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

[undecaf]

It means it's ~abstracting~ what's happening, ie it's not a literal representation.
The argument, "I did x, then y" holds no water within the context of a single turn.

I don't get why "I moved, then fired" holds no water, but "I swung a sledgehammer, then swung a sledgehammer " holds a gallon.

I'd say both hold water, depending on how you interpret the situation. In the big picture it doesn't really matter whether you moved and fired or moved first and then fired, what ultimately matters is that there was a conflict and that it got resolved (someone got shot, someone dodged, someone got killed, someone missed, a certain group won and the other lost...). The abstract of the time in the TB scenario is flexible enough to support different interpretations (whether or not the mechanics fully support that).

 

[Zombra]

It means it's ~abstracting~ what's happening, ie it's not a literal representation.
The argument, "I did x, then y" holds no water within the context of a single turn.

I don't get why "I moved, then fired" holds no water, but "I swung a sledgehammer, then swung a sledgehammer " holds a gallon.

I'd say both hold water, depending on how you interpret the situation. In the big picture it doesn't really matter whether you moved and fired or moved first and then fired, what ultimately matters is that there was a conflict and that it got resolved (someone got shot, someone dodged, someone got killed, someone missed, a certain group won and the other lost...). The abstract of the time in the TB scenario is flexible enough to support different interpretations (whether or not the mechanics fully support that).

Exactly my point, thank you undecaf. So in terms of cinematic modeling, an AP system can represent whatever the beholder wishes to see. Therefore, the cinematic modeling argument is an invalid one (on either side) for moving/shooting penalties. That leaves the gameplay arguments, which are valid, though of course it still comes down to taste.

 

[Excidium]

What a load of crock.

It means it's ~abstracting~ what's happening, ie it's not a literal representation.
The argument, "I did x, then y" holds no water within the context of a single turn.

I don't get why "I moved, then fired" holds no water, but "I swung a sledgehammer, then swung a sledgehammer " holds a gallon.

I'd say both hold water, depending on how you interpret the situation. In the big picture it doesn't really matter whether you moved and fired or moved first and then fired, what ultimately matters is that there was a conflict and that it got resolved (someone got shot, someone dodged, someone got killed, someone missed, a certain group won and the other lost...). The abstract of the time in the TB scenario is flexible enough to support different interpretations (whether or not the mechanics fully support that).

This is seriously the post most filled with bullshit I've read today

 

[undecaf]

What a load of crock.

It means it's ~abstracting~ what's happening, ie it's not a literal representation.
The argument, "I did x, then y" holds no water within the context of a single turn.

I don't get why "I moved, then fired" holds no water, but "I swung a sledgehammer, then swung a sledgehammer " holds a gallon.

I'd say both hold water, depending on how you interpret the situation. In the big picture it doesn't really matter whether you moved and fired or moved first and then fired, what ultimately matters is that there was a conflict and that it got resolved (someone got shot, someone dodged, someone got killed, someone missed, a certain group won and the other lost...). The abstract of the time in the TB scenario is flexible enough to support different interpretations (whether or not the mechanics fully support that).

This is seriously the post most filled with bullshit I've read today

It's not an "ultimate fact", just one possible scenario. How it works very much depends on how the gameplay mechanics support the situation. I was coming more from the Fallout set of mind than anything else (this being a WL2 thread, and WL2, in my experience, being pretty similiar to how Fallout worked). That doesn't, obviously, work well with games that have more precise depiction of the events through more complex rules and features.

 

[Lhynn]

This is seriously the post most filled with bullshit I've read today

Spoiler

and how about now?

 

[Excidium]

[Perception] Those are not bovine feces

What a load of crock.

It means it's ~abstracting~ what's happening, ie it's not a literal representation.
The argument, "I did x, then y" holds no water within the context of a single turn.

I don't get why "I moved, then fired" holds no water, but "I swung a sledgehammer, then swung a sledgehammer " holds a gallon.

I'd say both hold water, depending on how you interpret the situation. In the big picture it doesn't really matter whether you moved and fired or moved first and then fired, what ultimately matters is that there was a conflict and that it got resolved (someone got shot, someone dodged, someone got killed, someone missed, a certain group won and the other lost...). The abstract of the time in the TB scenario is flexible enough to support different interpretations (whether or not the mechanics fully support that).

This is seriously the post most filled with bullshit I've read today

It's not an "ultimate fact", just one possible scenario. How it works very much depends on how the gameplay mechanics support the situation. I was coming more from the Fallout set of mind than anything else (this being a WL2 thread, and WL2, in my experience, being pretty similiar to how Fallout worked). That doesn't, obviously, work well with games that have more precise depiction of the events through more complex rules and features.

Shooting then moving and moving then shooting seem like two very different scenarios even in a simplistic game like W2.

 

[Kem0sabe]

For anyone interested in trying new builds without rerolling new characters, you can easily change your skill and attribute points on the .xml save file located at Documents\My Games\Wasteland2\Save Games\Savegamename

Just open the file on notepad, do a find for your character name and you can change pretty much everything, make a god like Ranger or anything in between.

 

[undecaf]

Shooting then moving and moving then shooting seem like two very different scenarios even in a simplistic game like W2.

Indeed they do; but if the gameplay doesn't react to that (eg. shoot first and then move to give a slight suppressive effect to attacks of opportunity; or moving first and getting a slight decrease to aim due to being exhausted - for one simplistic example), does it really matter how one interprets the situation?

 

[Lhynn]

[Perception] Those are not bovine feces

What a load of crock.

It means it's ~abstracting~ what's happening, ie it's not a literal representation.
The argument, "I did x, then y" holds no water within the context of a single turn.

I don't get why "I moved, then fired" holds no water, but "I swung a sledgehammer, then swung a sledgehammer " holds a gallon.

I'd say both hold water, depending on how you interpret the situation. In the big picture it doesn't really matter whether you moved and fired or moved first and then fired, what ultimately matters is that there was a conflict and that it got resolved (someone got shot, someone dodged, someone got killed, someone missed, a certain group won and the other lost...). The abstract of the time in the TB scenario is flexible enough to support different interpretations (whether or not the mechanics fully support that).

This is seriously the post most filled with bullshit I've read today

It's not an "ultimate fact", just one possible scenario. How it works very much depends on how the gameplay mechanics support the situation. I was coming more from the Fallout set of mind than anything else (this being a WL2 thread, and WL2, in my experience, being pretty similiar to how Fallout worked). That doesn't, obviously, work well with games that have more precise depiction of the events through more complex rules and features.

Shooting then moving and moving then shooting seem like two very different scenarios even in a simplistic game like W2.

Indeed they do; but if the gameplay doesn't react to that (eg. shoot first and then move to give a slight suppressive effect to attacks of opportunity; or moving first and getting a slight decrease to aim due to being exhausted - for one simplistic example), does it really matter how one interprets the situation?

You know when you quote a text so many times that letters start taking a whole line of space? Its annoying, please, edit your posts.

 

[undecaf]

You know when you quote a text so many times that letters start taking a whole line of space? Its annoying, please, edit your posts.

Done. It was, indeed, starting to look messy to my drunkards eye.

 

[Excidium]

Shooting then moving and moving then shooting seem like two very different scenarios even in a simplistic game like W2.

Indeed they do; but if the gameplay doesn't react to that (eg. shoot first and then move to give a slight suppressive effect to attacks of opportunity; or moving first and getting a slight decrease to aim due to being exhausted - for one simplistic example), does it really matter how one interprets the situation?

True, but it might have impact in some situations, if you move out of a range level for example. Had you shot first you'd have a higher chance to hit.

 

[Decado]

Well now, wait a minute. You are not "running and shooting" correct? You are moving, stopping, then shooting. I mean, that's one of the main features of a grid-based tileset and movement. You are already not allowed to move and shoot at the same time. You're already managing resources to be effective in combat, in this case with APs.

Also, from a realist perspective, elite combat soldiers like Rangers would have no problem both moving and shooting. Though again, what we're talking about here is moving, stopping, and then shooting. Which is something that even a regular soldier can do with lethal efficiency, if they are trained well enough.

Incorrect. If you want to move then fire, do it on separate turns. A turn is an abstraction that includes things happening simultaneously.

Good job ignoring the stronger gamist argument though

I didn't ignore shit. Your "Gamist" argument is basically "this is a thing we could add to make the game harder." No shit. inXile could also make guns prone to cook-offs, or let Rangers get Ebola, or require you to sleep, or make it one-hit/one-kill. There's a bunch of things they could add to make the game more challenging on a tactical level. But just saying "This should be in the game because XYZ!" is not a good argument. It is whining. Or codexing, I guess.

 

[undecaf]

Indeed they do; but if the gameplay doesn't react to that (eg. shoot first and then move to give a slight suppressive effect to attacks of opportunity; or moving first and getting a slight decrease to aim due to being exhausted - for one simplistic example), does it really matter how one interprets the situation?

True, but it might have impact in some situations, if you move out of a range level for example. Had you shot first you'd have a higher chance to hit.

It might, yes, but I wouldn't say that's a general rule, as in to provide an overarcing caveat, given the limits of the AP's and variability of the conflicts.

If I'm talking total bullshit here and misinterpreted you, blame alcohol, I shouldn't take into conversations like this when under the influence but I can't help myself.

 

[tuluse]

I didn't ignore shit. Your "Gamist" argument is basically "this is a thing we could add to make the game harder." No shit. inXile could also make guns prone to cook-offs, or let Rangers get Ebola, or require you to sleep, or make it one-hit/one-kill. There's a bunch of things they could add to make the game more challenging on a tactical level. But just saying "This should be in the game because XYZ!" is not a good argument. It is whining. Or codexing, I guess.

If both you and your opponents play by the same rules how does it make it harder?

 

[Decado]

So what you're saying is you want romances in Wasteland 2...

As long as it features tastefully done rape. To get immersed in the apocalyptic atmosphere, you see.

Okay. Is it possible to do this in WL2 right now? Have you tried kiting anything?

No idea. I was replying to your more generic "why should there be a penalty for moving and shooting?" post.

So in other words, you have no evidence that any "kiting faggotry" is going on at all?

 

[Decado]

I didn't ignore shit. Your "Gamist" argument is basically "this is a thing we could add to make the game harder." No shit. inXile could also make guns prone to cook-offs, or let Rangers get Ebola, or require you to sleep, or make it one-hit/one-kill. There's a bunch of things they could add to make the game more challenging on a tactical level. But just saying "This should be in the game because XYZ!" is not a good argument. It is whining. Or codexing, I guess.

If both you and your opponents play by the same rules how does it make it harder?

Great response.

 

[Zombra]

If both you and your opponents play by the same rules how does [more complexity and penalties] make it harder?

Extra penalties on both sides don't necessarily make the game harder, but they can make it more of a pain in the ass. The AI doesn't have an ass, so that does give it an advantage

 

[tuluse]

Extra penalties on both sides don't necessarily make the game harder, but they can make it more of a pain in the ass. The AI doesn't have an ass, so that does give it an advantage

I guess. I want more of what some would call a pain in the ass then because without things to think about games get boring.

 

[Excidium]

It depends on how you implement. Wasteland 2 certainly doesn't need more RNG influence on combat from what I've seen.

 

[Lhynn]

It depends on how you implement.

Doesnt everything?

 

[Excidium]

Indeed. Their implementations would probably be p. bad.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

So in other words, you have no evidence that any "kiting faggotry" is going on at all?

Dunno, you're the one who started asking me about W2 in particular. I said that being able to freely walk and shoot rewards and incentives kiting, replying to your original post.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

So after nearly 48 h. What are Your opinions about C&C , reactivity and writing?

 

[MLMarkland]

http://www.twitch.tv/nugiyen

Best live stream going right now

 

[Clockwork Knight]

• Ogoun: thats a bad game ffs
  
  
• Hangman69: so gonna die first mission
  
  
• Notciaagent: it just started!
  
  
• Miriethsajan: yep, no edges
  
  
• Ogoun: go play something thats more fun to watch on stream