I think a bio hazard or even chemical weapon research waste are both good ideas for the green sludge and my screwed up mutant colony.

As far as for origins of toxic caves that fine too.

It's already halfcanon. And when the leak got out, the situation with the public was further worsened.

2077, February: FEV Research is leaked to the world through an unknown source. Protests arise in many major cities and governments around the world, as well as accusations that the U.S. was responsible for the New Plague. F.E.V. is seen as the threat, and serves only to fuel tensions. The governments of the world fear what the U.S. is up to. Speculating anything from trying to make a breed of super soldier, to trying to make Hitler's master race, they begin to panic.

On the bright side, maybe we can have an explanation for Vault 87. Vault-Tec probably got behind the secret and tried to recreate it. For whatever reason, maybe they wanted to just be the alternative.

Hunter would've liked that (probably).

Bethesda also decided to have Vault Tec know about it. So I guess it is actually canon now that people knew about it. But canon also states that it wasn't considered for military usage and even test on people till very close to the war. So hopefully there will not be any more secret FEV projects out there.

This is what I hope for too. Vault 87 already was a mistake and only there to have supermutants for brand recognition. It doesn't even make sense that people on the east coast call them by that name (they did it before the BoS - could be because of Eden's broadcast of course). But as AwesomePossum likes to point out, the supermutants are clearly shown to die out on in Fallout 3 with no means of further reproducing. Should stay that way and no more FEV!

suggestions by order of importance:

0. release it when it's finished, take as long as possible. (anyways, it will probably coincide with the release of the oculus rift)

1. include an option to disable level scaling because it creates a disincentive for progress

2. don't include essential characters, make the quests death-tolerant like in NV. unkillable npcs are annoying

3. followers should be quest aware, give each of them tons of dialogue. quality above quantity, less numerous but more detailed followers

4. better dialogue trees; npc dialogue should change based on every player action and changes in the world

5. include NV hardcoe mode, and optional realistic damage (a headshot to any unarmored human head should result in instant death)

0. I agree

1. I'm on the fence with this. I think the further into the game you progress, the enemies should get tougher. Just lets not focus the game on simply leveling up.

2. Agreed but with one request. If you kill a quest giver or quest related NPC then any quest that involves that NPC should NOT be available later. In New Vegas I killed someone who I found out later was tied into a multiple choice ending quest with good or bad karma. Now I play a good karma character so the only outcome I had was completely out of character. And if you kill an NPC that is important then people should shut up about that person. I killed Caesar early on and every one kept talking about him like he was alive.

3. Yes please. But also make followers like Bioware does in Dragon Age. Your actions will make them like or dislike you, to the point they simply don't want to be around you and leave.

4. Yes

5. Yes. Never could figure out how someone's unexposed head could withstand a .50cal shot...

While I don't particularly like level scaling for various reasons, I have never understood this argument.
-Non level scaled games: 80% of locations are permanently fixed with low level loot, whereas all the good loot is in the same place every game at level 1, allowing the player to get everything they could want at level 1, and never having to go to any other dungeon unless it's for a quest item, and making it to where the player never has to level up, or increase their stats, because they already have god-tier gear that makes them unkillable.
-Level scaled games: All the good stuff simply doesn't spawn until you reach a certain level, all "dungeon" loot constantly scaled to your level, so you never run into a place 30 levels below you that you have no reason to go into because of poor loot, and you actually have to work on getting your level up for the Daedric/ebony stuff to spawn.

Yet level scaling disincentivizes progress? If anything, the exact opposite is true, as non level scaled games make 80% of the games content pointless for anything but low level players, and allows player to not really need to level since they had level 30+ gear at level 1.

The only other argument I've seen used is the infamous, and constantly debunked, "but level scaling makes EVERY enemy set to your level, so you never feel like you got stronger!" argument, which wasn't true even back in Oblivion, and was less true in Fallout 3, and even LESS true in Skyrim, as level scaling pools have always drawn from a mixture of enemies from all levels, at and below your level, and even game thus far has increased the percentage of low level enemies that spawn, even at high levels.

A cool idea would be to be able to change race as in goul or supermutant and mabye different story lines for each cheracter. Another good idea would be better modifications for guns and a better variety of enemy's.
And mabye one big map and a couple other smaller ones you can travel to but with certain requirements like find crazy weired stuff for the boat man or train man. Ps I love fallout and if they were to stop making fallout games I would be disappointed but hopefully if they do they make a new game like it cuz they are very good games and has a lot of play time without geting boring. Also do not do what you did on new vagus with the lvl up twice then pick a perk cuz that was dumb

first of all, i said that they should include a non-level-scaling OPTION, because i realize that people have different preferences

"and you actually have to work on getting your level up for the Daedric/ebony stuff to spawn."

your statements are almost equivalent to overlooking inflation/deflation when calculating changes in wealth. an investment that gives you more dollars would only make sense if you end up with more purchasing power; likewise, leveling up to get better character and item stats only makes when you're killing-power/survivability increases relative to the world. my point is: leveling that causes scaling is like investments that causes inflation: less rewarding. (i'll also say that neither happens in the real world.)

"Yet level scaling disincentivizes progress? If anything, the exact opposite is true, as non level scaled games make 80% of the games content pointless for anything but low level players, and allows player to not really need to level since they had level 30+ gear at level 1."

i see it as the entire game world offering the player a choice as too how difficult of a fight they want to have, and how much risk they want to take and how much work they want to do, anytime.

an alternative solution to this problem that you bring up can be to reduce the effect of skill level as a whole, so that at any level, enemies that are too strong or too weak for the player- are so to a lesser extent. (with the extent depending upon how much you reduce the level-based power-disparity.) i think this is better than the non-uniform, non-parallel level scaling solution which you brought up.

"The only other argument I've seen used is the infamous, and constantly debunked, "but level scaling makes EVERY enemy set to your level, so you never feel like you got stronger!" argument, which wasn't true even back in Oblivion, and was less true in Fallout 3, and even LESS true in Skyrim, as level scaling pools have always drawn from a mixture of enemies from all levels, at and below your level, and even game thus far has increased the percentage of low level enemies that spawn, even at high levels."

i haven't played morrowind but i think it might a counter-example to your last point. but yes when player progression is allowed to out-pace enemies scaling, there is still an incentive to level up. however, i would still prefer no level scaling at all because it's an immersion breaker to know and see that the player is leveling up the world by gaining experience for himself/herself. i was painful for me in skyrim to see that i was GIVING my enemies better equipment and stats by leveling up my character.

You miss the point Garbage.

Currently, you can tag 3 skills, but nothing prevent you to raise them all. You could have moderate SP level in previous Fo games. In lastests Fo games you could litterally max all of them. I am not kidding. Those are "RPG" in which you max everything rendering useless the whole skill thing. With disability skills you would be unable to raise those skills much high. You will have to live with the consequences of your choice. This would bring back some of the balance, while adding additionnal C&C in character creation.

-----

Unlike ghouls, Most of the super-mutants don't want to revert back to a lower form. Many have stated that in many episodes.

Their weapon of mass desctruction, as shown in FoT, is the ability to make children, which they would be working on as long as they have scientist.

But i doubt they will succeed. The ability to make children means that the Master was even more right, and that they should carry out his legacy, and conquer the wasteland, transforming everyone, which copy-paste an already used plot, which would render the new game totally irrelevant, like FoBos or Fo3.

it got worse with skyrim in which you can level up indefinitely. extrapolating from the trend, fallout 4 will will have zero need for planning

I'd have no problem if they cloned themselves. Super GARY! Haha! Serious time though. I don't mind cloning at all. But Ghouls and Super Mutants should not have children. They are a mistake, an abomination. Beings never meant to exist. Having them bear children would be disregarding everything we know about them in Lore.

Added clutter. Why not simply remove the ability to max out more than 5 skills (without having invested into any other)? Drastically reduce skill points, you have it.

Disability skills aren't needed when you have to decide not to raise certain skills (consequence) anyway. Bethesda wouldn't do any of those unfortunately, because they somehow view having consequences and not being able to do everything in the end as unfun. Hopefully they change their mind, it would certainly do their games good.

Actually, they view it as "people are going to exploit the game, and find ways to max everything, no matter what we do, so why bother wasting time trying to prevent them from doing it, especially when anyone who actually cares about RP is going to RP regardless of if we force them to or not?"

You COULD get every skill to 100 in Skyrim, and get to level 81, and become massively OP since you have 80 perk points...... or you can just actually RP, and stick to your build, and only get to level 50-55ish, the level the game is designed to max out at, and not be massively OP.

There is a difference between "not being able to do everything is unfun" and "making a game that can be played any way a person wants"

No, they are interchangeable terms.

With a max level people won't be able to exploit the game. Or with extreme amounts of experience needed and with a slow pace. Skyrim is not balanced, because Bethesda didn't care for balance.

It's just an excuse for playing further, creating the illusion of achieving something. When you have an infinitely high level and can steadily progress everything until you max it, it's no longer needed to have the game itself offer anything interesting except experience points and battles. It doesn't require you to do anything, because if you invest time, you can eliminate every negative consequence. Time becomes the challenge, not thought.

The very viewpoint from which you come there will inevitably lead to a boring and unfun game as a whole. You can't even hinder the progress and if you could, it'd feel like amputating your abilities instead of actually putting them to use, like a fun game that involves consequences and you know, requires your ability to play well and think and plan.

It's not only about roleplaying, you know, it's about playing a game.

Problem is when the game actively propagates demigod characters then actually finding a way to max skills isn't fun. You don't get a feeling "I fooled the game hah" you get something like "seriously? wtf were they thinking"

That sounds good and all, but it will especially svck with Fallout since Fallout is not about training skills but gathering XP and then levelling up. In Fallout you won't get a choice, if the game allows you to max everything out, you will have to. I myself never got that far in F3, but I remember watching an LP and the guy playing was putting points in skills he never-ever used.

Yeah, the Todd philosophy. It's strange that I felt the most restricted in Skyrim, the game that supposedly lets you play any way you want.

And even if it wasn't that way - would you feel like you overcame an obstacle by choosing to not progress although the choice is there? Would you think: Yeah, the game clearly wants me to roleplay and stop gaining experience from here on, good that I, with my skill as a player, came to percieve that.

No, it's not an accomplishment to restrict yourself. It's not fun. There's nothing required, nothing to accomplish, no thinking, no planning, no putting together the parts.

I wouldn't say it actively tells you you should max out everything.

That could be easily fixed by either

A. Not forcing the player to level up upon reaching the XP requirment

B. Not forcing the player to spend all of their skill points when they do level up.

Given all the complains Fo3 and NV got about the forced level ups, and forced having to pick a perk, and that skyrim doesn't force you to take perks when you level up, it seems like Bethesda got the clue.

I don't see how it was the most restricted. The removal of the "class" system, which did nothing but serve as a pointless label on the screen, and birth-signs being changed into stones you can change at any time, as well as the splitting of attributes into their individual skills/effects so you arent forced to take bundled upgrades, greatly opened up the possibility far beyond any past TES game.

Around what would you balance such a game?

Seriously, how would a game look like that can be played by a player who decides to stop at lvl 30, but also by a level 100 player.

The entire concept is bad. You have to have rules to design around, otherwise your world will end up bland.

What are you even talking about?

I just said you wouldn't be forced to level up automatically after reaching the XP goal, or be forced spend kill point to take perks until you wanted to.

Also, level scaling.... the thing that automatically adjusts the difficulty of the game based on what level you are?

Or they are the next step of evolution, being more fit to the survival in the new world, being the novo sapiens (not unlike Metro 2033) meant to replace previous humans. This is a matter of perspective. If ghoul might feel crippled, many super-mutants are proud of being that and would not want to being reverted to a lower state. They upgraded. They don't want to downgrade. It is normal for them to ensure they have descendants that keep carrying out their legacy of upgrade, rather than see the species that started the war regain their edge. (Let's putting ourselves into their shoes Here. I am Not saying anyone is right)

About the skill system, maxing all means the whole thing become useless. It is meant to provide choices. If everything end up the same at the end, it is like having no choice at all. Like the essential characters and the people forgetting you after three day, they are stripping away your agency by making those choices not matter. If you have the choices without the consequences, it is like not having choices as the game refuse to acknoledge them.

Which means what? That you can stop progress at any time. I didn't take your concept to involve a max level, does it?

What is difficulty? If it's damage output and hit points, yeah level scaling does that. And that makes encounter design and combat boring, because it will involve not much else. That's a sad truth. Wherever you focus on, you shift from somewhere else. You can't dance at every wedding.

-It mean you arent auto forced to level up immediately after combat ends like it does in Fo3 and NV. You can delay it as long as you want.

-Yes it does.

-Well level scaling does, and always has, done more then that by giving higher level enemies access to different weapons and spells, and with skyrim, perks, which gives them new means of attacking you compared to lower level enemies.

Also, will you or evlbasrtd change your avatar, its confusing the hell out of me.

Ah ok. See that was my misunderstanding. I thought you wanted to have players be able to infinitely level up, because that's the Bethesda stance.

Yeah can do more to a degree, but also makes the world revolve around you, instead of you having to arrange with the circumstances.

Evl had the avatar from the beginning and I thought it funny to simply copy it reversed. Isn't it fun to be confused sometimes? See, that's what a game should do, require you to be attentive.

It really isn't though, because Bethesda never actually intended people to endlessly level up using the legendary system in Skyrim. Unless you really heavily exploit the game, you wont be able to do it more then once, maybe twice, per skill, which would get you all of about 2-3 levels, since level require more and more level ups to reach the higher you go.

I recall reading it would take legendarying all 18 skills in the game 9 times to reach level 250, which would allow you to get every perk, and there's not even enough content in the game, and its DLC, to legendary every skill 4 times, not to mention that, if you actually play the game as intended, you shouldn't be using any more then 6 skills in your build, meaning you would have to legendary those 6 skills 27 times to reach the "max" level where you could get every perk.

Being able to exploit the game to level up forever =/= Bethesda's official stance.

That is false, as it's entirely possible to set level minimums and maximums on dungeons with the level scaling system. Skyrim's dragon priest tombs are set to spawn at a minimum of 24 i think it was, so even if you went into them at level 1-23, the thing would still be scaled, at minimum, to a level higher then your own.

Any game can be made confusing through unnecessary complexity, but that isn't good game design, just artificial difficulty, the definition of bad game design