Wasteland Wasteland 3 + Battle of Steeltown and Cult of the Holy Detonation Expansions Thread

[Zlaja]

However the idea that better trained characters can and do get more attacks in a round, is a sound one

Not in a game which uses AP to determine how many actions you get to take in a round.

 

[Atlantico]

Not in a game which uses AP to determine how many actions you get to take in a round.

Why not, AD&D had the same idea. It worked there. You just get another or more action points if you are skilled enough. Then you can perform 2 actions in one round. Costs X to shoot, now you have 2X points to use per round during your turn.

 

[ds]

Looks a lot better than 2 which was just plain ugly.

Still looks like shit, which is unacceptable for 2020 game released by mid-sized studio. It's not kickstarter eastern eurojank ffs, they had ample time and funds to make it look at least semi-decent.

Chasing current year graphics is the last thing any developer should do, let alone anyone without AAA budgets. It's just a giant money sink with ever diminishing returns.
W2 and 3 had perfectly serviceable graphics - enough to know what you are looking at. If anything they should have spent less on that (graphics whores are going to whine anyway) so they could spend more on making the game fun to play.

 

[Roguey]

Chasing current year graphics is the last thing any developer should do, let alone anyone without AAA budgets. It's just a giant money sink with ever diminishing returns.
W2 and 3 had perfectly serviceable graphics - enough to know what you are looking at. If anything they should have spent less on that (graphics whores are going to whine anyway) so they could spend more on making the game fun to play.

Good art direction is important, but you need a great art director and for that you have to offer a competitive salary (or be extremely lucky and find a good artist who really wants to work on RPGs and doesn't mind getting less pay than he/she could).

Clockwork Revolution looks fine, so MS seems to have fixed it.

 

[GloomFrost]

Still looks like shit, which is unacceptable for 2020 game released by mid-sized studio. It's not kickstarter eastern eurojank ffs, they had ample time and funds to make it look at least semi-decent.

They didn't though, inXile was barely scraping by. They got a big cash injection from the Microsoft buy-out, but that was to finish the game, not entirely redo the art.

And how much of that money went into full VO which no one asked for (especially Kickstarter backers). The result is that W3 looks no better or worse then Encased for example which truly is low budget independent euro junk. Also compare W3 to PoE2 which had smaller budget and genuinely is one of the best looking 2d games ever (oh and it had full VO as well). So don't even try to defend inXile.

 

[Roguey]

Also compare W3 to PoE2 which had smaller budget and genuinely is one of the best looking 2d games ever (oh and it had full VO as well). So don't even try to defend inXile.

Did it have a smaller budget? Deadfire had a core team of about 70, Wasteland 3's was about 60. They're both A-level RPGs. Deadfire had better art direction. Obsidian swiped its studio art director Rob Nesler from inXile; they were able to pay more (though a few glassdoor reviews claim he's not all that great himself).

 

[GloomFrost]

Also compare W3 to PoE2 which had smaller budget and genuinely is one of the best looking 2d games ever (oh and it had full VO as well). So don't even try to defend inXile.

Did it have a smaller budget? Deadfire had a core team of about 70, Wasteland 3's was about 60. They're both A-level RPGs. Deadfire had better art direction. Obsidian swiped its studio art director Rob Nesler from inXile; they were able to pay more (though a few glassdoor reviews claim he's not all that great himself).

Well as far as I know yeah PoE 2 did have smaller budget. I am sure you can find exact numbers online if you want. But also inXile already stained their reputation for misusing finances during NumaNuma development. When despite getting a lot more money then they asked for on Kickstarter they downgraded graphics, haven't included third hub and other stretch goals and what pissed a lot of people even more they used some of that money to release console versions no one asked for.

 

[OSK]

And how much of that money went into full VO which no one asked for (especially Kickstarter backers). The result is that W3 looks no better or worse then Encased for example which truly is low budget independent euro junk. Also compare W3 to PoE2 which had smaller budget and genuinely is one of the best looking 2d games ever (oh and it had full VO as well). So don't even try to defend inXile.

The biggest difference between Wasteland 3 and Encased is that one of the games was actually finished.

 

[GloomFrost]

And how much of that money went into full VO which no one asked for (especially Kickstarter backers). The result is that W3 looks no better or worse then Encased for example which truly is low budget independent euro junk. Also compare W3 to PoE2 which had smaller budget and genuinely is one of the best looking 2d games ever (oh and it had full VO as well). So don't even try to defend inXile.

The biggest difference between Wasteland 3 and Encased is that one of the games was actually finished.

The conversation was about graphics and budget and not game overall quality but OK.

 

[OSK]

The conversation was about graphics and budget and not game overall quality but OK.

I'm pretty sure you can save a lot of budget and spend more on graphics by shipping something unfinished but OK.

 

[Piotrovitz]

Just finished Denver and never had to reload any fight nor use any consumables beside med hypos/medkits so far - I even forgot that my melee has the quirk with bonus dmg while under effects of booze lol. Also just realized that you can fully respec not only your rangers but story companions as well, which will make shit even easier.

Is there any difficulty spike later on (like in W2 there was in California), or should I just restart on supreme jerk?

 

[MerchantKing]

However the idea that better trained characters can and do get more attacks in a round, is a sound one

Not in a game which uses AP to determine how many actions you get to take in a round.

I have to agree. More actions per round is not necessarily good even in games without AP as it can break the semblance of action economy with respect to time. There's only so much that can be done within 6 seconds if 6 seconds is the time in a round. The amount of actions that can be taken in a round should be logically limited and not able to grow a lot. It may be even more appropriate to not allow more actions even without AP. You can get better at doing something. But that doesn't necessarily mean it can be done faster.

 

[jackofshadows]

Is there any difficulty spike later on (like in W2 there was in California), or should I just restart on supreme jerk?

I haven't played the DLCs but in the base game no. The more punch you pack, the more this alfa strike of a initiative system makes the game easier as it goes.

 

[Piotrovitz]

thought so, ehhh

Is supreme jerk even fun, or is it more of the same but just with the numbers bloat and longer fights?

 

[Atlantico]

There's only so much that can be done within 6 seconds if 6 seconds is the time in a round.

True, but a turn can span any length of time the designer wants it to span. If it is 6 seconds, then one action seems like the absolute ceiling and many actions could take multiple turns. (a round meaning each character having his turn at least once, but whatever)

"He takes off his backpack to find a healing potion" could be a three to five turn action if it is just a 6 second turn.

In AD&D for instance, a turn is more or less one minute and actions within that turn are abstract. It is not a simulation, it's an abstract simplification to explain what happens during one turn. In one minute of fighting, it is assumed that a regular character gets one decent hit through, while the rest of the time is spent trying to score a hit with feints, jab, etc.

Giving a high level fighter more than one attack per turn is supposed to reflect his increased skill and efficiency. Less time spend faffing about, more attempts at hitting the enemy. It's a game at the end of the day, not a sim.

 

[jackofshadows]

Is supreme jerk even fun, or is it more of the same but just with the numbers bloat and longer fights?

Well, it's rather the latter. Good luck playing melee on that for instance. But at the very least it provides some challenge for the first x levels. I haven't tried ranger but as I gather it's just a total cakewalk practically from the start.

 

[Yosharian]

I forgot to use alcohol a lot with my melee guy as well. My explosives dude was basically winning most fights by himself towards the end

 

[MerchantKing]

There's only so much that can be done within 6 seconds if 6 seconds is the time in a round.

True, but a turn can span any length of time the designer wants it to span. If it is 6 seconds, then one action seems like the absolute ceiling and many actions could take multiple turns. (a round meaning each character having his turn at least once, but whatever)

"He takes off his backpack to find a healing potion" could be a three to five turn action if it is just a 6 second turn.

In AD&D for instance, a turn is more or less one minute and actions within that turn are abstract. It is not a simulation, it's an abstract simplification to explain what happens during one turn. In one minute of fighting, it is assumed that a regular character gets one decent hit through, while the rest of the time is spent trying to score a hit with feints, jab, etc.

Giving a high level fighter more than one attack per turn is supposed to reflect his increased skill and efficiency. Less time spend faffing about, more attempts at hitting the enemy. It's a game at the end of the day, not a sim.

"Turns" are still broken up into 10 rounds in the older system and combat is still broken up into rounds and actions are taken by the round not the turn. Actions likewise in the rules were decided within a round, not the turn. A turn was just a timekeeping device.

 

[Atlantico]

"Turns" are still broken up into 10 rounds in the older system and combat is still broken up into rounds and actions are taken by the round not the turn. Actions likewise in the rules were decided within a round, not the turn. A turn was just a timekeeping device.

Either way yes, sure and if a turn or round is about 1 whole minute, then the actions possible within that timeframe can be such they depend on your skill. A skilled marksman can take twice as many useful shots during the same timeframe as one who isn't as skilled. If it is 6 seconds then skill doesn't matter as much, since it's almost twitch fighting at that point.

 

[MerchantKing]

"Turns" are still broken up into 10 rounds in the older system and combat is still broken up into rounds and actions are taken by the round not the turn. Actions likewise in the rules were decided within a round, not the turn. A turn was just a timekeeping device.

Either way yes, sure and if a turn or round is about 1 whole minute, then the actions possible within that timeframe can be such they depend on your skill. A skilled marksman can take twice as many useful shots during the same timeframe as one who isn't as skilled. If it is 6 seconds then skill doesn't matter as much, since it's almost twitch fighting at that point.

Round = 6 seconds of time in AD&D and D&D. Actions were decided on the level of rounds.
Turn in older D&D = timekeeping device = 10 rounds = 60 seconds
Turns in newer games = individualized subsets of rounds that just represent actions decided within order of initiative = time of a turn less than or equal to 6 seconds

If we are talking about skirmishes between two small groups, one or two minutes. Which means in the one minute turns, and everything being decided on the level of turns, the fights should be over in one or two turns with the side getting initiative suffering no consequences as they get to do all their actions, 10-20 shots assuming everything is perfect for an archer, 2-5 shots from a crossbowman, say 20-60 attacks from the melees, and the other side does nothing with no damage. However, it's inconsistent as to how things are done as melees are always given something like 1-4 attacks per round (in AP systems 5+ for something like a small weapon). Whereas archers are still given something like 1-4 shots while crossbow men can be given 1-3 shots in the same time which is generally an inconsistency as there is no reloading required in melee.

The majority of fights in most varieties of tactical games are generally over relatively short distances which would imply a much shorter time scale than 1 minute. Perhaps 10-15 seconds at most, but certainly not anywhere close to one minute. There is nothing there to suggest any longer time scales for turns. Which would imply that giving more actions is generally a bad idea as there really isn't the time to given a lot more actions, especially not with medieval and renaissance ranged weapons. Accounting for the variability of combat would necessitate rather that actions allowed should be rarely be increased, but rather kept constant and situationally reduced on a round-to-round basis.

twitch fighting at that point.

Not for melee. Within a 6 second round, melee characters are generally given a reasonable number of attacks. Magic likewise can be assumed to be a little more reasonable given that it doesn't required an excessive amount of components. The issue is that there are things like 6 seconds to drink a potion or 6 seconds to fire an unreasonable amount of shots from a crossbow where the consistency breaks. If anything, it's not the idea of interpreting things in longer time frames that's the problem. It's that archers and crossbowmen are generally allowed to do too much.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

"Turns" are still broken up into 10 rounds in the older system and combat is still broken up into rounds and actions are taken by the round not the turn. Actions likewise in the rules were decided within a round, not the turn. A turn was just a timekeeping device.

Either way yes, sure and if a turn or round is about 1 whole minute, then the actions possible within that timeframe can be such they depend on your skill. A skilled marksman can take twice as many useful shots during the same timeframe as one who isn't as skilled. If it is 6 seconds then skill doesn't matter as much, since it's almost twitch fighting at that point.

Round = 6 seconds of time in AD&D and D&D. Actions were decided on the level of rounds.

In Original Dungeons & Dragons, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, and AD&D 2nd edition, each round lasts an entire minute.
In Holmes Basic D&D, Moldvay/Cook B/X D&D, and Mentzer BECMI D&D, each round lasts ten seconds.

Gary Gygax seems to have been sensitive to criticism of the one-minute duration for a combat round, since the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide from 1979 has the following passage about combat (page 61):

One-minute rounds are devised to offer the maximum of choice with a minimum of complication. This allows the DM and the players the best of both worlds. The system assumes much activity during the course of each round. Envision, if you will, a fencing, boxing, or karate match. During the course of one minute of such competition there are numerous attacks which are unsuccessful, feints, maneuvering, and so forth. During a one-minute melee round many attacks are made, but some ore mere feints, while some are blocked or parried. One, or possibly several, have the chance to actually score damage. For such chances, the dice are rolled, and if the"to hit" number is equalled or exceeded, the attack was successful, but otherwise it too was avoided, blocked, parried, or whatever. Damage scored to characters or certain monsters is actually not substantially physical - a mere nick or scratch until the last handful of hit points are considered - it is a matter of wearing away the endurance, the luck, the magical protections. With respect to most monsters such damage is, in fact, more physically substantial although as with adjustments in armor class rating for speed and agility, there are also similar additions in hit points. So while a round of combat is not a continuous series of attacks, it is neither just a single blow and counter-blow affair. The opponents spar and move, seeking the opportunity to engage when an opening in the enemy's guard presents itself.

Because of the relatively long period of time represented by the round, dexterity (dexterity, agility, speed, quickness) is represented by a more favorable armor class rating rather than as a factor in which opponent strikes the first blow. Likewise, weapon length and relative speed factors are not usually a consideration. (See Initiative and Charging below, however.) The system of AD&D combat maximizes the sense of hand-to-hand combat and the life-and-death character of melee without undue complication. Because of this, you, the DM, are enabled to conduct such portions of a game without endless resort to charts, tables, procedure clarifications, and over-lengthy time requirements. Players, on the other hand, will not become bored with endless dice rolling and rules consulting, but at the same time will have a reasonable chance to seek escape for their characters should the affair go badly.

 

[Piotrovitz]

How stingy should I be with high lvl weapon mods especially the ones that change dmg to elemental/energy - are they super rare and should be hoarded for end game gear?

Currently am lvl ~15 and so far have only two of those, both bought from vendors, don't want to waste them on some mid game weaps.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

Hold on to them for a bit. You can use the lower level ones but the higher level ones should be reserved for better gear.
If you want to get even more mileage out of them spec one of your operatives for weird science.

 

[Piotrovitz]

Just did the slavers 'quest' in Colorado which took like two minutes. Chest in HQ basement had lvl 21 Ripper which replaced my lvl 11 gun - slapped fire dmg and extra range mods and my SMG guy is melting everything.

I'm getting more and more worn out, almost every single fight plays exactly the same - start with rocket>reload and pump second one for free thanks to Draw!>snipe>move in with flamethrower and SMG to clean up whatever is left>move in with pistol/shotgun and melee if anything is still standing. Battlefields all look the same, couple of covers, some exploding barrel or other gimmick etc, and are too small to provide any semblance of tactical combat - had exact same feeling with Shadowrun, i.e. of playing a mobile game. Tried to like this and overall I think it's a huge improvement over W2 but fuck it, I don't have stamina nor will to go through this : [

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

Firaxcom and its consequences have been a disaster for TBT games.