Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Discussion about the upcoming Wasteland 3!

Moderator: Ranger Team Alpha

Post Reply
User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 5827
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Zombra » July 13th, 2017, 12:40 pm

Remo wrote:
July 13th, 2017, 12:29 pm
[*]Also this has the potential for abuse, someone like me might use this time to edge toward the next encounter.
It's not a bug; it's a feature. Lack of control over positioning prior to combat was another problem in W2. This fixes it. In fact there should be a "Start TB mode" button, available at all times, as well as the "End TB mode" button already requested.
Remo wrote:
July 13th, 2017, 12:29 pm
[*]An 'end combat' would just mean a lot more extra clicking for everyone, because usually there is no reason to prolong the combat.
I agree that eliminating extra clicks is of great importance in UI design. Not being facetious. But one click per combat is not too much to ask to solve not just this specific problem but the more general issue of lack of control.
Image

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3091
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Gizmo » July 13th, 2017, 4:36 pm

Hold it... You guys don't mean traveling in combat mode do you? Combat rounds are (presumably) a six second ~more or less... slice of time; in which all turns in round transpire.
Remo wrote:
July 13th, 2017, 12:29 pm
... if you have more than one medic they will not move simultaneously as in RT but you have to watch each.
I don't think this is so; (unless I've missed the context). As mentioned above, turns taken during a round are effectively concurrent actions. This means that if both medics moved during the round, that both moved at the same time. The actual fact that the player moved one PC before the other is a matter of mechanical contrivance; what matters is the overall change at the end of each round. While it's true that PCs and NPCs act in linear order during combat, the event as a whole—seen from their own perspectives, would be a continuous, and nearly simultaneous event.

Stepping PCs along in combat mode (in rounds), as though there were an alternate time format for exploration in the game, should still pass time (in realtime) at the end of every round. If a round were six seconds long, then six seconds should pass after all combatants (as a group) have competed their turns... ending the round.

Poison timers, buffs, and bleeding out should progress equally unhindered whether inside or outside of combat; but that inside of combat the seconds only increment with the passing of each round.

** I may have seen games where effects pass per turn, rather than per round. This always seemed to me to be an inconsistency—perhaps even an unintentional mistake caused by this deliberate design choice. It was the case that in the SSI Gold Box games, that a spell caster could cast a spell... but it might not happen on their own turn. This could be problematic, as it meant that an NPC could move from their position before the spell happened. In hypothetical context of Wasteland sequels, that would be like a target moving out of a grenade's area of effect, before it was thrown... but that it still gets thrown.

Remo
Scholar
Posts: 144
Joined: April 24th, 2017, 3:16 am

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Remo » July 13th, 2017, 6:45 pm

@Zombra, trying to crowbar another feature doesn't make a bad suggestion better. Particularly as you can have your enter/exist TB button and implement Drool suggestion leaving the combat ending as is.
Gizmo wrote:
July 13th, 2017, 4:36 pm
Remo wrote:
July 13th, 2017, 12:29 pm
... if you have more than one medic they will not move simultaneously as in RT but you have to watch each.
I don't think this is so; (unless I've missed the context). As mentioned above, turns taken during a round are effectively concurrent actions.
That is what the mechanic simulates in game time, but they move animations still play out consecutively on our screens ( hence the reason for the the popular option in games to disable battle animations to speed the game up.) So in the scenario above you ,the player, will have to order and watch as Medic#1 move animation plays out, then same for Medic#2 -- rinse and repeat through out the turns until the two slog to their destination. Meanwhile in Real Time once you order them they will move simultaneously to their targets. So its just yet another little detail that bogs down the game flow.

Btw speaking of animation, I previously mentioned that in Firaxis XCom, you are not forced to watch each combat animation but could skip to the next character while the animation is still playing, I hope WL3 will implement this as well, particularly if they plan something more elaborate with combat animations as one article suggested.

akm
Initiate
Posts: 2
Joined: July 3rd, 2017, 1:25 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by akm » July 13th, 2017, 6:52 pm

Zombra wrote:
July 11th, 2017, 2:55 pm
Changing back to real time should be in the hands of the player, not automatically done by the game. In fact the player should be able to initiate turn-based mode at any time, whether in combat or not. The only time the game should force a mode is during combat.
the upside to the current system is that you can start a fight with your entire squad shooting someone and most likely killing them before the turn sequence.

but, yeah, I would also prefer if this wasn't possible and you could initiate turn-based at any time, also leave it if the enemy isn't aware of your rangers.

some more pet peeves:

1. the random encounters where there are barricades everywhere. what is their story? how many times can you randomly find some enemies in a barricaded spot? if that's their gank spot, why is the loot so minimal. and there should be some bodies there, a slaughtered trade caravan or a patrol from another faction. surely they would spend some time there and gather more stuff from other wastelanders. the 20 barricades ruin the immersion if there's no booty. so either have a big stash at these barricaded spots or no barricades & no extra loot, it's supposed to be a wasteland, not wasteland themed barricades everywhere.

2. I don't remember if I've ever run into a skirmish between the different factions in california, even raiders should be fighting among themselves once in a while.

3. getting all that gear from pistol pete early in california was another immersion ruiner, I came with 10k caps from arizona, spent it all and now all encounters are trivial on Ranger difficulty. I guess everyone would be coming in rich from arizona, so the devs wanted to give people a money sink. but it feels like I'm back in arizona's end game, steamrolling everything. I want to be afraid, dammit, I want to want better weapons, not actually dread the idea since combat would get so easy that it would feel even more like a chore.

4. the game needs to run in background mode if I play on windowed, it is extremely annoying having to wait while my party traverses a big map, actually it's annoying even in random encounters, I usually save up skill points/perks for these situations. sometimes I want to play WL2, but not really progress the story, just kill some bad guys, I would like to just be able to patrol the map while I surf the net and read forums.

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3091
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Gizmo » July 13th, 2017, 7:18 pm

Remo wrote:
July 13th, 2017, 6:45 pm
-- rinse and repeat through out the turns until the two slog to their destination.
This is what I'm not sure of... By destination, do you mean two medics trying to reach a fallen PC, during combat? (This may seem blatantly obvious of course, but I wasn't sure if you meant deliberately staying in combat to avoid a realtime bleed out.)
Btw speaking of animation, I previously mentioned that in Firaxis XCom, you are not forced to watch each combat animation but could skip to the next character while the animation is still playing, I hope WL3 will implement this as well, particularly if they plan something more elaborate with combat animations as one article suggested.
That sounds like a very cool idea; so long as the player knows the outcome of the previous turn, before committing to the next one.

The precept being that one must know all of the previous events in the round before making a decision to act. One would not want to commit the second medic to move towards a patient that gets healed by the first medic—after they begin the move. That wastes time, and might add distance between them and another PC needing aid.

Remo
Scholar
Posts: 144
Joined: April 24th, 2017, 3:16 am

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Remo » July 13th, 2017, 7:32 pm

Gizmo wrote:
July 13th, 2017, 7:18 pm
Remo wrote:
July 13th, 2017, 6:45 pm
-- rinse and repeat through out the turns until the two slog to their destination.
This is what I'm not sure of... By destination, do you mean two medics trying to reach a fallen PC, during combat? (This may seem blatantly obvious of course, but I wasn't sure if you meant deliberately staying in combat to avoid a realtime bleed out.)
Yeah, Zombra asked for end combat button, so that he can deliberately stay in combat and treat the injured soldiers in TB, because he felt that the time given in real time was often insufficient for the task, resulting in him forced to play a "twitch game".

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3091
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Gizmo » July 13th, 2017, 7:36 pm

Would that work? (hypothetically)

Would they not bleed out at the same rate, whether in combat or not?

*I understand that outside of combat, mouse and menu searching contributes to PC death, in a way that it shouldn't have IMO.

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5675
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Woolfe » July 13th, 2017, 8:48 pm

Gizmo wrote:
July 13th, 2017, 7:36 pm
Would that work? (hypothetically)

Would they not bleed out at the same rate, whether in combat or not?

*I understand that outside of combat, mouse and menu searching contributes to PC death, in a way that it shouldn't have IMO.
If it is turn based, then the game time is the only concern. IE if player will bleed out in 10 turns, then in that time, you can manuever your doctor/medics into position and make x turns worth of save him attempts. The pressure is introduced when that 10 turns is only 5 turns and it takes 3 turns to get to the player, leaving you only a couple of attempts to heal. So all in game pressure.

Whereas when it is real time. The clock is ticking and the time it takes to actually select the correct character, position him near and then repeatedly click the skill then character etc all times actual physical real time.

So it goes from being a turn based take your time to make the decision. To "oh shit I have to click fast enough" twitch gameplay.
Neither is particularly wrong or bad, it is just that going from one to the other that is a problem, especially as no other in game elements have quite the same change occurring, and certainly not with the same adverse affects.
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3091
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Gizmo » July 13th, 2017, 9:28 pm

Woolfe wrote:
July 13th, 2017, 8:48 pm
The pressure is introduced when that 10 turns is only 5 turns and it takes 3 turns to get to the player, leaving you only a couple of attempts to heal. So all in game pressure.
Three turns to reach them seems acceptable. The old Gold Box games let any PC use a turn to bandage the wounded; (one per turn). They did not actually have to be within reach of them though... which I thought was a bit strange.

In WL2, I found the sudden shift from structured TB to RT/without pause, to be quite irritating.

Fallout had an 'end combat' button. The player could select it at will, but enemies could initiate combat at will... So it only worked when no one was actively hostile—and simultaneously able to see the party. I think that would work well in WL3.

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5675
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Woolfe » July 13th, 2017, 10:28 pm

Gizmo wrote:
July 13th, 2017, 9:28 pm
Woolfe wrote:
July 13th, 2017, 8:48 pm
The pressure is introduced when that 10 turns is only 5 turns and it takes 3 turns to get to the player, leaving you only a couple of attempts to heal. So all in game pressure.
Three turns to reach them seems acceptable. The old Gold Box games let any PC use a turn to bandage the wounded; (one per turn). They did not actually have to be within reach of them though... which I thought was a bit strange.

In WL2, I found the sudden shift from structured TB to RT/without pause, to be quite irritating.

Fallout had an 'end combat' button. The player could select it at will, but enemies could initiate combat at will... So it only worked when no one was actively hostile—and simultaneously able to see the party. I think that would work well in WL3.
The example I used was an example, it was not representative of what actually may have been in game, and any resemblance to any game at all is purely incidental.

Yep many of us found it irritating.

It has been a while since I played Fallout, so I can't recall exactly how that game ended combat. But if it did indeed continue until you "ended combat" then that is the sort of thing that I would be advocating. Though I imagine there may be some minor differences.

I do vaguely recall FO allowing you to enter combat at any time as well.
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 5827
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Zombra » July 13th, 2017, 11:41 pm

Remo wrote:
July 13th, 2017, 6:45 pm
@Zombra, trying to crowbar another feature doesn't make a bad suggestion better. Particularly as you can have your enter/exist TB button and implement Drool suggestion leaving the combat ending as is.
It's not trying to crowbar another feature in. It's a single concept (allowing player control over TB mode) that has multiple benefits. A single button is fine. But reverting automatically to RT mode and having your guy bleeding and losing HP in real time is poor design unless it's intended to be a twitch game.
Image

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3091
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Gizmo » July 14th, 2017, 12:20 am

Woolfe wrote:
July 13th, 2017, 10:28 pm
It has been a while since I played Fallout, so I can't recall exactly how that game ended combat. But if it did indeed continue until you "ended combat" then that is the sort of thing that I would be advocating. Though I imagine there may be some minor differences.
It would end on its own when the hostilities ended; or when the player elected to stop the fight. Enemies could always start the fight again. There is no issue (like WL2's RT bleed-out) when switching back to realtime in Fallout.

The player can initiate combat at will. The player can stealth-kill by killing their opponent on their first turn, if they haven't been targeted yet.

There is also an exploit from this... The player can initiate combat to move into an NPC's field of view (emerge from hiding), and then leave it (hide) again, if they have enough action points.

demeisen
Scholar
Posts: 131
Joined: July 11th, 2015, 9:59 am

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by demeisen » July 14th, 2017, 12:42 pm

I only read about 1/4 of the thread (it's long), so apologies if I'm repeating things others have said. I just finished the WL2DC (Ranger - will try SJ next), and I enjoyed it a lot, but there are certainly things I'd like to see changed or augmented in WL3.
  1. My number one peeve: I understand this won't be to everyone's taste, but at least as an option, I'd like the ability to play the game in a kind of "survival" mode with constrained resources. In mid game I was running 3 chars with 7.62mm (2 AR, 1 SR) and I was swimming in ammo - never felt constrained at all. That's not even talking about my lone shotgun user and lone energy user who literally could not carry all the ammo they were finding, and that was without any of the "find more stuff" perks. I was selling the stuff all the time to get rid of excess. I realize the game might have to be tuned for the mass market so players never run out of anything, but I'd like a setting to force the player to deal with difficult resource constraints, to confer a kind of post-apoc survival feel. I want finding an ammo cache or another healing kit to feel significant, rather than "ho hum, more junk to sell..." Ditto for healing and surgery supplies: there was waaaay too much to use or carry.
    .
  2. I'd like to see the weapon mod system expanded. It's a nice core idea. One issue was that there was usually a "best" set of mods, so I never had to pick between a range of things for any given attachment point with different tradeoffs.
    .
  3. I'd like to see the cover system expanded. It's also a nice core mechanic, but it was binary: either cover, or not cover. I'd like to see a range of cover types with different tradeoffs: maybe some slow down movement but give concealment. Maybe some afford better protection against low-armor-piercing ammo. Light vs heavy cover. Etc.
    .
  4. I'd like to see multiple ammo types for some weapons. Maybe AP rounds (less damage, but higher armor piercing), or HE for large calibres like the 50cal that do small radius blast damage. Maybe flashbang grenade attachments (in the underbarrel slot) that can stun enemies, or your own chars if not careful. Maybe slug rounds for shotguns: better AP, but no cone angle.
    .
  5. Random encounter maps could piece together (say) a 3x3 or 4x4 grid of defined tiles, made to mesh in arbitrary combinations, to alleviate the map monotony without a full-on procedural generation system.
    .
  6. Zoomed-out view angle is too steep, IMHO.
    .
  7. Many NPCs don't mind if you steal their stuff. (Sometimes, they do). They should mind.
    .
  8. Would like an "ironman" mode: one save, made only at game exit from which you can continue later, linear playthrough. I realize one can do that now by hand, but it's easier to stay honest to yourself if the game helps.
    .
  9. Some of the weapon mechanics could be tweaked. I'd like to see shotguns have a very high damage up close (out-damaging AR's), but damage would fall off with distance. IMHO the range on AR's could be shortened a little for balance: they're too much like sniper rifles if you toss a few mods on.
    .
  10. Ranger stash could stand to have the subsetting buttons (ammo, armor, weapons, etc) that vendors have. I piled so much stuff in there it was a little tedious to find things.

Remo
Scholar
Posts: 144
Joined: April 24th, 2017, 3:16 am

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Remo » July 16th, 2017, 4:33 am

Zombra wrote:
July 13th, 2017, 11:41 pm
Remo wrote:
July 13th, 2017, 6:45 pm
@Zombra, trying to crowbar another feature doesn't make a bad suggestion better. Particularly as you can have your enter/exist TB button and implement Drool suggestion leaving the combat ending as is.
It's not trying to crowbar another feature in. It's a single concept (allowing player control over TB mode) that has multiple benefits. A single button is fine. But reverting automatically to RT mode and having your guy bleeding and losing HP in real time is poor design unless it's intended to be a twitch game.
Then I still prefer Drool's solution, even if a TB mode was added.

Also I don't know if i'd call it a "twitch game". In my experience, the devs left ample time to deal with such situations even when I screwed up big time --assuming that you played smart and had more than one medic on team, and kept track of the situation time/position not leaving thing hanging in the balance for the very last moment.

So I wonder if maybe this single instance in which we see this in game, in which the lives of your characters in the balance, was intentionally added to elicit a little more emotional response than usual. But than again it just as likely that it was technical decision e.g. given that players can be injured outside of combat as well.
Gizmo wrote:
July 14th, 2017, 12:20 am
There is also an exploit from this... The player can initiate combat to move into an NPC's field of view (emerge from hiding), and then leave it (hide) again, if they have enough action points.
Yeah.. the ability to initiate combat anywhere was often used to game the AI. IMO this is the real deal breaker, as it can allow the player to put his force in best position without giving up the initiative, which can be huge advantage particularly with a cover system.

Also that button/hotkey also could be used as lifeline, pausing the game if you rushed into a bad situation. But otherwise if the player exercise a little caution and planed things out there is very little difference between the two. Personally, the only time I really got frustrated with lack of positioning was in one particular location/scenario, where combat was initiated near the map mountainous border and the camera kept jumping to mountain top.

Btw I recently have been looking at Expeditions Viking, their recent update added a ' surprise round on enemy initiative', which introduce positioning mechanic:
A new feature is the so-called Surprise Round, which occurs when you trigger an encounter where the enemy acts first. Previously the enemy would get a full turn before you had any chance to position your hirdmen. Since there is no formation system in the game, this felt unfair. From version 1.0.5 and onwards, the player always acts first, but in encounters where the enemy would previously begin, the player will not have any attack action, nor a bonus action in the first turn. In other words you can only move or change your weapons in your first turn because your party was caught by surprise. This has also allowed us to change the initiative back to Enemy-first on all the encounters that were previously set to Player-first to avoid unfairness. The result is a slight but significant increase in difficulty in many encounters throughout the game.

Remo
Scholar
Posts: 144
Joined: April 24th, 2017, 3:16 am

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Remo » July 16th, 2017, 4:47 am

demeisen wrote:
July 14th, 2017, 12:42 pm
[*] I'd like to see the cover system expanded. It's also a nice core mechanic, but it was binary: either cover, or not cover. I'd like to see a range of cover types with different tradeoffs: maybe some slow down movement but give concealment. Maybe some afford better protection against low-armor-piercing ammo. Light vs heavy cover. Etc.
As things are cover is king, and I don't think that we need to fuck with that. But I would love to see more use of other terrain, bushes breaking direct line of sight, deep snow increasing movement cost, or maybe a patch of ice between two great cover spots with % chance to slip and fall, etc

User avatar
paultakeda
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2698
Joined: March 14th, 2012, 2:47 pm
Location: AAAAAARGH!

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by paultakeda » July 16th, 2017, 7:31 am

I go with the following: If at the end of combat, characters are down but not dead (i.e. they can be returned to a stable state through actions performed in combat), then the turn-based combat phase should stay active until they are stable or if the player decides to end it early and risk their slipping into a worse or final state in real-time exploration phase.

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 5827
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Zombra » July 16th, 2017, 9:48 am

Remo wrote:
July 16th, 2017, 4:33 am
Also I don't know if i'd call it a "twitch game". In my experience, the devs left ample time to deal with such situations even when I screwed up big time --assuming that you played smart and had more than one medic on team, and kept track of the situation time/position not leaving thing hanging in the balance for the very last moment.
You're right; "twitch game" doesn't quite capture the feel. It's more like a "Quick Time Event", similar to "a boulder is rolling towards you! Press F1, then 3, then click on the correct pixel cluster within 5 seconds or you'll be crushed and have to reload!" Playing "smart" in this case meant knowing the QTE was coming and being prepared, before killing the last enemy, to press the right buttons in the right order quickly; or in my case, letting that enemy live longer so that my medic could heal my wounded before dropping to real-time! Not exactly the nonsensical behavior you want to promote in your players.

I had Rangers die at least twice before I intuitively internalized that healing out of combat was a QTE. After that I was able to avoid needless deaths, but that doesn't make it good design.
Remo wrote:
July 16th, 2017, 4:33 am
So I wonder if maybe this single instance in which we see this in game, in which the lives of your characters in the balance, was intentionally added to elicit a little more emotional response than usual. But than again it just as likely that it was technical decision e.g. given that players can be injured outside of combat as well.
This definitely was not added as an intentional real-time challenge; it was a side effect (of combining two modes into one game, a good idea in itself) that received a lot of complaints and never got fixed. Take my word for it - I was active on the forums at the time.
Image

User avatar
undecaf
Explorer
Posts: 390
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 5:48 am

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by undecaf » July 16th, 2017, 10:19 am

How about giving the wouned member (who's below a certain level of severity) a chance to try and give himself some basic pathcing up to slow the most severe bleeding for a while and buy some time (not get back up to the fight, but just to slow down the bleeding a bit). He can always fail and worsen his situation.
"A human being in his last extremity IS a bag of shit."

Remo
Scholar
Posts: 144
Joined: April 24th, 2017, 3:16 am

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Remo » July 16th, 2017, 11:10 am

Zombra wrote:
July 16th, 2017, 9:48 am
[..]
It was fine, no more much so than the rest of the game, and for better or worse those two death left a print on you; Although I do like your description, it capture how I feel about your fondness for certain RNG whims.

Regardless, your solution to healing still comes with mechanical contrivance. I can't think of RT with TB combat game that prolong the combat phase after all threats were neutralized.. Only those that either use a simple heal command (like in JA2 113), had simple pause button, or automated the mundane task. EDIT: Although in our case there are obvious complications given the possible failure of the surgeon skill.

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 5827
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Zombra » July 16th, 2017, 12:06 pm

Yeah, I forgot about the JA2 heal, that worked great. RTWP that allowed commands issued would be fine, too (it would also solve the "I can't position my guys before combat" problem!); I would imagine though that this would be very expensive in terms of dev hours.
Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest