Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Discussion about the upcoming Wasteland 3!

Moderator: Ranger Team Alpha

Post Reply
User avatar
SuAside
Global Moderator
Posts: 172
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 12:05 pm
Location: MaxiMegalon Institute of Slowly and Painfully Working Out the Suprisingly Obvious

Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by SuAside » October 11th, 2016, 10:02 am

With WL3 kicking it up a notch, I thought it was time to bring up some of our pet peeves which annoyed us in WL2. So join the fray and post yours!

For me it was weapon design & naming conventions:
A lot of the guns shown in WL2 had real world equivalents and largely used their real designations, especially in the beginning of the game. However, some seriously weird choices were made. A simple example would be the M14, which in-game is a 20 round 5.56x45mm weapon, while irl it's a 20 round 7.62x51mm weapon. It just so happens that a modified M14 in 5.56x45mm exists and is known as the (Ruger) Mini-14.

This is the type of development choices which puts gun nuts on edge and breaks immersion. There is also largely no reason to stick with this. The fixes would be easy & straight forward. Either you pay more attention to the real world counterparts you're copying or you start using different made up names while keeping the general look & feel of the weapon.

I obviously understand that game balance is the most important thing to focus on in development, but swapping around some models or modding some names would take little effort. I think it would be a quick win for WL3. If you look at Jagged Alliance or Stalker mods, there's certainly a large following of people who pay attention to that kind of nitpicking.

As for weapon design inspirations, I also made a thread about that (which I will keep updating in the future):
viewtopic.php?t=16127
"Reason is always a kind of brute force; those who appeal to the head rather than the heart, however pallid and polite, are necessarily men of violence. We speak of touching a man's heart, but we can do nothing to his head but hit it."

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 5791
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Zombra » October 11th, 2016, 11:59 am

I agree about the guns - though I'm not into gun porn myself, it makes sense if you use names of actual firearms to make the specs conform. Otherwise, use made up names. Made up names is the smarter choice as specs are likely to be balance tweaked during development.

My pet peeves?

Save scumming design, obviously, but we won't talk about that here. :)

Combat positioning. What a pain, you know? You get half your guys into position and then combat triggers because one enemy wanders too close. Being able to pause and issue positioning orders to all your guys at once before combat starts is an obvious solution. Then unpause and watch them all jump into position. Even if combat starts prematurely at least your guys are part way to where they're supposed to be instead of standing at the back in a clump.

Also: "ambush" positioning. Near the very end of Wasteland 2, the game positioned all my guys for me after taking an elevator to the roof, and then started a combat giving me no opportunity to choose a formation. My team wouldn't have stepped out of the elevator completely at random; they were expecting a fight. As a result of this, I found it 100% impossible to get Aberforth to the end of the game as they sent him into a bad position and gave the enemy a free turn. :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x

Water. That whole thing was disappointing. Everybody knows it I guess, as it was completely abandoned by the time the design team got to California. There's no danger of this mistake being repeated for W3, but it deserves mentioning. Design survival elements well or just leave them out. (It's fine with me for W3 to be just an RPG and not a survival game.)
Image

User avatar
Gillsing
Scholar
Posts: 160
Joined: May 22nd, 2012, 1:35 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Gillsing » October 11th, 2016, 12:23 pm

Zombra wrote:Also: "ambush" positioning. Near the very end of Wasteland 2, the game positioned all my guys for me after taking an elevator to the roof, and then started a combat giving me no opportunity to choose a formation. My team wouldn't have stepped out of the elevator completely at random; they were expecting a fight. As a result of this, I found it 100% impossible to get Aberforth to the end of the game as they sent him into a bad position and gave the enemy a free turn. :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x
Was there a possibility to dismiss Aberforth before taking that elevator ride, and then go back down after the fight and get that goat? That's the method I used to save my animals from the Pitbull.

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 5791
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Zombra » October 11th, 2016, 12:37 pm

Smart idea, not sure whether you could go back down or not.
Image

User avatar
GodComplex
Master
Posts: 1340
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 5:21 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by GodComplex » October 11th, 2016, 12:54 pm

As a colossal gun nut, the guns didn't bother me that much, because to have realistic firearms isn't that fun. Sure, you or I couldn't shoulder fire a Barret and hit someone, but it was fun for my ranger to do. I was less peeved and more disappointed in heavy weapons. They should have been second only to rockets in their devastation, and they came out like SMGs with better armor pen.

Honestly my biggest non-mechanic gripe overall was the limited portraits. Sort of weird to have a farmer and a head shop owner have the same portrait.
1/3 of my brain says blue radiation might be cool
1/3 says stop being overcritical
1/3 says a Baby Ruth could have prevented this situation
~Damoriel

User avatar
Drool
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8839
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 » October 11th, 2016, 1:52 pm

Far and away: CLASSIC. The whole attribute system was a mess. I hope they tear it all down and start over. MSPE probably won't happen, but something more like that would be much appreciated. CLASSIC was a trainwreck.
Alwa nasci korliri das.

I neither work, nor speak, for inXile.

Not too late; make it eight!

User avatar
Juris
Acolyte
Posts: 86
Joined: November 25th, 2014, 9:41 am

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Juris » October 11th, 2016, 2:15 pm

Tying stats to skills - or at least making it so high stats improve/decrease your skill level.

Making Luck matter - possibly make Luck improve all skills to a lesser degree (like in Fallout)

Making all weapons equally mod-able (I second the criticism of heavy weapons being too weak, their lack of mods was a big cause. Shotguns were also terrible and only had one mod slot)

'Hardcore' mode with area-only saves no instant saves. HOWEVER, this requires a bit more design work to come up with alternative ways of solving quests/problems. W2 let you repair broken locks once to try again but then froze you out forever. Who's gonna leave an unopened chest? Bash it open or use explosives on the lock - with the possibility of breaking what's inside depending on the level of skill. Ie more than just binary pass/fail but degrees of success.

More interactive NPCs - dialogue options should expand with different NPCs. W2 let you use their skills in dialog which was very cool but they never had anything to contribute to the conversation except the occasional floating text bubble.

And stealth. Of course stealth.

User avatar
Gillsing
Scholar
Posts: 160
Joined: May 22nd, 2012, 1:35 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Gillsing » October 11th, 2016, 2:32 pm

Juris wrote:Making Luck matter - possibly make Luck improve all skills to a lesser degree (like in Fallout)
I don't know which version you played, but in the Director's Cut I eventually paid some attention to the fact that my container-opener always had 11, 26, 61, 76 and 91% chance to succeed, when the tooltip for each skill listed chances vs various levels at 10, 25, 60, 75, 90 and 100%. Hmm... could it be that Luck is added to the chance of success for every non-combat skill? Yes it could. So I made a Ranger with Luck 8, and 91% turned to 98%. Combined that with Intelligence 10 and Delayed Gratification, to make real good use of that skill bonus.

User avatar
Ronin73
Master
Posts: 1360
Joined: April 3rd, 2012, 5:35 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Ronin73 » October 11th, 2016, 7:47 pm

Drool wrote:Far and away: CLASSIC. The whole attribute system was a mess. I hope they tear it all down and start over. MSPE probably won't happen, but something more like that would be much appreciated. CLASSIC was a trainwreck.
Yep. No attribute/skill synergy in addition to really poor/weak attribute, level and skill caps.

I'm probably going to pass on backing this if CLASSIC remains the same.
The biggest failure in the recent past is this assumption that the audience is not smart.Too much effort is being spent making it dummy proof..all the clues are being held right in front of their nose.The exploration and journey is the reward

Brian Fargo

User avatar
Talien
Novice
Posts: 42
Joined: July 30th, 2014, 12:19 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Talien » October 12th, 2016, 2:19 am

Ditch the excessive RNG focus. Ok, sure, it needs to be there for combat and at least partially for skillchecks, but for loot in containers? A box that requires 8 lockpick to even have a chance of opening should not just reward a handful of scrap and a couple junk items while the skill 1 lock on the container next to it gives a weapon 1 tier higher than what's normally obtainable in that area.

In other words, scale loot to the difficulty of the lock on the container. Even better if random loot is eliminated from containers entirely and there are less containers overall, but you know each one is going to contain something worthwhile instead of a ton of containers that will mostly give you junk.

If the random loot element is a really important feature, maybe do it with Human enemies instead of random containers because why should finding sweet loot be limited to only the player characters?

bokkie
Novice
Posts: 32
Joined: February 22nd, 2014, 2:42 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by bokkie » October 13th, 2016, 6:55 am

Complaints about WL2:
- Ambush didn't work as expected: I guess a system with the game asking me to confirm the ambush when it's possible is enough for me. I don't like my squad shooting enemies I don't want them to, and I don't like them shooting all the same enemy at once even though just 1 bullet would kill him (her).
- Loot was most often not interesting
- Positioning for combat was frustrating: wasn't easy to position them pre-combat and to know where you could use cover. Also, it wasn't always really clear from what angle cover didn't
- Barter UI was terrible in WL2:DC
- Font in WL2:DC was terrible
- Height could be used more, I found myself trying to use other things than buildings in the beginning (which didn't seem to work out mostly) to gain height.
- Mines were frustrating, even though a team member could see them often another team member walked into them (which seemed unnecessary).
- Enemy AI was stupid in regards to spreading the damage over team members and not killing my low hp characters. I guess some enemies would be that stupid, but smart humans wouldn't do that. This requires balancing in another way to not make combat too difficult.
- Weird armor mechanics. Fallouts armor system was a lot more logical to me (even though this game doesn't have to be fallout ;)).
- Polish, polish, polish. (Not the language ;)). Even after a few patch rounds, Hollywood felt terribly unpolished.
- Felt a bit like quantity over quality in regards to game length.
- A lot of text was repetition between characters, again, quantity over quality. Which is also logical from a RL viewpoint: different people describe things in a bit of the same way, but it gets tedious searching for more/new info.
- Often reuse of NPC portraits, not matching the model.
- Impossible-to-open doors in the Ranger Citadel. Please, solve this kind of things in-game, not by an invisible wall.

Not sure if it's all clear, might get back to it later.

dakkon
Initiate
Posts: 18
Joined: March 15th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by dakkon » October 15th, 2016, 12:23 pm

bokkie wrote:Complaints about WL2:
- Ambush didn't work as expected: I guess a system with the game asking me to confirm the ambush when it's possible is enough for me. I don't like my squad shooting enemies I don't want them to, and I don't like them shooting all the same enemy at once even though just 1 bullet would kill him (her).
Yes. IMO if an enemy enters the range of two squaddies with ambush, they should fire one at a time, in a deterministic order. The easiest way would be going by Combat Initiative, but there are other options - like by the chance to hit, by optimal range etc.

bokkie wrote:- Positioning for combat was frustrating: wasn't easy to position them pre-combat and to know where you could use cover. Also, it wasn't always really clear from what angle cover didn't
Yes. I'm only 1/3 of the way in W2 but it already greatly annoys me that I don't know when moving to a new spot who I will see, who will I flank, who will flank me etc. There are also some map elements that look like should give cover, but for some reason do not, but at least you can see that BEFORE moving.

bokkie wrote:- Font in WL2:DC was terrible
Yep, super blurry.
bokkie wrote: - Mines were frustrating, even though a team member could see them often another team member walked into them (which seemed unnecessary).
Yeah, disarming 12 mines at a time is super fun and not time wasting at all :)

Volourn
Initiate
Posts: 13
Joined: September 24th, 2014, 1:06 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Volourn » October 18th, 2016, 8:33 pm

1. Armour. I think a FO like system works better. (plus option ot have armour shown)

2. 6 created Rangers not just 4. (though I know that follows the original but the more the merrier right? lol)

3. More variety amongst the tiers for weapons.

4. For perks that have different levels. Instead of just replacing earlier ones they should be added together. Afterall, you are using multiple perks. This mean after the 3rd perk of line that is +3%, +5%, and +7% would be 15% total not just 7%. It makes taking the perk line much better.

5. More 'game stats' for the Rangers not just damage and kills. Keep track of what skills they sued, how many times they passed/fail, crits, and what not. Even keep track (if possible) how many bullets they use and the various weapons they use. I love this kind of 'stat tracking'.

6. No splitting the game in halves ala Arizona vs California. One giant map would be cool.

Nekot-The-Brave
Scholar
Posts: 119
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 9:00 am

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Nekot-The-Brave » October 18th, 2016, 11:02 pm

Stat tracking is always pretty cool, even if it's not used for achievement purposes (like how they seem to be going now).

User avatar
Stuurminator
Scholar
Posts: 150
Joined: March 23rd, 2014, 12:43 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Stuurminator » October 18th, 2016, 11:18 pm

Volourn wrote:4. For perks that have different levels. Instead of just replacing earlier ones they should be added together. Afterall, you are using multiple perks. This mean after the 3rd perk of line that is +3%, +5%, and +7% would be 15% total not just 7%. It makes taking the perk line much better.
You're really just asking that each level of leveled perks be more significant. Whether they're added or not is just a matter of notation.

That said, some of those leveled perks from WL2 really do require more love. Spending three perks for a 6% chance of one free attack (when the weapon type already specializes in quick, weak attacks) is pointless.

kilobug
Adventurer
Posts: 900
Joined: September 21st, 2014, 1:07 am
Location: Paris, France

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by kilobug » October 19th, 2016, 12:44 am

I would say :

1. Less incentive for save-scumming.

2. A more "realistic" stat/skill system, where stat has some link to skills (ie, if you have 1 in STR and 10 in STR, it shouldn't be as easy to brute force a door, and so on).

3. Better unique weapons, in WL2 most unique weapons were less powerful than the "normal" weapons you already had when you encountered them, which made them pretty useless.

4. A better dialogue system than in WL2, but that seems already acted (they'll reuse TTON dialogue system).

5. More varied "random encounters", not just fending off attacks of wild animals/raiders, but also things like rescuing an ambushed caravan, a fight between two raider gangs (where you can side with one, or just finish off the survivors, or ...), ...

6. Better options for placing your rangers at the start of the combat when you do an ambush.

User avatar
paultakeda
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2695
Joined: March 14th, 2012, 2:47 pm
Location: AAAAAARGH!

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by paultakeda » October 19th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Drool wrote:Far and away: CLASSIC. The whole attribute system was a mess. I hope they tear it all down and start over. MSPE probably won't happen, but something more like that would be much appreciated. CLASSIC was a trainwreck.
Don't get me started on CLASSIC. :P

Long live WL-MSPE!

Amaror
Initiate
Posts: 18
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 6:10 am

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Amaror » October 20th, 2016, 6:31 am

I'll second the frustrating "cutscene" squad formations before some combats. I hated that. It would always put my melee characters behind everybody else forcing them remain inactive. Just let me choose my formation, dammit.
Also random combat encounters just took too long. I didn't mind the combat itself, but loading the map, searching the enemies, walking to the enemies, ambushing them, killing them all, looting them, then walk all the way back and load overworld again. It takes freaking forewer.
Here's my solution:
- Smaller combat Arenas.
- Start us out in combat right after loading. We are supposed to have allready met those enemies right?
- Give us the option to choose position of our squad in a small area of the map before combat to make it not frustrating when the game puts you in a bad spot or formation.
- After combat, automatically bring up the "loot all corpses" screen for every downed enemy on the map. No need to waste our time by looting the corpses manually.
- After that give me a single button that automatically takes me to the overworld. Don't require me to walk all the way back to a specific map-entrance just to get back to the overworld.

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 5791
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Zombra » October 20th, 2016, 9:14 am

Amaror wrote:- Give us the option to choose position of our squad in a small area of the map before combat to make it not frustrating when the game puts you in a bad spot or formation.
How about this? Depending on your Outdoorsman roll, your placement area can be larger or smaller. If you chose to initiate the combat, you might be able to position all around the edge of the map, possibly surrounding the enemy instead of starting in a tiny clump.

But even if you are ambushed, you should be able to place your guys or at least start in formation.
Image

NickAragua
Novice
Posts: 42
Joined: October 7th, 2014, 10:41 am

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by NickAragua » October 20th, 2016, 11:39 am

Zombra wrote:
Amaror wrote:- Give us the option to choose position of our squad in a small area of the map before combat to make it not frustrating when the game puts you in a bad spot or formation.
How about this? Depending on your Outdoorsman roll, your placement area can be larger or smaller. If you chose to initiate the combat, you might be able to position all around the edge of the map, possibly surrounding the enemy instead of starting in a tiny clump.
Yeah, that's pretty good. Although, to be honest, if you're ambushed (scripted or fail some kind of outdoorsman/perception roll), you shouldn't get to determine your formation.

The main things that annoyed me about WL2 were the level load times (though not nearly as much as Pillars of Eternity), and the bugs, especially in California. Arizona was pretty polished but California pre-director's cut, good lord. Also, the ranger base in California had an exceedingly poor layout. You have to spend about thirty seconds running halfway across the map just to talk to one guy. At least they put the merchant guys near the start of the map.

Squad positioning before fights that you initiate was also not too hot. You have very little indicator of whether putting a guy in a specific spot is going to trigger the fight to start. I'd suggest something like in XCom 2, where if you mouse over a location, it'll tell you if you're going to trigger the fight.

Finally, a more deterministic weapon customization system would be nice. Meaning that you don't get random mods off of guns that you disassemble, you get to pick your mods.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests