Wasteland The Wasteland 2 Beta Release Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Jedi Master Radek]

GamesBeat checked in with 10 large Kickstarters on their current status, Torment included. Brian Fargo comments:

Update: Torment is still in heavy preproduction, inXile CEO Brian Fargo told GamesBeat. The team has generated about 800 pages of design documents and a prototype for one of the crisis areas. “We are working on some beautiful new screens, which we hope to show in the next 90 days or so,” he said. “We are thankful for the long design stage we were given thanks to crowdfunding.”

I am quoting this because I think those lines have much to do with the production of Wasteland 2. This screen was "close" to being published like a month ago which makes a 4 or so month delay. If there is a delay in Torment production, than it means that artists must be still working on W2. (they are already hired, so they have to do something, Torment preproduction may take longer because of the narrative nature of the game not because they are busy with W2). If so, does it mean there is a change in plans? I mean it was said that many artists from W2 are being moved onto the next project, but it was announced when ToN screen was said to be right about the corner. So does this delay means that adding content to W2 will be longer than 3 months? Obviously programmers are mostly needed after levels are sculptured and it is doubtful that after first screen there will be enough maps ready to have a work for the entire team. But those unused programmer can easy be used in adding content into W2. You thoughts? At least it is a better point of discussion, than the tired Early Access price debate.

 

[hiver]

Just roll with it.

If more people are kept working on W2 it means it will be a better game for it. And its not like anyone really expected to get those games so quickly and have them anywhere close to quality of the old ones.
As a rule of thumb most of us go for better, rather then quicker.

 

[sea]

If anyone would like to provide their most feedback on improving the Charisma attribute, it would be most appreciated you do so here:

http://wasteland.inxile-entertainment.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6520

We're looking at updating it and want to get some player opinions on what they would like to see.

 

[garren]

Increased XP gains sound cool. I like this idea, kinda fits with the whole promotion system too.

I haven't personally played Wasteland 2 and I don't know if any of this already applies, but here's some stuff:

- shop prices
- losing control of NPCs less often (could be already in, dunno)
- resistance to psychic attacks (if the game has them) or morale reducing stuff etc. etc., because the PC is so sure of himself and does not lose composure easily
- I'm all out of ideas

 

[felipepepe]

I posted there, but I'll post here as well:

I propose that Wasteland's 2 max party size be based on party's average Charisma. This works because it makes the choice of how much to spent in CHA important to every player; since every attribute point spent in CHA makes your Ranger weaker combat & skill-wise, you'll have the option to make your own balance between a lone wolf übermensch or 6 happy girl scouts doing everything by the power of friendship.

W2 has done a great job so far making sure the game is solo-able, so this seems like the next logical step. Would even make combat balance easier and more interesting, since ATM having 6 party members is always the optimal group. It also makes sense world-wise; why NPCs would join any ranger retard that appears? They should only tag along charismatic groups.

And since Perks are yet being designed, they can help with making various party sizes interesting. Stuff like the Lone Wolf perk in Fallout would be perfect.

My suggestion is a bit complex to implement, but it IS a complex issue that has to be properly attended. This isn't something that you'll fix by giving small bonuses or whatever.

 

[Infinitron]

felipepepe Are you suggesting that it be possible to actually not have enough Charisma to even create a full four Ranger party on chargen?

That's an interesting idea.

 

[felipepepe]

felipepepe Are you suggesting that it be possible to actually not have enough Charisma to even create a full four Ranger party on chargen?

Yup.

ATM you start with 3 in every attribute, having 7 points to spent freely. Playing solo (1 CHA) would mean that you have 9 points to spread, while playing with 6 rangers (avg. 9 CHA) means that the average ranger will have only 1 point to freely spent (without reducing other attributes, that is). As I said, solo Snake Plisken Vs. 6 Girl Scouts.

Personally, I think that 2-3 party members is the perfect group for Wasteland 2, but there is absolutely no downside for playing with 6 rangers. Even ammo isn't a issue, just give them 2 in blunt weapons and a pipe, and you're done. This suggestion fixes both Charisma AND party size balance, as well as giving W2 some replayability.

 

[Grotesque]

I've always thought that the ranger maximum party number now is way too high so a charisma dependent maximum number would be welcomed.

Also I hoped the characters that would join the party would be handled in combat by the AI to give them a sense of personality (weapon preference, combat style etc)
If that would be the case, the more charisma the rangers would have, the more control you would have upon the followers, but never full control.
At first you could give the broad orders in combat (same as Fallout 2)
The more charisma you have, you can have access to more specific action orders to followers (aimed shots, single/burst mode etc) on a limited use per combat.
With really high charisma, full control of a follower for a number of turns per combat.

 

[felipepepe]

Also I hoped the characters that would join the party would be handled in combat by the AI to give them a sense of personality (weapon preference, combat style etc)
If that would be the case, the more charisma the rangers would have, the more control you would have upon the followers, but never full control.
At first you could give the broad orders in combat (same as Fallout 2)
The more charisma you have, you can have access to more specific action orders to followers (aimed shots, single/burst mode etc) on a limited use per combat.
With really high charisma, full control of a follower for a number of turns per combat.

That's a cool idea, but it crashes against the major issue that the game doesn't have a Leader or something like that. So you could have only one guy with high CHA, and all the others will just ignore the stat.

 

[aratuk]

felipepepe Are you suggested that it be possible to actually not have enough Charisma to even create a full four Ranger party on chargen?

Yup.

ATM you start with 3 in every skills, having 7 points to spent. Playing solo (1 CHA) would mean that you have 9 points to spread, while playing with 6 rangers (avg. 9 CHA) means that the average ranger will have only 1 point to freely spent (without reducing other attributes, that is). As I said, solo Snake Plisken Vs. 6 Girl Scouts.

Personally, I think that 2-3 party members is the perfect group for Wasteland 2, but there is absolutely no downside for playing with 6 rangers. Even ammo isn't a issue, just give them 2 in blunt weapons and a pipe, and you're done. This suggestion fixes both Charisma AND party size balance, as well as giving W2 some replayability.

I posted a similar idea to yours on the inXile forums (at almost the same time), except my version is restricted to the number of NPC companions. Would be much easier to implement, although I like your idea as well. Fairly drastic to make charisma that much of an emphasis, but it would be interesting.

 

[Grotesque]

Also I hoped the characters that would join the party would be handled in combat by the AI to give them a sense of personality (weapon preference, combat style etc)
If that would be the case, the more charisma the rangers would have, the more control you would have upon the followers, but never full control.
At first you could give the broad orders in combat (same as Fallout 2)
The more charisma you have, you can have access to more specific action orders to followers (aimed shots, single/burst mode etc) on a limited use per combat.
With really high charisma, full control of a follower for a number of turns per combat.

That's a cool idea, but it crashes against the major issue that the game doesn't have a Leader or something like that.

Which is kind of awkward not having a leader for a militaristic group.
When creating the party, you designate a leader (with a high charisma is you chose this path)
And when calculating the charisma values needed for those effects to take place, the other rangers charisma would reinforce the leader's charisma.
A formula where the leader's charisma value has the biggest effect but the other rangers charisma would have to be high too to unlock the upper tier options/perks.

 

[Onholyservicebound]

I like the idea of group CHA being the determining factor to how much control you have over NPCs, in that same vein I agree with an earlier comment that having full control of NPC rangers most of the time is overpowered.

As for party size, I'd definitely prefer it affect extended party size over starting party size. For individual Charisma, obviously it should affect leadership(Still waiting on an explanation on what that actually does..) as well as what it says in the game, which is get access to otherwise hidden dialogue options. (Not sure if already implemented.)

 

[tuluse]

I haven't fleshed my idea out fully, but I thinking of suggesting a really gamey solution.

Characters have some kind of "aura" based on charisma. Below a certain threshold, it decreases nearby allies chance to succeed. Above a certain threshold it increases it. As it gets higher, the range increases. It would also stack with all near by allies.

This gives incentive for all rangers to have charisma. It doesn't reduce individuality by making charisma a group stat, and it means 4 rangers with 3 charisma is the not the same as 3 with 1 and 1 with 9. It allows the player to work around their characters skills in combat.

What do you guys think?

 

[Infinitron]

felipepepe Are you suggesting that it be possible to actually not have enough Charisma to even create a full four Ranger party on chargen?

Yup.

ATM you start with 3 in every attribute, having 7 points to spent freely. Playing solo (1 CHA) would mean that you have 9 points to spread, while playing with 6 rangers (avg. 9 CHA) means that the average ranger will have only 1 point to freely spent (without reducing other attributes, that is). As I said, solo Snake Plisken Vs. 6 Girl Scouts.

Personally, I think that 2-3 party members is the perfect group for Wasteland 2, but there is absolutely no downside for playing with 6 rangers. Even ammo isn't a issue, just give them 2 in blunt weapons and a pipe, and you're done. This suggestion fixes both Charisma AND party size balance, as well as giving W2 some replayability.

I like it, it's a gamist approach towards party size. Why should a player ever NOT have a maximum sized party in an RPG? They never really give you a reason other than maybe "you level up faster!!" which is pretty stupid.

I don't think even Pillars of Eternity is touching this trope. I'll try to ask Sawyer about it.

 

[tuluse]

I like the idea of group CHA being the determining factor to how much control you have over NPCs, in that same vein I agree with an earlier comment that having full control of NPC rangers most of the time is overpowered.

As for party size, I'd definitely prefer it affect extended party size over starting party size. For individual Charisma, obviously it should affect leadership(Still waiting on an explanation on what that actually does..) as well as what it says in the game, which is get access to otherwise hidden dialogue options. (Not sure if already implemented.)

Leadership controls how often NPCs use their AI instead of letting the player control them.

 

[Answermancer]

I haven't fleshed my idea out fully, but I thinking of suggesting a really gamey solution.

Characters have some kind of "aura" based on charisma. Below a certain threshold, it decreases nearby allies chance to succeed. Above a certain threshold it increases it. As it gets higher, the range increases. It would also stack with all near by allies.

This gives incentive for all rangers to have charisma. It doesn't reduce individuality by making charisma a group stat, and it means 4 rangers with 3 charisma is the not the same as 3 with 1 and 1 with 9. It allows the player to work around their characters skills in combat.

What do you guys think?

I really like that, it stresses the idea that Charisma helps with teamwork and lets you either ignore it to the team's detriment or have one person focus on it and be a sort of leader that buffs others around him, or have everyone take some and make the team as a whole stronger while missing out on other stats. I'm partial to these kind of solutions though.

 

[Zombra]

Which is kind of awkward not having a leader for a militaristic group.
When creating the party, you designate a leader (with a high charisma is you chose this path)

No thank you. This is not a rigid military simulator. Let me have a team of four equals if I so choose.

 

[Zombra]

Characters have some kind of "aura" based on charisma. Below a certain threshold, it decreases nearby allies chance to succeed. Above a certain threshold it increases it. As it gets higher, the range increases. It would also stack with all near by allies.
This gives incentive for all rangers to have charisma. It doesn't reduce individuality by making charisma a group stat, and it means 4 rangers with 3 charisma is the not the same as 3 with 1 and 1 with 9. It allows the player to work around their characters skills in combat.
What do you guys think?

I love it. Even if the bonus/penalty is really small, its ubiquity would make it important enough to consider for every character (while still remaining dumpable without being crippling). Go post that mother on the official board.

 

[Onholyservicebound]

tuluse Yes but isn't it also supposed to be an AoE buff skill? Because otherwise, what a shit skill, it says that it also helps people operate to the best of their ability, at least on the wiki(Can't be arsed to load up the game.).

 

[hiver]

I like the idea of group CHA being the determining factor to how much control you have over NPCs, in that same vein I agree with an earlier comment that having full control of NPC rangers most of the time is overpowered.

As for party size, I'd definitely prefer it affect extended party size over starting party size. For individual Charisma, obviously it should affect leadership(Still waiting on an explanation on what that actually does..) as well as what it says in the game, which is get access to otherwise hidden dialogue options. (Not sure if already implemented.)

Leadership controls how often NPCs use their AI instead of letting the player control them.

i dont see any point or benefit in controlling additional NPC more - at all.
if you do, it only makes combat more boring and there is no downsides.

Charisma hidden dialogue options are most likely superficial nonsensical crap (much like the rest of dialogue "options" - used only for that animal... speaking - something crap.

I haven't fleshed my idea out fully, but I thinking of suggesting a really gamey solution.

Characters have some kind of "aura" based on charisma. Below a certain threshold, it decreases nearby allies chance to succeed. Above a certain threshold it increases it. As it gets higher, the range increases. It would also stack with all near by allies.

This gives incentive for all rangers to have charisma. It doesn't reduce individuality by making charisma a group stat, and it means 4 rangers with 3 charisma is the not the same as 3 with 1 and 1 with 9. It allows the player to work around their characters skills in combat.

What do you guys think?

I really like that, it stresses the idea that Charisma helps with teamwork and lets you either ignore it to the team's detriment or have one person focus on it and be a sort of leader that buffs others around him, or have everyone take some and make the team as a whole stronger while missing out on other stats. I'm partial to these kind of solutions though.

hmm... not bad. Better then nothing even if gamey... even so... it sounds almost plausible.
highly doubt it has a chance to be implemented.

 

[Answermancer]

Go post that mother on the official board.

I second that.

One other thing I just thought of is that this makes it so that you could have (a) character(s) devoted to non-combat skills stuff and still have them play a role in combat by having a high Charisma and hanging out near people, passively buffing them. A sort of general/commander that might suck at shooting but can help coordinate the rest of the team.

 

[Grotesque]

I propose that this aura should give some extra rounds in the magazine too for the picture to be complete.

 

[hiver]

I posted there, but I'll post here as well:

I propose that Wasteland's 2 max party size be based on party's average Charisma. This works because it makes the choice of how much to spent in CHA important to every player; since every attribute point spent in CHA makes your Ranger weaker combat & skill-wise, you'll have the option to make your own balance between a lone wolf übermensch or 6 happy girl scouts doing everything by the power of friendship.

W2 has done a great job so far making sure the game is solo-able, so this seems like the next logical step. Would even make combat balance easier and more interesting, since ATM having 6 party members is always the optimal group. It also makes sense world-wise; why NPCs would join any ranger retard that appears? They should only tag along charismatic groups.

And since Perks are yet being designed, they can help with making various party sizes interesting. Stuff like the Lone Wolf perk in Fallout would be perfect.

My suggestion is a bit complex to implement, but it IS a complex issue that has to be properly attended. This isn't something that you'll fix by giving small bonuses or whatever.

Oh i see... its a professional studio... asking fans to design them a Charisma mechanic... pffft hahaha!
three months before full ... lockdown on features?

Felipepepe, your idea is tooo RADICAL

Why should a player ever NOT have a maximum sized party in an RPG?

Why should you?

the same reason why you shouldn't have anything and everything else at maximum.

Characters have some kind of "aura" based on charisma. Below a certain threshold, it decreases nearby allies chance to succeed. Above a certain threshold it increases it. As it gets higher, the range increases. It would also stack with all near by allies.
This gives incentive for all rangers to have charisma. It doesn't reduce individuality by making charisma a group stat, and it means 4 rangers with 3 charisma is the not the same as 3 with 1 and 1 with 9. It allows the player to work around their characters skills in combat.
What do you guys think?

Actually, having seen that this is official request and having seen felipepepe laying down the most usual use of charisma in games such as this - straight from fallout - i think that both his and yours should be used. Together.

and i fucking think you should get payed for it.
In MONEY.

 

[felipepepe]

I like it, it's a gamist approach towards party size. Why should a player ever NOT have a maximum sized party in an RPG? They never really give you a reason other than maybe "you level up faster!!" which is pretty stupid.

I don't think even Pillars of Eternity is touching this trope. I'll try to ask Sawyer about it.

Good idea, I sent him a message on his tumblr as well, hope he replies.

 

[tuluse]

I assume that PoE is being designed with the idea that the player wants to control 6 characters and there is not reason to impose any cost on party size because it would decrease fun for no reason.