things in such a way to keep the fires burning. We really won't know until the B.E.T.A. comes out. At which point it will be 100% fact, because (if ESO is any indication) Bethesda pays zero attention to player feedback from betas.

Additionally, stealth could be implemented in an online game. Don't hide the character on the field, but hide the nameplate and minimap icon for them from players who lack the perception to notice them. If the sneaker is good, they'll keep to places they aren't physically visible, but either way they'll still have an advantage against non-vigilant players. Meanwhile, defenders can still see hidden players if their wits and eyes are sharp enough, but won't have an easy time fighting them unless they have enough vigilance to track them. That creates a combination of stat and skill that makes nothing certain.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

It doesn't sound hard to implement. You get killed by a PK, you can't be harmed by that player again for a set period of time (an hour, perhaps) unless you re-engage them in combat. That could be done as simply as a debuff: "Killed by PGarvey. Cannot be harmed by PGarvey for 56.36 minutes or until you deal damage to PGarvey." Simple enough.

I think you misunderstand. He didn't just say repeat kills are optional. He said PvP itself is an optional challenge. That statement is, patently false.

They never said once that you can't be PKed. Only that you don't lose anything because of it and that mechanics are in place to make repeat encounters optional.

No, that is EXACTLY, word for word, what he said. That 'PvP is optional, a challenge...'. Which cannot possibly be true. Which makes me disbelieve anything else he says, if he can be incorrect on such a fundamental point. Be it via malice or simple ignorance, it doesn't matter. The fact that he has a demonstrably false statement gives me room to doubt any damn other thing he said.

I suppose we'll see in the B.E.T.A.

[DodgerH2O]

I know the entire purpose of such a thread as this is rampant speculation, but I'm seeing a lot of getting ahead of ourselves. Personally I'll wait for gameplay demos with actual players and a near-finished product before declaring doom and gloom.

[Calemyr]

I think you misunderstand. He didn't just say repeat kills are optional. He said PvP itself is an optional challenge. That statement is, patently false.

No, that is EXACTLY, word for word, what he said. That 'PvP is optional, a challenge...'. Which cannot possibly be true. Which makes me disbelieve anything else he says, if he can be incorrect on such a fundamental point. Be it via malice or simple ignorance, it doesn't matter. The fact that he has a demonstrably false statement gives me room to doubt any damn other thing he said.

I suppose we'll see in the B.E.T.A.

A fair point. In turn, I will point to my statement about the fallibility of presenters. Besides, it may be technically true. PvP may well be, by and large, optional. You don't need to fight them. They can certainly kill you, once, but you lose nothing for it and it's your choice whether any further encounters are possible. I would point to one of Howard's interviews where he hemmed and hawed at calling it purely optional, stating that there could be an initial conflict even if you don't want it, but it wouldn't go any further than that if the victim didn't want to.

And I can see why they want to do that. If every human in the game is a player (or a very limited pool of NPCs, assuming the Overseer wasn't a ZAX or some other kind of robot), then this wouldn't be Fallout if you could just assume that the guy walking your way is a friend. You need that doubt, that dubious edge of survivalist paranoia where anyone could be a threat even if most of them aren't. It's essential to the feel of the game. But at the same time, they don't want it to ruin the fun. You don't lose anything when you die. If you win, you even get a bounty for it. If there's a mechanic that makes both all-out war and passive retreat viable responses to a killing, that's pretty good in my opinion.

But, as I've said many a time in my life, this all depends on the creativity and foresight of the implementation. Even the most ludicrous idea can be great if it's done right, and even the most perfect idea can be crap if it's handled poorly. Personally, I tend to see God and the devil in the same glance when it comes to this kind of stuff. Which is actually there in any given case is a secret only time can tell.

[Erloas]

Problem: A Deathclaw works on a basic AI. A Player doesn't have any such limitation. I see absolutely *NO* way to *AVOID* being griefed by someone sniping you from cover if you don't see them first. A player is not going to care if your stealth trait is high enough, if he sees you, he sees you, and I see no possible way you can avoid action if the aggressor is insisting on it.

In short: he's either ignorant of basic mechanics, or he's hopelessly naive that people would *permit* such passive playstyles.

There can be aspects of this, it is very straight forward to only render something at distance X where X is decided by a set of skills, a lot of games do this. The issue though is that if you are interacting with anything else in the environment it becomes very obvious that you are there and all they have to do is move closer until they overcome the skill. It avoiding sniping, but not conflict.

It doesn't sound hard to implement. You get killed by a PK, you can't be harmed by that player again for a set period of time (an hour, perhaps) unless you re-engage them in combat. That could be done as simply as a debuff: "Killed by PGarvey. Cannot be harmed by PGarvey for 56.36 minutes or until you deal damage to PGarvey." Simple enough.

Or "You've been killed by PGarvey! Do you want revenge?" If yes, player stays in that instance. If no, player (possibly along with allied players and/or structures) are moved to a different instance. Might have some collision issues, but if the server selection process checks for that first, it would always place you in an instance with zero conflicts or, should none exist, spin off a new instance. Either way, the odds of running into a PK you chose not to engage again is slim.

They never said once that you can't be PKed. Only that you don't lose anything because of it and that mechanics are in place to make repeat encounters optional.

Of course, this is Bethesda. Their word isn't particularly good when it comes to promotions like E3. Sometimes it doesn't "just work", and some times it really was scripted to begin with. Whether you dismiss that as miscommunications between staff and presenter or hold it high as a banner of bald-face lying to your fans, you can never be 100% certain of anything Howard says.

Avoiding constant ganking isn't that hard, as you said, a timer is easy to do. That is less of an option when they simply nuke the entire area you were in and you can't finish any quest(s) you may have been working on until the world resets that specific area. There might be easy server hopping, that isn't very clear. But if you're actually trying to make friends and work with other people then jumping servers is not a good option.
It is easy to have all of your stuff stay in your inventory when you change servers or die or your base is destroyed, but setting your base back up might take a while and depending how empty or full the servers are it could be hard to find a good place to set up. You also run the risk of spending 90% of your time moving servers and re-setting up your base rather than actually playing. If you are set on griefing then that is your goal anyway, not necessarily killing, but making the other person waste their time dealing with you rather than doing what you want to do.

When you can't or won't play because you don't have at least 30 minutes, maybe 60 minutes, to log in, get set up, get to where you need to be and do it then that kills the game for everyone but the hardcore. If you want to do something that *requires* a couple people to do you can easily spend the majority of your play time trying to find someone to go with you. If the world is too big/slow to travel that means only those with a lot of time can do what they want to, but if it is too small there is no way to get away either. You almost can't have character progression either unless they make sure only people of the same level join the same server, can be done but comes with its own problems.

I can think of a lot of issues, I can think of a lot of potential ways to address them but they all come with their own issues. I don't think it can't be done, but I think it is a very fine needle to thread. Even teams with a lot of multiplayer experience are struggling with these issues. The question is when it is all said and done is the end result actually worth playing? Is it more or less than the sum of its parts?

[Balmas]

So here's a bit of speculation for all y'all to think about:

How do you think that character building is going to work?

From what I've heard, Fallout 76 started development about the same time as Fallout 4. Indeed, part of me wants to think that Fallout 4's SPECIAL system was pared down so horrendously, not because of any fictitious demands for an easier-to-understand leveling system, but because the Fallout 4 SPECIAL system would be simpler to implement in a multiplayer setting.

Let's set up some basic assumptions. I'd say it's likely that Bethesda is using either an unmodified Fallout 4 perk system or one that's only slightly modified based on feedback from Fallout 4. Extrapolating from that:

• Strength is either less important than normal or even more important than ever, depending on whether they use Survival Mode's asinine weight tweaks or not.
• I would see Perception as being basically one of two uber-important stats. If my instincts are right, sniping is going to be basically the easiest and safest way to take out enemy players. Paired with the power of a VATS-build always-on crits, you have one stat that gives you both perception of enemies as well as better ability to hit them.
• Endurance: Perks are worthless, but hitpoints are king.
• Charisma: Depending on whether you're playing solo or not, you might want Lone Wanderer. Otherwise, worthless.
• Intelligence: I'm betting there will be a lot of robots in this universe, since all humans are played by other players. This would also give a tangible benefit in terms of increasing level-up speed. Gun Nut and SCIENCE! are useful perks to have, but if you're playing with a party only one person really needs to have them.
• Agility: Sneak is probably useless. By extension, most of the perks that rely on sneak attacks are probably also useless. The only perk that seems useful to me would be Blitz and Rapid Reload, and I have no idea how the first would work in a real-time VATS world.
• Luck: VATS has the potential to be really powerful, though it'd be less so when in the time you're queueing up your attacks the enemy player has already put a few rounds in your face. Just like in Fallout 4, it seems like this would be a good SPECIAL to either ignore or go all out in.

[Cheesegear]

Let's set up some basic assumptions. I'd say it's likely that Bethesda is using either an unmodified Fallout 4 perk system or one that's only slightly modified based on feedback from Fallout 4...

My guess is '76 is a Battle Royale game, based on 'live services' model (said by Todd). Which means that Perks are based on progression unlocks, which is primarily done by playing the game for longer amounts of time. Probably based on random loot.
My guess is that killing other players gives significantly faster progression that doing regular quests. The person getting griefed wont lose anything. But the person who does the griefing gets much faster Perk progression, or whatever materials are used to craft/repair the better gear.

My guess is that people are treating '76 like a Fallout game, rather than a 'live service' Battle Royale game. Which is what it is.

[Balmas]

My guess is that people are treating '76 like a Fallout game, rather than a 'live service' Battle Royale game. Which is what it is.

Maybe we're using different definitions, but what I've seen of Fallout: 76 has exactly none of the key markers of a Battle Royale game. Battle Royale games are games like PUBG and Fortnite, where some number of players are dropped into a map with the explicit objective of killing each other until the last man standing wins. Instead, Fallout: 76 seems to have more of the indicators of a multiplayer survival crafting game like Rust, DayZ, or even Minecraft.

[Mando Knight]

Maybe we're using different definitions, but what I've seen of Fallout: 76 has exactly none of the key markers of a Battle Royale game. Battle Royale games are games like PUBG and Fortnite, where some number of players are dropped into a map with the explicit objective of killing each other until the last man standing wins. Instead, Fallout: 76 seems to have more of the indicators of a multiplayer survival crafting game like Rust, DayZ, or even Minecraft.

It's definitely more Rust/Minecraft than Fortnite/PUBG. Players respawn with little-to-no penalty, there's a PvE incentive for nuking WV again and again (it temporarily turns the nuked area into a high-level PvE zone and apparently also reduces Scorchbeast attacks on your favorite camping spot, probably for a similar duration), and there's a bit of an emphasis on your portable C.A.M.P. workshop, so exploring and building up resources for your own little redeployable homestead will probably be the primary driving gameplay factors, rather than assassinating every single human you can reach.

[Spore]

From what I've heard, Fallout 76 started development about the same time as Fallout 4. Indeed, part of me wants to think that Fallout 4's SPECIAL system was pared down so horrendously, not because of any fictitious demands for an easier-to-understand leveling system, but because the Fallout 4 SPECIAL system would be simpler to implement in a multiplayer setting.

I do not think they'll use Fallout 4's perks. I hope they realize how OP most of that is. Teleporting behind a target in sneak mode to kill them in power armor with a single knife stroke? Sniping off the head of a charging enemy from 200 ft. afar with high Perception and a good sniper build and VATS? That's the money. Possibly rolling the dice on if your build is effective at day or night missions? Yea, that is not gonna be tedious at all.

No, I assume in line with the heavy emphasis on crafting and base building it'll be the following.

1) Tiered weapon access. For this sniper rifle you need Perception 10. It doesn't do anything to its damage but you cannot use it with less. Similarly, the best melee weapons and heavy weapons (mini gun, mini nukes, rocket launchers) want high strength, energy weapons and explosives intelligence, pistols and knifes agility.

2) endurance is hit points, charisma is for base building and luck determines your drop chances (maybe your online coop pools luck, so a group with 5, 3, 1, 1 luck counts as having luck 10 and thus giving a reason to go online).

That is what I could see. But I could see a system without stats just as well. Knowing right off the bat what I want to do with my char was pretty annoying in Fallout 4. Yes, don't stone me to death for this sacrilege, but I should be able to SEE the SPECIAL chart with all the perks BEFORE I lock in my stats. (I started my general build off with Cha 5 that prohibited me from taking the leadership perk).

[Mando Knight]

I do not think they'll use Fallout 4's perks. I hope they realize how OP most of that is. Teleporting behind a target in sneak mode to kill them in power armor with a single knife stroke? Sniping off the head of a charging enemy from 200 ft. afar with high Perception and a good sniper build and VATS? That's the money. Possibly rolling the dice on if your build is effective at day or night missions? Yea, that is not gonna be tedious at all.

No, I assume in line with the heavy emphasis on crafting and base building it'll be the following.

1) Tiered weapon access. For this sniper rifle you need Perception 10. It doesn't do anything to its damage but you cannot use it with less. Similarly, the best melee weapons and heavy weapons (mini gun, mini nukes, rocket launchers) want high strength, energy weapons and explosives intelligence, pistols and knifes agility.

2) endurance is hit points, charisma is for base building and luck determines your drop chances (maybe your online coop pools luck, so a group with 5, 3, 1, 1 luck counts as having luck 10 and thus giving a reason to go online).

That is what I could see. But I could see a system without stats just as well. Knowing right off the bat what I want to do with my char was pretty annoying in Fallout 4. Yes, don't stone me to death for this sacrilege, but I should be able to SEE the SPECIAL chart with all the perks BEFORE I lock in my stats. (I started my general build off with Cha 5 that prohibited me from taking the leadership perk).

The noclip documentary has a quick shot of the leveling system in 76, at about 22 minutes in. It's similar to Fallout 4, but you can't have everything active all at once (but Charisma helps you share bonuses from your active perks), and some of the teased perks are different from 4's counterparts. On top of that, there are apparently Mutations, which give you Trait-like gameplay tradeoffs and can be acquired randomly through sufficient radiation exposure (seek Division for true enlightenment?).

[Stuebi]

Considering how bad F4 considering the previous installments, I was already on the fence. Especially since Bethesda doesnt really has a great track record as of late. But everything I heard about 76 so far makes me want to abandon the series completely until they get their act back together.

Ohhh, Multiplayer and PvP. Because I always thought to myself how much the immersion of Fallout would be improved by "xxShadowdeath420xx" and "Kirito", especially if the two were allowed to gun me down on sight. And no, arbitary "timers" in between being allowed to PK someone doesnt help. Even if PvP wasnt a thing, I dont want randoms in my Fallout game. Nothing ruins an RPG experience like this faster than randos. Always Online too, because that is totally to the benefit of the customer, and not a thinly veiled method of trying to turn games into a "service" that can be canceled or denied for basically no reason at all. Even if you disregard the fact that it puts a hard timer on the game until they decide that it's not worth running the servers anymore. And then the cherry on top, all the teasers and previews I've seen so far just blatantly showing how far removed this is going to be from the spirit of the series, which is what I used to play them for.

No, seriously. This was a dumb idea before it even got started. There are already plenty of games in this sort of niche, so you're not doing anything "new" at all. Especially since it's so unnecessary. You have a playerbase, F4 was a pretty bad followup to New Vegas, but you could've just taken what few good parts F4 had and then went back to what people liked. Just... why? TESO and this make me think that somebody at Bethesda lost a bet and is obligated to make bad business decisions every once in a while.

[Winthur]

F4 was a pretty bad followup to New Vegas, but you could've just taken what few good parts F4 had and then went back to what people liked. Just... why? TESO and this make me think that somebody at Bethesda lost a bet and is obligated to make bad business decisions every once in a while.

You have to be delusional to think that F4 was spiritually a follow-up to New Vegas, or that most people really, really cared about playing "Fallout 3, but written by Avellone, Fernstermaker and Sawyer", or that TESO lost Bethesda money, or that this isn't going to sell.

And it is too early for a brand new Fallout game anyway.

I'd also like to note that Interplay also wanted to create their own online Fallout called Project V13 back in the days.

[Balmas]

No, seriously. This was a dumb idea before it even got started. There are already plenty of games in this sort of niche, so you're not doing anything "new" at all. Especially since it's so unnecessary. You have a playerbase, F4 was a pretty bad followup to New Vegas, but you could've just taken what few good parts F4 had and then went back to what people liked. Just... why? TESO and this make me think that somebody at Bethesda lost a bet and is obligated to make bad business decisions every once in a while.

Because they think that doing it this way will enable them to make more money than a simple RPG.

Think of it this way. Sell a single-player game, and you get $60 + whatever the DLC costs. Let's just round that up to $120ish total, per player. That's the most you get out per player. Maybe 180 if they splurge for the collector's edition.

Sell a multiplayer game, and you get all that. Still get $60-120 base, plus $60 DLC. However, once you take the game online, you also have the choice of selling lootboxes--those SPECIAL cards look like the kind of thing that you could put in a digital lunchbox and sell to customers. Why bother leveling up for cards when you can just buy the advantages, amiright? Oooh, and don't forget cosmetic items to make your always-online avatar look fancier than the rest. And that's before you even start getting into private servers, which can be rented to players so they can mod, or have curation over who they play with.

Because in the Triple-A industry, it's not enough to make money. You need to make all the money.