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

[sea]

A few suggestions I just made on CenterCode:

Currently the game has slow health regeneration, but I really do not see the point in it and it does more harm than good.

1) It's not fun or meaningful to gameplay. Stand around for 30 minutes to regain your health? Not really an enjoyable mechanic, so why is it there?

2) It diminishes the use of healing resources and hurts the game's overall economy and resource management.

3) It trivializes map travel. If the player can heal off all the damage done on the world map via radiation and encounters after reaching their destination, why even bother?

4) It diminishes the usefulness of skills in gameplay.

Nothing about the game would be damaged by its removal, and overall it would in fact be improved by increasing the interdependence of various game mechanics and systems.

If you want to keep a way of players to restore to full health, I highly recommend that this is done by use of doctor NPCs in various settled locations or maybe even as a random map encounter. Ranger Citadel could be a free full heal when talking to the doctor (for obvious reasons) while other doctors could charge for their services, more scrap in the later-game areas.

There is no problem with providing a means of free or cheap healing provided there is a cost to it, and right now "standing around doing nothing" or "wandering a non-combat area" is not really a worthwhile or systemically/mechanically compelling cost.

Currently radiation only acts as a device to damage the player as either a deterrence for taking the "wrong" way on the world map or as a gating mechanism. I find this approach overly simplistic and mechanically not very meaningful.

Instead I think radiation should be changed to a status effect (or rather, a series of status effects, i.e. Light Radiation Sickness, Medium Radiation Sickness, Severe) which:

1) Reduce/eliminate health regeneration (if it's going to be kept)

2) Reduces all stats by progressively larger amounts, to a minimum of 0

3) Reduces all skills by progressively larger amounts, to a minimum of 0 (only at more severe levels of sickness)

4) Can ONLY be healed by a skilled surgeon AND using special anti-radiation items (with progressively higher Surgeon requirements depending on effect), and/or by visiting town doctors and/or paying a fee for the service.

I think this system is much more meaningful to gameplay, has more radical and important consequences to the player, and once again improves interaction between various gameplay systems (economy, skill use, map travel, etc.).

The way skills are handled/presented in the environment may be considered problematic, namely, the fact that the game reveals the percentage chance of success to the player (both in % and color coding).

The main issue with this is that it takes several seconds to execute most skills, but the game tells the player what their chances are... meaning that most players will use the skill over and over until it works, and thus the entire point of that time-sink disincentive kind of fades away, and just turns into pointless waiting/tedium.

I would much favor a system where:

1) Difficulty of a skill check is shown (easy/medium/hard/etc.) - HOWEVER, that difficulty is NOT relative to the player, but absolute/fixed

2) Percentage chance is NOT shown

3) Color-coding is NOT shown

4) Using skills takes time (same as current)

5) The game only tells you when skill use success is IMPOSSIBLE

The reason for this is to add back in that feeling off randomness without frustration. By intentionally obfuscating the operation of the mechanics and chance of success (especially for, say, Lockpicking and Safecracking, where a loot reward is involved), you create an element of uncertainty.

This uncertainty:

1) Justifies increasing skills further, solidifying build choices and not letting the player coast by with minimum requirements.

2) Adds to the "player fantasy" of being "the tech support girl" etc., improving role-playing by increasing skills beyond what is absolutely required.

3) Justifies the time cost for skill use by specifically NOT telling the player if success is possible (unless it is completely hopeless), therefore removing the carrot incentive to keep trying over and over even with very low odds.

4) Summarily from 3, increases incentive to pass by "too hard" skill use objects (like containers and computers), and to return at a later date when the skill has been developed more. This positively increases the feeling of consequence to player choices and makes character-building feel more rewarding.

I realize there is some value to always showing the numbers; personally however, I feel the benefits of obfuscating them does more good for MOST players than harm. The players who want to delve deep into the mechanics and figure how everything works themselves will also benefit from a little mechanical mystery to puzzle over.

Feel free to submit your own takes, I feel I make decent arguments but more people backing me up isn't necessarily a bad thing for showing I'm not the only one who agrees.

EDIT: More, thanks felipepe.

Right now the loot system in Wasteland 2 is very rudimentary, with only a very small number of hand-placed items to find (usually quest-related), and probably about 99% of the loot comes from random loot tables which are used regardless of the container type. This generally poor loot system leaves itemization feeling underwhelming.

I propose the following changes:

1) Add more types of containers and loot lists to the world. For example, a Gun Locker would always contain firearms or ammo, a Medical Station would always contain healing items, a Demolitions Crate would always contain explosives, etc. This "trains" the player to look for SPECIFIC types of resources in the environment and makes the act of searching for supplies more compelling as a gameplay activity, and more rewarding.

2) Add more hand-placed loot around levels to make looting feel more rewarding, interesting and exciting; this includes unique variants of weapons and even consumables (even some unique gags, like "Expired Blood Packs" that make you sick). This also helps with replayability, if the player knows where to get the perfect weapon for a certain character build right off the bat (I'm not saying "rush to the Power Armor" exactly, but knowing where you can 100% find some cool gear is really fun for planning replays once you have mastered the game).

3) Overall reduction in number of lootable containers in certain locations, such as Ag Center, but increase in quantity of loot from each one, especially locked containers. This improves the sense of reward for investing in the required skill, while reducing busywork in looting, say, 5 generic locked containers which all contain nothing much of interest.

4) Even with 3, I think quantity of loot should be reduced slightly to make individual items feel more valuable.

5) Generally, increase the amount of scrap received from selling items. Combined with 4, this puts more emphasis on bartering as a way of regulating player equipment and the world economy, and makes the find/sell/buy gameplay loop more important.

 

[SuicideBunny]

consequentially they're not relevant outside of combat, since there's no apparent danger taking Your time when using skills.

at least the drowning boy in rail nomads camp is time sensitive, the guy that stepped on a mine might be too

 

[Zed]

By the way, what's the deal with the skill use progress bars?
They're not relevant to the combat, since time there is measured in action points, and consequentially they're not relevant outside of combat, since there's no apparent danger taking Your time when using skills.
So they look to me just as a pointless time sink, when attempting to succeed at a check over and over and over again.
Am I missing something obvious here?

this is an extremely good point.
I can understand a small "fiddling" animation playing (fallout), but a progress bar is just as silly as the MMORPG level-up effects

 

[Infinitron]

sea

 

[Decado]

Not that the game is bad, but I would be extremely disappointed had I payed $500 for this...

You'd be extremely disappointed that the beta isn't finished yet?

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

When I think about that: maybe the beta was given to us just to test combat, balance, economy and skills? I mean if one has devised those correctly, adding quest becomes much more meaningful as those quest have an overall context to fit in.

 

[DragoFireheart]

*Too lazy to play beta*

Is the combat similar to FO1? CAN I AIM FOR TEH EYES

 

[Daedalos]

Any suggestions as to game crashing from ag. center to ag. center places between loads..?

Nobody waht I do with my savegame. when I try to exit the ag. center, it crashes.. . help !

I don't imagine inXile can fix this right now.. other than say.. thank you for reporting a bug ;S

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

By the way, what's the deal with the skill use progress bars?
They're not relevant to the combat, since time there is measured in action points, and consequentially they're not relevant outside of combat, since there's no apparent danger taking Your time when using skills.
So they look to me just as a pointless time sink, when attempting to succeed at a check over and over and over again.
Am I missing something obvious here?

this is an extremely good point.
I can understand a small "fiddling" animation playing (fallout), but a progress bar is just as silly as the MMORPG level-up effects

They "have to" do the long animations to avoid making cracking 20% success rate safes a mere inconvience: they have to try and make it frustrating enough for you to raise your skill outside of larping considerations (which FO tried to do with jamming).

Anyway, I know they can't switch to a deterministic skill check system at this late stage, but they should at least implement some kind of bell curve so that a hard skill check isn't 20% but less than 5% chance. Then they can probably remove the progress bars, and cut down on the number of locked containers.

 

[AstroZombie]

A few suggestions I just made on CenterCode:

Feel free to submit your own takes, I feel I make decent arguments but more people backing me up isn't necessarily a bad thing for showing I'm not the only one who agrees.

 

[Infinitron]

Massively article on the beta: http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/12/13/mmo-burnout-wasteland-2-early-beta/

 

[Goegoff]

Showing success chance is always a bad idea, but particularly so if the game allows you retry forever. Which is also bad.

Yep. I'd rather have a chance to critically fail a check (jam a lock, kill a patient, etc.) as a deterrent and spam stopper.



But on the other hand - hello save scumming!

sea's solution's probably better.

 

[Zed]

Showing success chance is always a bad idea, but particularly so if the game allows you retry forever. Which is also bad.

Yep. I'd rather have a chance to critically fail a check (jam a lock, kill a patient, etc.) as a deterrent and spam stopper.

like in fallout.

in general they should have taken more cues from fallout it seems.
it is after all the top RPG of all time.

 

[sea]

They "have to" do the long animations to avoid making cracking 20% success rate safes a mere inconvience: they have to try and make it frustrating enough for you to raise your skill outside of larping considerations (which FO tried to do with jamming).

Anyway, I know they can't switch to a deterministic skill check system at this late stage, but they should at least implement some kind of bell curve so that a hard skill check isn't 20% but less than 5% chance. Then they can probably remove the progress bars, and cut down on the number of locked containers.

As far as I know, the game uses relative skill balancing in its calculations, so the closer you are to the skill limit the higher your chances, while the farther away from it the worse they are. But I don't know if the percent chance shown indicates the effective success chance, or the difficulty value of the skill use.

Critical failures are great fun but not really meaningful to gameplay in a situation where you can save freely. I'm generally pro-save-anywhere, but save-scumming is something devs need to keep in mind. If Wasteland 2 used checkpoint saves (not necessarily a terrible idea in an RPG where real resource management and attrition matter, though arguably an inconvenience and could wider appeal of the game), critical failures would make more sense as a real gameplay disincentive.

 

[Grunker]

sea

 

[Sensuki]

How much running away did this guy do?

Some of the battles I've had in Wasteland 2 have taken upwards of 45 minutes to an hour as the raiders take full advantage of cover and strategy -- sometimes to the point of frustration -- but it makes combat feel worthwhile. The fact that your party members can die forever also helps quite a bit. Save early and save often, kids.

http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/12/13/mmo-burnout-wasteland-2-early-beta/

Summary of the Article:

Played Wasteland 1 enjoyed the callbacks

Thinks the game looks better than the fallout series and 3D graphics is a plus

Finds combat hard, thinks new players will enjoy it for different reasons than old players

The end

 

[Gord]

In that case a static success/failure system, i.e. one where you succeed if your skill is above a threshold and don't if not, might be better.
Then again all approaches have pros and cons.

Save-scumming might be countered with other measures, however (see e.g. drama star system from Frayed Knights).

 

[Sensuki]

I submitted a suggestion on Unit Cover yesterday (units behind another unit should receive cover, depending on the unit type - short robot then maybe not), that would make the combat a little bit more tactical and would make positioning more important.

 

[Grunker]

In that case a static success/failure system, i.e. one where you succeed if your skill is above a threshold and don't if not, might be better.

my thoughts as well

 

[sea]

Problem with that is that if you have a 10-point scale things might be too finicky with respect to player skill level vs. container level.

 

[Brayko]

Loving it so far. A touch linear but they promise final game will be less so. A tad easy so I would suggest a higher difficulty level that encourages more careful planning, I'm going in blind right now and just "playing" and haven't had any major setbacks yet.

 

[Daedalos]

Is there ANY reason why target fire is not in the combat in this game ???

Fallout had both automatic, single and targeted fire... i.e. Head, arms, torso... for crit hits.. and AWESOME death animations..

Will WL2 have any of this? Any Dev can confirm? ;()

 

[Sensuki]

Problem with that is that if you have a 10-point scale things might be too finicky with respect to player skill level vs. container level.

Dunno, that depends on the area design. You could have containers that require 1 or 2 points to open in the early levels, because that's about all your character can have (possibly 3 pts), if you didn't pick them you won't get access to the loot but you can always go back when you level up your skill to try again.

 

[Brayko]

Is there ANY reason why target fire is not in the combat in this game ???

Fallout had both automatic, single and targeted fire... i.e. Head, arms, torso... for crit hits.. and AWESOME death animations..

Will WL2 have any of this? Any Dev can confirm? ;()

Excellent points. There's no reason why these shouldn't be implemented. Someone who loves to submit ideas should riddle the forums with these.

 

[Invictus]

I really don't understand all the fuzz about the autoheal; it follows the same principle as save where you want, you can abuse the system or not but it all depends on the player. Why take the freedom from the player?
I would suggest a different approach then; the Dragons Dogma game allows you to heal a character's damage up to a degree with items but for a full health restore it would require a visit to the inn. Perhaps a similar system could be implemented here where you would regenerate a certain level of points but for more grevious injuries you would need to use a health kit or a visit to a doctor NPC, and how about adding a check where your own doctor takes a skill check to measure the skill of said NPC doctor to see if his care would do more harm than good, a la Darklands?