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.
So you go ahead and show me 999 million parties that are completely broken and unplayable and I'll start taking this argument seriously.
Sure thing. Do have about an eternity or two? Get real.
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.
Still insist that Borderlands is more complicated than Wasteland 2?
If I gave your query the respect it deserves, I'd most likely get banned from the forum. Could you try to be just a tad more snide, arrogant, condescending, and belligerent? I'm almost getting mixed messages.
If you're going to continue supporting a ridiculous argument, I'm going to continue calling you on it. 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.
Point of order: Borderlands doesn't have mods. You find a gun, you pick it up, done. No mixing or matching.
So, all of those 3,166,880 distinct weapons: Does each have a unique name? Or does it boil down to "Model A with parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5"?
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.
I notice that though you are linking your comment to my statement, you really didn't address the point that I was making. Which was that of all those possible SPECIAL combinations, the vast, overwhelming majority really aren't worth considering for use.
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.
In point of fact, it wasn't me that suggested that it would make the game more complicated. That was all you. Of course, adding anything, no matter how trivial, adds at least a smidgen of complication. My view is that the complication effect is negligible. You, otoh, make it sound like it's a deal-breaker.
Then what was the point of saying "Borderlands is complicated, and Borderlands sold millions, so we need to make W2 complicated!"? Why did you bring Borderlands up at all if not for that?
Here's the quote, when we were talking about the difference between having one button, having 40,000 buttons, and having the right middle ground of just enough complication, but not too much:
CaptainPatch wrote:How about like Borderlands where you can have over 3.5 million customized weapon combinations? Too complicated? Sold over 2 million copies. So complicated that Borderlands 2 sold over 8.5 million copies.
So there's that. Moving on.
What you are pointing out is that if AP is available, then suddenly GP ammo is substandard. It isn't. It's precisely what you are mandated to use by the current design.
And when the design changes, the design changes. Amazing, isn't it? 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.
Nobody is forcing that person to use AP or HP.
When a design gives mechanical rewards for certain behaviors, then yes, that is compulsion.
I'd love to see you make a case for the "no balancing, no iteration" development approach.
They apparently aren't massively concerned about balancing the final product. Do we even know ALL of the effects of the inclusion of the shrines? Tossing those in for the last patch before release really didn't allow much feedback AND adjustment before release.
So your argument is: who cares, balance is crap anyway. Got it.
But, yet again, you seem to think that the inXile developers are incapable of making such a system and also making it balanced.
So you are
for changing the design? Then why were you just talking about how it wouldn't change anything?
And I think they're perfectly capable of it, of course. That still doesn't make it a good idea.
Despite the fact that there are umpty-ump video games that DO use multiple ammo types, going back more than ten years. Are they ALL crap games?
I mentioned some above that did it well ... none that were party-based RPGs. I've yet to hear about a game even vaguely in this format that used ammo types and was better for it. Actually I asked you about it earlier and don't remember getting a response. What games do you think did it well?
And in my opinion, multiple ammo types are doable and reasonably workable.
Of course they're doable and workable. That's never been in dispute. 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.
And my choice would be to use ammo that gets the job done better for a variety of situations.
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?