Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Discussion about the upcoming Wasteland 3!

Moderator: Ranger Team Alpha

User avatar
Grohal
Adventurer
Posts: 810
Joined: April 26th, 2013, 9:51 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Grohal » January 10th, 2017, 4:41 am

Drool wrote:...

And how the hell did the Jerks get from Needles to LA?!
Well in MURICA Jerks are all over the place, one even became the latest president in our timeline. :mrgreen:
Hell is no place, hell is a condition.

SagaDC
Grandmaster
Posts: 3409
Joined: May 2nd, 2012, 5:51 am

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by SagaDC » January 10th, 2017, 7:03 pm

One thing that quite saddened me were all the non-human enemies that didn't make it into the game. It wasn't until I started poking through the image files that I realized just how many enemies got cut from the game.

Obviously the Giant Hermit Crabs are a pretty well-known cut enemy, since they appeared in a few of the pre-release videos. They had complete models and portraits, but for some reason they never made it into the final game.

But looking at the art files, you can also see character portraits for a lot of classic Wasteland baddies like the Boa Tronstrictor, the Cybertrike, the Hexborg, the Sniperdroid, the Warbot, the Xenon Laser Cannon, and (my personal favorite) the Vanadium Vulture. None of them made it into the game. :(

User avatar
Drool
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8530
Joined: March 17th, 2012, 9:58 pm
Location: Under Tenebrosia, doing shots with Sceadu.

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Drool » January 10th, 2017, 8:57 pm

SagaDC wrote:But looking at the art files, you can also see character portraits for a lot of classic Wasteland baddies like the Boa Tronstrictor, the Cybertrike, the Hexborg, the Sniperdroid, the Warbot, the Xenon Laser Cannon, and (my personal favorite) the Vanadium Vulture. None of them made it into the game. :(
Would have been nice. Especially since all of those were tougher than the freaking Slicerdicers.
Alwa nasci korliri das.

I neither work, nor speak, for inXile.

Not too late; make it eight!

User avatar
Caerdon
Scholar
Posts: 195
Joined: April 5th, 2013, 5:31 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Caerdon » February 18th, 2017, 9:54 pm

One of my biggest peeves in WL2 was the camera and the constant need to fiddle with it. Personally I don't feel that an adjustable camera angle adds anything positive to a game like this, it's just extra busywork. I'd much prefer a static camera angle and areas that are designed to work well with that.

As a separate issue from above, I hate the wide camera lens and exaggerated perspective that most games like these tend to have, where everything in the bottom of the screen is enormous and everything in the top is tiny. I'd much rather have a camera that's higher in the sky but with a narrower lens, giving a more isometric feel. And there's really no reason why we can't adjust this ourselves in the options menu.

Combat initiation needs a fix. This is supposed to be a tactical game, so it's complete nonsense that we can't preposition our troops before battle. I'm sure there are many ways to fix this, but here's one: When combat begins, there's first a single round where every character can move only with ~50% action points, and after that the actual shooting begins. If the player party initiates an ambush, only they get to move. If player party is being ambushed, enemies get to move with ~50% AP and player characters get to move with ~30% AP during the prepositioning round.

Jozape
Scholar
Posts: 248
Joined: March 5th, 2012, 1:50 pm
Location: USA

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Jozape » February 19th, 2017, 2:11 am

I thought Wasteland 3 will have 2D backgrounds, and that usually excludes rotatable cameras. Am I wrong?

If not, the camera really needs some work. Divinity: Original Sin, from what I've played of the introductory dungeon, has a much better camera. I really like how they make objects gradually transparent. More importantly if you reach the edge of the floating area, the camera simply moves up and points down rather than moving up and zooming out like in Wasteland 2 if you float into very high hills.

crimsoncorporation
Initiate
Posts: 20
Joined: January 26th, 2017, 3:50 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by crimsoncorporation » February 19th, 2017, 2:27 am

Caerdon wrote: Combat initiation needs a fix. This is supposed to be a tactical game, so it's complete nonsense that we can't preposition our troops before battle.
You can preposition your troops in Wasteland 2, because you can move each Ranger separately. Position to your liking, initiate your first shot, and there you go.

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 5552
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Zombra » February 19th, 2017, 2:52 am

crimsoncorporation wrote:
Caerdon wrote: Combat initiation needs a fix. This is supposed to be a tactical game, so it's complete nonsense that we can't preposition our troops before battle.
You can preposition your troops in Wasteland 2, because you can move each Ranger separately. Position to your liking, initiate your first shot, and there you go.
Ehhhhhhhhhh.
Image

User avatar
Grohal
Adventurer
Posts: 810
Joined: April 26th, 2013, 9:51 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Grohal » February 19th, 2017, 4:49 am

Caerdon wrote:One of my biggest peeves in WL2 was the camera and the constant need to fiddle with it. Personally I don't feel that an adjustable camera angle adds anything positive to a game like this, it's just extra busywork. I'd much prefer a static camera angle and areas that are designed to work well with that.

As a separate issue from above, I hate the wide camera lens and exaggerated perspective that most games like these tend to have, where everything in the bottom of the screen is enormous and everything in the top is tiny. I'd much rather have a camera that's higher in the sky but with a narrower lens, giving a more isometric feel. And there's really no reason why we can't adjust this ourselves in the options menu.

Combat initiation needs a fix. This is supposed to be a tactical game, so it's complete nonsense that we can't preposition our troops before battle. I'm sure there are many ways to fix this, but here's one: When combat begins, there's first a single round where every character can move only with ~50% action points, and after that the actual shooting begins. If the player party initiates an ambush, only they get to move. If player party is being ambushed, enemies get to move with ~50% AP and player characters get to move with ~30% AP during the prepositioning round.
I kind of agree. But speaking of WL fights as a tactic game: the opponents need to be much harder or at least much more than in WL2 and use more special attacks. Even on SJ I didn't need precision shots and all the other tactical stuff, unless in some boss fights. And I didn't need much medpaks too - I had some 50-stacks in my trunk, never needing them. My rangers really should be wounded more often, even if it is only small wounds - as long as they happen regulary.
Hell is no place, hell is a condition.

crimsoncorporation
Initiate
Posts: 20
Joined: January 26th, 2017, 3:50 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by crimsoncorporation » February 19th, 2017, 5:38 am

Zombra wrote:
crimsoncorporation wrote:
Caerdon wrote: Combat initiation needs a fix. This is supposed to be a tactical game, so it's complete nonsense that we can't preposition our troops before battle.
You can preposition your troops in Wasteland 2, because you can move each Ranger separately. Position to your liking, initiate your first shot, and there you go.
Ehhhhhhhhhh.
Care to elaborate?

Jozape
Scholar
Posts: 248
Joined: March 5th, 2012, 1:50 pm
Location: USA

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Jozape » February 19th, 2017, 6:20 am

crimsoncorporation wrote:
Caerdon wrote: Combat initiation needs a fix. This is supposed to be a tactical game, so it's complete nonsense that we can't preposition our troops before battle.
You can preposition your troops in Wasteland 2, because you can move each Ranger separately. Position to your liking, initiate your first shot, and there you go.
Almost true if you are initiating combat by issuing an attack command. The problem is in real-time, you have to issue those commands individually and you have to remember to deselect the group if you haven't already -- you can select a single character with the mouse but still have commands issued as a party, which is frustrating -- and hostiles around the map can move around while you struggle in real-time to setup your party. If you are unlucky and combat starts as a result of a hostile seeing you, you have to use precious action points to reposition your characters. Then there is the problem of the combat grid which isn't visible until combat starts. You don't really know exactly where your character will position until combat starts. Cover is not always obvious either, as some things that look like they should be cover are not.

Plus, you can start combat after a dialog choice, which doesn't leave any chance for you to reposition your party. I don't think this should be changed though.

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 5552
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Zombra » February 19th, 2017, 12:36 pm

crimsoncorporation wrote:
Zombra wrote:
crimsoncorporation wrote: You can preposition your troops in Wasteland 2, because you can move each Ranger separately. Position to your liking, initiate your first shot, and there you go.
Ehhhhhhhhhh.
Care to elaborate?
You can do that - sometimes - but the implication that there was nothing wrong with how it worked is silly. I've personally seen dozens of complaints about this, and I've complained about it myself.

In practice, when trying to do what you describe, one of two things happened:
1) You would move your guys close in, one at a time, to the positions you liked. After moving one or two guys to good spots, an enemy would wander a bit too close and combat would begin with half your squad standing flat-footed in the open.
or
2) To avoid this, you would set up your squad far, far away from the enemies, and begin every combat with a sniper shot; then spend (waste) a couple turns getting your close range fighters near enough to participate in the battle.

I suppose it wouldn't be noticeable if you have one of those "all assault rifle, all the time" squads ... but I didn't, and in any case that shouldn't be the only option.

This issue combined with a lack of any kind of formation system made the Rangers look like blundering amateurs, all the time. Whether I was fighting mindlinked killer robots, untrained raiders, or zero IQ mutant rabbits, my strategy was always the same: hide behind stuff very far away and open with a sniper shot - because trying anything more complicated was so often disastrous. The Rangers are supposed to be a paramilitary group! I should be able to move more than one guy into position at a time.

There have been a lot of solutions brainstormed here and elsewhere. My idea? Wasteland 2 was real-time exploration, turn-based combat. If it were me, I would make Wasteland 3 real-time with pause exploration, turn-based combat. You see the enemy, you pause the game, you issue orders for all Rangers to run to their positions, you unpause, they simultaneously take up positions. Combat starts early if the enemy spots you, but they usually won't because if you pause the game while they are far away they can't wander close while you're moving your guys one by one. So you will have your guys in good positions, reasonably close to the enemy, and can take the first shot at leisure.

Another option - the cheap, decline option - would be to make it so enemies never move out of combat. This way you could position your guys one by one without fear that some dude would stroll nearby and trigger combat prematurely. A band-aid, but I think it would work.
Image

Jozape
Scholar
Posts: 248
Joined: March 5th, 2012, 1:50 pm
Location: USA

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Jozape » February 19th, 2017, 1:21 pm

Zombra wrote:There have been a lot of solutions brainstormed here and elsewhere. My idea? Wasteland 2 was real-time exploration, turn-based combat. If it were me, I would make Wasteland 3 real-time with pause exploration, turn-based combat. You see the enemy, you pause the game, you issue orders for all Rangers to run to their positions, you unpause, they simultaneously take up positions. Combat starts early if the enemy spots you, but they usually won't because if you pause the game while they are far away they can't wander close while you're moving your guys one by one. So you will have your guys in good positions, reasonably close to the enemy, and can take the first shot at leisure.
I've been wishing for Infinity Engine style pause functionality the whole time I've been playing Wasteland 2 and I fully support this idea. Ideally we should be able to pause, move the camera around the map, queue commands, and unpause to see everything gloriously executed. Add auto-pause based on important character observations and we could have the perfect mix of real-time and turn-based role-playing.

This could fix more than just the setup problem; with the auto-pause feature, we can create conditions to pause for mines, alarms, caches, etc. I've been verbally abusive to the computer a few times because my characters spotted 10 mines but ran into all of them because I was sitting back in my chair trying to relax. I've reloaded from 15 minute old saves because of how unfair it felt in a role-playing game to be tested based on my reflexes.

A pause feature would have been nice when dealing with Ralphy for the first time too. That's only an auto-save away, but still.
Another option - the cheap, decline option - would be to make it so enemies never move out of combat. This way you could position your guys one by one without fear that some dude would stroll nearby and trigger combat prematurely. A band-aid, but I think it would work.
Decline indeed. Pausing for 2000.

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 5552
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Zombra » February 19th, 2017, 2:51 pm

Jozape wrote:I've been wishing for Infinity Engine style pause functionality the whole time I've been playing Wasteland 2 and I fully support this idea.
Now that you mention it, it really would help exploration mode in a lot of other ways too. Thanks for the support.
Image

crimsoncorporation
Initiate
Posts: 20
Joined: January 26th, 2017, 3:50 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by crimsoncorporation » February 19th, 2017, 5:51 pm

Zombra wrote: You can do that - sometimes - but the implication that there was nothing wrong with how it worked is silly. I've personally seen dozens of complaints about this, and I've complained about it myself.
Fair enough, I get your reasoning. I always assumed the messiness of it was sort of realistic, as you won't pull off perfect maneuvers in real life all the time before being spotted either. That said, it's a good point that you can't orderly move more than one ranger at once.

As it is in W2 it doesn't bother me at all because I have found the best fighting style for my squads tends to be to initiate combat and then give ground, so that the opponent has to close in on you, wasting AP on that while you damage with yours.

I don't use assault rifles (if you don't count The Lariat), mostly I go with one sniper and apart from that melee & gunslingers.

User avatar
Caerdon
Scholar
Posts: 195
Joined: April 5th, 2013, 5:31 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Caerdon » February 19th, 2017, 7:13 pm

With the current system you can't initiate combat by having multiple rangers open fire at multiple targets. While RTWP exploration would be an improvement, it still wouldn't fix that. I think that some kind of initiative or free round would be a better fix. But any improvement would be welcome, I guess.
crimsoncorporation wrote:I always assumed the messiness of it was sort of realistic, as you won't pull off perfect maneuvers in real life all the time before being spotted either.
I don't think any fix that has been proposed would guarantee perfect manoeuvres every time. Enemies can still spot you if you wander too close (and there could be some kind of new stealthy spotter enemies), and you can always miss shots or jam your weapon in combat anyway. Sometimes things just get messy no matter what you do.

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5496
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Woolfe » February 19th, 2017, 8:04 pm

Caerdon wrote:With the current system you can't initiate combat by having multiple rangers open fire at multiple targets. While RTWP exploration would be an improvement, it still wouldn't fix that. I think that some kind of initiative or free round would be a better fix. But any improvement would be welcome, I guess.
crimsoncorporation wrote:I always assumed the messiness of it was sort of realistic, as you won't pull off perfect maneuvers in real life all the time before being spotted either.
I don't think any fix that has been proposed would guarantee perfect manoeuvres every time. Enemies can still spot you if you wander too close (and there could be some kind of new stealthy spotter enemies), and you can always miss shots or jam your weapon in combat anyway. Sometimes things just get messy no matter what you do.
Why not implement a "Surprise" roll?

So combat starts (either through player attacking, or Mob spotting you), there is a chance that you might get "surprise", "no effect" or "Surprised".
This roll is modified based on environmental and skill levels etc.
If you Surprise a bad guy, you get a momentary advantage (short move, bonus to hit, etc) that takes that into account. If you are Surprised by a bad guy, they get the advantage.
You could layer it as well, so you have Group levels, and then individual levels. So you group might be surprised, but Sharp Eye Jack, has a massive perception, and something in the way the shadows moved along a wall alerted her to the attack, and so has less of a penalty or an opportunity to move.
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

User avatar
Caerdon
Scholar
Posts: 195
Joined: April 5th, 2013, 5:31 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Caerdon » February 19th, 2017, 8:32 pm

Woolfe wrote: Why not implement a "Surprise" roll?

So combat starts (either through player attacking, or Mob spotting you), there is a chance that you might get "surprise", "no effect" or "Surprised".
This roll is modified based on environmental and skill levels etc.
If you Surprise a bad guy, you get a momentary advantage (short move, bonus to hit, etc) that takes that into account. If you are Surprised by a bad guy, they get the advantage.
You could layer it as well, so you have Group levels, and then individual levels. So you group might be surprised, but Sharp Eye Jack, has a massive perception, and something in the way the shadows moved along a wall alerted her to the attack, and so has less of a penalty or an opportunity to move.
A nice idea, but something like a bonus to hit won't address the real problem, which is that you can't properly preposition your troops before a fight.

If you're proposing that the party doing the ambush gets to move first, then that's pretty much what I suggested - but I think that in a case where neither party is ambushing the other (e.g. when you simply bump into enemies surprising both you and them, or when a dialogue takes a wrong turn and escalates into combat), both should still get a chance to move their troops a bit before the shooting begins. Conceptually you could think of this as your squad moving in a sensible formation or discreetly preparing for a fight during a conversation.

User avatar
Grohal
Adventurer
Posts: 810
Joined: April 26th, 2013, 9:51 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Grohal » February 19th, 2017, 9:04 pm

A little immersion thing:
Don't put so many safes in the game, maybe 10 to max 15 in a game the size of WL2.
BUT put in either stuff thats REALLY different (as in better) to the one in normal boxes or stuff you need to get due a quest for some guy/gal - you know like the white items you put in toasters in WL2 (which made little to no sense most of the time).
In short: put fewer safes in the game, but let their content be really worth my while.
Hell is no place, hell is a condition.

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5496
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Woolfe » February 19th, 2017, 9:53 pm

Caerdon wrote:
Woolfe wrote: Why not implement a "Surprise" roll?

So combat starts (either through player attacking, or Mob spotting you), there is a chance that you might get "surprise", "no effect" or "Surprised".
This roll is modified based on environmental and skill levels etc.
If you Surprise a bad guy, you get a momentary advantage (short move, bonus to hit, etc) that takes that into account. If you are Surprised by a bad guy, they get the advantage.
You could layer it as well, so you have Group levels, and then individual levels. So you group might be surprised, but Sharp Eye Jack, has a massive perception, and something in the way the shadows moved along a wall alerted her to the attack, and so has less of a penalty or an opportunity to move.
A nice idea, but something like a bonus to hit won't address the real problem, which is that you can't properly preposition your troops before a fight.

If you're proposing that the party doing the ambush gets to move first, then that's pretty much what I suggested - but I think that in a case where neither party is ambushing the other (e.g. when you simply bump into enemies surprising both you and them, or when a dialogue takes a wrong turn and escalates into combat), both should still get a chance to move their troops a bit before the shooting begins. Conceptually you could think of this as your squad moving in a sensible formation or discreetly preparing for a fight during a conversation.
Sort of.

I was thinking about this more, probably the simplest way would be to have a sliding scale of how many opportunity AP points you get when combat is initiating.

So on a simplistic 1-10 scale, you get a percentage of your AP when combat is initiated. That value is randomly generated based on circumstance.
10 = +20% AP opportunity move
9 = +18%
and so on down to 1 = +2% AP opportunity move.

If you initiate you get a +4 to the 1-10 roll, meaning you will invariably get a high opportunity move. Add to that skills, and environmental variables.
If you don't initiate, you don't get the bonus, or you get a penalty? Then modify with skills, and environmental variables.
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 2537
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Gizmo » February 19th, 2017, 10:02 pm

Grohal wrote:A little immersion thing:
Don't put so many safes in the game, maybe 10 to max 15 in a game the size of WL2.
Don't put mundane containers in common room locations ~rigged with high explosives on them; unless the inhabitants are paranoid psychotics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCTV5Y81Ywg

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest