No all RPGs (or at least CRPG style RPGs like the Fallout series) base the game around the skill points the player has invested into the character not the players actual skill level allowing them to roleplay a character they want to. If you want a game based around the skill of the player don't play a CRPG, play an FPS like CS or RO2 instead.SajuukKhar said:
Except you get to fire of one shot and maybe kill one person and then get killed by any other enemies while in close quarters due to the really low firing rate. This whole 'AMR is unquestionably the best weapon' shtick is stupid as hell.
I am not sure you know what slugs are.
What roles do Fallout 3 weapons have then bar best sneak weapon and best overall?
DR does not give weapons unique roles it does the complete fucking opposite.
Who was the one saying realism =/= good mechanics?
Also you do know body armour isn't made of foam right? but typically a metal, ceramic or high density plastic plate that is designed to take bullets? And while a modern one wouldn't be able to take repeated fire from 10mm bullets in the same way a power suit could it's not unreasonable to suggest the armour in the fallout universe would be made of tougher stuff given how advanced they are.
I am not saying DT is a perfect mechanic there are some flaws but the point is that in the example you used the weapon is so ineffective against both these armours comparing them is irrelevant (again you said it would take 100 shots to kill them), when you take actual examples you would encounter in game (e.g the sort of weapons you would be facing by the time you have that armour, or the sort of armour you would have when using that weapon) then Heavier armour makes a clear difference.
Also Fallout3's system is fucked, apparently Power amour is just as good at stopping small arms fire as it as taking explosions given it is just a flat reduction in damage. Like you said realistically pistols should never be able to take down power armour but Fallout 3 is actuaally worse in this regard because the best power armour in the game only has 50 DR meaning you still take 50% of the damage which is significantly more than NVs 20%. What's worse though is that a sniper rifle will also lose 50% meaning that apparently a pistol is just as effective at piercing armour as a sniper rifle.
Except I have just proven the exact opposite if you where actually paying attention.
From ANY weapon, meaning Fallout 3 only has two roles for weapons, highest damage per second and highest critical damage for sneak attacks. If all armour does is apply a flat reduction to the damage taken it is effectively like extra health.
Why would armour resist a higher power sniper rifle just as much as it resist a rolling pin? it makes no sense realistically and mechanically it spoils weapon variation. Dt means you can take more hits depending on the nature of the weapon, leather armour is going to give you some protection against knifes and low caliber weapons but it isn't going to magically make a difference against an assault rifle using AP rounds.
Except it's the exact opposite because with DR armour makes almost no difference to the usage of guns apparent from the fact you have to shoot them more times. It completely breaks any logical uses the weapons could have, should we make it so high caliber weapons are more effective against armour? nah! fuck that shit lets make all weapons equally effective against armour.
No it's a complete rejection of weapon diversity. Making only DPS matter outside of sneaking is a horrible design choice.
AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
ARFsf46635£%Q£%FAS!!!!!!! WHAT! We've already established Fallout 3 has no system for armour piercing because DR does not reflect armour realistically but is just damage reduction, so how the FUCK does that work? DT allows for armour piercing because high damage per hit weapons are more effective against armour, e.g a mace would do more DPS against an armoured target than weapons which would typically have higher DPS because it has a higher damage per hit and so is less affected by DT. Which is unlike Fallout 3 where the sword would still be magically more effective against armoured targets because the DR is just a percentage reduction.
No it makes you use certain weapons for certain roles, high damage per shot weapons against heavily armoured targets and for when you're sneaking, middling weapons against moderately armoured ones and high dps machine guns against lightly armoured ones.
Except of course those weapons suck when you have to fight multiple enemies.
No DR means you spray the machine gun till they're dead unless you're sneaking, talk about boring.
Which of course doesn't apply to Fallout 3 at all, because
A) ammo is easy to get and there is no pentaly for carrying as much as you like.
B) There is no reason to use the pistol in any situation because without DT the assault rifle would simply be the better option and you may aswell use the highest DPS weapon against even the lowest of enemies unless it would be so overkill it would do more damage than they could take in one only shot. In NV you would use different weapons because against a weaker enemey a weapon with low damage per shot but high DPS may actually be more effective than a weapon with higher damage per shot but lower DPS, but this would also be the inverse against heavily armoured targets which is unlike Fallout 3 where the highest DPS is simply the best.
