Game News Wasteland 2 Kickstarter Update #35: Follow Up on the Prison Demo

[HiddenX]

The main goal should be maximizing the fun, challenge, usability and learnability (easy ruleset).

That is a general requirement for any game. Computer RPGs have their additional requirements, like game world consistency, plausability (not in terms of realism, but in terms of quasi-realism), local and global world reactivity etc.

Absolutely right, but this has nothing to do with adjusting the AP for reloading a weapon depending on the weapon type (-> this was the discussion before).
Too much realism kills the game.

 

[janjetina]

Absolutely right, but this has nothing to do with adjusting the AP for reloading a weapon depending on the weapon type (-> this was the discussion before).

Yes, it's a minute detail that adds nothing of significance to the game playing experience.

 

[Oesophagus]

W2 CANNOT BE FINISHED WITHOUT RELOADING

 

[commie]

The main goal should be maximizing the fun, challenge, usability and learnability (easy ruleset).

That is a general requirement for any game. Computer RPGs have their additional requirements, like game world consistency, plausability (not in terms of realism, but in terms of quasi-realism), local and global world reactivity etc.

Absolutely right, but this has nothing to do with adjusting the AP for reloading a weapon depending on the weapon type (-> this was the discussion before).
Too much realism kills the game.

I agree. I think all weapons should do the same amount of damage too. Why concern oneself with such minutiae when the fun comes from killing things, not trying to work out what weapon works against what! Realism<Fun!

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

Besides, chess pieces all do the same type of damage last time I checked.

 

[Athelas]

If 'unrealistic' AP costs for reloading are a dealbreaker, I'm not sure why you would like a battle system where enemies politely take turns to attack each other.

 

[HiddenX]

Chess and Incubation are just examples that you can create incredible challenging, entertaining and exciting tactical games with very abstract (non realistic) rules.

For CRPGs you have to find a good balance between realism and abstraction.

Damage in a CRPG should be dependent on character stats, skills and condition, the used weapon, and distance to the enemy / armour of the enemy and random dice.

 

[Temaperacl]

I would have thought the scarcity of ammo did the same job.

Not enough. Long term, you can always find more ammo, in stores or on enemy corpses. Short term, there needs to be a significant penalty for an empty gun.

Just wanted to point out that replenishing/unlimited store inventories and lootable corpses are also design decisions that don't have to be a given. It doesn't have the same short-term impact as AP costs, but it has long-term implications which are, in my opinion, more interesting to deal with. [No reason you can't have both, of course]

 

[Excidium]

If 'unrealistic' AP costs for reloading are a dealbreaker, I'm not sure why you would like a battle system where enemies politely take turns to attack each other.

Are you really this retarded?

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

He's right though. Which is why phase-based with individual phase-lengths decided by a reaction stat'll be the crpg combat system of da future.

 

[Midair]

The combat grid should resemble the setting. While hexes are best for open landscapes, squares are better if combats tend to be in mostly rectangular, interior corridors.

 

[Seerix]

This fight about reloading is ridiculous. First, if it were realistic you would need to have different cost for reloading every single different weapon. Second, high cost of reloading make sense in properly tactical games like JA2 or Silent Storm. Wasteland 2, AFAIK, is only tactical enough to be fun therefore whether or not it should take a big chomp out of your AP pool to reload whatever gun depends on how much it will break combat dynamic.

 

[Excidium]

First, if it were realistic you would need to have different cost for reloading every single different weapon.

Yup. That's what the granularity of action points is for in the first place. If you don't need to break down actions with that level of detail you don't need action points. I'm particularly not very fond of them.

Second, high cost of reloading make sense in properly tactical games like JA2 or Silent Storm. Wasteland 2, AFAIK, is only tactical enough to be fun therefore whether or not it should take a big chomp out of your AP pool to reload whatever gun depends on how much it will break combat dynamic.

lol

 

[Clockwork Knight]

W2 CANNOT BE FINISHED WITHOUT RELOADING

What if you have a party of melee-using rangers?

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

If you don't need to break down actions with that level of detail you don't need action points. I'm particularly not very fond of them.

What kind of alternative do you like?

 

[undecaf]

Shouldn't be too hard to break the weapons down to a couple of categories (handguns, rifles, big guns, energy) and adjust reloading costs appropriately for a simple, but seemingly effective tactical consideration and an abstract of the task.

Of course, not that I belittled the effort and gave it but five seconds of thought to write this shit up, it soon turns out it's somehow a nightmare to balance and I'm full of shit...

 

[codexian reject]

P&P / Tabletop games rules are designed to be calculated on the fly by easily amused 15 yo kids that don't care about plausibility, as a result they're just simplistic inane bullshit.
With all the wonders of computing one would expect, that majority of mature gamers would be excited about prospect of computer rpgs, being maybe low detail, but at least plausible simulators...

What do you mean "logical"? It's a video game.

For an RPG it's more than enough.

Only tactical enough to be fun.

Of course

 

[Excidium]

If you don't need to break down actions with that level of detail you don't need action points. I'm particularly not very fond of them.

What kind of alternative do you like?

Just actions/maneuvers. There are many ways to do it.

P&P / Tabletop games rules are designed to be calculated on the fly by easily amused 15 yo kids that don't care about plausibility, as a result they're just simplistic inane bullshit.

Dumbest statement of the month.

With all the wonders of computing one would expect, that majority of mature gamers would be excited about prospect of computer rpgs, being maybe low detail, but at least plausible simulators...

I find this to be a very flawed mindset for RPG design. Leads to retarded crap like inflated values and needlessly contrived equations for basic things "because the computer handles it".

 

[Roguey]

P&P / Tabletop games rules are designed to be calculated on the fly by easily amused 15 yo kids that don't care about plausibility, as a result they're just simplistic inane bullshit.
With all the wonders of computing one would expect, that majority of mature gamers would be excited about prospect of computer rpgs, being maybe low detail, but at least plausible simulators...

What do you mean "logical"? It's a video game.

For an RPG it's more than enough.

Only tactical enough to be fun.

Of course

Quasi-sims make for shit games.

 

[drae]

With all the wonders of computing one would expect, that majority of mature gamers would be excited about prospect of computer rpgs, being maybe low detail, but at least plausible simulators...

No, thank you.

Let me give you a scenario. You're playing Morrowind, a warrior, decked in chainmail carrying a fearsome orcish battleaxe. Hacking limbs off magic-users and mudcrabs alike, you quickly rise in confidence and level. So, when a warrior decked in plate and fiercely helmeted leaps out at you from the bushes, you walk forward with a smirk of disdain. You are confident in your ability to brush this gleaming, Raggedy Ann aside. You swing your axe *weapon ineffective*. You swing again *weapon ineffective*. What manner of witchcraft is this? You conclude he must have an 'axe-protection' spell cast on him. No matter, you will do him in and then find his wretched, mage accomplice and do HIM in too. You ditch your axe and draw a 2-handed katana, a weapon you have little skill in but just happened to have stashed in your tiny-arse backpack. You swing *weapon ineffective* and again *weapon ineffective*. He smirks, picks up your discarded axe and stalks forward. He swings *you feel the impact, but your armour has repelled the swing* he swings *you feel the impact, but your armour has repelled the swing*. Frustrated, he swings at a different spot *you feel the impact, but your armour has repelled the swing*.

You screech a fierce battlecry, raising your spirit. You swing mightily with both hands - CLANK *weapon ineffective*.

Your opponent swings *you feel the impact, but your armour has repelled the swing*.

You look at your opponent.

He looks at you.

This will take a while.

Gee, aren't plausible simulators FUN FUN FUN!

 

[codexian reject]

Why all weapons would be ineffective against plate in a plausible ruleset ?
Swords, axes, warhammers, pikes, halberds, etc. should all do just fine, but a rapier for example not so much.

But, if you encounter an enemy that you can't scratch in direct melee for whatever reason. Why not:

• shot him with a crossbow,
• throw at him an oil flask and put on fire with a torch,
• cast a fireball,
• entangle him with a net,
• lure him on a trap,
• immobilize with teh magic,
• flank him with other character in a squad based game,
• chose a quest solution that doesn't involve combat with him,
• sneak behind him when unalerted and kill with poisoned dagger,
• run away,
• etc

Sounds like fun to me... and of course a game doesn't have to support all possible actions.
But oh noes ! My thief can't pierce through plate armour with his daggers. Wtf is this shit ? Realism is spoiling my fun ! I'll better go play some more D&D.

And JA2 combat would do just fine, I fail to see how having more and more plausible options in combat would make encounters take much longer, or make it less fun.
Combat took forever in JA2 because of difficulty level and battles spanning across whole levels against dozens of enemies. Not because of the ruleset depth.
Turning Necropolis in F1, or Navarro in F2 hostile, lead to just as slow and long fights as in JA2.

It's of course understandable, that because of time and budget constrains, we can't expect this level of depth.
I just hope, it'll be more involved than turnbased popamole and I would wish more gameplay depth to be build on top in the next games if it sells remotely well.
Unfortunately “keep it stupid simple” mindset seems to dominate.

 

[Infinitron]

With all the wonders of computing one would expect, that majority of mature gamers would be excited about prospect of computer rpgs, being maybe low detail, but at least plausible simulators...

In a world of dumbed down popamole games, the only thing that excites me is mechanics that create challenge. I don't really give a fuck how realistic they are.

And by the way, if you have to mention maturity, "IT'S SO REEEEL" is typically the more childish impulse.

 

[drae]

Why all weapons would be ineffective against plate in a plausible ruleset ?
Swords, axes, warhammers, pikes, halberds, etc. should all do just fine, but a rapier for example not so much.

Plate armour is damn near impervious. Slicing through it or stabbing through it with your sword is Impossible (with a capital I.) You MAY be able to pierce it with a longbow, but they generate an obscene amount of force and very few people have the strength required to wield one (constantly using a longbow results in a warped spine.) You MAY be able to pierce it with a crossbow, but it depends on the type of crossbow and how thick the plate armor is. There are 3 conventional ways you deal with plate armoured opponents. 1 – You thrust at the joints, these are the ‘weak points’ of the armour. This is one of the reasons why a lot of European swords are pointy and Japanese swords are all curved. Europeans had superior armour, and thrusting was the primary form of attack against it. 2 - You get a heavy, blunt weapon. The tactic here isn’t to beat the armour, the tactic is to break the bones under the armour. 3 – You put the fighter on the ground and finish him off there.

Hacking, slashing and thrusting indiscriminately, like people do in most games and TV series, won’t work.

But, if you encounter an enemy that you can't scratch in direct melee for whatever reason. Why not:

• shot him with a crossbow,
• throw at him an oil flask and put on fire with a torch,
• cast a fireball,
• entangle him with a net,
• lure him on a trap,
• immobilize with teh magic,
• flank him with other character in a squad based game,
• chose a quest solution that doesn't involve combat with him,
• sneak behind him when unalerted and kill with poisoned dagger,
• run away,
• etc

1 –Using a crossbow may work, yes. But people who wanted to play as a swashbuckling warrior may be a little miffed when they discover they need to use a crossbow half the time.
2 – Wouldn’t work. He may have a shield, but even if he doesn’t how close do you need to get to flame his arse? Get too close and he could hack your arm off with his 6 foot long, 2-handed sword. Do you actually think throwing a torch would work?
3 – Using magic would work, but the point was showing you how much it would suck being a warrior. The reason being warriors would be stuck using a plausible ruleset where almost nothing would work, while mages could waltz through the game bending rules.
4 – A net? No.
5 – Traps require planning, what if he got the jump on you.
6 – See point 3.
7 – I hope your teammate isn't wielding an axe
8 – Most fights in RPGs don't have quest solutions.
9 – Sneaking behind with a dagger could work.
10 – Running away would definitely work ... depending on your stats.

Sounds like fun to me

Sounds awfully limited to me. If you want to use swords, you're limited to thrusting at 2 inch wide 'weak points' all game. Not to mention unbalanced, because you'd rule as a mage and suck as a warrior.

 

[Bilgefar]

drae : Well, if you were going to go all out on realism like that, why wouldn't you also use realistic fighting techniques? You know, Fechtbuch type stuff. Use the hilt of your sword as a heavy, blunt weapon, or using a half sword technique to have more precise, stronger thrusts. And of course grappling, and then using a dagger when on the ground.

 

[drae]

drae : Well, if you were going to go all out on realism like that, why wouldn't you also use realistic fighting techniques? You know, Fechtbuch type stuff. Use the hilt of your sword as a heavy, blunt weapon, or using a half sword technique to have more precise, stronger thrusts. And of course grappling, and then using a dagger when on the ground.

I wasn't the one who wanted 'all out realism'. Codexian reject wanted rpgs to be 'plausible simulators', I am merely demonstrating what a 'plausible simulator' would be like to play.

Smacking a guy with the hilt of your sword isn't an effective technique when trying to deal a powerful blow. You can't get much of a swing. Also, there's a reach issue. Crushing blows are what warhammers and maces (etc) are for.

Plate armor was designed to repel piercing attacks, so stronger and more powerful thrusts would still need to be aimed at joints if you wanted to be sure of success. And if this is the case, why bother going for a stronger thrust at all. A strong thrust with a tapered weapon against chainmail is a different story, I suppose.

Usually grapple techniques are combined with sword techniques, it's pretty reckless to fight an armed and armored opponent bare handed. Unless you're playing an rpg of course. But yes, getting your opponent on the ground and finishing him off is always an option.