Game News Wasteland 2 Kickstarter Update #28: Progress Report, Weapon Design

[Vault Dweller]

Uh, you're the one promoting a linear upgrade path. You pick a single weapon skill and that will carry you throughout the game. Pistol -> Pistol +1 -> Pistol +2 -> Pistol +3 -> Super Pistol of Slaying. That's linear. I want a game that forces, or at least rewards a player who diversifies even a little.

Yeah, it's hypocritical since fantasy RPGs can get away with it but contemporary or futuristic RPGs can't, because they utilize "realistic" firearms. Rifle is just inherently so much better than a handgun, aside from a relatively few special situations, that it really irks me (and ruins my IMMERSHUN) if a game promotes that every weapon skill is just as good as any other, in the name of balance.

Well, isn't every "realistic firearm" just as good as any other if you unload it in someone's face?

A rifle is more powerful and accurate, so it should have more damage, longer range, better accuracy, but it should be a slower weapon (takes more time to aim, longer to reload) with limited magazine capacity (1-10), probably tied to damage (the higher capacity, the less damage it does: single-shot rifles do the most, then shotguns, then 5-shot rifles, etc).

Handguns should offer more versatility (different ammo types, including rifle ammo) and combine fast shooting with higher magazine capacity and fast reload.

Overall, I see no reason why at some point the game should tell you that small guns are garbage and force you to pick another skill. Both paths (branching out and picking another skill vs staying with your first skill and putting more points in it) should be equally viable and rewarding in different ways.

Sure, running into heavily armed enemies late in the game should make your old six-shooter less effective than an energy weapon, but higher skill level should allow you to make aimed shots that a "two skill guy" wouldn't be able to.

 

[tuluse]

Did the introduction of Gauss weapons in Fallout 2 cause decline because small guns was better late game? Would the introduction of a shitty big gun or energy weapon roughly analogous to the 10 MM Pistol really make Fallout worse?

While pondering these 2 questions consider this. Tim Cain wanted to make sure that *any* character type could finish the game. In order to do this he had to lower some skill checks (sneak mostly) to values of 1.

So making all skill viable or lowering skill checks to 1, which is worse and why?



On a unrelated note, I just wanted to address Infinitron's question.

What's so good about the concept of "early game skills" and "late game skills"?

Anticipation. The same reason that in Diablo 2 you could see the entire skill tree, but only have access to the first 2 at level 1, and 3E is filled with millions of feats with various requirements. People like to know that something cool is coming and they can strive towards gaining it.

I think if I were designing SPECIAL, I would follow a Saywerism and restrict what skills a player could tag at the beginning on the game.

 

[Irenaeus]

I think if I were designing SPECIAL, I would follow a Saywerism and restrict what skills a player could tag at the beginning on the game.

i like the idea of proposing a large number of backgrounds that combines skills tagged for the player to choose from. Maybe with an option to change one or other to better costumize your character.

 

[Infinitron]

What's so good about the concept of "early game skills" and "late game skills"?

Anticipation. The same reason that in Diablo 2 you could see the entire skill tree, but only have access to the first 2 at level 1, and 3E is filled with millions of feats with various requirements. People like to know that something cool is coming and they can strive towards gaining it.

I think if I were designing SPECIAL, I would follow a Saywerism and restrict what skills a player could tag at the beginning on the game.

I'm not sure you would even need to go that far, but you could enable some kind of skill synergy such that points sunk into Small Guns wouldn't be completely wasted once Energy Weapons appeared on the scene. Much in the same way that low level feats in 3E allow you to choose high level feats later on.

 

[Irenaeus]

I'm not sure you would even need to go that far, but you could enable some kind of skill synergy such that points sunk into Small Guns wouldn't be completely wasted once Energy Weapons appeared on the scene. Much in the same way that low level feats in 3E allow you to choose high level feats later on.

AoD has this (points allocated to a weapon skill increasing another weapon skill), it's also a good concept.

 

[Surf Solar]

There's really no good reason for Fallout's Small Guns/Energy Weapons dichotomy, other than allowing wankers to feel good about themselves for knowing exactly when to switch from developing their Small Guns skill to developing their Energy Weapons skill after they've played the game ten times.

It is not challenging. It is not mechanically compelling. The only satisfaction you can derive from it is the sort of satisfaction one gets from mapping out the dead ends in pre-LucasArts adventure games, another genre that was based on making the player restart the game a bunch of times.

In other words, Fallout fans are once again exposed as supporters of the "ADVENTURE GAME WITH STATS" paradigm of RPG.

I. ..

Kill yourself.

 

[tuluse]

I'm not sure you would even need to go that far, but you could enable some kind of skill synergy such that points sunk into Small Guns wouldn't be completely wasted once Energy Weapons appeared on the scene. Much in the same way that low level feats in 3E allow you to choose high level feats later on.

There are probably a dozen different ways to accomplish the goal.

You get so many skill points, I don't think wasting them is a big deal. With only 3/4 tags when a tagged skill becomes obsolete it feels like much more of a loss.

 

[Infinitron]

I'm not sure you would even need to go that far, but you could enable some kind of skill synergy such that points sunk into Small Guns wouldn't be completely wasted once Energy Weapons appeared on the scene. Much in the same way that low level feats in 3E allow you to choose high level feats later on.

There are probably a dozen different ways to accomplish the goal.

You get so many skill points, I don't think wasting them is a big deal. With only 3/4 tags when a tagged skill becomes obsolete it feels like much more of a loss.

Yeah. I always felt like the Tag! perk was put in the game precisely for the purpose of allowing you to get a head start in respeccing your character towards Energy Weapons.

 

[St. Toxic]

Nah, it was there so you could grab both Outdoorsman and Gambling.

 

[Jasede]

Tag Speech, Small Arms and Energy Weapons. Set for life.

 

[t]

Actually, even unarmed works. One combat tag is basically all you need. Of course not throwing...

 

[GarfunkeL]

Well, isn't every "realistic firearm" just as good as any other if you unload it in someone's face?

Yes, to an extent.

A rifle is more powerful and accurate, so it should have more damage, longer range, better accuracy, but it should be a slower weapon (takes more time to aim, longer to reload) with limited magazine capacity (1-10), probably tied to damage (the higher capacity, the less damage it does: single-shot rifles do the most, then shotguns, then 5-shot rifles, etc).

Handguns should offer more versatility (different ammo types, including rifle ammo) and combine fast shooting with higher magazine capacity and fast reload.

Well, that depends on how "simulationist" you want your system to be. If you're going to realistic at all, then you can't do some of the stuff you mention. For example, AKSU-47 is as quick to aim as a pistol, as quick to reload as any weapon with a magazine, has 30 round clips and could be modified to accept 50 round drums and does excellent damage. It is a superior weapon to a handgun in every situation - yes, even in close-quarters, since it's entirely possible to fire it from the hip and it's short stature make it very difficult for an opponent to grab the barrel.

Overall, I see no reason why at some point the game should tell you that small guns are garbage and force you to pick another skill. Both paths (branching out and picking another skill vs staying with your first skill and putting more points in it) should be equally viable and rewarding in different ways.

Sure, running into heavily armed enemies late in the game should make your old six-shooter less effective than an energy weapon, but higher skill level should allow you to make aimed shots that a "two skill guy" wouldn't be able to.

To an extent, I agree but there must be a point where that stops making sense. Good example is the introduction of power armour in Fallout. It doesn't matter where you're aiming, if your opponent is wearing a T-61b suit, you need to have a powerful enough weapon to kill him and it should be something that's at least somewhat realistic. And not every choice must be equally viable and rewarding, why are you claiming otherwise?

 

[tuluse]

Actually, even unarmed works. One combat tag is basically all you need. Of course not throwing...

Wait are you saying Fallout combat skills were equally viable?!?!?

Fucking Tim Cain shit harbinger of decline.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Did the introduction of Gauss weapons in Fallout 2 cause decline because small guns was better late game? Would the introduction of a shitty big gun or energy weapon roughly analogous to the 10 MM Pistol really make Fallout worse?

In a way, yes. Yes, it did.

You could find an energy weapon roughly analogous to the 10 MM pistol in F3, IIRC.

And that kind of shitty itemisation is what I'm against. No game - especially a party-based one - needs to have different but equal tiers of gear for every weapon skills. It's illogical, stupid and catering to mouth-breathing simpletons and MMO crowd.

Of course, we wouldn't have this problem if more devs actually knew about marksmanship and implemented more realistic systems. Either you go MAXIMUM DETAIL and have a separate skill for every possible weapon in the game, with significant synergy bonuses, or you realize that JA2 had it best and just have a single skill that covers all firearms.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Wait are you saying Fallout combat skills were equally viable?!?!?

Goddamnit, just because it's possible does not make it equal. Equally viable in sawyerist terms means you shouldn't have more troubles with a path than with the other. And this shit is what I'm arguing against.

 

[Infinitron]

Equally viable in sawyerist terms means you shouldn't have more troubles with a path than with the other.

This isn't going to become true if you keep on repeating it

 

[FeelTheRads]

This isn't going to become true if you keep on repeating it

It's not gonna become false if you deny it either hohoho

Note that when I say "troubles" I don't mean combat difficulty specifically (as in some will be resistant to energy weapons or something) but to the number of weapons you find, the amount of ammunition and so on.
So, tell me, if that's not what sawyerisms is, then why the need for itemization, tiering and all that shit? When you do that you're aiming to make all paths as close as possible and the only outcome of that is boring shit that reduces the game to: hmm, do I want to shoot this guy in the head or see him burn?

 

[tuluse]

And that kind of shitty itemisation is what I'm against. No game - especially a party-based one - needs to have different but equal tiers of gear for every weapon skills. It's illogical, stupid and catering to mouth-breathing simpletons and MMO crowd.

Do games need to have skills that are literally useless for large parts of the game without warning the player in any way about them?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Well, that depends on how "simulationist" you want your system to be. If you're going to realistic at all, then you can't do some of the stuff you mention. For example, AKSU-47 is as quick to aim as a pistol, as quick to reload as any weapon with a magazine, has 30 round clips and could be modified to accept 50 round drums and does excellent damage. It is a superior weapon to a handgun in every situation - yes, even in close-quarters, since it's entirely possible to fire it from the hip and it's short stature make it very difficult for an opponent to grab the barrel.

I'm not an expert and it's been a while (never) since I've fired a few rounds from my trusty AKSU-47, so I'll take your word for it.

Design-wise, you can either exclude stereotype-breaking weapons or allow skills or items' crossover when using them.

To an extent, I agree but there must be a point where that stops making sense. Good example is the introduction of power armour in Fallout. It doesn't matter where you're aiming, if your opponent is wearing a T-61b suit, you need to have a powerful enough weapon to kill him and it should be something that's at least somewhat realistic. And not every choice must be equally viable and rewarding, why are you claiming otherwise?

I'm not claiming that EVERY choice must be equally viable and rewarding, I'm saying that telling the player that his skill has suddenly stopped working tends to be a bad design choice. I certainly didn't like when my suave and persuasive Toreador discovered that he can't talk his way through Bloodlines.

I'm not saying that the player should be able to drop robots and heavy armor dudes with a starting gun. Again, not an expert, but surely guns like Colt Python and Anaconda are good enough to get the job done?

 

[Infinitron]

Design-wise, you can either exclude stereotype-breaking weapons

exclude

exclude

exclude

Why do you hate our freedom, Vault Dweller?!

 

[Vault Dweller]

Because we can't let AKSU-47 slinging terrorists like Garfunkel win.

 

[tuluse]

This question answers itself.

1) Implement the uses for the skill (not individual items). For combat skills use rarity as discussed before; Make the ammo and weapons and repairs rare.
2) Warn them. Although it should not be necessary to understand that a Laser pistol is better than a gun, for the ultimate idiots, make it explicit in the manual.

Both reasonable solutions, but if Josh Sawyer suggested them there would be a parade of people claiming it's decline. Which is getting really tiring to read over and over.

 

[tuluse]

I have been trying to address these exact solutions in many threads. For example the door breaking/lockpick is in fact exactly analogous to this same problem.

You seem to have some mistaken notion that we hate Josh Personally or something. Not so. We hate his ideas. He came to us with Cooldowns, health regen, stupid armor/weapon interactions and removing skills. How do you welcome these things?

Cooldowns are gone.

The stamina/health system seems OK to me, maybe not the best system, but I think it could work.

Armor/weapons, I don't think we've seen the final system for this yet. I think there are good ideas mixed with bad so far (like armor causing damage reduction instead of increasing chance to miss seems like a good idea).

Removing skills, I guess this goes back to Van Buren? Because PE is a new system and we haven't heard what skills will be in place. You could say bashing has been removed, which doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me.

However, none of these points have anything to do with making all skills "equally viable", which plenty of people are arguing is a bad thing.

 

[Irenaeus]

And that kind of shitty itemisation is what I'm against. No game - especially a party-based one - needs to have different but equal tiers of gear for every weapon skills. It's illogical, stupid and catering to mouth-breathing simpletons and MMO crowd.

Do games need to have skills that are literally useless for large parts of the game without warning the player in anyway about them?

Yes.

 

[undecaf]

And that kind of shitty itemisation is what I'm against. No game - especially a party-based one - needs to have different but equal tiers of gear for every weapon skills. It's illogical, stupid and catering to mouth-breathing simpletons and MMO crowd.

Do games need to have skills that are literally useless for large parts of the game without warning the player in anyway about them?

Yes.

I guess the more accurate question would be: Should those "mostly useless" skills be implemented in vital (or even semi-vital) roles?