Thought the same exact thing. Was so pissed when they scrapped the original game and reused some assets to throw together a convoluted team based pvp game.

Absolutely, hell, NO! There are plenty of games that offer PvP already. Grind and efficiency, begone!

You won the game! Congratulations!

I still wonder how the OP intends PvP to work in a singleplayer game...

PvP, no. I have enough trouble with bugs & glitches, don't need to add trolls to the mix.

Co-op could be fun, but not PvP.

Problem is how the game is designed in the bottom, two obvious problems just with coop, you and friend is in two different cells and do stuff game has to synchronize this.

Far worse take an room full of junk, trow an grenade and everything bunch around, now this has to be synchronized too so everything end up pretty much the same place. Same goes with body parts after an mirv launch or exploding cars.

They did not do ESO as they did Fallout 4 and Skyrim.

No thanks I don't play mp games anymore for a reason.

So many perks and effects would have to be toned down or eliminated in Pvp that you character wouldn't really feel like your character anymore. All the best abilities of your sneaky ninja would be nerfed in the name of "balance". Oh, and as for VATS...kiss it goodbye. There's no way to implement that in Pvp.


Much of the joy of Bethesda Game Studios' single-player games is how wonderfully unbalanced they can get if you build your character right. You end up with a totally unfair advantage over the game world.


When you get bored with a character in a Bethesda game you start a new character with a different skill set. You'll likely find the game becomes completely fresh again.

I hate the idea of a PvP fallout.

Either it would be linked to the main game (an arena or something matching off players), and would make most builds obsolete as PvPers would make dedicated builds allowing them to max out combat abilities at as low a level as possible, giving them a massive advantage over regular players, who would be sinking points on intelligence/charisma, VATS skills, etc. If it wasn't level based, there would be even more drastic mismatches between stats/gear, etc. Various abilities (like luck giving the chance to deflect bullets to instal-kill opponents) would have to go.

If this wasn't the case, then it would just be some small level based pure pvp detached from the main game/your gear, in which case you may as well be playing cod, or bf. It would just be like any other generic first person shooter, with fallout guns. Realistically, it would be far easier finding a pre-existing pvp game with a fallout character/weapons mod than it would be for the fallout designers to build a whole new game mode incorporating pvp.

If they went down the ESO route, the game would lose many of the options/features that make it fun and unique. PvP in an open world would have to be heavily curtailed, or you would just start to see teams of noob killers in power armour hanging about outside of sanctuary/spawn points to make life hell for any new players. You can expect NPC's to be unkillable, or to just respawn soon after death, otherwise trolls would kill them all to piss people off. Since items like chests would have to respawn, or only appear client side, you would expect to see much more farming whether for caps, or just re-clearing easy caves, etc for fast levels. You wouldn't be able to have drastically game altering decisions (like nuking a town or permanantly killing off major characters), player owned settlements in map, NPC companions, etc.

In short, pvp and fallout in it's current form don't go hand in hand. For a post apocalyptic pvp game, go with Day-Z or Rust, or something like that. The problem is that you will soon get immensely frustrated with them, as people go out of their way to screw you over. Without a drastic rethink of the way these games work, they are doomed from the get go by hackers and 12 year olds who basically play the game shooting everything in sight, because unlike in real life survival, they can still thrive in this way through instant respawns and cheap gear.

In a genuine apocalypse/survival situation, cooperation with like minded people would be key to success and the scummy people in it for themselves would likely die out very quickly, as the entire mentality of shoot everything in sight would put them on the wrong side of cooperatively minded people, who would just kill them off. That's not to say people who co-operate with one another will necessarily be lovey dovey hippy types, but fighting would be based far more on control of territory or resources, and inter-factional relations, as opposed to just beating up on everybody else because you've been playing for longer and have a bigger gun/better gear.

Oh yeah this. Plus not every game needs multiplayer. In my opinion having it seems as tho games developers seems to invest so much of the projects funds in PvP maps and weapons, real single player experience gets reduced. COD and Battlefield comes to mind. I really do not want to play fallout for 4-9 hours and have to switch over PvP in order to get my full $60 worth.

PvP no thanks. A special co-op for two, I wouldn't mind.

Nope!

What a stupid request after buying an SP game. Must be taking dumb ass pills or forgetting to take your Mentats

Ditto for co-op.

If being against multiplayer of any sort wasn't enough, PvP just sounds like a horrible idea. So much re-designing and balancing would have to be done to the point the end result would probably be a mess of something to play. I want none of it in Fallout.

Seconded. And as long as EA doesn't buy Bethesda, we will be safe. Well, hopefully.

I am against this idea so strongly it's not even funny. Leave my single player games alone. Can you imagine all the pvp posts crying over powered and nerfed? What a cesspool the forums would become.


My god, what a horrible idea.

I wish there were plenty of other pvp and co-op games out that were built around these concepts...wait there is.

I am not saying that multi-player and PvP are good ideas, but there are ways that VATS can be implemented.

VATS in its current incarnation is quite similar to bullet-time which has been implemented in multi-player and PvP.

Basically, the way it would work would be if you go into VATS both you and your target would go into slow time. You would get VATS targeting, your target would just be placed in slow time without VATS targeting. If you are in slow time without VATS targeting, you will not be able to use VATS until the slow time ends. Additionally, anyone that has someone in their field of view that is in slow time will be placed in slow time also. The slow time effect would basically be viral in nature and would apply to NPC's and players, alike. Now in order to limit VATS usefulness as a griefing tool, a short time limit would have to be placed on it. Probably nothing more than 10 seconds. It would also have to expend all AP whether you fire a shot or not.

To better illustrate this, I have a example.

You and a friend are together with your backs to each other. Your friend spots a raider and goes into VATS. This puts your friend and the raider in slow time, but you remain in normal time since neither your friend, nor the raider is in your field of view. Now a mole rat bursts from the ground in front of you and your friend or the raider is in its field of view. This immediately places the mole rat into slow time and since it is in front of you, you go into slowtime. Your friend, the raider, you and the mole rat will remain in slow time as long as your friend is in VATS (again, maximum of 10 seconds no matter what actions are taken or not taken), all of your friend's targets are killed, or you friend is killed.

Being slammed into slow time like this would be quite jarring. but I can't think of a better way to implement VATS in multi-player.

Now as to the OP's desire for PvP in Fallout 4.

This is something we will not see unless BGS decided to do it early in the Design Process. That is to say, IF BGS decided to add multi-player and PvP capabilities to Fallout 4 back around the time that the last DLC for Skyrim shipped, and then subsequently coded for it, then it could show up in a DLC. If they did NOT decide to do it, then they would not have coded for it and it is unlikely they would gut a major portion of the code designed for single player just to add something like this at this late of a date. In short, for Fallout 4 to have a multi-player/PvP DLC ship, they had to have planned for it back around the time that the last DLC for Skyrim shipped. If it wasn't planned, it flat out won't happen.

Now based on what is known about BGS's Development Cycle, we know they are already working on their next game. The work on this next game is being done by a small team and will not go into full blown development until after the last DLC for Fallout 4 ships. If you want THAT game to be multi-player/PvP start agitating for it NOW. In a few months it will be too late.

On a personal note: I hope we never see a multi-player BGS game and I sure as hell do not want to see PvP in Fallout.

Or developing the idea further:

V.A.T.S doesn't slow time down at all, it all happens in real time, you would have to be quick and of course you can still be shot while firing in real time, it would be less annoying and more risky, but the payoff would be worth it.

I'm not an advocate of PvP for Fallout either way, but I'd rather it that way if it did happen, I don't play a lot of MMOs these days, seems to be too many griefers about.

It wouldn't work in slo mo unless everything gets put into slo mo. Think about it, if I have my back to a friend who goes into V.A.T.S with an enemy, a Supermutant for the sake of argument, both of them going into slow motion, what's to stop me turning round and filling the Supermutant with bullets? (all while he is in slo mo), Any way around that would be cheesy, not to mention it would be silly seeing ppl go into slo mo all the time.

Real time V.A.T.S, only way I can see it working, Bethesda will never do it.

Fallout Online will come soon enough

Having played ESO for nearly 2 years, I'm up for FO. Hmmm the acronym needs work.

ikr

I still plan on going back to ESO when the BGs release, but I accidentally clicked my FO4 icon a while back and haven't looked backed since.

I actually like the acronym. Simple and to the point.

"I pity the FO!"

FOO!

Plus as added bonus, when people start to hate it (like with ESO), it will be easy to make the right jokes about game being FOObared.

Fall Out On Line.

Nobody here wants to play the FOOL...oh wait...

Depend if they think its economical, if so it will come, not sure how well ESO does it had to drop subscription after all, has not played since summer because busy summer and autumn.

Probably has sells most on console as its not many console MMO while the pc marked is oversaturated.

Bonus for FOOL is that its not many post apocalyptic MMO out, you have the zombie survival games but they are not well suited for casuals like ESO is.