Wasteland 2 Kickstarted

[Blarghagh]

Continuance of this thread

 

Last time on Wasteland 2 discussion:

 

 

It really is better to wait for the full release, imo. Not because the game is bad right now, but because it really sucks when you get to the end of the beta and then have to wait a few months for the rest.

Yeah, to me it just doesn't make sense to do that with a story-driven game.  I feel story-driven games are very ill-suited to early access.  I mean, it's great InXile is essentially getting some free beta testing and there are people out there willing to help iron bugs out and provide feedback, that's fantastic and I tip my hat to those people, I'm just not willing to do that myself for a story-driven game.  It's like reading a book with only the first 1/3 of the pages in it, then having to wait several months to read the remaining 2/3 pages.  Sure, I could do it, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but I'd rather read the book straight through, or at least have the option to.

 

That's not to say all games are ill-suited to early access.  I've participated in the Grim Dawn early access since before it was even officially early access (it was only available to backers at certain tiers and up) and I was happy to do that.  But that game is a loot em up, which, in my opinion, is a perfect fit for early access since the story is very much secondary in a game like that, it's a game driven by combat and loot.  Plus it's a game where you're going to run through the same content again and again anyway to either try out different builds or to try to complete sets/get certain drops.

 

 

[Gromnir]

dunno 'bout wasteland 2, but wasteland were very loosely story-driven. am knowing just how fanatical some fallout fans is and they not want to hear this, but wasteland and the fallouts had kinda thin main plot. in wasteland and the fallouts, story is your raison d'etre to play for the next hour or ten in only the most illusory fashion. am suspecting that playing the introductory areas o' a wasteland game a dozen or so times would be almost as fulfilling as playing the main game once in its entirety. heck, most o' our time spent in the fallout games were in starting areas as we created and abandoned MANY characters after maybe just less than 10 hours o' gameplay. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am hopeful there is some kinda respec option for poe. am suspecting that 1/3 o' our hours o' gameplay from fallouts and wasteland were replay starting areas til we got a character idealized... then repeat that each time we tried a new character build. allow for a single respec would SO improve situation for Gromnir and his gaming ocd. create a save at level X (past the intro) would maybe have been the single most useful improvement for us. 

Edited June 23, 2014 by Gromnir

[Gizmo]

dunno 'bout wasteland 2, but wasteland were very loosely story-driven. am knowing just how fanatical some fallout fans is and they not want to hear this, but wasteland and the fallouts had kinda thin main plot. in wasteland and the fallouts, story is your raison d'etre to play for the next hour or ten in only the most illusory fashion. am suspecting that playing the introductory areas o' a wasteland game a dozen or so times would be almost as fulfilling as playing the main game once in its entirety. heck, most o' our time spent in the fallout games were in starting areas as we created and abandoned MANY characters after maybe just less than 10 hours o' gameplay. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am hopeful there is some kinda respec option for poe. am suspecting that 1/3 o' our hours o' gameplay from fallouts and wasteland were replay starting areas til we got a character idealized... then repeat that each time we tried a new character build. allow for a single respec would SO improve situation for Gromnir and his gaming ocd. create a save at level X (past the intro) would maybe have been the single most useful improvement for us.

Yeah... that's something Bethesda offers (to my complete and derisive irritation) ~at least on one side; but on the other side... There is the understanding that their flawed design almost requires it. I use the save to start a new game, because of the tedium caused by starting a new game via the menu.

 

I find the invitation to revoke any and all commitments made of the PC, as a rather insulting thing to include in an RPG ~when done after the game has commenced. It seems cheap. It cheapens the experience IMO.

 

The problem with min/maxing for the best/ or smoothest build is that the characters then seem to lack any character. Players who discover [online] to always take or avoid some aspect of the game [skills/equipment/story path] are robbed of the chance to naturally fail... though granted, most of them likely won't understand why anyone would want to fail. It's a shame that it can't be explained without a lecture, or to players that take the PC's failure personally ~as if it somehow reflected on them as players.

 

I am not a fan of respec options for characters; not if they recant on prior established facts. Adding, or changing a development path is fine though. It's at least sensible that a "thief" or "paladin" might change careers (even swap careers  ), but not that a thief ~suddenly never was one, or that a slow and/or clumsy paladin ~suddenly always had been adroit and agile from birth. 

Edited June 23, 2014 by Gizmo

[Gromnir]

 

dunno 'bout wasteland 2, but wasteland were very loosely story-driven. am knowing just how fanatical some fallout fans is and they not want to hear this, but wasteland and the fallouts had kinda thin main plot. in wasteland and the fallouts, story is your raison d'etre to play for the next hour or ten in only the most illusory fashion. am suspecting that playing the introductory areas o' a wasteland game a dozen or so times would be almost as fulfilling as playing the main game once in its entirety. heck, most o' our time spent in the fallout games were in starting areas as we created and abandoned MANY characters after maybe just less than 10 hours o' gameplay. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am hopeful there is some kinda respec option for poe. am suspecting that 1/3 o' our hours o' gameplay from fallouts and wasteland were replay starting areas til we got a character idealized... then repeat that each time we tried a new character build. allow for a single respec would SO improve situation for Gromnir and his gaming ocd. create a save at level X (past the intro) would maybe have been the single most useful improvement for us.

Yeah... that's something Bethesda offers (to my complete and derisive irritation) ~at least on one side; but on the other side... There is the understanding that their flawed design almost requires it. I use the save to start a new game, because of the tedium caused by starting a new game via the menu.

 

I find the invitation to revoke any and all commitments made of the PC, as a rather insulting thing to include in an RPG ~when done after the game has commenced. It seems cheap. It cheapens the experience IMO.

 

The problem with min/maxing for the best/ or smoothest build is that the characters then seem to lack any character. Players who discover [online] to always take or avoid some aspect of the game [skills/equipment/story path] are robbed of the chance to naturally fail... though granted, most of them likely won't understand why anyone would want to fail. It's a shame that it can't be explained without a lecture, or to players that take the PC's failure personally ~as if it somehow reflected on them as players.

 

I am not a fan of respec options for characters; not if they recant on prior established facts. Adding, or changing a development path is fine though. It's at least sensible that a "thief" or "paladin" might change careers (even swap careers  ), but not that a thief ~suddenly never was one, or that a slow and/or clumsy paladin ~suddenly always had been adroit and agile from birth. 

 

to "naturally fail" 'cause o' bad game design is just plain stupid. sorry, but the purists who love how you can create a complete borked character in fallout is the most obtuse bunch o' rpg fans we has ever had the misfortune o' dealing with. being able to make a bad character by picking nifty sounding abilities, talents, skills, etc., is horrible game design. you didn't know that taking energy weapons were useless for the first 2/3 o' the game? but hey, at least you got outdoorsman and barter to fall back on, yes? well that just makes fallout kewl, right? nope, it makes it broken. spend 10 or more hours figuring out that some builds is horrible is Not a kewl feature, although the cainists keep trying to convince us o' such nonsense.

 

d&d gots tome after tome o' books so that we is knowing before we ever play a d&d crpg what we should expect... although troika and other developers still managed to surprise us with some quirky rules implementations. reach weapons for everybody! nevertheless, d&d, were having a known rules system, so we never needed respec. for fallouts and wasteland we weren't so lucky. uncovering the hidden mechanics o' fallout as one o' the first players who weren't benefiting from years worth o' detailed walkthrough and character building guides, were an exercise in tedium and frustration. if a game were genuine balanced and all builds were being equivalent enjoyable (NOT equal powerful) then we would have Zero complaints. but guess what, the fallouts, arcanum, wasteland and a host o' other games is revealing that game developers is not so good at making games that reward players for being creative or adventurous in character building. 

 

bad builds is not a feature. is bad design.  the thing is, poe is new and new is never perfect. no matter how much diligence and planning goes into design, as complexity is increased, so does potential for exploit and fail. pnp d&d editions has years worth o' playtesting and we still get all kinda wackiness when new editions is released. front-loaded rangers and harm for 3e? we suspect poe will be sporting a complex new rules system for which mechanics will be obscure. will be inevitable that fail will occur.  respec is a way to mitigate the damage o' such inevitability.

 

as for wasteland 2... have already many complaints 'bout how some skills were seeming useless in the beta and much adjustment were needed to balance abilities, and truth to tell, wasteland 2 is less complex than a fair number o' crpgs we would care to mention. nevertheless, we still see some folks trying to sell us on the notion that poor design = FEATURE. go figure.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[AwesomeOcelot]

I love that you can create a non-viable character because it's a consequence of having interesting and varied skills that are specific and limited in their benefits, it's great game design because games don't have to cater to idiots and the lowest common denominator. I love that in Fallout violence and power aren't the only answer, but it's a lot easier with them. Energy weapons aren't useless for the first 2/3s of the game, you don't know what you're talking about. Most of the weapons in Fallout are easy to come by.

Edited June 23, 2014 by AwesomeOcelot

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

am hopeful there is some kinda respec option for poe. am suspecting that 1/3 o' our hours o' gameplay from fallouts and wasteland were replay starting areas til we got a character idealized... then repeat that each time we tried a new character build. allow for a single respec would SO improve situation for Gromnir and his gaming ocd. create a save at level X (past the intro) would maybe have been the single most useful improvement for us. 

 

respec just so you can optimise and create your idealised character while playing the game seems like bad design to me as well. I've seen this sort of stuff in pnp where a player realises they should have chosen X instead of Y. They're character is still playable but not as good as the Munchkin they could have created. Might as well follow a powergamers guide that will eventually hit the internet.

 

It can also open up exploits and make the game easier. For instance, in Fallout, you only put so many points in STR because the Power Armour can get you up to 10. If you put more points in STR before you get that power armour, then the game can be easier up until that point than if you only put in a lower amount of STR. But the downside is you've now wasted points once you do get the Power Armour. If you respec, lower your STR, and get the Power Armour to get your 10 STR, you've now exploited the game. High STR at the start to make it easier and lowered it to an amount where the Power Armour gets you to 10 later in the game.

[Gromnir]

I love that you can create a non-viable character because it's a consequence of having interesting and varied skills that are specific and limited in their benefits, it's great game design because games don't have to cater to idiots and the lowest common denominator. I love that in Fallout violence and power aren't the only answer, but it's a lot easier with them. Energy weapons aren't useless for the first 2/3s of the game, you don't know what you're talking about. Most of the weapons in Fallout are easy to come by.

ah, one of the parishioners at the church of cain is arrived. how amusing. we will note that more than one obsidian developer has made the observations we contributed in the post above... so we was hoping some fallout yutz would cry "sacrilege" at our blasphemies. try convincing josh that energy weapons is useful early and that skills is balanced 'nuff not to be punishing ordinary and intelligent gamers as well as "idiots and the lowest common denominator." josh, for one, don't think too highly o' fallout balance, and as you is a backer o' poe and this ain't codex, you ain't gonna be able to, "sigh, and, with a piece of scripture, tell them that God (cain) bids us do good for evil."  pillars o' eternity is specific rejecting your viewpoint and is opting for making the catalog o' character generation options equal viable if not equal powerful. and you is a poe backer, so congrats and enjoy a game made for the LCD. heck, we didn't even bring up how poorly balanced is the gifted trait 'cause you can still have fun in fallout without it. see, we need not argue with the fallout zealots 'cause you has already lost. troika is dead and while cain is at obsidian, your idol were cast down by Moses some years ago... or perhaps it were that troika finally ran out of publishers after failing to finish games in a timely fashion and then public complaining about the guys providing the money. 

 

am gonna concede that we has seen the videos o' the ten minute speed runs o' fallout, so am guessing that getting energy weapons with enough regularity so as to be a viable main weapon is indeed possible "early" in the game, but only with the kinda bs pre-knowledge that kinda makes your suggestion as absurd as the quickie run of fallout. 

 

nevertheless, is curious that only from codexians and nma folks who has been preaching to the choir since before the turn o' the century that we is getting this nonsense.  am thinking that is one o' the strengths o' cults. if you say something over and over again surrounded by other members o' the faithful, eventually you can make an absurdity into a Truth. you just gotta squint your eye up real tight and believe... or is that how you learn to fly... y'know, from peter pan? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 24, 2014 by Gromnir

[Gromnir]

 

 

am hopeful there is some kinda respec option for poe. am suspecting that 1/3 o' our hours o' gameplay from fallouts and wasteland were replay starting areas til we got a character idealized... then repeat that each time we tried a new character build. allow for a single respec would SO improve situation for Gromnir and his gaming ocd. create a save at level X (past the intro) would maybe have been the single most useful improvement for us. 

 

respec just so you can optimise and create your idealised character while playing the game seems like bad design to me as well. I've seen this sort of stuff in pnp where a player realises they should have chosen X instead of Y. They're character is still playable but not as good as the Munchkin they could have created. Might as well follow a powergamers guide that will eventually hit the internet.

 

It can also open up exploits and make the game easier. For instance, in Fallout, you only put so many points in STR because the Power Armour can get you up to 10. If you put more points in STR before you get that power armour, then the game can be easier up until that point than if you only put in a lower amount of STR. But the downside is you've now wasted points once you do get the Power Armour. If you respec, lower your STR, and get the Power Armour to get your 10 STR, you've now exploited the game. High STR at the start to make it easier and lowered it to an amount where the Power Armour gets you to 10 later in the game.

 

is amusing that you use an example o' poor fallout balance to show how a respec can be exploited. am s'posing you don't realize the irony. IF abilities, skills and other character generation options is actual balanced well, then there wouldn't be a need or desire for respec. as we noted already, some exploits and fails is inevitable as complexity increases-- is axiomatic. nevertheless, is only 'cause developers create some inequity  that we end up with opportunities for exploit. 

 

am suspecting that there were probable some kinda exploit for da:o made possible by respec.  we never got into the theorycrafting o' da:o mechanics, so we cannot say that respec were free o' exploits. that being said, we found the respec potions' inclusion to be extreme beneficial in that game. the actual game mechanics o' da:o were hidden. abilities would give bonuses, but as we didn't understand how the internal numbers were being calculated, relative values of bonuses were likewise hidden. in addition, the community invariably discovered many bugs before bioware had a chance to fix such things. some abilities were not working properly and giving no benefits at all. am recalling one or two early archer builds were hampered by some serious bugs. before bio could fix, we were able to use respec to make an archer actual more useful than a party appendix. 

 

is funny that in an mmo, respec is considered essential, but in a sp it is considered exploitative by some. nevertheless, the only person a single-player can exploit in a sp game is the player himself, and the only way a player is able to exploit with respec is if the developer creates a poorly balanced situation.  is all very odd. am getting that it "feels" like cheating to some purists even if they cannot properly explain their notions other than their ridiculous condemnations of "idiots and the lowest common denominator." HA! nevertheless, we can recognize how it might give a fuzzy feeling o' cheatymcbadness.  some folks Will game the system with a single respec opportunity.  that being said, due to bugs and the simple certainty o' errors arising in any complex system, more than a few players will be punished for making their character building choices. 

 

...

 

as 'tween the desire to prevent "cheating" in a sp game and providing a way to mitigate the anguish o' broken builds, am gonna suggest that choice should be easy for developers to be making.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Humanoid]

The problem is mostly an artefact of finite XP. In a "realistic" world, you'd expect someone to pick up skills faster if they had prior synergistic experience: for example an established musician ought to be able to learn a brand new instrument much faster than a complete novice. In a typical game setting the opposite applies, the experienced character literally can't afford to spare the skill points to learn something new, because they've used up all the sources of XP. Game logic is such that the world's best guitarist would be the absolute worst person at learning how to play the piano, and the best candidate would be the uneducated hobo with no skills whatsoever.

 

There are workarounds, I think various PnP games have rules which might let you use a percentage of your ability in a different skill to approximate that of a skill you don't specifically have. Imagine if Fallout for example added half your Guns skill to your Energy Weapons skill when determining effectiveness. Perhaps lower ranks of skills become cheaper for high level characters so they can pick up supplementary skills for little-to-no XP investment. It's not as gamebreaking as it might seem because the gain here is in versatility and not in absolute power: a character with 100 in small guns and 70 in energy weapons is not really more powerful than one with the same score in small guns and zero in energy weapons. But it makes a huge difference in determining whether it's viable to redevelop existing characters rather than restarting the game.

 

 

TL;DR: In the real world, skills that you've learned but are not actively using are valuable assets that may serve you well in future. In games, they're a millstone that drags you down to the point of almost complete ineffectiveness to the point you should kill yourself and start over. If this penalty were removed or at least made significantly less impactful, then the issue of respecs would be far less important.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Humanoid

[AwesomeOcelot]

Skills aren't balanced, that's the beauty of them, games don't need to be balanced in that way, that's stupid.  There's no point using arguments from authority with me, no one has to be right just because they work for Obsidian. Apparently Tim Cain and the staff of Troika beat you as a child or something, because you have a lot of irrational hatred. I don't care about your lack of taste and sense.

 

You don't need pre-knowledge to get energy weapons in Fallout in the 1/3 of the game, Harry carries one, there's one in the Necropolis sewers, and the Gun Runners sell them. Also we've suddenly gone from "useless" to "not a viable main weapon" and from the first 1/3 of the game to "early", perhaps there's some more goal posts you want to move. This is how it should be, energy weapons are rare, expensive, and harder to find ammo for, if you want to have a combat orientated character in the early game, you're not going to rely on energy weapons. Fallout 2 was the same, but went further as small arms and big guns were also rarer in the early game, and that wasn't developed by Tim Cain. A lot of other games fail at creating a coherent world, the energy weapon situation in Fallout is part of that, some gamers just don't appreciate the finer things in life and don't have the necessary qualities to appreciate a good game.

[Gromnir]

"Skills aren't balanced, that's the beauty of them,"

 

nope. that is bad game design. is no reason why points in outdoorsman and barter should be o' less value than lockpick or science. is bad design that church of cain has re-imagined, inexplicably, into a strength. is no way a first time player o' fallout should be expected to know that he is gimping his player for the sake o' your beauty.

 

and you is seriously gonna quibble 'between useless and non-viable?

 

...

 

that is rich. 

 

"This is how it should be, energy weapons are rare, expensive, and harder to find ammo for, if you want to have a combat orientated character in the early game, you're not going to rely on energy weapons."

 

uh... why? is no freaking reason why the guy choosing energy weapons should be having an effectively useless weapon for first 2/3 of the game... then suddenly find he has arguably the best weapon skill. is nothing in the intro movie that tells us that energy weapons ain't viable (useless) for 2/3 of the game. let a guy find out through hours o' gameplay that energy weapons is a great endgame weapon but useless at start is not beautiful-- is idiotic. is nothing that would destroy the fallout world if energy weapons were more plentiful but relative weaker... save for in the minds o' the Followers o' Cain. one must not question canon.

 

the absurd snobbishness o' the fallout faithful is matched only by their absurd obtuseness. a horribly imbalanced system is not a strength unless you is in vegas, and you are the house.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 24, 2014 by Gromnir

[AwesomeOcelot]

There's good reason why science is more valuable and barter is less valuable in the Fallout world. Someone who doesn't understand the difference between "not viable as a main weapon" and useless I guess is a million miles away from being able to comprehend why in context some skills are more useful than others. Also we've gone from "non-viable as a main weapon" to "non-viable", it's getting hard to keep track of these goal posts.

 

There's a very good reason that energy weapons are rare and expensive in the Fallout world compared to small arms, it doesn't take a genius to figure it out. It would destroy the Fallout world if energy weapons were plentiful. I don't understand why it's necessary for you to have energy weapons at the start or why it's game breaking if you choose it as a tagged skill. The game doesn't reward you for tagging energy weapons and pump all your points in it in the 1st 3 levels, but then it shouldn't reward you for stupidity. If you just really like energy weapons, tough ****, that's like complaining the game doesn't have a lightsaber.

 

Why would the intro movie tell about the state of energy weapons? Didn't you listen to it? The vault dwellers don't know about the outside world. If the intro told you about it that would be really bad game design.

[Gromnir]

There's good reason why science is more valuable and barter is less valuable in the Fallout world. 

 

actually no. there is no good game design reason for making any one skill have such diminished value compared to any other. you can tailor the game world however you wish to fit system, so rationalizing after the fact is asinine. the black isle folks imagined the fallout world into existence. it had no intrinsic properties before they crafted their post-apocalyptic setting. black isle coulda' made their world howsoever they wished and we do not doubt they coulda' made internal rational with more numerous energy weapons or more useful barter-- to think otherwise is to insult the developers as having a paucity o' creativity that conflicts with the reality o' their fallout achievements. to have energy weapons skill and not make viable is simple bad design. 

 

and no, is not at all like complaining about lack of lightsabres... though thanks for the seeming requisite strawman nonsense. if there were a lightsabre skill and there were only enough lightsabre energy cells, crystals, parts, etc. so that we could use the lightsabre in the last 1/3 o' the game, then it would be the same. 

 

and why is intro movie meaningful? 'cause it is the only reasonable clue to a new player regarding what to expect from the fallout world. duh. guess the obvious ain't obvious to the zealots. there is nothing the least bit stupid about tagging energy weapons early given what the new player knows about fallout... which is nothing.  lord knows (not referencing cain as "lord"  btw) that having energy weapons skill available at character generation would be prima facie evidence to a n00b player that choosing energy weapons would be a viable choice for a game that is set in a post-apocalyptic world that includes guys tramping around in power armour n' such. duh again.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps

 

http://thesaurus.com/browse/non-viable

 

synonymous means? *shrug*  just doing our part to help educate. btw, the qualitative difference 'tween useless and non-viable in a crpg with limited points to distribute to skills and abilities is even more difficult to rationalize.

 

pps arguing with cainists is doomed. at codex they overwhelm with numbers, but even so, am wondering how long we can maintain interest in repeating self as the cainist does the same.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Gromnir

[Gizmo]

to "naturally fail" 'cause o' bad game design is just plain stupid. sorry, but the purists who love how you can create a complete borked character in fallout is the most obtuse bunch o' rpg fans we has ever had the misfortune o' dealing with. being able to make a bad character by picking nifty sounding abilities, talents, skills, etc., is horrible game design.

I actually did not mean through bad design. What I meant was that a player should be allowed to discover alternatives that they may not of considered before. If they play the first few minutes and think they made a mistake (whether or not it really was), then they will use a respec option to obliterate what their character could have shown them, even before they had a clue about it.

 

Ideally there should be no true mistakes in an RPG build; but some builds should offer their own unexpected or unconventional alternatives to the standard 'Walker Texas Ranger','Merlin', or Xena/elf/thief PC that is common cliche to almost all RPGs at this point. By 'naturally fail' I did not mean, "Surprise! You picked a lemon! You have to live with it!"; I meant that their choices should give them access to a different path that doesn't play out like the Expendables... Something they could likely have missed if they got robbed/tricked, or barely survived their first encounters, and respec'ed for a generic Tank PC; dropping the skills or traits that could have allowed some of the alternative paths through the game.

*(Which of course should be there... it is indeed bad design to give options when only one is viable.)

 

 

 

you didn't know that taking energy weapons were useless for the first 2/3 o' the game? but hey, at least you got outdoorsman and barter to fall back on, yes? well that just makes fallout kewl, right? nope, it makes it broken.

I don't hold to this opinion. Why should energy weapons be useful ~or even accessible for the first 2/3 of the game if the setting doesn't have them anywhere but the most dangerous ~and least looted~ locations in the game? having a background in energy weapons should be useless where there aren't any energy weapons, but having the skill would mean that if you acquired them, that the PC could use them, and if you didn't have that skill then tough; that's not what your PC was trained in ~so what? The player should not feel entitled to everything the game has to offer its players ~delivered from on session with on PC. Even if they never play the game again, they got the experience that PC should offer, and they didn't play another.

It's okay not to ever acquire an energy weapon in the game ~skill or no skill.

 

 

spend 10 or more hours figuring out that some builds is horrible is Not a kewl feature, although the cainists keep trying to convince us o' such nonsense.

 

...

HA! Good Fun!

 

One shouldn't ever spend that to find 'kewl' character builds, All of the builds should be great, but noticeably different when varied by even a few points here and there. And the game should not allow 'panic respecing' by nervous players. You can't stop them from reloading, but IMO they should not enable them with features that encourage [radically] changing their mind mid game.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Gizmo

[Bester]

Not being able to achieve and discover everything the first time = feature.

[AwesomeOcelot]

you can tailor the game world however you wish to fit system

That is an awful way to build a game world.

 

we do not doubt they coulda' made internal rational with more numerous energy weapons

They could have made the the game suck but they chose not to.

 

 

'cause it is the only reasonable clue to a new player regarding what to expect from the fallout world.

You should not have a clue, that's the point, you're living the vault for the first time.

 

 

the qualitative difference 'tween useless and non-viable in a crpg with limited points to distribute to skills and abilities is even more difficult to rationalize.

It's not non-viable.

[Humanoid]

It would have been an interesting approach if certain skills like Energy Weapons and Outdoorsman were untaggable, both to serve as a subtle hint, and as a piece of world-building. Your character has lived in a vault since birth, a vault apparently without access to advanced weaponry, so the absence of any restriction of tag skills actually is the jarring aspect of character creation here.

 

A skill in a gameworld is both more interesting as a roleplaying choice and can be more elegantly designed around in the game content if it has a context, instead of being just one of dozens of identically presented ones in a flat list.

[Gromnir]

Not being able to achieve and discover everything the first time = feature.

 

hey, why don't you take a shot at the strawman too?

 

 

as for ocelot and gizmo, they is repeating each other and we is left repeating self... and so on.

 

 

 

"That is an awful way to build a game world."

 

as vol would say, "no."  is the only rational way to build a game world.  you is creating a system and a world. the implication that the system need make concessions to the world is so idiotic it boggles the mind. how can you possibly be so snobbish and make claims 'bout intelligence and taste when you says such ridiculous stuff. takes so very little imagination and forethought to make Anything possible in a fantastic setting that the developer creates from scratch, and fallout is fantasy far more than science as the science would make asimov, clarke, and even heinlein chuckle at the thought o' calling it sci-fi.  there is no license considerations or canon. developers can do anything. and most obvious and important factor one must keep in mind when creating a game world is that it is a GAME world.  this truth is so freaking axiomatic we shouldn't need point it out to you.

 

"It's okay not to ever acquire an energy weapon in the game ~skill or no skill."

 

...

 

you managed to say something even more amusing and sad than anything ocelot shared. curious. am imagining the ha-ha value o' playing a vancian wizard in a low-magic setting. 'course the player don't realize the setting is low magic until he starts exploring the game for the first time. low and behold, he manages to get through the entire game without discovering a single spell for his spellbook.  see, now that is the kinda clever game design we need more of these days. *insert eye-roll here* what you and others at nma and codex has some convinced selves is a beautiful feature after a decade and a half o' proselytizing to the converted, is in actuality brobdingnagian blunder.  the fact that you can't recognize that fact is amusing and little sad.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Bester]

I'm sorry Gromnir, but you've simply made 0 arguments towards your point. All you say is just empty of coherent content. If one takes your posts and then squeezes out only arguments, they will be left with just 4 words: "i don't like replayability".

 

I'm not saying you couldn't make arguments, but you have decided not to make them. Why then you write all these long posts? I have no idea.

[Gromnir]

I'm sorry Gromnir, but you've simply made 0 arguments towards your point. All you say is just empty of coherent content. If one takes your posts and then squeezes out only arguments, they will be left with just 4 words: "i don't like replayability".

 

I'm not saying you couldn't make arguments, but you have decided not to make them. Why then you write all these long posts? I have no idea.

and so you do another strawman to prove? we like replayability very much.

 

and saying we made no arguments is kinda and odd tack to take, but if it has worked for you in the past, we s'pose you can keep tying to head into the wind. arguments for respec is: bugs make some abilities genuine useless til fixed, poor balance by developers renders player build weak or useless, the lead developer of poe has rejected the inane "replay-ability" argument  in favor of greater balance, etc. 

 

*shrug*

 

IF you somehow equate horrendous balance and poorly constructed rules mechanics with an increase in replayability, then you is expressing a myopic bit o' cainist dogma. play game again as a viable non-combat character is replayability. play game again to be seeing snarky, ruthless, or mercenary options is replayability. play game again as a different class or  with a differing combat focus (e.g ranged as 'posed to melee) is replayability. play game again to be seeing differing bifurcations o' quest paths not taken in first play is replayability. if after having completed said game, the player wishes to REplay the game to explore different features or content, they is getting benefits of replayability. on the other hand, if player needs quit and restart game due to frustration 'caused by bugs or terrible balancing, that is Not replayability save in the minds o' the deluded fallout fans who insist that horrendous balance is a feature. 

 

you people is nuts. serious.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Bester]

>arguments for respec is

Alright, let's see them.

 

>bugs make some abilities genuine useless til fixed

Bug not being a game feature should not considered in a talk that centers itself on game mechanics. Bugs will be fixed.

 

>poor balance by developers renders player build weak or useless

So? I never took you for one of those people who need to press X to win. Your build reflects the compromise that you get between how good you are in combat and how many social (non-combat) abilities you have. But in the end, one can "win" Baldur's Gate by playing just 1 character or by not leveling up your 6 characters at all. It's an extreme case of course, but it just shows that talking about "weak" builds is just being a (the forum censored the word out, but it starts with a "p" and ends with a "y").

 

>the lead developer of poe has rejected the inane "replay-ability" argument in favor of greater balance

So? Argument from authority?

 

>etc. 

Etc means "and other things". Well, I do wish you had "other things", unfortunately you don't. You tried to make a few arguments and rolled 1 on all of these occasions.

 

>horrendous balance

What is horrendous balance? Preferably with examples.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Bester

[Gromnir]

>arguments for respec is

Alright, let's see them.

 

>bugs make some abilities genuine useless til fixed

Bug not being a game feature should not considered in a talk that centers itself on game mechanics. Bugs will be fixed.

 

>poor balance by developers renders player build weak or useless

So? I never took you for one of those people who need to press X to win. Your build reflects the compromise that you get between how good you are in combat and how many social (non-combat) abilities you have. But in the end, one can "win" Baldur's Gate by playing just 1 character or by not leveling up your 6 characters at all. It's an extreme case of course, but it just shows that talking about "weak" builds is just being a (the forum censored the word out, but it starts with a "p" and ends with a "y").

 

>the lead developer of poe has rejected the inane "replay-ability" argument in favor of greater balance

So? Argument from authority?

 

>etc. 

Etc means "and other things". Well, I do wish you had "other things", unfortunately you don't. You tried to make a few arguments and rolled 1 on all of these occasions.

 

>horrendous balance

What is horrendous balance? Preferably with examples.

what arguments? we mentioned them yet again in our previous post. are you being willful obtuse or is this some kinda game? am uncertain at this point? scroll up or not-- up to you.  and yes, bugs should indeed be considered as actual issue being discussed, since you missed it, is the appropriateness o' respec.

 

"It's an extreme case of course"

 

then why make such an argument? is ridiculous and reveals the paucity o' your imagination and intellect. if is extreme, then ain't useful.  bg is a bad example. am gonna agree with you. grats and thanks. and go ez on the straw man... again. is nothing in what we said that equates with press X for win.

 

by the way, arguing from authority is quite valid. in fact, it is one o' the more significant arguments one may make in most situations. is not good logic, but when discussing best treatments for cancer or what is dangerous levels o' lead in water tables, experts and authorities is your best argument. serious. have you never made an argument? in some fields such as law, authorities is where you start.  learn your copi before dismissing what you do not understand.

 

as for examples... wth? scroll up.  

 

wacky stuff. is so tough to deal with codexians who is only familiar with preaching to choir and spouting irrelevant gibberish.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 24, 2014 by Gromnir

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I love that you can create a non-viable character because it's a consequence of having interesting and varied skills that are specific and limited in their benefits

 

(Bolded for emphasis.) That actually is a very cool thing.

 

On the other hand, balancing the game in a way that the cost of these skills would be directly proportional to the benefit they offer (whether through a discount to less-useful skills, or making all skills equally useful) sounds like the prudent thing to do.

Edited June 24, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Gromnir]

 

I love that you can create a non-viable character because it's a consequence of having interesting and varied skills that are specific and limited in their benefits

 

(Bolded for emphasis.) That actually is a very cool thing.

 

On the other hand, balancing the game in a way that the cost of these skills would be directly proportional to the benefit they offer (whether through a discount to less-useful skills, or making all skills equally useful) sounds like the prudent thing to do.

 

"having some known less efficacious skills does potential add to replayability. after our second or third run (and sometimes a first run in a d&d game) we likes to play a weak character. frequent we specific make a character we know will be difficult but fun to get through a game. the thing is, is not fun if we don't know that energy weapons is prohibitive weak for 2/3 of the game, but fantastic for the last third. we has purposeful played fallout characters with barter and outdoorsman and throwing as our tagged skills.  were fun... but were fun 'cause we knew what we were in for when choosing weak skills.  on the other hand,

 

if we were a n00b to fallout and we built with weak traits and weak feats and weak skills, we would no doubt be extreme frustrated after a few hours. is asinine to purposeful design game with mysterious Fail features, but even the most carefully balanced game will have some such stuff if only 'cause increased complexity makes inevitable. so why makes the new guy pay by restarting the game? one respec strikes us as an adequate solution.  give folks one respec chance to correct bad design or bugs or mistaken understanding of often poorly described mechanics.  the opportunities for exploitation with a single respec is minimal compared to hours o' frustration you will save folks who are obvious new to the franchise... your potential future customers. other than some fuzzy notion that respec allows a vague number o' folks to "cheat" in a sp game, we can't see a serious drawback from a single respec opportunity.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[sorophx]

um, what's a "cainist"? I don't think it has anything to do with the Old Testament, has it?