DIfferent ammo types

Check here to discuss Wasteland 2 gameplay topics. Please avoid spoilers in thread titles.

Moderator: Ranger Team Alpha

User avatar
Kazuya
Initiate
Posts: 9
Joined: March 18th, 2012, 2:10 am

Re: DIfferent ammo types

Post by Kazuya » September 8th, 2014, 11:38 pm

CaptainPatch wrote:Well, unlike Attribute mix of one Attribute maxed while all others are minimized, all 3,166,880 weapons combinations are functional.
[...]
At character creation in WL2, a _huge_ percentage of combinations will be immediately ignored as being pointless or unwieldy. In effect, they were never sensible considerations to begin with.
You seem to not understand the problem that leads to the combinatoric explosion. By restricting the characters to "functional" builds, you still fail to tackle the actual problem, that causes the large number of combinations. Restricting the statpoints to at least three points in every stat, you still have 1716 different rangers to build your party with, which results in 362 556 230 751 party combinations. That's 100000 different party combinations for every gun in Borderlands (and you would still have over 45 billion combinations left). But even if you say, that you restrict character creation further to 100 different functional builds, you still get over 4.4 million parties out of that. I also might add, that this figure does not include parties with less than four members.
CaptainPatch wrote:But unlike the SPECIAL creation process, all of the choices are NOT available at the very beginning. Weapons mods mix and match as the player accesses them, so selection boils down to "This is what I have now, and these choices have become available now. Which choice is the 'best' according to MY preferences?"
Not included as well are the npcs, that can join your party, as you play the game.
CaptainPatch wrote:But the original point that I was making was that splitting a singular ammo type into AP, HP, and general use really isn't all that much of a complication. And it really offers the player choice. If the player feels that it's too much of a complication to consider three types of ammo, he could just concentrate on having ONLY general purpose ammo and he would be EXACTLY where he is now.
I think this is a bad argument. If the effect for the player is negligible, when he decides to not use other ammo types, then why bother giving the player that pointless choice in the first place?

User avatar
CaptainPatch
Grandmaster
Posts: 2806
Joined: March 31st, 2012, 12:38 am
Location: San Rafael, CA
Contact:

Re: DIfferent ammo types

Post by CaptainPatch » September 9th, 2014, 12:07 am

Zombra wrote:
CaptainPatch wrote:Jeez. "Minimized" as in "set as low as it can be set to." Obviously not 1s. One 10 and six 3s. (Or whatever combination the current Attribute points allow for.)
3 in a stat is fine. It's "average" for chrissake.
Originally 3 = Poor. Lots of people objected. So they changed the label to "Average". The complaints went away. Amazing how a label change makes everything reasonable.
Zombra wrote:
CaptainPatch wrote:OK then. How about 10? And make them broken in significantly different ways, since you don't have time to do all 999 million. I bet I can choose one of those 10 parties and beat the bandits at the Radio Tower with them. No Angie.
What would be the points. ANYTHING that I might suggest you would most certainly argue was "entirely acceptable". Why? Because you have been lambasting me, haranguing me, ragging on me about being wrong while you are entirely right. It is NOT about the fact that we obviously have different tastes and preferences. "Different strokes for different folks doesn't seem to work for you. More like, "There's a Wrong way of doing something and then there's my way."
Zombra wrote:If you're going to continue supporting a ridiculous argument, I'm going to continue calling you on it.
And there you prove my point. Ridiculous, in your opinion means that it is ridiculous for EVERYONE. There have even been several others that mentioned they would like to see multiple ammo types, but they've gone silent. Why? Probably because they don't want you dumping your bile on them too.
Zombra wrote:All you have to do is stop trying to prove that Borderlands was more complex than Wasteland 2 because someone said a big scary number, or that Borderlands was somehow successful in ways that W2 should aspire to. All you have to do is drop it.
Fine. Consider it dropped.
Zombra wrote:It boils down to Gun #1 that does 80 damage with a 1.4 second reload time, Gun #2 that does 81 damage with a 1.31 second reload time, and so forth. Note that even in this simple example, one is clearly superior, making the other "nonfunctional" in your language.
You might notice Drool already rendered an explanation to that very point. And he was a whole lot more civil about it.
Zombra wrote:OK, I'll address it directly now. You say that some combinations of stats in Wasteland 2 are "nonfunctional" (when you really mean suboptimal) and therefore do not belong on the list of possible combinations. In Borderlands, some combinations of stats are equally "nonfunctional", that is to say, suboptimal, and therefore do not belong on that list of possible combinations. Wasteland 2 still has about a million times a million times more party combinations than Borderlands has unique guns.
ONE WORD. Do you notice just how much of your rage you have dumped on me because I used "non-functional" instead of "sub-optimal" or "less appealing" -- which happens to be closer to what I actually meant?
Zombra wrote: Moving on.
Promise?
Zombra wrote:And when the design changes, the design changes. Amazing, isn't it?
And they made you a Mod? With that kind of snide forum etiquette? I find that more amazing.
Zombra wrote:Moving the goalposts would have an impact on every player. Throw in a +5 Holy Avenger at the beginning of the game and saying, "Don't use it if you don't want to," doesn't make it any less a part of the design. Every player that sees it has a whole new set of choices to make. NOT using it is no longer the "standard" choice.
And throwing in a couple dozen stat-altering shrines didn't? Apparently they think that some unbalancing is tolerable.
Zombra wrote:
Nobody is forcing that person to use AP or HP.
When a design gives mechanical rewards for certain behaviors, then yes, that is compulsion.
Poppycock. Your complaint was initially that ammo swaps would require two more button pushes. And now we're here. I can see how adversely you are affected by compulsion.
Zombra wrote:So your argument is: who cares, balance is crap anyway. Got it.
Now who is tossing out "All or nothing" arguments? What I said was "They apparently aren't massively concerned about balancing the final product." How do you go from "massively" to "not at all"?
Zombra wrote:So you are for changing the design? Then why were you just talking about how it wouldn't change anything? :roll:
When did I say "it wouldn't change anything"? I said that someone using GP ammo ONLY would be playing the game just as the beta is now. Which is true. The associated change is that there would then be a possibility of inflicting more damge if using the right ammo, and less if using the wrong ammo. Anyone using GP ammo is still exactly where he is now.
And I think they're perfectly capable of it, of course. That still doesn't make it a good idea. But overall, slightly more damage using the "right" ammo is mostly offset by when less damage is inflicted when using the "wrong" ammo. So in the end, the impact on game balance is negligible in the long run. That is definitely still a far cry from "not at all".
Zombra wrote:I've yet to hear about a game even vaguely in this format that used ammo types and was better for it.
What you keep leaving out is "in my opinion". Plenty of players actually like having ammo choices. But if they value their peace of mind, they would be wise to keep that opinion to somewhere that you don't see it.
Zombra wrote:What is in dispute is whether it would add enough to the game to be worth not only the development and balancing time, but the extra hassle on the part of the user. In my opinion.
Amazing how much more tolerable that statement is when just three words are added.
Zombra wrote:I would 'choose' that too. In fact I would always choose it, all else being equal. Everyone with a brain in their skull would choose it. When every reasonable person can be expected to make the same choice, can it meaningfully be called a 'choice'? What sort of player do you suppose would deliberately choose to use ammo that doesn't work as well?
So your reasonable "solution" is to deny them the choice entirely? But, but, that would require two more button pushes! Soooooooo much better to not have the choice then to burden everyone with having to do two additional button clicks per ammo swap.

*****************************************
Congratulations, Zombra. You will have once again silenced a dissenting opinion. Dealing with your tirades reminds me why I quit the forum before. Here, arguments are "won" by the more tenacious opinion-holder. The one that harasses a differing opinion-holder until he shuts up or leaves. Obviously, you have no interest in allowing anyone to have an opinion that is at odds with any that you hold dear.

TTFN (No, that's not right.) Adios.
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, Life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
dorkboy
Master
Posts: 1772
Joined: November 26th, 2012, 10:37 am

Re: DIfferent ammo types

Post by dorkboy » September 9th, 2014, 2:09 am

Hm, I totally read the "ridiculous argument" bit as referring to the alleged complexity of Borderlands.. :?

Oh well.
marmelade & jam

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 6210
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: DIfferent ammo types

Post by Zombra » September 9th, 2014, 2:47 am

CaptainPatch wrote:
Zombra wrote:
CaptainPatch wrote:Jeez. "Minimized" as in "set as low as it can be set to." Obviously not 1s. One 10 and six 3s. (Or whatever combination the current Attribute points allow for.)
3 in a stat is fine. It's "average" for chrissake.
Originally 3 = Poor. Lots of people objected. So they changed the label to "Average". The complaints went away. Amazing how a label change makes everything reasonable.
Turns out a Ranger with straight 4s is perfectly viable. Try it.
Zombra wrote:OK then. How about 10? And make them broken in significantly different ways, since you don't have time to do all 999 million. I bet I can choose one of those 10 parties and beat the bandits at the Radio Tower with them. No Angie.
What would be the points.
The point would be to back up your statement about all these nonviable builds you keep talking about - to put your proverbial money where your mouth is. Let's see some of these bad builds. If I can still kick ass with one of them, your argument will be shown to be not so strong. If I can't, you'll gain credibility. This is a case where we can actually look at numbers and performance and see who's right. If you choose to decline this opportunity, that seems to say something about your confidence in your own arguments.
Why? Because you have been lambasting me, haranguing me, ragging on me about being wrong while you are entirely right. It is NOT about the fact that we obviously have different tastes and preferences. "Different strokes for different folks doesn't seem to work for you. More like, "There's a Wrong way of doing something and then there's my way."
I have no problem with different strokes ... I do have a problem with extra UI encumbrance with no appreciable gameplay benefit.
If you're going to continue supporting a ridiculous argument, I'm going to continue calling you on it.
And there you prove my point. Ridiculous, in your opinion means that it is ridiculous for EVERYONE.
A "ridiculous argument", to me, is one that seems baseless, flawed, or otherwise easily refuted.* If we disagree on something, and you make an argument that appears senseless, then yes, I will tear it to shreds if I can. I will try to show that it is senseless and why it is senseless. If the idea is actually sound, then I can be shown why it actually makes sense. That hasn't happened here.

*dorkboy nailed it.
There have even been several others that mentioned they would like to see multiple ammo types, but they've gone silent. Why? Probably because they don't want you dumping your bile on them too.
Maybe. I had a nice side conversation with Archangel, who I barely know. Most of what he said made sense. If there are others, it's even possible that they looked at the case against and were convinced. Who knows, maybe they really are just terrified by my tyrannical "posting a lot" and the presumably corrupt backing of my red name masters rendering me impervious to oversight. This is the first I've heard about it, but maybe. I'll keep an eye on that.
ONE WORD. Do you notice just how much of your rage you have dumped on me because I used "non-functional" instead of "sub-optimal" or "less appealing" -- which happens to be closer to what I actually meant?
You were talking about combinations that "really aren't worth considering for use". Your words. To me, a build beneath consideration isn't "less appealing" - it's gimped. If you meant to say that most builds are perfectly functional but some are merely a little better than others, you didn't communicate that very well at all.
Throw in a +5 Holy Avenger at the beginning of the game and saying, "Don't use it if you don't want to," doesn't make it any less a part of the design.
And throwing in a couple dozen stat-altering shrines didn't? Apparently they think that some unbalancing is tolerable.
Therefore unbalancing things even more is a good idea. Nope.
When a design gives mechanical rewards for certain behaviors, then yes, that is compulsion.
Poppycock. Your complaint was initially that ammo swaps would require two more button pushes. And now we're here. I can see how adversely you are affected by compulsion.
Two button pushes for a "no-brain" choice is still too many. Maybe we should add a "breathing menu". Every turn you have to open the breathing menu and push B if you want your character to breathe. It's just two button pushes! The thing is, there is no worthwhile choice invovled - of course you want your guys to breathe. Just like of course you want to use AP ammo against armored targets. No substantial decision, no meaningful choice, no reason to jump through an extra hoop to make it happen.
So your argument is: who cares, balance is crap anyway. Got it.
Now who is tossing out "All or nothing" arguments? What I said was "They apparently aren't massively concerned about balancing the final product." How do you go from "massively" to "not at all"?
When I say balance is important, and you say well eh, they don't seem to be doing much balancing, the implication is that balance is not important to you. I maintain that every new thing we throw in to unbalance the game further is a bad idea. We can disagree on this, but it seems weird to be flying a flag for weaker game balance.
I've yet to hear about a game even vaguely in this format that used ammo types and was better for it.
What you keep leaving out is "in my opinion". Plenty of players actually like having ammo choices. But if they value their peace of mind, they would be wise to keep that opinion to somewhere that you don't see it.
If no one even tries to make a case for it, it's kind of hard to take the idea seriously. I asked you what games did it well, and once again you decline to answer, refusing to show some kind of external evidence to give your opinion some weight. Millions of games have done it before and it's made them better, but you can't name one? or explain why it was more fun that way? I don't have to freaking agree with you on a matter of taste, but it would help if you would illustrate what your taste is.

When you say, "It's great in some games," and I say, "Oh yeah? Like what?" that's not me shutting you down. That's me giving you an opportunity to show me what the hell you're talking about. Take advantage of it.
What is in dispute is whether it would add enough to the game to be worth not only the development and balancing time, but the extra hassle on the part of the user. [In my opinion.]
Amazing how much more tolerable that statement is when just three words are added.
Sigh. Of course it's my opinion. Everything I say is my opinion unless I back it up with factual information. Are we philosophy students, that I need to put a disclaimer in every paragraph?

And forgive me for being personal, but for someone who chides me about not saying "in my opinion" often enough, you sure don't use the phrase much yourself. Turnabout and all that.
When every reasonable person can be expected to make the same choice, can it meaningfully be called a 'choice'?
So your reasonable "solution" is to deny them the choice entirely?
Yes. Absolutely. When the answer is obvious, it's silly to ask the question. I don't need the game to ask me that question a thousand times over the course.
But, but, that would require two more button pushes! Soooooooo much better to not have the choice then to burden everyone with having to do two additional button clicks per ammo swap.
Whether it's a dozen, two, or just one, meaningless button presses are best eliminated.

And this was a serious question:
What sort of player do you suppose would deliberately choose to use ammo that doesn't work as well?
Still waiting to hear why this is a meaningful 'choice'.
Congratulations, Zombra. You will have once again silenced a dissenting opinion. Dealing with your tirades reminds me why I quit the forum before. Here, arguments are "won" by the more tenacious opinion-holder. The one that harasses a differing opinion-holder until he shuts up or leaves. Obviously, you have no interest in allowing anyone to have an opinion that is at odds with any that you hold dear.
I'll refrain from comment here. If this whole thing is over, I'm delighted.
TTFN (No, that's not right.) Adios.
Vaya con Dios.
Image

SagaDC
Global Moderator
Posts: 3504
Joined: May 2nd, 2012, 5:51 am

Re: DIfferent ammo types

Post by SagaDC » September 9th, 2014, 3:36 am

Eh, for what it's worth, I'm still kind of bummed that they pulled ammo types out so late in the development (after hinting at them for five or six builds in a row). I'm just not invested enough in the mechanic to really feel the need to argue for their return.

I do feel that they would help to add to the sense of ammo scarcity (one of the other popular topics), without actually reducing the overall amount of ammunition in the game. If the specialty ammunition types are scarcer and more expensive than conventional ammunition, then it will give a player pause before they immediately switch to Armor Piercing (or Hollow Point, or Exploding, or whatever) rounds. Is it worth burning through your small supply of armor-piercing rifle rounds every time you encounter an enemy with a higher-than-average armor rating? Probably not. But it might be nice to have that armor-piercing card up your sleeve when you find yourself in over your head (say, when a rampaging Scorpitron comes crashing through the nearby buildings, guns blazing).

Of course, I don't think anyone's denying that such a system would definitely require a smoother UI element. The implementation of the ammo slots in the previous builds was problematic, to say the least, which I suspect is a large part of the reason as to why the ammo types were ultimately discarded (despite having the mechanics more or less in place for them). I just find it to be a shame that they ended up ultimately discarding the concept, rather than trying to make it work (at least in any of the public betas), though it's hardly the first game element that's gotten this treatment during the development process.

-Archangel-
Adventurer
Posts: 984
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 4:06 am

Re: DIfferent ammo types

Post by -Archangel- » September 9th, 2014, 5:53 am

I just hope all these elements are not discarded but just put to the side for future. I would like to see game mechanics expanded more for future expansions or sequels. Something like how BG2 expanded BG1 system :)

luoshuigui
Scholar
Posts: 120
Joined: April 6th, 2012, 7:08 pm

Re: DIfferent ammo types

Post by luoshuigui » September 9th, 2014, 8:42 pm

Guys, guys, it's settled, the manual is out today
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3LlgON ... JYb2M/edit

It's in.

Image

User avatar
dorkboy
Master
Posts: 1772
Joined: November 26th, 2012, 10:37 am

Re: DIfferent ammo types

Post by dorkboy » September 9th, 2014, 8:52 pm

Not sure you can conclude that multiple ammo types (for each weapon) are in based on that. It could simply refer to the fact that different weapons use different ammo. :?

Similarily, unless there are specific attacks (/weapon modes) that modify Armour Penetration, then it would maybe be more to the point to say that "Certain weapons have [...]"?
marmelade & jam

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 6210
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: DIfferent ammo types

Post by Zombra » September 10th, 2014, 12:14 am

Hmm! I guess we'll find out what that means in a couple weeks!
Image

User avatar
Crosmando
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5136
Joined: January 3rd, 2013, 8:48 am

Re: DIfferent ammo types

Post by Crosmando » September 10th, 2014, 12:32 am

Almost 1 week now actually

EDIT: But do the ammo types in WL2 actually mean anything? It's the guns themselves which define damage and AP.
Matthias did nothing wrong!

SagaDC
Global Moderator
Posts: 3504
Joined: May 2nd, 2012, 5:51 am

Re: DIfferent ammo types

Post by SagaDC » September 10th, 2014, 5:36 am

Crosmando wrote:Almost 1 week now actually

EDIT: But do the ammo types in WL2 actually mean anything? It's the guns themselves which define damage and AP.
Under the original Ammo Type system introduced in the earlier Betas, each type of ammunition theoretically has three attributes that modify the Armor Penetration and Damage of the weapon they're used in. Off the top of my head, I believe it's Armor Penetration (added directly on top of the weapon's Penetration), Bullet Expansion (damage multiplier for targets with lower armor?), and Damage Bonus (flat damage bonus that ignores penetration or expansion).

In theory, an ammo type could make a large difference depending on the type of enemy your fighting, especially if you're using a gun with an inherently lower damage or armor penetration (such as a handgun or submachine gun).

At the moment, though, all ammo types use identical default values for all ammo types.

User avatar
sear
Developer
Posts: 2681
Joined: March 21st, 2012, 8:30 am

Re: DIfferent ammo types

Post by sear » September 10th, 2014, 8:40 pm

dorkboy wrote:Not sure you can conclude that multiple ammo types (for each weapon) are in based on that. It could simply refer to the fact that different weapons use different ammo. :?
Correct.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest