Save-Scumming and Wasteland 3

[NovaRain]

We've mentioned a few possibilities in this thread including less odious save limiting (either via time limit or charge limit) as well as simply eliminating critical failures for lockpicking and safe cracking.

As a regular save scummer I hope those save limits could be toggleable or based on game difficulty.
I think critical failures from lockpicking are fine, but it would be better if the failures are not permanent/irrecoverable (e.g. jamming the lock and you can only fix it once as in WL2). At least I don't need to reload my save every time and can just keep trying.

[Darth Trethon]

the only real solution would be to completely eliminate dice rolls from the game and make every outcome a certainty based on what you can and cannot do

We've mentioned a few possibilities in this thread including less odious save limiting (either via time limit or charge limit) as well as simply eliminating critical failures for lockpicking and safe cracking. Care to address what you see as failings in these specifics?

Things can and do go wrong.....tough areas with successive fights often require lots of saving to avoid losing progress when dying.....as someone that has an ingrained mentality of saving every 30 seconds this is automatic.....the game telling you you can't save or if you die in quick succession that you can't load is simply just asking for trouble.....and all because ONE person said they have no self control.....you do realize how ridiculous this is, right? This is like everyone being locked in their cubicle at at work because a coworker can't resist the temptation to just take off whenever and then a fire happens and nobody can get out. I'm sure the game telling us we can't play because we loaded too recently will go over well.....there's nothing that could possibly go wrong there.

[Darth Trethon]

An equal but different reward for failing wouldn't really work.....because people who intend to save scum wouldn't just be neutral and not care which they'd get....they'd choose which outcome they'd like best and save scum for that specific outcome.

Not true. There's a huge psychological difference between "reward 1 or reward 2" and "something or jack shit". When you get jack shit, that's when you want to reload.

Though to be honest I don't really see much validity in the "save me from myself because I have no sense of self control" argument.....you're in control.....don't like it, don't do it.

So it's good to encourage crap gameplay because players can choose not to follow that encouragement. Is that really the best we can do?

You are responsible for your own choices and actions and consequences.....nobody is responsible for holding your hand. Besides....like I said....that can't be eliminated unless the luck element is taken out completely out of the game, as long as the same action can lead to various and unpredictable outcomes you will keep trying to use it as an excuse that you're "encouraged" to save scum.....you aren't....you are making a choice to take it upon yourself to do something that nobody encouraged you to do. If you could get away with stealing something from others without consequence would you do it? And then if caught would you blame the people you stole for? Is it their fault that you chose to steal? Personal responsibility.....YOU and ONLY YOU are responsible for the choices you make.....nobody else.

[Talien]

I'll preface this by saying if devs don't want their game to be played a certain way then they need to make it unattractive to do so, and not force artifical limits on it. If they don't mind how people play their game then why is it an issue for anyone else?

That being said I'm not a big fan of save scumming myself though I'll admit to doing it in games that are heavily based on RNG checks because let's face it, failing multiple times in a row with a supposed 90%+ chance to succeed is bullshit.

Personally I think the biggest "issue" with save scumming in regards to opening locked containers is a lot of people will keep doing it until they get something good like that "crit luck roll" 1 tier higher than normal gear instead of just keep trying until it opens, I know I've done it on occasion. If container loot on each map was generated when you you enter the map instead of for each container individually when you open them there would be little incentive to constantly reload for that 20% chance when you know you'll most likely get a couple junk items, a handful of scrap, and maybe some ammo. Or even generate a loot table for randomized containers when you start a new game so there essentially is no random element to it.

Another solution would be to have vendors in a region (by region I mean section of the world map) sell any equipment/trinkets/clothing/etc. that can be gotten from randomized chests in that same region. That way there's less incentive to sit there for a half hour reloading until you get a specific item from a chest if you know somewhere in some nearby town there will be someone selling that item you want and you can just collect and sell junk from random encounters until you can afford it.

I do like the EXP on critical failure idea though, you either get the loot or the exp, but not both. Sure, blowing a container up with explosives could still be an option after getting the crit fail exp but if doing so also destroyed any loot that wasn't a key item there would be little incentive to do it.

[Zombra]

You are responsible for your own choices and actions and consequences.....

You keep saying that, and it keeps being silly.

Do you agree with this statement? Yes or no:
"A game's design has no effect on the way people tend to play it."

that can't be eliminated unless the luck element is taken out completely out of the game

No one is talking about "eliminating" anything.

you will keep trying to use it as an excuse that you're "encouraged" to save scum.....you aren't....

lol. Of course you are. When you get a reward for certain behavior, that behavior is being encouraged. That's what that word means.

[Drool]

Things can and do go wrong.....tough areas with successive fights often require lots of saving to avoid losing progress when dying.....as someone that has an ingrained mentality of saving every 30 seconds this is automatic.....the game telling you you can't save or if you die in quick succession that you can't load is simply just asking for trouble

So... you're an incorrigible save scummer when it comes to combat and are afraid that any change will force you to perhaps plan things out a little better, or possibly replay more than the last thirty seconds. Got it.

[Nekot-The-Brave]

Things can and do go wrong.....tough areas with successive fights often require lots of saving to avoid losing progress when dying.....as someone that has an ingrained mentality of saving every 30 seconds this is automatic.....the game telling you you can't save or if you die in quick succession that you can't load is simply just asking for trouble

So... you're an incorrigible save scummer when it comes to combat and are afraid that any change will force you to perhaps plan things out a little better, or possibly replay more than the last thirty seconds. Got it.

I don't believe that having the habit of reflex saving makes you a save scummer, it's just something that people pick up after say... going hours and not saving when you could have, and end up either dying or maybe having a power outage that causes you to end up losing all of your progress. It's an overreaction built on the premise that stuff like this does actually happen.

People handle losing progress in different ways and it's not always possible to get them to a point where they can see what you get from it.

[Darth Trethon]

A LOT of things can happen and often do happen.....whether having to leave a game on a moment's notice, power outage, game crash, etc......save limitation is a pure waste of time.....you can't really plan anything during a first playthrough anyway......because you never know what's around the corner. And saving anytime is absolutely critical in Wasteland 3 because of how it designed......you have no way to know if the place you're about to walk into is way out of your league until you get stomped on......you can go to end game areas at level 0, you just won't be able to survive.

[paultakeda]

I wish they'd just resurrect the WL2 thread(s) on this, make one mega eye-bleeding, mind-numbing thread, and just you all go through months and months of argument about this dead, dead horse.

Also: no to nanny functions.

[Bubbles]

If you have a problem with save scumming, you can always play in co-op. It's highly likely that reloading will be restricted in that mode (something like "you can only reload if your partner agrees, and it will reload the game for both players, no matter where their parties are and what they're doing"), and those restrictions might act as a good counter to people's natural scumming tendencies.

[Drool]

And saving anytime is absolutely critical in Wasteland 3 because of how it designed......you have no way to know if the place you're about to walk into is way out of your league until you get stomped on

Now I know you haven't read the thread, because the options we were kicking around wouldn't impact a player poking their nose into a new area.

[Lord of Riva]

dat boring discussion, i hope nothing changes from WL2. There is no Merit in this "Design through save system" argument. In which company does anyone think that balancing after the "cheaters" instead of the regulars are a good idea again?

the XP/loot thing doesnt really work either i am afraid to say, since people would still savescum for their best result which would be in most cases XP.

[Zombra]

dat boring discussion, i hope nothing changes from WL2. There is no Merit in this "Design through save system" argument. In which company does anyone think that balancing after the "cheaters" instead of the regulars are a good idea again?

Since when is loading a saved game cheating?

the XP/loot thing doesnt really work either i am afraid to say, since people would still savescum for their best result which would be in most cases XP.

I don't think so, and to be blunt, I know about this behavior better than you do.

[kilobug]

My own stance is that allowing players to save/load freely is a must (I don't mind an "ironwill" mode with limited save/load, but it should be an option, and the game balancing should be done considering it's not disabled), and there is nothing wrong in having the player reload and try a different approach for some tough battles. But there should not be as much incentive to save-scumming as there was in WL2, which was about the worst in that aspect (compared to both modern CRPG like PoE, D:OS, Shadowrun, ... and old-school ones like BG/PST, Fallout 1/2, ...). The game mechanics should discourage save-scumming for every skill use, either by making something interesting in case of failure, or by allowing you to try again (perhaps after you leveled up, ...) in case of failure.

[Lord of Riva]

dat boring discussion, i hope nothing changes from WL2. There is no Merit in this "Design through save system" argument. In which company does anyone think that balancing after the "cheaters" instead of the regulars are a good idea again?

Since when is loading a saved game cheating?

the XP/loot thing doesnt really work either i am afraid to say, since people would still savescum for their best result which would be in most cases XP.

I don't think so, and to be blunt, I know about this behavior better than you do.

to 1. since you guys make it out to be that. The whole argument is that balance is out of whack because people can save and reload freely, which makes no sense.

to 2. Is that so? how do you know ?

[Amaror]

Well there is one easy and obvious way to make people save-scumm less. Not make it mandatory to savescumm.
I absolutly hated that in Wasteland 2 as soon as I arrived in California. Arizona was fine. When I found something with less then 70% chance to make it I just left it for later when my characters had levelled up.
But that's not possible in California anymore. Even with maxed out skills there are still challenges that will have a 30% chance of succeeding. This basically FORCES the player to save-scumm. And I would have shut the game down right then and never picked it up again If there had been some kind of mechanism in place to keep me from save-scumming. Because if you keep me from doing it you better make sure that it isn't mandatory to do it in order to get some of the loot in the game.

[Zombra]

The whole argument is that balance is out of whack because people can save and reload freely, which makes no sense.

Of course it does. An instant "retry until you succeed" button makes failure chances meaningless and abuse both rewarding and convenient. That is bad balance. Awful, in fact.

Is that so? how do you know ?

Are you a save scummer? I am. You're just guessing what "people will do". I know for a fact what at least one actually does. That makes me better informed.

By the way your exact objection has already been addressed.

[Lord of Riva]

The whole argument is that balance is out of whack because people can save and reload freely, which makes no sense.

Of course it does. An instant "retry until you succeed" button makes failure chances meaningless and abuse both rewarding and convenient. That is bad balance. Awful, in fact.

Is that so? how do you know ?

Are you a save scummer? I am. You're just guessing what "people will do". I know for a fact what at least one actually does. That makes me better informed.

By the way your exact objection has already been addressed.

im a save scummer, to some extent , as well. Mainly then if i do not feel i can afford to loose based on what the benefit is. Did i Save scum for random loot containers? nah, bullocks. did i save scum to disarm the damn Bombs in the canalisation in whatever city it was in WL 2 ?

yes i did.

And i do not feel bad for it at all. i do not think it is the job of the game designer to be a Psychotherapist and it is your job alone if you can and want to live with random chances or not. Im actually a fan of deterministic values so there is that that would solve the issue entirely.

But im also one who does embrace cheating in any Singleplayer environment. Since well who should care? Im neither prone to massive cheating nor savescumming, but i do not feel bad in any way for doing it if i do. It is my choice and if i think its more fun so be it.

It is massively bugging me that a discussion about people who are unable to resist cheating themselves should change or influence the games design when the focus should be on the people who arent obsessed with that.

last thing i want to add, it was possible to savescum in WL2 and i do not see that changed for any game in the near future, i understand that you try to fight for something you want early. But tbh. i do not see it happening, a Ironman mode is not only something i wholeheartedly support but hope to exist for all the people who are suffering from "this".

but please, let me play the game as convenient i want. This is not Binding of Issac with a playthrough of 20 minutes.

[dorkboy]

The lack of an iron man mode* has always puzzled me; I'd think that replayability would go through the roof with that in the game.
And, if there was an iron man mode implemented, then a bronze man mode* doesn't seem like it would be too much additional work?

(*optional and difficulty-independent, mind you. )

[Zombra]

You know what else would partially solve the problem - at least for me? I just had the thought last night. If critical failures didn't close something forever, but merely closed it off until your character could increase his skill level and come back, that would remove a huge amount of scum incentive.