Interface/Design Discussion

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

Moderator: Ranger Team Alpha

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

Re: Interface/Design Discussion

Post by Woolfe » September 6th, 2014, 5:29 am

slitherrr wrote:
Wolfe wrote: You can explain it however you wish. It doesn't change the fact that you are choosing to reload the game. This is not an "optimal play style" this is not something that the developers designed the game to do.
They quite definitely designed the game to quicksave and quickload. That particular design also has the unintended side-effects of being abusable. Just because that wasn't their intention, it doesn't make it any less an affordance. My argument is that it is possible to iterate on this design, keep including the quicksave and quickload mechanics (and the nice features they provide), while removing the abusive affordance. You're really failing to understand this, so I'm sorry if my explanation isn't getting through to you, but the thing you're arguing against is not the position I am holding.
I understand exactly what affordance is. What I am rejecting is the requirement to design for it in every single game. Specifically in a single player RPG.
slitherrr wrote:
Woolfe wrote: This is your use of a function created for a specific purpose(saving the game, so that you don't have to start again every time you play) to get around game mechanics that have been designed and balanced to give you a certain degree of success and failure.
Intent is not the end of design. I can "intend" to draw a photorealistic picture of an orc, but unless I execute it well, it's going to come out a stickman. Just because I intended the former doesn't make my execution any less terrible.
That example doesn't work, because there are no rules being followed in your painting of the Orc, no rules being broken through the process, you are simply doing it badly.

Well lets put it a different way. If you were playing say Solitaire with a physical deck of cards. You could at any time choose to move a card to a different location, flip a card out of sequence, etc. Because of course the physical aspect of the game "affords" you the possibility to do that. You are essentially cheating. The only person you are cheating is yourself, but as it is a single player game then that is your choice.

The devs should not design with that possibility in mind, because then you force everyone to apply by the rules of the cheat. Whilst those who want to play it how it is envisioned, find that they cannot succeed because the game has been balanced with the "cheat" in mind.
slitherrr wrote:
Woolfe wrote: Let me put it another way, why would a developer create multiple paths including "fail paths" if they designed the game so that the player can always get the optimal path?
You mistake "an optimal path" with "everything is given to the player". There is an "optimal path" when you're playing chess. That doesn't mean the game of chess only gives you success paths. Do you see the difference?
Another poor example. Chess is a two player game in which the optimal path is the path that leads to victory over your opponent.

However according to your affordance rule, the best way to beat your opponent is simply to knock all his pieces off in one go and call out Mate.
slitherrr wrote:
Woolfe wrote: Save/Reload to avoid "failure" is not a design feature it is simply a side effect of a function. If you choose to use that function inappropriately, then it affects only you. Hence any experience of tedium is purely your own fault.
It being a side-effect does not mean it is not a design feature. See above.
Indeed see my reference to Solitaire, Chess, any other "game" you choose to play. The rules are there for a reason. Just because you can break them using an available option, doesn't mean you should.
slitherrr wrote:
Woolfe wrote: You are incorrect as the tedium is only an issue for those who are willingly going outside the design functionality. A player who doesn't Save/Reload will have a little bit of excitement with every attempt because there is always a chance of catastrophic failure.

You are applying design principle to something in the assumption that every mechanic will be used to affect every other. Whereas this is simply not the case. The save game mechanic is not a game mechanic. It is not "in the world". Your choice to use it is entirely your own, as the only person it affects is you.
There is no such thing as "not in the world". It exists in the game. The game is the world. Don't confuse verisimilitude with simulation--this game seeks to recreate some aspects of the real world in order to create a fun experience, it does not create a fun experience by exactly imitating the real world. If you keep attacking straw men and refuse to acknowledge this difference between "theoretically optimum play" and "you're just playing the game wrong", then I can't do much else to convey my point.
Of course there is a seperation between game mechanics and the gameworld, else the world should continue when you are not there.
The concept of saving the game, developed simply from the need to stop playing for a while and then start again at a later date. Now the save load format can actually built in as a gameplay element. As mentioned many arcarde games, platformers etc, build the reload as an important factor to game play. Hence the idea of "lives" and "save points" but this doesn't mean that it has to be used everywhere. In an RPG, where the idea is to play the role of the characters of the game, within the game. The use of the save tool is simply there to allow players to stop and start at will. The misuse of the tool is not a design consideration at this point. If you use that functionality to "cheat" the system, then you are the one that misses out. You get a different experience to the one you should be getting. You may even enjoy that experience which is fine. No one is telling you not to save reload However to use the concept of affordance in regards to save reload, is simply a way of justifying an inability to follow the rules of the game. The concept of affordance simply doesn't apply in this design situation. Its like using a robot arm to drink your mug of coffee. Sure, you can do it, it may even be easier. But you don't need to, and it has no real effect of the taste of the coffee, or that the mug has a handle.
slitherrr wrote:
Woolfe wrote: Sure, but that is a different situation to say "If I accidentally pass Angela all my 5.56 ammo because I'm distributing things around, then I can't get it back. NPCs should either keep track of the amount of ammo they originally owned, and only get feisty to that level, or they should just not own ammo."
Don't move the Goalposts here. Angela may not want to give up a bit of ammo, that is a function of the design of the NPC personalities. Hell she may not want to give it all up, and you have to dismiss her. :lol: Ok that's a bit extreme, and the scaling for gear keeping is clearly not quite correct. But don't mistake the issue here. The gear keeping is a purposeful design. It gives the NPC's character which is the goal.
Things can be frustrating in a game, that doesn't mean the game is badly designed. It just means that sometimes you can't win everything.
I haven't moved a damn thing. You're continuing to insist that Angela shouldn't have any problem keeping ammo. I'm saying that it leads to idiotic results, and there should be caveats. Stop arguing against a position that doesn't exist.
Perhaps I misunderstood you. Did you not say that you gave the gear to Angela, because you were distributing it around? You didn't mention that it was 500 5.56 ammo until the second comment. Which is clearly a different situation.
And as I said, I agree, it's obviously not correct, probably either bugged, or not fully thought out. But that doesn't mean the design element of Ang being picky about what she gives back, isn't sound.
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

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

Re: Interface/Design Discussion

Post by Priest4hire » September 7th, 2014, 1:21 am

Woolfe wrote:You can explain it however you wish. It doesn't change the fact that you are choosing to reload the game. This is not an "optimal play style" this is not something that the developers designed the game to do. This is your use of a function created for a specific purpose(saving the game, so that you don't have to start again every time you play) to get around game mechanics that have been designed and balanced to give you a certain degree of success and failure.

Let me put it another way, why would a developer create multiple paths including "fail paths" if they designed the game so that the player can always get the optimal path?

Save/Reload to avoid "failure" is not a design feature it is simply a side effect of a function. If you choose to use that function inappropriately, then it affects only you. Hence any experience of tedium is purely your own fault.
Wait. So you're saying that the quick reload key exists not to be used? That they created a system for the sole purpose of allowing you to continue where you left off, and then built in to it features utterly useless to that purpose? A system like you describe has been in CRPGs since their inception back in the mid seventies. It's what rogue-likes use. The game saves when you exit, and you can resume your game from the main menu. All the other stuff, like in game loading, is at best worthless fluff. After all, according to you the developers expect the player to never use it.

That makes no sense. The developers would have to be insane, stupid, or trolling the players. As far as I can tell, the only use of the quick load key is what you call inappropriate. So I trust you have a quote from the developers to this effect? Can we expect the manual (or in game) to tell us the rules of using save games? I've played a lot of RPGs, and have quite a few in my collection, but I can't recall any that laid out the 'only for resuming your game' rule of savegames.

Oh, and the multiple paths are about offering more choice and having at least some choices have consequences. It doesn't really make sense to talk about them like winning or losing a game of Snakes & Ladders. From a certain perspective, the optimum path is to see all endings, including the fail ones. They are part of the content one's paying for.

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

Re: Interface/Design Discussion

Post by Woolfe » September 7th, 2014, 6:21 am

Priest4hire wrote:Wait. So you're saying that the quick reload key exists not to be used?
No not at all. By all means go ahead and use it.

Just don't expect the game to be balanced to take into account your use of it. Because then there would be no failures. Depending on how you use it, the game may be a lot easier. You may also miss out on elements. Your choice your loss.

Personally I use quick save, cause well its "quick". No need to go to the menu screen etc. I don't normally use "quickload". Normally if I am reloading, it is either starting the game again, or I have made a monumental mistake and would like to reload. Generally I go through the menu for that one. Cause I need to find the appropriate save point.

At least thats the case in a RPG. I have been known to "cheat" in Civ V. But then my enjoyment in Civ V is more from the building of the nation, than the conflict etc.
Priest4hire wrote:That makes no sense. The developers would have to be insane, stupid, or trolling the players.
Or simply adding a mechanic, that as you have pointed out, has existed for a long time.
I would have thought "cheating" the system would be pretty obvious to most that it is not what you are supposed to do. Some rules are implicit, others are explicit.
Priest4hire wrote:Oh, and the multiple paths are about offering more choice and having at least some choices have consequences. It doesn't really make sense to talk about them like winning or losing a game of Snakes & Ladders. From a certain perspective, the optimum path is to see all endings, including the fail ones. They are part of the content one's paying for.
Indeed, I agree wholeheartedly.
And if your desire to see everything overides the sensibility of not cheating, then go nuts. But please allow me to play the way I want to. Without need to have to QS and QL everytime I get a failed roll.
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

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

Re: Interface/Design Discussion

Post by Grimage » September 7th, 2014, 9:11 am

Priest4hire wrote:I've played a lot of RPGs, and have quite a few in my collection, but I can't recall any that laid out the 'only for resuming your game' rule of savegames.
Try "Neo scavenger" some day, it has that savegames rule of 'only for resuming your game', and it's great. But the game is built with that in mind. Survival is a core element, and each choice, each risk is meaningful.

Wasteland 2 isn't of that kind, however. I'm glad there are QS and QL.

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

Re: Interface/Design Discussion

Post by Gizmo » September 7th, 2014, 9:43 am

Priest4hire wrote:I've played a lot of RPGs, and have quite a few in my collection, but I can't recall any that laid out the 'only for resuming your game' rule of savegames.
Diablo comes to mind.

*Am I remembering it wrong, or did the original game also force quit on save? (It doesn't now :( )

User avatar
Drool
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9757
Joined: March 17th, 2012, 9:58 pm
Location: Under Tenebrosia, doing shots with Sceadu.

Re: Interface/Design Discussion

Post by Drool » September 7th, 2014, 8:29 pm

Gizmo wrote:*Am I remembering it wrong, or did the original game also force quit on save? (It doesn't now :( )
1 and 2 both did. I believe Torchlight 1 and 2 did as well; at the very least, Torchlight was single-save.

Hell, since it only had one save slot, you could pretty much say Wasteland's (and Bard's Tale 1-3) saves were just for resuming the game later. At least, that was the effective result. Likewise, the Gold Box games were all single save file (at least the early ones were). The early Ultima and Might & Magic games probably fall under this umbrella too. Granted, a single save slot still allows for save scumming, but it certainly locks out the "explore both branches then reload to take the correct one" method of playing.

What else? Save-to-exit is pretty much how saving works in Dark Souls. No quickloading there! Also, every roguelike ever made, but those don't really count as RPGs.
Alwa nasci korliri das.

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

Re: Interface/Design Discussion

Post by Priest4hire » September 8th, 2014, 12:52 am

Minor correction: Pool of Radiance (the first Gold Box title) has ten save slots. They are described by single letters and the only thing the game reveals is which save slots have saves in them. Wonderful. I also checked the original Diablo, and while it has one slot, it does not force saves on exit, or quitting on saves. (Single player at least.) Anyway, I'm well aware of rogue-likes, quirky save systems of early RPGs and the like. What I was wondering was if there a game that has a more liberal save system but then contains rules, in the manual say, regarding how the player is to use the save system. For example, the game allows you to save and reload at will with multiple slots, but the manual states that the player is to only use one slot.

If you're going to claim that developers have a history of regarding using saves for anything but resuming your game as cheating, you need evidence such as developers advising the players not to use saves for anything but resuming. I can think of none. Counter-examples seem easier. For example, Shard of Spring (remember that one?) has in the hint section of the manual: "Save the game often. That way, if anything goes wrong you can continue from a recent point." Space 1889 has similar advice. All I've found looking through my collection are games that say nothing about saving beyond how to do it, the majority, and a few that advise using saves regularly.
Woolfe wrote: No not at all. By all means go ahead and use it.

Just don't expect the game to be balanced to take into account your use of it. Because then there would be no failures. Depending on how you use it, the game may be a lot easier. You may also miss out on elements. Your choice your loss.
I don't follow. Including a proper feature in the game, not a debug console or cheat code, and then not taking its use into account is incompetent design. And how does it follow that if you do take it into account, there can be no failure? For that matter, what exactly is a person missing out on when they save scum to open random loot container #312?
Or simply adding a mechanic, that as you have pointed out, has existed for a long time.
I would have thought "cheating" the system would be pretty obvious to most that it is not what you are supposed to do. Some rules are implicit, others are explicit.
Do you know what begging the question is? It occurs when you use the very thing your trying to prove as evidence for that thing. Whether or not using saves to undo failures is cheating is the very question at hand, so to refer to it as such is to commit the fallacy of begging the question. You're claiming that using the game's features as implemented is not what you're supposed to do. Claiming some rules are implicit does not remove the onus of proof. Please provide some.
Indeed, I agree wholeheartedly.
And if your desire to see everything overides the sensibility of not cheating, then go nuts. But please allow me to play the way I want to. Without need to have to QS and QL everytime I get a failed roll.
Question begged. But... what? When did this turn to your own freedom of choice? Of course you can choose not to use the save system that way. You can choose all kinds of things. For example, some masochist actually played through Final Fantasy using only one white mage. It's nuts, but he was perfectly free to do so. No one is required to play in the most effective manner possible, and very few games are so tuned as to require it.

But at the same time it is not reasonable to expect players to not use the tools the game gives them. Again, the save system is not behind cheat codes or debug consoles. It's a integral part of the game and as such as valid a tool for the player as is min/maxing characters at creation. It is no more valid to expect players not to use the save system in order to make skill points stretch farther than it is to expect players to not use the shrines to buff their characters. No game should be designed so only save scummers can win, but ignoring the issue in design, especially when you're implementing tools to streamline the practice, is to stick one's head in the sand.

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

Re: Interface/Design Discussion

Post by -Archangel- » September 8th, 2014, 1:08 am

About the random rolls: I want to see seeding implemented so save scumming is not as viable anymore. The chance system exists because none of these things are story critical and if you fail some of them you will not lose much. Cut the losses and move on. Accepting random rolls also gives you a different play experience each game. You should really try games like Xcom on Ironman, it is a pretty different play experience and so will be in WL2 if you don't load a game.
Another solution would be Ironman mode for the people that want to play this way but cannot always keep themselves straight (When I played Xcom without Ironman I would always save scum, even if it just once or twice, although I would tell myself at start I will load game only in case of bugs.)

slitherrr
Initiate
Posts: 16
Joined: September 2nd, 2014, 4:02 pm

Re: Interface/Design Discussion

Post by slitherrr » September 8th, 2014, 12:42 pm

I dispute heavily that removing chance on these sorts of rolls removes anything from the game (this "thrill" of having something critically succeed, or whatever you want to call it). I'd even be fine with the seed idea someone mentioned above, but that's a bit harder to pull off (When does the fixed seed contribute to the roll? Depending on how you do it, it's still scummable, just with more tedium).

Priest4hire gets what I'm getting at, here, so I'll forego the embedded quote reply thing I've been doing to make the general point that randomness is not story, and that there are more interesting ways to build failure into a system than random chance rolls on picking locks. A single-player cRPG is not a pen and paper RPG, where an arbiter exists to actually turn random results into interesting storyline events--I have zero encouragement, as far as Wasteland 2's success metrics goes, to not reload when a loot bag trap explodes on me. Find a way to make failure more interesting, and you've made a better game.

GiantDoosh
Novice
Posts: 37
Joined: June 18th, 2014, 5:57 am

Re: Interface/Design Discussion

Post by GiantDoosh » September 8th, 2014, 1:06 pm

I'll offer my 2 cents on the saving issue. Many of us have played a lot of games of this genre going back to the days before HD's. I used to juggle multiple save floppies, even back then. Not because I'm a cursed save scummer (I actually have no problems with it. Its a choice - and I have been known to partake, please don't burn me in effigy).

Rather, I learned the hard way that if you don't have multiple saves at multiple points in the game that one bad bug or corrupted save file completely destroys many hours of game play and pisses me off so much I won't bother to ever play the game again.

Having a save mechanic that lets me save as frequently as I want in as many slots as I want gives me the freedom to manage my paranoia of lost game time due to bugs/corruptions. The more complex games get in terms of design, maps, and things to do, the greater the risk of such bugs. I've had several terminal bugs during the course of the beta that completely nuked a save. For that reason alone, I really like the current save system.

Can it also be "abused". Sure. But, I guess my perspective is that my definition of abuse might be different than someone else's. So why not keep a system in place (the current one) that allows maximum flexibility to remedy my above concerns while also allowing individuals to use that system however they want? I just don't understand why anybody cares if I reload N times until I get the ammo I want out of a chest?

I'm paraphrasing the counter argument (not trying to be argumentative, I promise) - "The game lets me save/load whenever I want. That temps me to save/load to change the outcome of some events. Its bad design that the devs didn't consider that and somehow prevent save/loading from altering said events."

What am I missing? I've read every post in this thread a couple of times and don't get it. To me, it still comes back to: if you don't like it, don't fall for the temptation and save/load to change events. Let others who do want it/like it play how they want.

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

Re: Interface/Design Discussion

Post by Woolfe » September 8th, 2014, 5:26 pm

Priest4hire wrote:
Woolfe wrote: No not at all. By all means go ahead and use it.

Just don't expect the game to be balanced to take into account your use of it. Because then there would be no failures. Depending on how you use it, the game may be a lot easier. You may also miss out on elements. Your choice your loss.
I don't follow. Including a proper feature in the game, not a debug console or cheat code, and then not taking its use into account is incompetent design. And how does it follow that if you do take it into account, there can be no failure? For that matter, what exactly is a person missing out on when they save scum to open random loot container #312?
Saving is pretty much a standard feature. It wouldn't surprise me if the save functionality was stock standard Unity engine stuff.
Or simply adding a mechanic, that as you have pointed out, has existed for a long time.
I would have thought "cheating" the system would be pretty obvious to most that it is not what you are supposed to do. Some rules are implicit, others are explicit.
Do you know what begging the question is? It occurs when you use the very thing your trying to prove as evidence for that thing. Whether or not using saves to undo failures is cheating is the very question at hand, so to refer to it as such is to commit the fallacy of begging the question. You're claiming that using the game's features as implemented is not what you're supposed to do. Claiming some rules are implicit does not remove the onus of proof. Please provide some.
Let me try and explain it differently, because we are clearly on the same level, we are simply coming at it from different angles. I am saying that there is a difference between the features.

If the check to perform an action is random, then it is implied that there is a possibility of failure. This is clearly by design. This is part of the game world. The only purpose of this function is to decide whether or not you succeed at the task.

The Save function on the other hand, is designed to allow you to escape the game at any time, and indeed reload at any time. This is outside of the game world. This functions purpose is to allow you to save and reload efficiently. This function can be used to either allow you to stop and start the game at different times, or it can also be used to save/reload to change the result of an in game function.

Now being that the developers designed the first function with the possibility of failure. Why would they then have a function that allows you to get around that failure?
Your implication is that this is bad design. I disagree. My implication, is that the game is designed properly. The choice to "cheat" the game is exactly that. A choice. Is it possible to restrict that choice. Yes. But it comes at an expense. Being the ease of use, the ability to save whenever, or even if you so choose the ability to "cheat".

To go back to the example of Physical Solitaire. At any time you can simply stop playing the game. Get up and walk away. Then come back, and it will be in the same state as it was.
If your memory is good enough, you can even stop, go back half a dozen moves(based on how good your memory is) and then start again.

Your implication is that this is bad design, because if you are given the function why wouldn't you use it. Whereas I stand by the stance that the design is good. Because it allows me and you to do exactly what we want, when we want to, without impacting upon the game itself. Thus making it an actual choice. If I want to "cheat" the game I can. If I want to use it only as a save function. I can.
Indeed, I agree wholeheartedly.
And if your desire to see everything overides the sensibility of not cheating, then go nuts. But please allow me to play the way I want to. Without need to have to QS and QL everytime I get a failed roll.
Question begged. But... what? When did this turn to your own freedom of choice? Of course you can choose not to use the save system that way. You can choose all kinds of things. For example, some masochist actually played through Final Fantasy using only one white mage. It's nuts, but he was perfectly free to do so. No one is required to play in the most effective manner possible, and very few games are so tuned as to require it.
Its always been a freedom of choice question. That is the only reason I am arguing here.
As above. You imply bad design because it allows cheating the system. I imply good design because it allows the choice to do what I want.
But at the same time it is not reasonable to expect players to not use the tools the game gives them. Again, the save system is not behind cheat codes or debug consoles.
Well in all fairness, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that these debug/cheat codes are left in on purpose nowadays. I wasn't going to include them in the argument however simply because it could be an "accident" to leave them behind.
It's a integral part of the game and as such as valid a tool for the player as is min/maxing characters at creation.
I disagree ... Min/maxing is building an "ideal" for completing the game in a specific way. If the game has a single path, that can only be completed in a specific fashion, then min maxing makes perfect sense. It is the exact application of the rules to get the most advantage within the game.
However if there are reasons that min maxing is not always a positive. For example, missing out on certain content. Then there is plenty of in game reason to play with a different set of stats. Either by changing your "min max" in an attempt to get the best of both worlds, or by playing through multiple times with different "min max" builds.

Also, Min maxing is still a choice. You don't have to do it. If you want to throw a couple of extra points into a less than ideal stat or skill. No one is stopping you. Especially if that stat opens additional content you might not see in an "ideal" build.
It is no more valid to expect players not to use the save system in order to make skill points stretch farther than it is to expect players to not use the shrines to buff their characters.
Again In game function. Same as min maxing. Shrines serve no other purpose.
No game should be designed so only save scummers can win, but ignoring the issue in design, especially when you're implementing tools to streamline the practice, is to stick one's head in the sand.
Why?

Why is ignoring the issue a problem? Is this game being played for money? Credibility? Who exactly is suffering so much that ignoring it is so terrible?
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

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

Re: Interface/Design Discussion

Post by -Archangel- » September 9th, 2014, 6:43 am

slitherrr wrote:I dispute heavily that removing chance on these sorts of rolls removes anything from the game (this "thrill" of having something critically succeed, or whatever you want to call it). I'd even be fine with the seed idea someone mentioned above, but that's a bit harder to pull off (When does the fixed seed contribute to the roll? Depending on how you do it, it's still scummable, just with more tedium).

Priest4hire gets what I'm getting at, here, so I'll forego the embedded quote reply thing I've been doing to make the general point that randomness is not story, and that there are more interesting ways to build failure into a system than random chance rolls on picking locks. A single-player cRPG is not a pen and paper RPG, where an arbiter exists to actually turn random results into interesting storyline events--I have zero encouragement, as far as Wasteland 2's success metrics goes, to not reload when a loot bag trap explodes on me. Find a way to make failure more interesting, and you've made a better game.
You need to learn to roll with the loss. Take it "like a man" and move on. It is a period of adjustment but once you get over it, the games become better. I went through the same process with last Xcom when I decided to play it on Ironman. And that game is full of RNG that it out to screw you over. But after a few failings and some anger, the positive emotions at the end are worth it. You cannot know real victory until you known real loss.

Seed system is a weaker version of Ironman but for a game like this it should at least be an option. I don't know why it isn't already. And its purpose is to make save scumming harder, not impossible. Hard enough so people don't bother save scumming anymore. It is like your mother hitting you on your hand each time you try to get a cookie from a cookie jar. Eventually you learn to not try it.

As long as any critical quests are not ruined by random rolls for skills, the system should stay.

ZonkerBrainless
Explorer
Posts: 293
Joined: August 30th, 2014, 3:04 pm

Re: Interface/Design Discussion

Post by ZonkerBrainless » September 9th, 2014, 7:45 am

If you want grip tape, why not require two melee weapons be broken down? If you want a strong scope, why not require 3 sniper rifles be broken down? Any statistical scheme has a deterministic equivalent, personally I would find the deterministic approach less tedious.

Right click on an item, the software looks in your inventory and based on how many of the things you own, provides you options as to what to craft.

At skill level 1, a difficulty three lock requires ten lock picks. Difficulty four locks cannot be picked.

I liked the way Fallout addressed the "limited player freedom" idea - You can go anywhere you want, but if you go West you will die, because level ten random encounters will kill you.

Then when you are finally high enough level to force your way through it's an accomplishment. That's how I'd address doors - not only do you need a high lockpick skill to get through the door, but what's waiting for you on the other side will gank you if you're not ready.

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

Re: Interface/Design Discussion

Post by Woolfe » September 9th, 2014, 6:22 pm

Actually what happened to the Ironman mode?

There was a lot of talk early on of having an Ironman mode available. I haven't checked to see if it is there recently?

Put that in and it would solve everyone's problems.

If you can't control yourself enough not to cheat, then click on Ironman before starting :D
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

ZonkerBrainless
Explorer
Posts: 293
Joined: August 30th, 2014, 3:04 pm

Re: Interface/Design Discussion

Post by ZonkerBrainless » September 10th, 2014, 7:05 am

Woolfe wrote:Actually what happened to the Ironman mode?

There was a lot of talk early on of having an Ironman mode available. I haven't checked to see if it is there recently?

Put that in and it would solve everyone's problems.

If you can't control yourself enough not to cheat, then click on Ironman before starting :D
What's Ironman - it forces you not to save scum? I was thinking about that yesterday - there are some places where save scumming is pretty much required. Like, (SPOILER ALERT!!!) in Ag Center the door to the irrigation system is locked. It's a pretty low lockpick check but if you were to critically fail it you're basically screwed - there's no other way to get in.

The solution is to have save points scattered about, so there's at least some penalty for failing various skill checks. Blick. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

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

Re: Interface/Design Discussion

Post by -Archangel- » September 10th, 2014, 7:28 am

ZonkerBrainless wrote:
Woolfe wrote:Actually what happened to the Ironman mode?

There was a lot of talk early on of having an Ironman mode available. I haven't checked to see if it is there recently?

Put that in and it would solve everyone's problems.

If you can't control yourself enough not to cheat, then click on Ironman before starting :D
What's Ironman - it forces you not to save scum? I was thinking about that yesterday - there are some places where save scumming is pretty much required. Like, (SPOILER ALERT!!!) in Ag Center the door to the irrigation system is locked. It's a pretty low lockpick check but if you were to critically fail it you're basically screwed - there's no other way to get in.

The solution is to have save points scattered about, so there's at least some penalty for failing various skill checks. Blick. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.
And since that is probably not that cool, it is not a critical quest. The story continues if you fail. Also maybe you can brute force or Mechanics skill it?

ZonkerBrainless
Explorer
Posts: 293
Joined: August 30th, 2014, 3:04 pm

Re: Interface/Design Discussion

Post by ZonkerBrainless » September 10th, 2014, 8:15 am

Huh, I didn't know that. I thought you had to succeed at one of Ag Center or Highpool or you can't get into the Ranger Citadel. And at that point - when you've gotten as far as the irrigation pump - you've already gotten the message that Highpool has fallen.

I suppose you could continue the game from there without ever being given access to the Citadel but why? That game would suck. I guess if Vargas relents and lets you in despite your incompetence that would work. Yuck, what a terrible outcome. I would stop playing at that point and back up.

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

Re: Interface/Design Discussion

Post by -Archangel- » September 10th, 2014, 9:58 am

You can fail both locations and still continue with main quest. They have accounted for that possibility as well. And it will happen if you dick around the wasteland after Radio tower instead of choosing one location to help.

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

Re: Interface/Design Discussion

Post by Woolfe » September 10th, 2014, 3:21 pm

Yep, make sure you try other skills on it. Brute Force, or demolitions for example. Huh I just realised I have never tried shooting a door. Does that work?

According to the devs there are multiple ways into most areas, and you shouldn't "lose" the game due to bad luck. But you might lose a quest. For example.

Ironman mode was supposed to be a "save only at exit" type mode, similar to the original game.
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

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

Re: Interface/Design Discussion

Post by sear » September 10th, 2014, 7:09 pm

My two cents:
  1. I used to care about save-scumming.
  2. Now I kind of don't.
Give players options and let them play how they want. My experience isn't diminished by someone else abusing a feature (in a way that I don't find fun) in a single-player game.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest