Wasteland Wasteland 2 Thread - Director's Cut

[Commissar Draco]

Spoiler

"I want my high STR and CHA, low INT Arnie-style commando to be good at Heavy Weapons AND Brute Force AND Hard Ass AND Leadership. Why shouldn't he be?

Perfectly doable with perk which will make all your hard ass attempts pass; so now you need only to raise 3 other skills... I went with assault riffle which is still the weapon to choose (and don't really think it should be balanced against back up weapons like pistols, crap you use when not able to afford ARs the SMGs or specialist weapons you don't really need more than one in entire team.... like shotguns and sniper riffles.) Leadership and Brute force with IRC INT at 4.

Spoiler

Of course your smart ass and lick ass attempts will automatically fail then... but who want to RP a Cuck?

 

[Lhynn]

Tying the number of skillpoints you get to intelligence or any other single stat is one of the most retarded things you can possibly do. Not only does it make absolutely no sense, it also breaks your system instantly if these skills have any real relevance.

 

[CryptRat]

Tying the number of skillpoints you get to intelligence or any other single stat is one of the most retarded things you can possibly do. Not only does it make absolutely no sense, it also breaks your system instantly if these skills have any real relevance.

I disagree, if you play in normal difficulty you don't have to mixmax and besides there's no problem having some character get more skill points whereas some others will have to reserve most of their skill points for their weapon skill but in the other hand they have more combat stat bonuses.
I'm more concerned by the fact that skills are not linked with stats, I'd say that overall it's my only real complaint (or my biggest complaint anyway) about their system.

 

[Lhynn]

I disagree, if you play in normal difficulty you don't have to mixmax and besides there's no problem having some character get more skill points whereas some others will have to reserve most of their skill points for their weapon skill but in the other hand they have more combat stat bonuses.

Wat? how does this address my point? Tying a base stat to skillpoints on level is retarded. Smarter people dont know more things than dumb people, they usually just have more specialized knowledge.

I'm more concerned by the fact that skills are not linked with stats, I'd say that overall it's my only real complaint (or my biggest complaint anyway) about their system.

Thats another issue, but yeah i agree. If they were going to bother with % they should have had the relevant stats improve the chance of success.

 

[Sizzle]

Smarter people dont know more things than dumb people.

... what?

 

[CryptRat]

I'm not saying it makes sense, I have no opinion about that.
However I think it doesn't break the system, it's fun to have characters with a different number of skillpoints per level and to use a few characters with low intelligence who are almost only good at fighting.

 

[FeelTheRads]

inb4 100 pages of "do dumb people know more things than smart people"

 

[Lhynn]

Smarter people dont know more things than dumb people.

... what?

What? its the truth, ive known scientists that only know their own branch of expertise, they cant change a tire, dont know how to fish, or cook, or kick a football, they cant make a bed or even function well in every day life. Intelligence doesnt automatically make your knowledge broader, it just helps make some of it deeper.

 

[Background Character]

all of these complaints can be boiled down to "Don't make a low INT character".

Just like real life

 

[Zombra]

Now, guys, I want to ask an honest question. Is it viable to change your idea for a build, let's say, halfway through the game and not suffer miserably?

In Wasteland 2 specifically? Sure, if you're not playing on masochist difficulty. Skills are cheap at the beginning of the game, but you'll soon learn you don't have enough points to specialize in everything. Once they get more expensive you'll naturally focus on just a few. Those "wasted" points to have low levels in other skills are an acceptable loss.

This also applies to companions. Don't worry about what skills they started with if you need them for something else. I turned Ralphy into an Assault Rifle/Animal Whisperer expert and Chisel was my Heavy Weapons specialist even though I don't think they start with any ranks in those skills. Maybe not "optimal" but it worked fine.

 

[cvv]

Now, guys, I want to ask an honest question. Is it viable to change your idea for a build, let's say, halfway through the game and not suffer miserably?

In Wasteland 2 specifically? Sure, if you're not playing on masochist difficulty. Skills are cheap at the beginning of the game, but you'll soon learn you don't have enough points to specialize in everything. Once they get more expensive you'll naturally focus on just a few. Those "wasted" points to have low levels in other skills are an acceptable loss.

Depends on how many you've wasted. Over certain threshold it's better just to dump a character and take on a new one. Afaik there are quite a few that offer to join you in Cali and all of them are usable. (P.S. - forgot about the CHAR requirements tho, I think a few chars are behind a meaty CHAR wall).

 

[Zombra]

Depends on how many you've wasted. Over certain threshold it's better just to dump a character and take on a new one. Afaik there are quite a few that offer to join you in Cali and all of them are usable. (P.S. - forgot about the CHAR requirements tho, I think a few chars are behind a meaty CHAR wall).

All true, but the question wasn't what's better, but what's viable. Inefficient parties are completely viable.

 

[Sizzle]

Smarter people dont know more things than dumb people.

... what?

What? its the truth, ive known scientists that only know their own branch of expertise, they cant change a tire, dont know how to fish, or cook, or kick a football, they cant make a bed or even function well in every day life. Intelligence doesnt automatically make your knowledge broader, it just helps make some of it deeper.

And, like most people, you probably also know a few genius polymaths who are good at almost anything they try to do. What most games call "intelligence" is merely learning retention and logical reasoning. In real life, it's much more difficult to properly define it - which is why some people with otherwise high IQ's are very limited in their skills.

Besides, what you're talking about encompasses many different attributes - speed, hand-eye coordination, strength, etc. - here we're just talking about intelligence as the mental capacity to learn new skills, in a purely game-y, abstract, simulationist manner.

In that context, it means that if we put two persons with, apart from intelligence, identical attributes in a room with a manual about a skill they don't know anything about - the one with the higher intelligence would master it more quickly.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Now, guys, I want to ask an honest question. Is it viable to change your idea for a build, let's say, halfway through the game and not suffer miserably?

I find character development in RPGs to be fun when you can adapt to what the game offers, well, like a reasonably intelligent person would. There is absolutely no reason in Fallout to tag Energy Weapons at the start or invest in the skill. You can start doing that when you actually have access to the weapons and decide to go for it.

In W2, do I really need to start with a predetermined idea for builds for my chars and just unlock consecutive levels of the skills I had chosen at the beginning? I'd love to be mistaken, but that's a significant factor in the game felling quite boring to me.

It's possible, of course. However, when getting to California there's a sudden stupid spike in difficulty, which wouldn't be a bad thing if the game wasn't developed by people who don't actually play games and interns recruited from forums and therefore the difficulty spike means HP bloat and suddenly every enemy has insane armor.
And I suspect that no matter how well you build your characters before, you'll still have some troubles or at least annoyances here until you get better gear that's designed especially to beat these new enemies with their high armor. Because like in every RPG with shit design (or modern RPG) the gear is about 10 times more important than how you built your character.

So, really, you're better off just not playing it at all. The game is shit on all fronts. There's nothing that makes it worth it... shit combat, shit writing, shit systems. The game is filled with turds, both literally and figuratively.

 

[Gunnar]

The game is filled with turds, both literally and figuratively.

You didn't like burgling turds from an outhouse to sell to the turd merchant? That's quality gameplay right there.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Dude, I'm the biggest turd collector there is. I have collector's editions of both W2 and TTON.

 

[Lhynn]

And, like most people, you probably also know a few genius polymaths who are good at almost anything they try to do.

Never met anyone like that. Never met a basketball player that was only good because of their intelligence, or a boxer, or a martial artist. Intelligence does make it easier to learn some shit, it does not make it easier for you to learn how to fire a rifle tho. If you take two soldiers, the smarter soldier is not any more likely to know how to handle several guns than the dumb soldier is.

What most games call "intelligence" is merely learning retention and logical reasoning. In real life, it's much more difficult to properly define it - which is why some people with otherwise high IQ's are very limited in their skills.

I guess? i know dumb people that know how to do a plethora of things, and i know smart guys that have only read about that shit.

Besides, what you're talking about encompasses many different attributes - speed, hand-eye coordination, strength, etc. - here we're just talking about intelligence as the mental capacity to learn new skills, in a purely game-y, abstract, simulationist manner.

And it doesnt work in a purely abstracted simulationist manner. Its just gamey shit with no basis in real life, and it seems to exist to make an attribute much better than it has any right to be.

In that context, it means that if we put two persons with, apart from intelligence, identical attributes in a room with a manual about a skill they don't know anything about - the one with the higher intelligence would master it more quickly.

No, it means you think the smarter person would do better, i dont think that would always be the case, i think that it heavily depends on the skill they are learning. Intelligence could even be detrimental to the learning experience.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Intelligence would even be detrimental to the learning experience.

Intelligence is obviously abstracted as the ability to learn more things and learn them faster not the ability to produce deep thoughts or getting bored by menial tasks.

 

[Lhynn]

Intelligence would even be detrimental to the learning experience.

Intelligence is obviously abstracted as the ability to learn more things and learn them faster not the ability to produce deep thoughts or getting bored by menial tasks.

So youd say the nuclear scientist is dumb because he only learned one thing and it took him all his life. but the hillbilly that knows about survival and everything it entails, with tracking, fishing, hunting, some basic chemistry to brew his own beer, that can drive a boat and a truck is a smarter fellow because he has learned more things in the same time?

Thats just retarded, that we see the abstraction this way doesnt mean its accurate, its just a retarded abstraction and this shit needs to stop.

We have to acknowledge that some knowledges are more complex than others and that you dont learn everything faster just because you happen to be smarter. An acrobat will learn the tricks easier the more agile he is, because hes able to move to more advanced stuff thanks to his own talent and in turn learns more, but it will also depend on the teacher and his ability to pass those communicate to the student, and you dont need to be terribly smart to grasp some basic concepts that will make you better at whateer you are doing. Other skills can only be learned through experience, and your predispocision and basic attributes dont mean shit and everyone will learn it at rougly the same pace.
Some people will learn to swim faster than others and it has 0 relation with their cognitive abilities.

The abstraction is wrong, just ditch it. Intelligence helps to learn some stuff, doesnt help at all to learn other stuff, therefore the best path is always have the attributes influence the skills but not the skillpoints.

 

[FeelTheRads]

therefore the best path is always have the attributes influence the skills but not the skillpoints.

With that I agree. The rest I don't care about, therefore check the rating.

 

[Zombra]

And I suspect that no matter how well you build your characters before, you'll still have some troubles or at least annoyances here until you get better gear that's designed especially to beat these new enemies with their high armor. Because like in every RPG with shit design (or modern RPG) the gear is about 10 times more important than how you built your character.

"Tiered" equipment. I hate it.

 

[Infinitron]

I don't think that's an entirely fair description. While there are distinct "tiers" of weapons that appear simultaneously in the game as you progress, each new weapon of a given type in a tier isn't always a strict upgrade over the one in the previous tier. Going from a 3 AP laser pistol to a 6 AP laser carbine is an extreme example.

Overall Wasteland 2's itemization makes a decent enough impression on me. Discovering a new tier of weapons to kit out your entire party with feels pretty cool.

As for the importance of weapons, I think that's a consequence of chance-to-hit remaining fairly high throughout the game if you keep your skills upgraded. There usually aren't enemies that are noticeably more "dodgy" than other enemies within a single area. That leaves damage (ie, your weapon) as a more impactful-feeling factor in combat.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

I think the problem wasn't really with the system itself, yeah it's confusing a bit, but I think even with low int you can max 3 skills eventually, so one weapon skill for each dude/dudette and 14 support skills for the whole squad. Which is not half bad at all since a lot of them are overlapping

The problem was Angela, first she confuses you with her widely spread skills, and then she leaves your squad , at a point when you came to rely on many of her skills. That was exactly the moment when I started scraping for skill points, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Still no idea why she needed to leave, absolutely bizarre decision that.

 

[Roguey]

Still no idea why she needed to leave, absolutely bizarre decision that.

It was obvious to me from how many levels she has over you that she was a temporary tutorial helper.

You were supposed to mercy kill her when you saw her as a cyborg monstrosity in the final area, but all that was cut.

 

[Doktor Best]

Now, guys, I want to ask an honest question. Is it viable to change your idea for a build, let's say, halfway through the game and not suffer miserably?

I find character development in RPGs to be fun when you can adapt to what the game offers, well, like a reasonably intelligent person would. There is absolutely no reason in Fallout to tag Energy Weapons at the start or invest in the skill. You can start doing that when you actually have access to the weapons and decide to go for it.

In W2, do I really need to start with a predetermined idea for builds for my chars and just unlock consecutive levels of the skills I had chosen at the beginning? I'd love to be mistaken, but that's a significant factor in the game felling quite boring to me.

It's possible, of course. However, when getting to California there's a sudden stupid spike in difficulty, which wouldn't be a bad thing if the game wasn't developed by people who don't actually play games and interns recruited from forums and therefore the difficulty spike means HP bloat and suddenly every enemy has insane armor.
And I suspect that no matter how well you build your characters before, you'll still have some troubles or at least annoyances here until you get better gear that's designed especially to beat these new enemies with their high armor. Because like in every RPG with shit design (or modern RPG) the gear is about 10 times more important than how you built your character.

So, really, you're better off just not playing it at all. The game is shit on all fronts. There's nothing that makes it worth it... shit combat, shit writing, shit systems. The game is filled with turds, both literally and figuratively.

Equipment will always be the most important aspect in combat in any decently designed rpg. Fallout, Gothic, fucking Wizardry. Try beating those games with starting equipment but maxed out skills.

I don't think that's an entirely fair description. While there are distinct "tiers" of weapons that appear simultaneously in the game as you progress, each new weapon of a given type in a tier isn't always a strict upgrade over the one in the previous tier. Going from a 3 AP laser pistol to a 6 AP laser carbine is an extreme example.

Overall Wasteland 2's itemization makes a decent enough impression on me. Discovering a new tier of weapons to kit out your entire party with feels pretty cool.

As for the importance of weapons, I think that's a consequence of chance-to-hit remaining fairly high throughout the game if you keep your skills upgraded. There usually aren't enemies that are noticeably more "dodgy" than other enemies within a single area. That leaves damage (ie, your weapon) as a more impactful-feeling factor in combat.

Overall its pretty reminiscent of the original Wasteland. Only there your major upgrade steps is between different weapon type, with the assault rifle being the first major step forward.

"Tiered" upgrades isnt always bad, it just gets bad if you get them frequently without putting any effort into gaining them, there is no real logical tie to the gameworld youre playing in and the sole difference lies in a better damage stat.

Stealing one of those guard-swords in Gothic inside the castle for example is a pretty fun thing to do. Never felt "gamey" to me as it made sense for the higher ranks to also have better quality gear.



Also, i dont mean to brag but i played through pretty much the whole game (with the exception of the robot ambush at the barn) on supreme jerk and i didnt have that much trouble with the first California encounters. I just realized enemies got tougher and blew my consumable stash until i got better weapons. Pretty much standard procedure for combat oriented rpgs and its not like the game doesnt telegraph that things are about to get tougher.