Can't say that I like the AP caryover...

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

Moderator: Ranger Team Alpha

Post Reply
User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3715
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Can't say that I like the AP caryover...

Post by Gizmo » August 31st, 2014, 3:15 pm

I know it's a bit late, but today is the first time I've played the game in several weeks. I don't know how long it's been there, but this notion of saved APs is kind of irritating; on a common sense level. How exactly are they conserving ~time~ to accomplish more in the next round than they could have the previous one?

Assuming [arbitrarily]... let's say that a round is six seconds long and everyone's spent APs constitute what they accomplished in those six seconds. If they were all shooting pistols ~same kind, and they each could shoot twice per round, wouldn't conserving APs mean that one is not shooting twice in the first six seconds of the encounter, in order to shoot three times in the next six seconds of the encounter? (Three shots being more than any of them could shoot in six second rounds.)

This seems like a time cheat allowing combatants to accomplish more than they should in a round, or perhaps even more than mechanically possible in the next round with some weapons.

Thoughts?

Have I missed something? (Certainly possible)

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

Re: Can't say that I like the AP caryover...

Post by dorkboy » August 31st, 2014, 3:30 pm

I somehow picture it as the characters sending little packets of slow-moving time down the time-stream, and then when the characters arrive at their next turn they're just in time to catch those time packets they mailed to themselves.
Doesn't make much sense, but that's how I picture it. :lol:
marmelade & jam

User avatar
Grimage
Acolyte
Posts: 86
Joined: January 24th, 2014, 3:29 am

Re: Can't say that I like the AP caryover...

Post by Grimage » August 31st, 2014, 5:02 pm

The carryover is very limited, you can only spare a few APs to your next initiative turn. I take it as a preparation, the character gets ready to be more efficient/quick at what he inted to do next.

I wish we could delay the initiative pass to act later, even at the cost of some AP or initiative .

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3715
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Can't say that I like the AP caryover...

Post by Gizmo » August 31st, 2014, 5:13 pm

Grimage wrote:The carryover is very limited, you can only spare a few APs to your next initiative turn. I take it as a preparation, the character gets ready to be more efficient/quick at what he inted to do next.

I wish we could delay the initiative pass to act later, even at the cost of some AP or initiative .
I would like to see this implemented:
Image

User avatar
Stuurminator
Scholar
Posts: 167
Joined: March 23rd, 2014, 12:43 pm

Re: Can't say that I like the AP caryover...

Post by Stuurminator » September 2nd, 2014, 7:01 pm

I take it as an abstraction of a character starting an action that they only complete next turn.

Either that or, in the case of movement, taking a moment to collect yourself before surging forward in a burst of energy.

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3715
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Can't say that I like the AP caryover...

Post by Gizmo » September 2nd, 2014, 7:14 pm

Stuurminator wrote:I take it as an abstraction of a character starting an action that they only complete next turn.

Either that or, in the case of movement, taking a moment to collect yourself before surging forward in a burst of energy.
I can envision that... but when I apply it to say... playing whack-a-mole... The PC can't know where the next mole pops up, but if they wait a second (and collect themselves), they can some how hit two in the next few seconds. It just seems like a time exploit; but it was mentioned that it is limited somehow. :?

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

Re: Can't say that I like the AP caryover...

Post by -Archangel- » September 4th, 2014, 1:49 am

There is no magical barrier that separates turns. The current system is actually not realistic enough. They should have made it like in D:OS where all your AP saved in last round are transferred to the next one up to a certain limit (that human being upper capacity to be fast enough in doing certain amount of prepared actions).

User avatar
Tets
Master
Posts: 1359
Joined: December 28th, 2012, 8:53 am

Re: Can't say that I like the AP caryover...

Post by Tets » September 4th, 2014, 2:02 am

Imagine 2 situations:

Running 100 meter and climbing a wall

Running 100 meter, waiting a minute, climbing a wall

Will you climb the wall in both cases in the same time? Nope, because in one case you had some time to recover your stamina. Doing less actions in one turn, means you have more power in the following turn. If you save your stamina over time, you can spend much of it in a short time. Its like the difference between sprinting and jogging. You have a certain amount of stamina. You can use it in a short time, or you can consume it over a long periode. Saving action points refers to the first case. You do in one turn less actions, to be able to do more actions in the other turn.

User avatar
Oldschool Roleplayer
Scholar
Posts: 127
Joined: November 29th, 2012, 7:57 am

Re: Can't say that I like the AP caryover...

Post by Oldschool Roleplayer » September 4th, 2014, 8:22 pm

You guys are missing the most obvious issue. If a combat round is 10 seconds long, and one character has 10 AP vs. Another character's 8 AP, that means one character performs an action that requires 1 AP in 1 second and the other character would require 1.25 seconds to perform that same action.

If an action, such as firing a weapon, requires 5 AP, the first guy will fire exactly 2 shots in one 10-second round.

The second guy, on the other hand, would require 5/8, or 6.25 seconds to fire his weapon. That means he would have 3 AP left, or 3.75 seconds remaining in the round. In a real-life situation, he is NOT going to just stand around for 3.75 seconds, waiting to do something else. Instead, he's going to begin to fire his weapon again. However, since he would not "officially" complete his action until second 12.5, his turn would simply roll over to the next combat round. He still started to aim/shoot in the previous round. Not allowing him to roll over his AP would be the equivalent of making him stop in the middle of a firefight and telling him to wait his turn.

So...yes...rolling over AP is absolutely 100% realistic.

User avatar
Priest4hire
Explorer
Posts: 480
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 12:38 pm

Re: Can't say that I like the AP caryover...

Post by Priest4hire » September 6th, 2014, 12:24 am

The problem is that the model you're using assumes that player declares, or chooses, his action first. At least that's the system where that argument works. But far as I can tell, that's not the case. It isn't that you choose to shoot in this round but due to a lack of AP have the actual shot occur in your next round. Rather, it's that by not using the AP in this round you are able to spend it as you will in the next.

An example. I'm using guy #2 with 8AP. He plans to kill his opponent, and then attempt to run a distance that requires 10AP to cover. He fires the first shot and then, as per your example, spends the remaining 3AP, or 3.75 seconds, getting ready to fire. However, after the end of his turn a sniper, unknown to our character, kills the enemy. In the next round he should have only 8AP to run, since his previous effort to shoot would hardly make him faster, but if I'm reading the system right he'd actually have the full 10. So did the sniper's shot, 3.75 seconds in the future, cause him to start running rather than attempting another shot? If so, he's just achieved a causality paradox.

But what's actually happening is that AP is treated like tokens you buy actions with. So naturally you collect enough and then spend them on the action. But that's exactly how time doesn't act. The longer the turns, and thus the more APs (relative to the cost of actions) characters have, the more exacerbated this issue becomes. Of course there is a system that avoids these time weirdnesses: phased combat. Too bad phased combat isn't a Wasteland kind of solution.

PS. They are stopping in a middle of a firefight to wait for their turn. That's literally what the system is showing us. It's trivial to demonstrate that this is the case.

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5855
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Can't say that I like the AP caryover...

Post by Woolfe » September 6th, 2014, 5:46 am

Correct me if I am wrong but AP =/= time. Or at least not quite the way you seem to be describing it.

Bob has 8 AP but Tim has 10. Who is faster?

You can't actually tell from that information. Because Bob has a higher Awareness so gets to act 2 times in the time that it takes Tim to act once.

In which case Bob effectively has 16 AP to Tim's 10.

I don't know if that is pertinent to the conversation, but I thought it important to point out, as you guys seem to be suggesting that Tim was faster than Bob simply because he had more AP. Which isn't quite right.
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

User avatar
Priest4hire
Explorer
Posts: 480
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 12:38 pm

Re: Can't say that I like the AP caryover...

Post by Priest4hire » September 6th, 2014, 10:36 pm

You're right of course. It's the result of welding two systems together. You have APs from a game like Fallout welded to the atomic turn-based system of Final Fantasy Tactics. Each has its own solution to dealing with character speed. APs allow faster or slower characters when all characters move at the same time, or at least in an order freely determined by the player. But the FFT style initiative deals with it via turn order and the system allows for delayed action. It seems to me it really should be one or the other. If turn order is determined by speed, then APs should be fixed since faster peeps go again sooner. Or if APs change, then turn order should be fixed or determined by initiative roll within rounds of combat.

Even by turn-based standards, this system has a lot of time weirdnesses.

WrothBog
Acolyte
Posts: 54
Joined: August 6th, 2014, 2:06 pm

Re: Can't say that I like the AP caryover...

Post by WrothBog » September 7th, 2014, 12:37 am

just think of it as a psych up adrenaline boost. your pc chooses to psych themselves up for something big next turn. it's only 1-2 ap anyway

User avatar
Oldschool Roleplayer
Scholar
Posts: 127
Joined: November 29th, 2012, 7:57 am

Re: Can't say that I like the AP caryover...

Post by Oldschool Roleplayer » September 8th, 2014, 12:44 pm

Priest4hire wrote:The problem is that the model you're using assumes that player declares, or chooses, his action first. At least that's the system where that argument works. But far as I can tell, that's not the case. It isn't that you choose to shoot in this round but due to a lack of AP have the actual shot occur in your next round. Rather, it's that by not using the AP in this round you are able to spend it as you will in the next.

An example. I'm using guy #2 with 8AP. He plans to kill his opponent, and then attempt to run a distance that requires 10AP to cover. He fires the first shot and then, as per your example, spends the remaining 3AP, or 3.75 seconds, getting ready to fire. However, after the end of his turn a sniper, unknown to our character, kills the enemy. In the next round he should have only 8AP to run, since his previous effort to shoot would hardly make him faster, but if I'm reading the system right he'd actually have the full 10. So did the sniper's shot, 3.75 seconds in the future, cause him to start running rather than attempting another shot? If so, he's just achieved a causality paradox.

But what's actually happening is that AP is treated like tokens you buy actions with. So naturally you collect enough and then spend them on the action. But that's exactly how time doesn't act. The longer the turns, and thus the more APs (relative to the cost of actions) characters have, the more exacerbated this issue becomes. Of course there is a system that avoids these time weirdnesses: phased combat. Too bad phased combat isn't a Wasteland kind of solution.

PS. They are stopping in a middle of a firefight to wait for their turn. That's literally what the system is showing us. It's trivial to demonstrate that this is the case.
I'm not exactly sure, as you and I seem to be on two completely different wavelengths and I'm not quite sure I'm following your line of reasoning.

Yes, a guy with more AP's will be able to do more things in the same amount of time as a guy with fewer AP's. It means he does those actions faster.

I'm not sure what you mean by using tokens to buy actions. That's nothing like what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is there is no real-life delineation between "combat rounds." That is an artificial construct. What is really going on is that some people can accomplish more in that arbitrary time period called a "combat round" than others. Those people would be (game-wise) said to have more APs. If an action takes you 10 seconds to complete, and the same action would take me 12 seconds to complete, it doesn't mean I have to double the amount of time I'd have to wait (i.e. two whole combat rounds).

So if you have 10 APs, and you want to perform 2 actions that require 5 APs, you can simply perform both actions within the alloted 10-second arbitrary "combat round."

I, on the other hand, only have 8 APs, because I simply can't operate as quickly as you can (perhaps it takes me just a *little* bit longer to line up my shot than it does you, or maybe I need to exhale slowly before I squeeze the trigger, or whatever). So for me, I perform my first action and I use up 5 APs. I now only have 3 APs for another action, but my next action still requires 5 APs.

So under your logic (I think, if I'm reading your post correctly), I would simply have to stand around for the remaining 3.75 seconds before I even begun to take another action.

However, that's not what really happens. In reality, there is no such thing as a "combat round," and so once I fire my first shot, I immediately begin lining up my second shot. It doesn't matter that I only have 3 APs left to complete a 5 AP action. I'm just going to shoot as quickly as I can. So without the existence of a "combat round" I would have begun my action in the first 10-second interval, but I would have completed my action at the early part of the second 10-second interval.

I haven't actually "conserved" my action until 10-seconds later. The 3 AP carryover represents a partially-completed action from the previous 10-second interval. So the reality is that I've performed 3 APs worth of my action in the first 10-second interval, so at the second 10-second interval, I only have to use 2 APs to complete the action I've started in the previous 10-second interval.

There's no "super-fast burst of speed," there's no "waiting for intentions to see what happens." It's a fluid representation of what you would do in an actual firefight.

Now as far as changing your mind if a sniper drops your target between rounds, well...Jesus, man...it's still a game, and there is SOME abstraction. Perhaps the sniper dropped your target between your first and second shot, so you changed afterward. Okay. I can give you that. But they do have to draw an arbitrary line *somewhere* and I think you're just getting in way too deep for a game. Anything short of the old-style Wasteland/Bard's Tale system, where everybody inputs their orders and turns happen simultaneously, you'll encounter some kind of problem like that.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest