Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Discussion about the upcoming Wasteland 3!

Moderator: Ranger Team Alpha

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

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Remo » July 9th, 2017, 9:12 pm

Pointless argument it is. Wl2 has permadeath with flexible save/reload system and ironman mode. It is the best of all worlds, offering everyone an option to play the game as they please. And that what you should expect to see in WL3.
Zombra wrote:
July 6th, 2017, 12:07 pm
Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.
Sometimes an idiosyncracity is just an idiosyncracity.

User avatar
Mole204
Explorer
Posts: 268
Joined: May 6th, 2013, 3:17 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Mole204 » July 9th, 2017, 11:24 pm

Yes, it's slightly in jest, because the stance of punishing players for replaying or just restoring is crazy.
Perhaps, I hope, you have something else in mind but just haven't described it properly yet.
You're too focused on a player playing one run-through and expecting it to be fun. You're backing the wrong option- let the player do what he has to to get through all the little speedbumps and get back to finding a way to enjoy the game. The lack of a save during the random encounter levels was bad enough, but understandable, and that was as far as it should go.
-
Gizmo wrote:
July 9th, 2017, 5:55 pm
"If your PC betrays the thieves guild... they should still be given all of the jobs that would have been lined up for them if they had they cooperated, instead of betrayed their potential employer?"
That's correct- the player turned the guild against himself, BUT after exploring all the ways that ends up, (dead, dead, dead,...) it's sometimes best to restore the save file rather than waste X amount of time. Playing the whole shebang over again up until there just isn't worth it. And that's different from "all the content" that you keep saying. Just because you get run out of New Orleans shouldn't stop the player from restoring from a playable point. And just because you want him to go and find a way for him to try sneaking back in, doesn't mean that was what he was going for. You're too focused on a one-path stream of consciousness style gameplay. Some will try something, and some won't. So let them.

"available to their current PC" sounds much too "Down Loadable Content files". Are you trying to put forth a plan to keep different version of the game from different sets of players? If not, you might be talking about a path tree. Even still, you shouldn't be thinking that players mustn't reload and learn from their mistakes. Taking a different angle at the same problem is partly what the execution of RPG gameplay is about.
"there being absolutely no chance of losing. It saps the fun out of any game."
that depends on why you're playing, and how long the game is. There's nothing bad about playing through it and seeing all the level victory screens. It might have a correspondingly low replay interest, but if you've only got a single such program you might want to get more. Or a library card. Or were you really bored one day while playing one of those japanese book-games?
Gizmo wrote:
July 9th, 2017, 5:55 pm
where are you getting this from?
-I would rather a game with save-points. - It's all or nothing. - It effectively meant that I had one or two saves per night.
and since Gizmo found it fun he might want other games to use the same system. Error- the more complex a game, the more complex the mid-play storage. The player will have to return to the day job- daily, you know. Taking away items or a chunk of XP because of that is just wrong.
I must repeat my previous point about "You tried something, you messed it up, go back and do it again. It's wrong for programmers to try penalizing players for reloading." You seem to think that having a ready save-file to restore is some sort of 'bad' tactic. Yes, we have different points of view on this, but yours, if implemented, would be insanely restrictive for a game like Wasteland 2 or 3. Which makes you wrong, you're backing the wrong option. Oops, there goes all that stuff you did with your precious free time for the last week or two because you wanted to see what would happen if you looked inside the Do Not Open box. WL 1 only had one save but it was uncomplicated enough that it was usually OK. And after computers advanced from the floppy to the CD and the several-hundred megabyte hard drive, I for one had multiple saves by keeping/deleted backups of the entire Wl1 game. Your method would punish the casual player and infuriate the stubborn player and fails to teach ANYone ANYthing. Do you think "immersion" and "breaks the momentum" is important? Or just a highway hypnosis tried by programmers desperate to get players to convince themselves they're having fun- or close to it?

Should we be moving this over to Save-Scumming and Wasteland 3?
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=16116
How is that done, anyway? Do mods have the power to move messages to other topic trees?
And I never read Sin City or saw the movies. It looks boring, synopsis and all.

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3731
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Gizmo » July 10th, 2017, 2:44 am

Mole204 wrote:
July 9th, 2017, 11:24 pm
Playing the whole shebang over again up until there just isn't worth it.
That's what an RPG is. A system that can depict a myriad of story events—differently for different characters. One should only ever get the content appropriate to the character they are playing.
"available to their current PC" sounds much too "Down Loadable Content files". Are you trying to put forth a plan to keep different version of the game from different sets of players? If not, you might be talking about a path tree. Even still, you shouldn't be thinking that players mustn't reload and learn from their mistakes.
What mistakes? Available to the PC means achievable by the PC. It means that a Barney Fief character is not capable of handling the situation like a John Rambo character, or like a Sam Fisher, Face-Man, or an Alexander Mundy character... They won't have the skillset or natural ability. They have different natural ability, and would have to handle things a bit differently—or even not at all. Hence the supported solution paths for those other PC types are ludicrous to give to the Fief-like PC. This is the same for highly technical conversations—that he wouldn't know anything about.

These PCs might bumble their way into a situation, even lie their way in, but could never complete the task. Ideally the RPG should have some alternate path for them to possibly succeed, but not the same path of the others... and that's content they shouldn't get with that PC. The reverse is equally true. John Rambo and Sam Fisher are knott the Apple Dumpling Gang, and would not even be capable of the same conclusions, outbursts, (believable) lies, and ridiculous assumptions that would lead to those predicaments. Equally inappropriate content for them.

In some cases whole locations might not even make sense to ever find out about—with that specific character. Consider a location that has a venting duct system that very small characters can traverse. The inside of that system is something certain characters would never see, and could have rooms that those characters could never enter... They can't fit through the vent. I'll say it again, not everything in an RPG is for all PCs.
Gizmo wrote:
July 9th, 2017, 5:55 pm
where are you getting this from?
-I would rather a game with save-points. - It's all or nothing. - It effectively meant that I had one or two saves per night.
and since Gizmo found it fun he might want other games to use the same system.
That is egregiously mixed context. The first sentence is puzzlement from the (assumed) previous post's interpretation. The second is recounting Grimrock 2 played on Ironman mode with restricted saves; certainly no suggestion for the default (or mandatory) behavior.
Yes, we have different points of view on this, but yours, if implemented, would be insanely restrictive for a game like Wasteland 2 or 3. Which makes you wrong, you're backing the wrong option.
I've seen this argument before in pictographic form. ;)
It always seems to go like this:
Image

I disagree with you here. You are making an assumption, and then calling me wrong based on it. I can agree that it's not wrong to decide to baby-step a game, by saving every 20 seconds, and before every conversation, but I think it's wrong to design the game around that behavior. Is it any different (practically speaking) than just having a resurrect button on the character sheet? Or an Undo button in the conversation dialog? Theoretically one could make these buttons cost money or XP, but even that would encourage reloads rather than use them at a cost.

I liked the idea used in Witcher, of concealing the immediate consequences of dialog choices for a significant amount of time... enough that the player has to live with it, or revert several hours to undo it. Unfortunately the only way (I see) that works with PC death, is poison or terminal infection (viral or Aliens style); anything instant, and they'll just reload—defeating the whole point of the possibility of character death. :(

I used to play a military themed PnP RPG; it had no reloads, and no resurrections. When PC's died, the players rolled up new arrivals to fill the ranks. Wasteland has a Ranger Center. The Party should be able to report back with casualties, and get new recruits... Yet the very option of that is moot, if the player always reloads to bypass fatalities.

**A possible option would be to warrant replacements of comparable rank to the ones lost. Technically that's almost (but not quite) a respec option—without actually being one; (best kind. Respec is and insidious option for any RPG).

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

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Remo » July 10th, 2017, 6:36 am

Mole204 wrote:
July 9th, 2017, 11:24 pm
Yes, it's slightly in jest, because the stance of punishing players for replaying or just restoring is crazy.
In this game and most other games, yes.

User avatar
Mole204
Explorer
Posts: 268
Joined: May 6th, 2013, 3:17 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Mole204 » July 10th, 2017, 9:08 pm

Gizmo wrote:
July 9th, 2017, 5:55 pm
It means that a Barney Fief character is not capable of handling the situation like a John Rambo character,
bla bla bla, yes all that's correct and has been for the past few messages but has nothing to do with save files and in-program detriments to using them. Different topics! I'm not making an assumption about save files can be misused to get something perfect (and why is a perfect result bad, again?). Save files are meant to be used in the situation of "oh geez I better go back and do that right". You're making an assumption that removing that save-file option is a bad thing to have. It's important, not something in the tone of a "cowardly, cheating, escape route for wusses."
WL2 didn't design that game around that behavior, they just gave us a lot of save-file slots and let the players figure it out themselves. I assume it worked for the Xbox players, I don't have an Xbox One.

certainly no suggestion for the default (or mandatory) behavior.
What makes you think that a pre-release game's forum isn't a petri dish for post-release player's reactions? We're viewed as bugs in one fashion or another, though I may have to be classified as a computer bug.

If we were talking a smaller, WL1 type game, then I could see only having the autosave. I might even be for it. But of Wl2, and therefore 3, that sort of reliance just doesn't work.
It's very different from having a resurrect button, or resurrect spell: all that stuff you did will have changed. The ammo spent for example, and the fact that Player might have blown his chance at defeating BigBadGuy properly. You may as well complain that the "knocked out/ not dead yet" portion is a cop-out. There is GOING to be a way that players are GOING to bollox up everything and restoring from saves is the only way to set it right.
That's why you're wrong- you're refusing to admit the existence of what is unexpected by you.

--
PET PEEVES! There was such a lack of WL1 mutants. Any of us could sit down and list off 50 mutants, from WL1 riffs, or reject pokemon, to Gammarauders ideas, or more. So where were they in Wasteland 2? Where were the NPC's of immense power, the legions of wandering hobos, the semi-lizard people, the day-glo punks with the mohawks?
For most of my random fights it was common YEAH raiders, Army of god militia, or those skinny robots. Where were the wacky ideas? Where was the fun opponents? Yes, we got the disco bot, the "let's just make one larger" Slicerdicer. But there were no atomic beach bums. No mutant hedges. No really good retro ideas. It's one of the reasons why swearing needs to be stripped out of WL3- it's unneeded, unpleasant, and such a giveaway about the slack attitude of craftsmanship! The makers need to sit down and do their work properly, because they made something inferior and pretending otherwise isn't going to improve anything. It could have been replaced by something better. Example, they could have tossed the "fuk shak" idea and put in the half-defiled grave of the Headcrusher, half-trampled by the slaves chained to the immovable monument. That said, it was nice to see all the items with the 80s theme, and I'm glad that WL2 at least got made.

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 6213
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Zombra » July 10th, 2017, 9:36 pm

Mole204 wrote:
July 10th, 2017, 9:08 pm
PET PEEVES! There was such a lack of WL1 mutants. Any of us could sit down and list off 50 mutants, from WL1 riffs, or reject pokemon, to Gammarauders ideas, or more.
Strongly agree. I loved that Wasteland 2 had a lot of great faction concepts and fleshed them out, but there should have been more arbitrary stuff with no explanation necessary or asked for. It felt like everywhere I went in Wasteland (1) I constantly encountered weird new stuff. Trash Slitherers? Pit Ghouls? Blood Beasts? What the hell are these? Where did they come from? What do they want? WHO CARES? Blam blam blam blam
Image

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3731
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Gizmo » July 10th, 2017, 10:20 pm

Mole204 wrote:
July 10th, 2017, 9:08 pm
Gizmo wrote:
July 9th, 2017, 5:55 pm
It means that a Barney Fief character is not capable of handling the situation like a John Rambo character,
bla bla bla, yes all that's correct and has been for the past few messages...
Of course it's correct.

Posting "bla bla bla" is a very impolite way to respond to anyone's statements, and certainly not a way that I'd respond to yours or any other's.
Also, I think that admitting something is correct, and then trying to marginalize it is worse than responding with "bla bla bla".

What were your thoughts on the 'resurrect' button in the character sheet (for, or against, and perhaps why)? I'd be against it, but it would eliminate the need to reload when a PC dies.

In DragonAge, the injured PCs took naps while the main character fought on—or until death. I found that most annoying. In the SSI Goldbox titles, the PCs could bleed to death on the battle field, if not attended to. I found that this added significance; the remaining PCs had to dedicate a turn to bandage them; (one turn each). WL2 did this, but the mechanics for it were seriously messed up in the early releases; allowing attending doctors to sit helpless for lack of band-aids, while the PCs bled out in realtime.

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

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by sear » July 11th, 2017, 1:09 pm

Gizmo wrote:
July 10th, 2017, 10:20 pm
In the SSI Goldbox titles, the PCs could bleed to death on the battle field, if not attended to. I found that this added significance; the remaining PCs had to dedicate a turn to bandage them; (one turn each). WL2 did this, but the mechanics for it were seriously messed up in the early releases; allowing attending doctors to sit helpless for lack of band-aids, while the PCs bled out in realtime.
Wasteland 2 had some good ideas and we like the tension of characters potentially bleeding out. But, you're right that the requirement to have Surgeon Kits to do any sort of revival at all was frustrating at times. We also think it's possible to communicate things like characters bleeding out better than Wasteland 2 did. We are definitely going to be tweaking these aspects of gameplay to reduce some of that information gap, and provide more options for reviving characters.

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3731
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Gizmo » July 11th, 2017, 1:38 pm

sear wrote:
July 11th, 2017, 1:09 pm
We are definitely going to be tweaking these aspects of gameplay to reduce some of that information gap, and provide more options for reviving characters.
That's welcome news. 8-)

One would assume that every ranger gets some form of boilerplate first-aid training even if they never specialize as a medic. To a larger extent, I think bleeding out can be abstracted more than it was; and certainly not done in realtime during a turn (which is usually considered to be a concurrent segment during the round).

In the SSI games, any party member could sacrifice a turn to bandage a dying PC; this stabilized them. In those games it required no equipment (or expertise), but it cost you that turn. When you think about it... almost anyone can make a tourniquet from —something. Low grade bandaging can be done with ripped clothes; good enough at least for the next ten minutes. Perhaps the PC can have up to -10 hitpoints, and bleeds out 1 hp per turn when down; but have damage in the last three hitpoints require a trained medic to stabilize them. (Diabolical... but you could also allow them to remain viable targets while down; potentially taking additional damage from enemies, and area effect weapons.)

The first question I had in WL2 (as well as a suggestion to add to the list), was why the medic could not use the medical supplies in the patient's inventory?

User avatar
paultakeda
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2809
Joined: March 14th, 2012, 2:47 pm
Location: AAAAAARGH!

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by paultakeda » July 11th, 2017, 2:22 pm

Gizmo wrote:
July 11th, 2017, 1:38 pm
One would assume that every ranger gets some form of boilerplate first-aid training even if they never specialize as a medic. To a larger extent, I think bleeding out can be abstracted more than it was; and certainly not done in realtime during a turn (which is usually considered to be a concurrent segment during the round).
I would assume that even without training a ranger has some chance, however limited, to staunch bleeding and stabilize a downed comrade, using any for an ad-hoc tourniquet or bandage. Having a kit increases the chance of success. Being trained could not only stabilize but potentially get the injured ranger back up with limited actions during a fight (highly skilled medic or average doctor bandages the wound, applies a tourniquet, then stabs ranger with adrenaline, and back up they go!).

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 6213
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Zombra » July 11th, 2017, 2:55 pm

The problem wasn't that bleeding danger wasn't communicated; the problem was that after combat, the game switched to real time, even if characters were still in a violent emergency (bleeding out). More than once I frantically scrambled to select the medic, hit the right hotkey, and click on the correct target in time. Misclicks are easy when you're panicking. Then a PC dies for no good reason, a game is reloaded, and I have to do the combat all over again.

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.
Image

User avatar
Woolfe
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5861
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 6:42 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Woolfe » July 11th, 2017, 4:53 pm

Zombra wrote:
July 11th, 2017, 2:55 pm
The problem wasn't that bleeding danger wasn't communicated; the problem was that after combat, the game switched to real time, even if characters were still in a violent emergency (bleeding out). More than once I frantically scrambled to select the medic, hit the right hotkey, and click on the correct target in time. Misclicks are easy when you're panicking. Then a PC dies for no good reason, a game is reloaded, and I have to do the combat all over again.

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.
THIS... to the nth degree....
It's not too late. Make it Eight!

User avatar
Drool
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9790
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 » July 11th, 2017, 9:21 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.
I think the problem is a step removed. The game isn't really real time, so suddenly having a real-time event shoved in our face out of nowhere, and that isn't really an issue anywhere else is jarring.

I understand why that choice was made, and I don't exactly have a counter idea, but I don't think that was a good choice. It was very jarring in the beta and never got much better.
Alwa nasci korliri das.

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 6213
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Zombra » July 11th, 2017, 11:51 pm

Drool wrote:
July 11th, 2017, 9:21 pm
I understand why that choice was made
I'd love to hear that perspective. It makes zero sense to me.
Image

User avatar
Mole204
Explorer
Posts: 268
Joined: May 6th, 2013, 3:17 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Mole204 » July 12th, 2017, 8:58 pm

>Of course it's correct.
-And yet, irrelevant. You aren't writing a novel, you're being thrown into a continent-sized death fight. We've got page after page of chatter, but why? Restoring without penalization is necessary, even if it's "save scumming", not "a cheap tactic."

>What were your thoughts on the 'resurrect' button in the character sheet (for, or against, and perhaps why)?
I'd be against it, but it would eliminate the need to reload when a needed PC dies.
Restore from save is different from "resurrect". Restore is needed, say after a fight gone too disastrous, or you chose a path that ends the game, or you dropped the Thing that you Absolutely Must Need. A resurrect spell is just cheating in the framework of WL. This isn't Final Fantasy.
But I can see how having one might, MIGHT, be something players might want. In fact, I could see how a resurrect could be a good thing if you make it hard enough. Not just push button, get back up. But having to make a full-on journey back across the map to the Sleeper Base to stick Bobby in the cloning machine. "There's the same amount of particles in a dead body as a live one."
In Dragon Wars there was that well of souls where players could be ressurected, and it was hard to find. In one place, in one city, in a bit of a maze. I don't remember if it could be used only once. Even in WL1 there was that one-time gas attack that accidentally brought characters back to life.

User avatar
Drool
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9790
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 » July 12th, 2017, 9:59 pm

Zombra wrote:
July 11th, 2017, 11:51 pm
Drool wrote:
July 11th, 2017, 9:21 pm
I understand why that choice was made
I'd love to hear that perspective. It makes zero sense to me.
Because time isn't completely frozen out of combat. If you had a SERiously wounded Ranger and wanted to heal them, how would you progress time? In the original, it was moving a square, so as long as you didn't move, time was frozen (I once used that to bring back a COMatose Ranger with Level 1 Medic; it took over an hour. With a macro). But in WL2, it isn't. So does having the Doc walk over trigger ticks? Does each attempt trigger a tick? How do you do it?

Personally, I would say doubling or tripling the time would probably suffice, especially since Surgeon never seems to fail (except on plot-sick NPCs). It's really just a matter of clicking fast enough and having the appropriate magic potion. Either way, it's not exactly compelling :/
Alwa nasci korliri das.

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 6213
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by Zombra » July 12th, 2017, 11:11 pm

Drool wrote:
July 12th, 2017, 9:59 pm
How do you do it?
Well, you do it by leaving time turn-based until the player says the crisis is over instead of jerking him into a real-time twitch race. That's my proposed improvement for W3.
Image

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, 1:56 am

Zombra wrote:
July 12th, 2017, 11:11 pm
Well, you do it by leaving time turn-based until the player says the crisis is over instead of jerking him into a real-time twitch race. That's my proposed improvement for W3.
Or they can automate it. For example, by adding a simple popup that would show after battle concluded and only if your teammates sustained treatable injuries (to avoid this popping every time shoots fired at some rat), allowing you to order your medics to those in need with a single click.

User avatar
paultakeda
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2809
Joined: March 14th, 2012, 2:47 pm
Location: AAAAAARGH!

Re: Your pet peeves & possible improvements for WL3

Post by paultakeda » July 13th, 2017, 11:17 am

Zombra wrote:
July 12th, 2017, 11:11 pm
Drool wrote:
July 12th, 2017, 9:59 pm
How do you do it?
Well, you do it by leaving time turn-based until the player says the crisis is over instead of jerking him into a real-time twitch race. That's my proposed improvement for W3.
Agree; it isn't unique to have an END COMBAT button and would definitely be an improvement.

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, 12:29 pm

Disagree.
  • Staying in combat would slow things. Instead of just point/click to heal, you will need todo this in segments passing turns until you reach your destination. And if you have more than one medic they will not move simultaneously as in RT but you have to watch each.
  • Also this has the potential for abuse, someone like me might use this time to edge toward the next encounter.

    --Sure you solve one issue but create another, a prolonged click fest. Meanwhile Drool's solution to add more time, would solve that original issue without creating another.
  • An 'end combat' button would just mean a lot more extra clicking for everyone, because usually there is no reason to prolong the combat.

    --My solution to add auto-heal command will both solve the original issue and avoid this problem, it will also reduce the amount of clicks you need to make. EDIT: Although might lead to fun if you happen to be stuck in minefield

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests