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

[Infinitron]

That would be cool, but only exist in LARP territory ATM. The 3 skills work in a vacuum, they are not affected by anything else; strength or kill count don't influence Hard-Ass; you can make your weakest guy the Hard-Ass one, or simply make a "diplomacy guy" that has all 3 skills. If instead of 3 dialog skills you had only one, but less points to spent, the result would be virtually the same, just less arbitrary and LARP-friendly.

LARPing? So skill checks are LARPing now? If anything, I would have thought that playing your way through a simulated conversation with no skill checks involved would constitute LARPing in the mondblutian sense. Skills and stats are the primary way in which you define your character in a traditional CRPG.

Having multiple dialogue skills makes perfect sense in a game where you create a full party. The whole movement to eliminate dialogue skills ala Josh Sawyer exists mainly in the realm of single PC games, where your main character is the one doing all the talking and it's felt that dialogue skills create an uninteresting tradeoff between "main character who is good at combat" and "main character who is good at non-combat". In a full party creation game where you can spread skills out over multiple characters, this isn't nearly as much of an issue.

That said, it is possible that inXile could do some work to make their skill checks less "arbitrary" or more interesting. This is your only substantive criticism, everything else is "I wish this was Age of Decadence".

 

[Excidium]

Jesus Christ

 

[dunno lah]

Perhaps turn the "Ass" skills into perks with relevant attribute requirements?

 

[felipepepe]

LARPing? So skill checks are LARPing now? If anything, I would have thought that playing your way through a simulated conversation with no skill checks involved would constitute LARPing in the mondblutian sense. Skills and stats are the primary way in which you define your character in a traditional CRPG.

Having 3 skills that do the exact same thing, the only difference being in flavour, IS pure LARP. There has to be a mechanic behind to justify it. Imagine I did this with weapons skills: you have swords, maces and axes skills, but they all do 1d6 damage and work the exact same way; their difference exist only in LARP realm: "this bro is a viking with an axe, this one is a foreign swordsman".

The only difference you get from choosing Hard-Ass instead of Smart-Ass is that you'll pass arbitrary skill check X instead of arbitrary skill check Y. For all I played of W2, either you get all 3 skill checks at once and no difference in outcome, or you arbitrary have only one option and keep wondering why can't you use the others.

Having multiple dialogue skills makes perfect sense in a game where you create a full party. The whole movement to eliminate dialogue skills ala Josh Sawyer exists mainly in the realm of single PC games, where your main character is the one doing all the talking and it's felt that dialogue skills create an uninteresting tradeoff between "main character who is good at combat" and "main character who is good at non-combat". In a full party creation game where you can spread skills out over multiple characters, this isn't nearly as much of an issue.

On the contrary, I think that various dialog skill male perfect sense in single PC games; it's the difference between a pacifist diplomat and a intimidating psychopath. And they should play very differently. Even Mass Effect 1 did it reasonably well, and AoD proves how deep it can be.

On the other hand, social skills are rarely done well in fully created party games, since they usually focus on combat and there is no lead character. Infinity engine games, Wizardry, M&M, etc... they either had only one Diplomacy/Persuade skill, or didn't have any at all. ToEE had Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff and even Gather Information and Sense Motive, but we all know how well that went... perhaps Realms of Arkania is the only full-party creation game with a decent use of various dialog skills.

That said, it is possible that inXile could do some work to make their skill checks less "arbitrary" or more interesting. This is your only substantive criticism, everything else is "I wish this was Age of Decadence".

Imagine a guy telling that he wants to make a tactical game; he comes with a mediocre system, so you recommend him to check ToEE and KotC, but he just replies that he prefers to bash his head on the wall until a better system comes out of it... It has been almost 2 years since the kickstarter, they had enough time for all their original ideas and didn't deliver, so now cast aside that silly pride in favor of a better game.

 

[Infinitron]

Having 3 skills that do the exact same thing, the only difference being in flavour, IS pure LARP. There has to be a mechanic behind to justify it. Imagine I did this with weapons skills: you have swords, maces and axes skills, but they all do 1d6 damage and work the exact same way; their difference exist only in LARP realm: "this bro is a viking with an axe, this one is a foreign swordsman".

The only difference you get from choosing Hard-Ass instead of Smart-Ass is that you'll pass arbitrary skill check X instead of arbitrary skill check Y. For all I played of W2, either you get all 3 skill checks at once and no difference in outcome, or you arbitrary have only one option and keep wondering why can't you use the others.

They do the same thing in one specific instance that you've described. This is an issue with the game's content, not its skill system. That's what you should be criticizing!

On the contrary, I think that various dialog skill male perfect sense in single PC games; it's the difference between a pacifist diplomat and a intimidating psychopath. And they should play very differently. Even Mass Effect 1 did it reasonably well, and AoD proves how deep it can be.

On the other hand, social skills are rarely done well in fully created party games, since they usually focus on combat and there is no lead character. Infinity engine games, Wizardry, M&M, etc... they either had only one Diplomacy/Persuade skill, or didn't have any at all. ToEE had Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff and even Gather Information and Sense Motive, but we all know how well that went... perhaps Realms of Arkania is the only full-party creation game with a decent use of various dialog skills.

Are we talking about what games have done in the past or what is actually good game design? Anyway this isn't relevant and I don't want to get into another Sawyerism discussion.

Imagine a guy telling that he wants to make a tactical game; he comes with a mediocre system, so you recommend him to check ToEE and KotC, but he just replies that he prefers to bash his head on the wall until a better system comes out of it... It has been almost 2 years since the kickstarter, they had enough time for all their original ideas and didn't deliver, so now cast aside that silly pride in favor of a better game.

Dude, a Fallout-like RPG system with lots of dialogue skills is in no way "mediocre" to the majority of Codexers.

I really don't understand what you want here.

 

[sea]

Imagine a guy telling that he wants to make a tactical game; he comes with a mediocre system, so you recommend him to check ToEE and KotC, but he just replies that he prefers to bash his head on the wall until a better system comes out of it... It has been almost 2 years since the kickstarter, they had enough time for all their original ideas and didn't deliver, so now cast aside that silly pride in favor of a better game.

It's difficult to design and prototype mechanics when you don't have a fully playable build, or if you are taking all that work out of context (and some might even say rather pointless given that it probably all can and will change anyway). You can design a game "on paper", and it'll seem like the best ideas and systems ever, and then in practice it doesn't work at all - it's not fun, your fans want something different, one change in the game necessitates other changes, etc.

And no offense intended, but you may underestimate how much work is involved in just getting a game to a playable "doesn't crash every 5 minutes" state. Once you have a stable platform to build on, game levels and art assets online, etc., content generation and gameplay tweaking is exceptionally quick. I'm not saying that "justifies" what you feel are poor mechanics (and I agree there are lots of improvements to be made), but hopefully it does make some more sense why now is an idea time for implementing these sorts of changes.

 

[hiver]

Perhaps turn the "Ass" skills into perks with relevant attribute requirements?

they were scrambling to forcefully invent as many skills as possible, by straight up splitting single skills into two or three, as it is.

Well, I'm not a backer, so my ability to offer useful feedback is limited, and I'll just post here. However, I like tuluse and felipepepe's ideas - the idea that there is a sacrifice to be made beteen having a large group of average characters and an elite few physically powerful characters is very solid, and tweaking the survival element a bit more could also provide more interesting feedback here, with larger groups having a harder time surviving in the wastes due to limited resources, etc. I'd tie NPC followers to more specific influence traits though - some NPCs may not only be unlocked through specific skills, but also retire from the party if the party doesn't use their skills or do things 'their way'. The key goal is that certain NPCs like different things, so not everyone requires a Charismatic leader - some should respect strength, klls, or brains far more. Being able to provoke or appease NPCs in different ways could add much more reactivity to the game, as well.

For tuluse's idea, there are several possible elaborations. Firstly, you can emphasise the team nature of the game by allowing the party as a whole to acquire perks - think of the benefits to having a pack totem in Werewolf, or the party abilities in the new Warhammer. Every few levels, the party gets the ability to add a perk that affects their behaviour as a team - a 'Hold the Line' perk may give the team a melee defense bonus for every team member within X, with X being based on CHA, or 'Wolfpack' may allow for team members within X to trade places or deplete enemy AP in some way. By tying these to the abstract 'team' entity, no one is 'wasting' points on leadership duties, it represents a way of customising how the team plays, with a dedicated 'Lone Wolf' chain for the team of one.

It could also allow for teamwork in interactions where multiple characters have the same skill, etc, with some equivalency between CHA and skill level, so low CHA helpers are actually detrimental, and high CHA helpers can pool some of their skills together. Two average CHA rangers, for instance, could both contribute to a skill challenge one point higher than the lead's skill level, but a third ranger would actually spread them out too thin, and they wouldn't ba able to succeed. Conversely, a large group of high CHA rangers might be able to combine their efforts to overcome skill challenges significantly higher than the lead's skill level. A simpler, more abstract implementation could be someting similar to Storm of Zehire's dialogue, where based on a max set by CHA, any PCs who can contribute to an interaction can attempt to lower the difficulty one after another. The basic idea would be something like 4th ed's skill challenges, which, while deeply flawed for the PnP table, are an adequate mechanic for something like Wasteland 2.

Mostly good suggestions. unfortunately we are at five-six minutes to midnight now.
That kind of stuff should have been considered long ago.

It's really difficult to design and prototype mechanics when you don't even have a fully playable build, or if you are taking all that work out of context (and some might even say rather pointless given that it probably all can and will change anyway). You can design a game "on paper", and it'll seem like the best ideas and systems ever, and then in practice it doesn't work at all - it's not fun, your fans want something different, one change in the game necessitates other changes, etc.

Theoretically true in general. Yet, the worse the design on paper is - the worse things become down along the road, more changes became necessary, influencing others changes... etc, etc, etc.

And no offense intended, but I do think you underestimate how much work is involved in just getting a game to a playable "doesn't crash every 5 minutes" state. Once you have a stable platform to build on, game levels and art assets online, etc., content generation and gameplay tweaking is exceptionally quick. I'm not saying that "justifies" what you feel are poor mechanics (and I agree there are lots of improvements to be made), but hopefully it does make some more sense why changes like this are still being made - and to be honest I think you would be hard pressed to find a classic CRPG with an original ruleset that this was not true of.

Hundreds and thousands of backers available, many very proficient and knowledgeable about all kinds of RPG designs, problems, effects.
- enter months and months and months of complete silence and no communication with those - more then willing to help - resources.

Listening.

Compare to Larian or even Obsidian approach.

 

[MasPingon]

W2 is just another very unsatisfying game in "speech" skills area. The reason is - skill checks are static, there is no roll of a dice. Moreover - the game tells you exactly what value of certain skill you need to have to succeed, making it a win button. Also, it's way to simplistic, attributes like intelligence and charisma are not related to social skills. I can't find worse design decision to do it, I would rather not having "speech" options at all.

If inXile decided to divide Speech into three categories, ,making it just 1-10 list of values with static checks, the only way to justify such a design decision is to allow the player to use those skills on any NPC in the game world. In any other case, it's bad implemented.

 

[felipepepe]

I really don't understand what you want here.

My issue with dialog skills:

W2 has 3 dialog skills. Although they should convey different playstyles and character types, they are instead arbitrarily distributed through the world. You don't have a choice between persuading or intimidating, you simply either have the "right" skill for a check or you don't. Or sometimes you can use all of them, with no difference whatsoever. And they work in a vacuum - a weak character and a strong character are equally good at being Hard-Asses.

What I Want:

A) Turn dialog checks into a proper choice in playthrough: Ideally, I should get the option to do all 3, each with a different threshold based on the current situation, and with different outcomes: i.e., intimidating the raiders cracking the safe in Highpool is easy, but they'll just ambush you when exit the house, while persuading them is harder, but they leave forever. You know, like that game Fargo told us he would make.

B) Add a bonus based on the attributes - Strength to Hard-Ass, Intelligence to Smart-Ass, Charisma to Kiss-Ass. Since characters with high intelligence get more skills points per level, make Smart-Ass slightly less effective than the other two skills.

The End.

And no offense intended, but I do think you underestimate how much work is involved in just getting a game to a playable "doesn't crash every 5 minutes" state. Once you have a stable platform to build on, content generation and gameplay tweaking is substantially faster. I'm not saying that "justifies" what you feel are poor mechanics, but hopefully it does make some more sense why changes like this are still being made (and to be honest I think you would be hard pressed to find a classic CRPG with an original ruleset that this was not true of).

Bro, I'm not a developer, and every alpha/beta I've played has always been more underway and set in stone than W2 is now. Maybe in 3 months the game will become super-ultra-awesome since they're unleashed from engine issues, but is not something I'm incline to believe without some evidence. The last patch was good, but I'm not mind-blown here.

Besides, compare Inxile's communication with how Sawyer is talking and testing his design decision, saying why he's doing and what he intends to solve with it. Even inXile's own Numenera does a better job at this. Meanwhile, W2 is more like "we, the nameless blob called inXile, for some reason had decided we needed a Charisma stat, but we now don't know what to do with it. And BTW, we might do aimed shots someday."

 

[Infinitron]

What I Want:

A) Turn dialog checks into a proper choice in playthrough: Ideally, I should get the option to do all 3, each with a different threshold based on the current situation, and with different outcomes: i.e., intimidating the raiders cracking the safe in Highpool is easy, but they'll just ambush you when exit the house, while persuading them is harder, but they leave forever. You know, like that game Fargo told us he would make.

B) Add a bonus based on the attributes - Strength to Hard-Ass, Intelligence to Smart-Ass, Charisma to Kiss-Ass. Since characters with high intelligence get more skills points per level, make Smart-Ass slightly less effective than the other two skills.

The End.

Wonderful! So now you agree that the skills don't have to be removed from the system. Glad we could straighten that out.

 

[felipepepe]

Not if they can do it well. But if they are just gona keep it the way it is now, I'd rather have them removed or at least fused into one skill.

 

[Gord]

W2 is just another very unsatisfying game in "speech" skills area. The reason is - skill checks are static, there is no roll of a dice. Moreover - the game tells you exactly what value of certain skill you need to have to succeed, making it a win button. Also, it's way to simplistic, attributes like intelligence and charisma are not related to social skills. I can't find worse design decision to do it, I would rather not having "speech" options at all.

Speech checks are in a way attempts at recreating a more PnP-like option in a cRPG.
However, cRPGs are (and will likely stay in the foreseeable future) pretty static pre-determined things, in comparison to the dynamic nature of PnP sessions.
Therefore, speech/diplomacy checks will always fall flat in some way. Even AoD, which really put a lot of effort into non-combat options is still suffering from much the same issues.
Whether you have simply a certain fixed threshold to overcome or there's some randomnes doesn't change much either. In the former case you can reload and boost your char until you can make the check (or you give up), in the latter you can reload until you make the roll.
What would probably help a bit there, would be a system that discourages reloading (like e.g. the drama star system in Frayed Knights).
Also, I'd like to see more games that give partial success, i.e. you can fail (you get shot by the Raider), succeed to some degree (you don't get shot, but don't gain much), or fully (you make friends with the Raider in front of you).

If inXile decided to divide Speech into three categories, ,making it just 1-10 list of values with static checks, the only way to justify such a design decision is to allow the player to use those skills on any NPC in the game world. In any other case, it's bad implemented.

I can imagine a system, where (even outside of normal dialogue) each NPC has predetermined reactions to the different speech skills - one might be stubborn and stupid so you can't reason with him, but intimidating him will work. With another intimidation will lead to being attacked, but he could be flattered, etc.
But even if they just implement them as simple checks during normal dialogue, the different options should lead to diverse outcomes and be noticeably different, since otherwise havong different options would be somewhat pointless indeed.

The question however is, if this is really within the scope of what inXile intends to do in W2.

 

[Copper]

Or, if inExile were smartly stealing taking inspiration from their competition, using different dialogue options would tie into a reputation system along the lines of what Obsidian have developed for Eternity. Even better if there were such things as favours, bribes etc integrated into the system - put pressure on a guy to help you out but lose favour with a faction as a result, amount you lose depends on Charisma or skill, or possibly just spend a bit of cash as a sweetener to cover a shortfall in skill levels. A reputation system is pretty essential for getting the most out of Charisma, I'd say, even if it's just Geneforge level agree with certain NPCs to progress certain quest lines.

 

[hiver]

Some random forumite came up with CLASSIC.

He was not random, you asslicking turd.

the least you fucks could do is remember his nickname and have it mentioned somewhere.


Gord

Speech checks are in a way attempts at recreating a more PnP-like option in a cRPG.
However, cRPGs are (and will likely stay in the foreseeable future) pretty static pre-determined things, in comparison to the dynamic nature of PnP sessions.

No, C&C is what simulates PnP options and diversity gameplay.

dialogue is just one of the tools to provide that. no C&C - no value to dialogue, except superficial.

The question however is, if this is really within the scope of what inXile intends to do in W2.

 

[undecaf]

Not if they can do it well. But if they are just gona keep it the way it is now, I'd rather have them removed or at least fused into one skill.

And of course we, and everybody really, should push them to improve these matters so that the do indeed work well in the end (since they are in already, and no doubt a good amount of work has gone into them). Barbering stuff out because it doesn't immediately work in an optimal form instead of fixing and finding the proper solutions just narrows the experience down by leaving a clear hole where the feature used to be (clear to people who know there was something there before -- eg. I'm not sure if silent move was ditched completely, but it already feels like a wasted opportunity should it happen that it does not return) with leaving a rather hasty and sour aftertaste; and, further, it sounds more like something Bethesda would do.

I don't know to what extent the design has been set in stone, but turning some of these checks (where appropriate, and if there are too few appropriate places, add a couple more if possible) into probability checks - which would also help with the charisma issue by letting it affect the chances in a more or less subtle manner - should in my view be put under consideration.

Anyways, just some random thoughts.

e - fucking smartphones and quote features....

 

[Gord]

No, C&C is what simulates PnP options and diversity gameplay.

dialogue is just one of the tools to provide that. no C&C - no value to dialogue, except superficial.

Obviously said checks should also have non-trivial results that matter whenever possible.
But that's no contradiction to what I said, I think.

 

[hiver]

It wasnt meant as contradiction.

 

[Daedalos]

So when's the next beta-patch gon' be? <3

 

[Grotesque]

From this perspective, the Arizona world map does not suck so much as the current implementation.

And please God tell me they will lose the popping out from the ground of discovered locations. It's laughable.

 

[Infinitron]

https://www.facebook.com/Ranger.HQ/photos_stream

WTF are these things?

 

[Excidium]

Robot dolls?

 

[MasPingon]

And please God tell me they will lose the popping out from the ground of discovered locations. It's laughable.

First of all, why do we need two maps - in 2D and 3D? Especially when they made 3D map look terrible. Fallout, ring a bell, inXile?

 

[Zombra]

ToEE had Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff and even Gather Information and Sense Motive, but we all know how well that went...

Huh? I thought ToEE did multiple dialogue skills beautifully. The option to use each one only popped up when it was appropriate, and sometimes you had multiple skills to choose from, sometimes with different results for each. This seems like exactly what you're asking for. It was also easier to give different skills to different characters rather than having a single "face", which made it interesting to decide which character should initiate dialogue as conversations were not "blob" compliant. Should my diplomatic Paladin or my intimidating Orc talk to the bandits? YMMV but I enjoyed the hell out of that system.

 

[FeelTheRads]

WTF are these things?

Chucky!

And please God tell me they will lose the popping out from the ground of discovered locations. It's laughable.

They probably think it's ZANY AND QUIRKY and totally Wasteland.

 

[Grotesque]

Does anyone know if the 3D world map will have shroud/fog of war?

That would resolve the popping out locations and would bring a sense of discovery to the game.
I hope they will implement it.