Game News inXile reveal Wasteland 3's party system

[Bubbles]

iirc it's only like 4 characters because half your party oughta be summons? or something like that.

During the BT4 Kickstarter it was 4 characters + 1 NPC + 1 summon.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Full party creation was always shit idea, it only works if you are already familiar with the ruleset and with the itemization.

 

[Excidium II]

Full party creation was always shit idea, it only works if you are already familiar with the ruleset and with the itemization.

It's an RPG, you're supposed to start the game already familiarized with the systems.

 

[Bubbles]

No ability to respec was always shit idea, it only works if you are already familiar with the ruleset and with the itemization.

fixed

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Full party creation was always shit idea, it only works if you are already familiar with the ruleset and with the itemization.

It's an RPG, you're supposed to start the game already familiarized with the systems.

No, you're supposed to start the game already familiarized with text description of the systems. That alone doesn't give you much of a clue about the implementation, the encounters, the items, and the synergies with all other systems. For example, you don't know how scarce the ammunition is until you actually play the fucking game, so you have no idea whether it's worth it to add a melee character or not.

fixed

As a storyfag, I beg to differ. Respec is a nono, NPCs need stats based on who they are. PoE did it perfectly by having both companions for the storyfags and the tavern NPCs for the powergamers.

 

[Bubbles]

As a storyfag, I beg to differ. Respec is a nono, NPCs need stats based on who they are. PoE did it perfectly

But PoE has respeccing. And NPC attributes were changed by later patches without any sort of in-game story development to justify the changes!

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Anyway, don't get me wrong here. While I think they are right that Chosen One is a more natural, intuitive approach, it's still a dick move that they were hiding that information from backers throughout the campaign.

 

[naossano]

PoE did it perfectly by having both companions for the storyfags and the tavern NPCs for the powergamers.

This is the perfect solution imo. I don't get why it isn't alway the case.

 

[Excidium II]

Full party creation was always shit idea, it only works if you are already familiar with the ruleset and with the itemization.

It's an RPG, you're supposed to start the game already familiarized with the systems.

No, you're supposed to start the game already familiarized with text description of the systems. That alone doesn't give you much of a clue about the implementation, the encounters, the items, and the synergies with all other systems. For example, you don't know how scarce the ammunition is until you actually play the fucking game, so you have no idea whether it's worth it to add a melee character or not.

You don't need any of that.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Full party creation was always shit idea, it only works if you are already familiar with the ruleset and with the itemization.

It's an RPG, you're supposed to start the game already familiarized with the systems.

No, you're supposed to start the game already familiarized with text description of the systems. That alone doesn't give you much of a clue about the implementation, the encounters, the items, and the synergies with all other systems. For example, you don't know how scarce the ammunition is until you actually play the fucking game, so you have no idea whether it's worth it to add a melee character or not.

You don't need any of that.

Found the guy who plays on Story Mode.

 

[Excidium II]

Trying to think of one CRPG that required consulting a knowledge base to build a capable party.

At best it's informative x1 or saves some frustration by circling around the designer's incompetence.

 

[Excidium II]

weak excuse to get rid of full party creation.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Capable party? Probably not.

But people who care about stats don't want a capable party. They want an optimal party, and they'll be suicidal throughout entire playthrough if it turns they have one point allocated sub-optimally. It's like you're new to the internet.

 

[DeepOcean]

If you liked a company's last few games, and you like the general idea of the game they're promoting, then sure - back it. But know that you're taking a risk, and that - if the developer is competent - you can't rely on more than the broad outline of what the game is going to be like. If you want to know exactly what you're buying, then buy the fucking game when it's done. Nobody is stopping you from doing that. You still have the 'know whether the game is good before you spend your money' option available to you. Yes, criticise bad development decisions, especially if you've already got skin in the game. But don't act like it's some shocking fraud when the game isn't what you were expecting, when you specifically chose the 'take my money before I see what I'm buying' option.

I could easily see companies abusing this kind of thinking, when bait and switch becomes a habit, the trust on the whole system collapse. If it was a case of a few bad apples but pretty much all big crowd funding companies resorted to bait and switch with very few exceptions. They let a considerable portion of their fan base make wrong assumptions based on their past reputation, collected the money, then just fucked those people claiming they were innocent little developers that never promised anything while trying to make cash inventing all sorts of excuses of why they were dumbing down their games.

I'm really skeptical of the idea of you not being able to stabilish a even basic plan of how the mechanics will work, I see they changing alot of stuff on development but are you orkay with a company promising you TB combat on a pitch than changing it later to RtwP because some "folks couldn't undestand it?" It didn't yet reached that point but slippery slope is slippery and my patience with this BS just ended.

 

[Excidium II]

Capable party? Probably not.

But people who care about stats don't want a capable party. They want an optimal party, and they'll be suicidal throughout entire playthrough if it turns they have one point allocated sub-optimally. It's like you're new to the internet.

I spit on this post.

 

[Mustawd]

Full party creation was always shit idea, it only works if you are already familiar with the ruleset and with the itemization.

Capable party? Probably not.

But people who care about stats don't want a capable party. They want an optimal party, and they'll be suicidal throughout entire playthrough if it turns they have one point allocated sub-optimally. It's like you're new to the internet.

Ban IHaveHugeNick

As a storyfag...

Oh, fuck you.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Ah, the old "it's old-school, but ready for the modern audience". Never fails to succeed at providing the best results.

P.S. Fuck Fargo and his team of nazis.

 

[pippin]

Full party creation was always shit idea, it only works if you are already familiar with the ruleset and with the itemization.

wrongest post in the codex
it's not like people playing w3 will be completely new to rpgs, that only happened to d: os1

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

So? PS:T wasn't played by people new to RPGs either, but a lot of them probably made high Str high Con characters. You never know how a ruleset is going to be implemented in the actual game. And no "lol just read the manual" isn't the answer, judging the fact that half of Codex was whining when by midgame it turned out Initiative is the only important stat or that Int above 4 is pointless.

 

[Excidium II]

^ Wasteland 2 is a shit game.

Also what's wrong with high STR and CON? You a weak nerd?

 

[Roguey]

Full party creation was always shit idea, it only works if you are already familiar with the ruleset and with the itemization.

So you'd agree that it works great with D&D because a ton of people are familiar with it.

You might say "but proficiences/weapon focus" but if you're going in blind, you can't go wrong with swords for your front-line and it's not too important for those who aren't.

 

[Excidium II]

Let's design things that aren't trash instead of throwing party creation away.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Full party creation was always shit idea, it only works if you are already familiar with the ruleset and with the itemization.

So you'd agree that it works great with D&D because a ton of people are familiar with it.

You might say "but proficiences/weapon focus" but if you're going in blind, you can't go wrong with swords for your front-line and it's not too important for those who aren't.

I wouldn't say it works great, but most of the time it will work good enough, yeah. Like you've said, with a familiar ruleset a veteran player should be able to identify safe choices to lower the risk of shitty implementation messing up the party too badly.

But if it's something like WL2 ruleset, which was not only unfamiliar, but half of weapon lines sucked dick and so did half of attributes...

 

[Bubbles]

Maybe WL3 should just do away with attributes.

 

[Epsilon]

Maybe WL3 should just do away with attributes.

And skills!. Hell make the PC voice acted too, with a predefined back story, and set clear goals right from the start to limit confusion. That way the player knows what role he plays, what his character is like and what he's supposed to do. You want to limit the potential for roleplaying and discovery as much as possible so you have a more visceral and cinematic experience!