Wasteland 2 Kickstarted

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

"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. 

 

Or design the game to be not-broken to begin with, or clearly separate the flavorful-but-secondary skills from the must-have ones *shrug*. Any of these approaches could work.

 

The problem with Fallout wasn't really the fact that certain skills were less useful, but the fact that it wasn't really intuitive what these skills were. I mean, having an "outdoorsman" skill be fairly useless in a game set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland doesn't strike me as completely predictable. Also, if I remember correctly, there was a separate "repair" and "science" skill, one of which was mostly useless - and it wasn't the one that lets you, say, repair the cool stuff that was left behind by the technologically-advanced past. So, you can shoot yourself in the foot even if you go in with genre-appropriate expectations. And that is bad design.

[Bester]

>"It's an extreme case of course" then why make such an argument?

Because it's the same thing with a different level of intensity, the intense one serves as a blatant example for the more subtle one. It's a popular figure of speech, one that seems to fly over your head simply because you ducked down just in time, refusing to understand even the simplest of phrases because their content doesn't sit well with you.

 

>reveals the paucity o' your imagination and intellect

Rudeness reveals your lack of self-confidence.

 

>what arguments? we mentioned them yet again in our previous post

And we debunked them. Oh my, it's the Denial phase of the 4 D's.

 

>by the way, arguing from authority is quite valid

         

 

>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.

If you need authorities to tell you what to think instead of relying on facts, then you should concede that Fallout is certainly one of the biggest authorities and experts in RPG and therefore accept it as your RPG idol. I don't know why you're discussing things here then, questioning Fallout's authority and whatnot, citing some guys who were only part of Fallout's team and have yet to prove their new ideas with poe. Looks like using sophism can backfire right into your face. So unexpected, cause the greeks haven't discovered that thousands of years ago.

 

>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.

This argument value: 0/10. Try again.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Bester

[Undecaf]

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

 

I suppose it's the opposite of Sawyerist where everything is so overbalanced you can't tell the difference between 1 and 2, and bad decision are impossible to make. (of course that's hyperbole just as much as the cainist or church of cain stuff) Unless of course I mean that as a reference to Huckleberry Finn, what ever the symbolism there would be.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

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

 

Tim Cain was one of the creators of Fallout. The followers of Tim Cain are apparently Cainists. Although I've always referred to them as Fallout Fanatics because if you call them Cainists, then you're discounting the other dev's who created Fallout (imo).

[Gromnir]

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

"There is no God but Cain, and MCA is his prophet."  fallout is a religion-- not just a game. heck, there is a Bible for fallout. am suspecting that calling it a bible is a bit o' tounge-in-cheek, but the true believers don't see it that way.

 

http://www.duckandcover.cx/index.php?id=5

 

so, to answer your question, yes... and no.

 

"and bad decision(s) are impossible to make."

 

that is a criticism?

 

"Although I've always referred to them as Fallout Fanatics because if you call them Cainists, then you're discounting the other dev's who created Fallout (imo)"

 

cain is the sacred cow. folks at nma and codex will criticize chrisA, but cain blunders is either marginalized or rationalized into near non-existence. alternatively, mistakes of cain is frequent re-imagined as beautiful features, as may be seen from this thread. is actual kinda comical.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 24, 2014 by Gromnir

[Undecaf]

""and bad decision(s) are impossible to make."

 

that is a criticism?"

 

However you wish to understand it; obviously in the context of the rest of the sentence (and keeping the small print in mind).

[Gromnir]

""and bad decision(s) are impossible to make."

 

that is a criticism?"

 

However you wish to understand it; obviously in the context of the rest of the sentence (and keeping the small print in mind).

am recognizing your bit 'bout hyperbole, but that would not change fact that you see balanced character generation wherein making bad choices is marginalized as being a goal worthy o' criticism, yes? nevertheless, we asked as it would seem more important to understand if that is how you meant for your comments to be received, rather than however Gromnir might choose to understand it, yes? or perhaps not.

 

*shrug*

 

as much as we likes to experiment with gimp characters (particularly with games we has played-to-death) a game wherein we gets equal juice per squeeze from character generation options would, to our mind, be offering a far greater range o' replayability. sure, you will still be able to make bad choices in individual encounters, but for all builds to be giving equivalent usefulness (as 'posed to equal power) is seeming to us like kinda the goal, and not something worthy o' ridicule.

 

odd

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 24, 2014 by Gromnir

[Undecaf]

I meant in the context of everything being balanced so evenly thick that there is no contrast between the choices you make, that which ever way you go, you get the same lukewarm and servile experience that does not dare to require anything short of thinking related from the player, and due to everything being equal in impact and usage you might as well have nothing to choose from. That's the hyperbole included.

 

I don't ever knowingly create gimp builds. They all (need to) serve a purpose in the game other than being inept at things; systems allowing of course. So obviously I am not proponent of dead end skills, but there is the balancing act of how much does the investment serve, where and when - if it is sparse, the impact is optimally large when it happens, if it is plentiful, the impact need not be as large as you get to use it all the time. It certainly does not need to be so that everything is useful from the beginning to the end in equal measure (that feels artificial to me already thinking about it).

 

Of course the player needs some information on how to play, but a healthy dose of common sense should also be a serving agent in how the game flows. If after a couple of levels, there's still no energy weapons in sight (being able to trust that the skill is not there just for the show, that it will have it's use eventually) and combat is lagging due to that, that could just be a sign that perhaps another combat skill is hungry for a few points to compensate, or that combat should probably be avoided until the proper tools for the chosen trade are found (provided the game has plenty of other gameplay opportunities outside of combat - if not, then it is bad design). You build the character you wish, and you play according to it - some builds pose more challenge than others, some are less even than others, some are less fun than others (subjective). It shouldn't matter as long as the builds serve their purpose in the game.

 

The systems needn't strive for equality between the top and the bottom, but just serving the gameplay in a way that makes a difference which ever way that is done.

 

But yeah, it's 3.30am and I might've started rambling. Take it as you will, I wasn't attempting to start an argument to begin with.

[Gromnir]

>"It's an extreme case of course" then why make such an argument?

Because it's the same thing with a different level of intensity, the intense one serves as a blatant example for the more subtle one. It's a popular figure of speech, one that seems to fly over your head simply because you ducked down just in time, refusing to understand even the simplest of phrases because their content doesn't sit well with you.

 

>reveals the paucity o' your imagination and intellect

Rudeness reveals your lack of self-confidence.

 

>what arguments? we mentioned them yet again in our previous post

And we debunked them. Oh my, it's the Denial phase of the 4 D's.

 

>by the way, arguing from authority is quite valid

         

 

>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.

If you need authorities to tell you what to think instead of relying on facts, then you should concede that Fallout is certainly one of the biggest authorities and experts in RPG and therefore accept it as your RPG idol. I don't know why you're discussing things here then, questioning Fallout's authority and whatnot, citing some guys who were only part of Fallout's team and have yet to prove their new ideas with poe. Looks like using sophism can backfire right into your face. So unexpected, cause the greeks haven't discovered that thousands of years ago.

 

>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.

This argument value: 0/10. Try again.

 

didn't actual  see this post... which is ok as it adds nothing. our eyes tend to skip over posts with excessive emoticons. in any event, am not certain what you think you has debunked. surely you hasn't shown that fallout is a balanced game or that josh is a poor authority. we already supplied numerous examples o' bad balance in fallout and bug issues in da:o.  we has supplied numerous relevant examples in this thread. you? you do the vol thing where all you say is, "no," is amusing, but that is all you has offered, other than misusing symbolic logic fallacies and using a bg example which you already conceded were extreme. oh, wait, you did give a numeric value to our post. okie dokie.

 

bg example is complete irrelevant btw. ignore fact that your example is suspect given how many folks complained that bg were too hard (the most common complaint developers received for all ie games btw.) observe that you can play and win a random game regardless o' how you built companions is meaningful because?  point? heck, given the lack o' complexity and meaningful customization options in bg beyond choosing class, your example is irrelevant for numerous reasons. 

 

"Rudeness reveals your lack of self-confidence."

 

*chuckle* am even more rude to vol. so what does that tell you? maybe it simple means that you is 'bout as convincing as the "pretty princess."

 

fallout, btw, is not an authority. fallout is a game. it is a possible example, but is not an authority. am wishing you zealots would figure that out. fallout is a game with horrible balance issues. fallout is a game with a great setting and lots of choices. nevertheless, fallout is, in many ways, a poor designed game that makes it possible for new players to end frustrated as they attempt to navigate the wonderful setting with inexplicably weak characters. fallout is a good example o' the usefulness o' a respec option... which you perhaps again were forgetting were the actual issue at hand. am recalling we were needing to remind you o' that fact a couple posts up the page.

 

...

 

"I meant in the context of everything being balanced so evenly thick that there is no contrast between the choices you make, that which ever way you go, you get the same lukewarm and servile experience that does not dare to require anything short of thinking related from the player, and due to everything being equal in impact and usage you might as well have nothing to choose from. That's the hyperbole included."

 

somewhere in there is the kernel o' a valid concern, but we honest cannot figure it out. am not being sarcastic. am actual sympathetic. when obsidian developers mentioned that each o' the poe classes will be capable o' filling multiple/any role, we were dubious. what is the point of having a class-based system if each class can be anything? so am thinking we might be understanding your concern... tangential at least. nevertheless, when we actual considers the notion o' balanced abilities and features, we can't genuinely see a flaw in attempting to maximize balance. if we hear that a game has successful balanced ranged and melee weapons, which so rare happens, we would think that is great news. wouldn't you? is not a real example, but what if we learned that seeming secondary skills in wasteland 2 (stuff like alarm disabling and toaster repair) were as useful as the traditional wins of lock-pick and safe-cracking, what would be our complaint? we got none. as we noted above, greater balance makes replayability for us far more likely and if all character generation options were balanced, we clear wouldn't have any respec concerns.

 

*shrug*

 

am simply not seeing the drawbacks o' aiming for balanced use. 

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 25, 2014 by Gromnir

[AGX-17]

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

It sounds like you should stick to Oblivion and Fallout 3, chummer. Powergaming, min/maxing, irrelevant morality systems; they all sound like they're exactly what you're looking for in an "RPG."

Edited June 25, 2014 by AGX-17

[sorophx]

I agree, being locked out of content as result of your actions in the game - i.e. the game reacting to your actions - is very much a feature, one that I miss in most games. that's the bread and butter of every good cRPG. I can't believe that there are people who would bitch about it 

[Gromnir]

I agree, being locked out of content as result of your actions in the game - i.e. the game reacting to your actions - is very much a feature, one that I miss in most games. that's the bread and butter of every good cRPG. I can't believe that there are people who would bitch about it 

keep in mind that nobody actual suggested such before bester chose to knock the stuffing out o' that strawman. is a rather cute habit o' his.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gizmo]

"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.

I am not a fan of theme-park activity apps ~the games we so commonly get these days. Do you honestly demand that Fallout give access to a rocket launcher in Shady Sands, if the PC tagged and developed Big Guns to exclusion? (or even later in Vault 15?) Those weapons are there if you find them, and usable if you know how. The entire game is laid out with the land pre-looted (as it should be, given the context). Almost every container in the game is empty; unless it's inside an occupied structure, or inside a place so deadly that no one has managed to loot it yet. That's how it should be... that's the game world as intended. It is a trade off to specialize, common sense should tell [a typical player] that ultra high-tech will be scarce; (incredulous if it isn't. Like FO3... and their absurd peppering of mini nukes in farm houses and random book shelves ~seemingly).

 

FO3 was a "GAME" in the worst sense of the term ~it shamelessly put the player on a pedestal and had the world orbit them for their own sense of empowerment. That's nothing like what the series was famous for; earned its name from, or how it treated its players. Disappointment in a fantastic recreation of 16 square miles of land in the Fallout setting. That's what I got out of it. My best times in FO3 (really appreciated times too), were solitary treks into the least populated areas, away from any town, NPC or encounter of any kind. That was when FO3 was near perfect. It was never close anywhere else in the game ~and got worse anytime anyone open their mouth.

 

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

HA! Good Fun!

This tack should be beneath you, and anyone else. One shouldn't need to marginalize or insult the other person; and besides... do you know for fact when others are [regulars] from the codex or NMA?

 

You are arguing [it seems to me] for an almost homogenized set of mechanics and resources... You seem to want Rock/Paper/Scissors... The triangle; Scout trumps Carrier, carrier trumps Frigate, Frigate annihilates Scouts; only it's wizards and warriors and rogues, or Raiders vs Brotherhood vs Mutants or something.

 

Some games that employ that are really superb ~but not ALL games are meant to be that way, nor can they be superb if they were [shoe-horned into it].

 

cain is the sacred cow. folks at nma and codex will criticize chrisA, but cain blunders is either marginalized or rationalized into near non-existence. alternatively, mistakes of cain is frequent re-imagined as beautiful features, as may be seen from this thread. is actual kinda comical.

 

HA! Good Fun!

It's true; and I don't know why. I can't imagine it would hold true had he done the artwork, unfortunately he has inherited color blindness; but he designs great games ~sometimes overly ambitious; but even the flawed ones show their potential... and get a free pass for it. It's aiming for the Bulls-eye instead of the barn... it doesn't matter if he hits the center ring, what matters is that he hit the barn close to the bulls-eye.

*[Where others might target the barn and claim success.]

 

 

as much as we likes to experiment with gimp characters...

 

HA! Good Fun!

What's a gimp character (to you)? Is it one that cannot use fire arms? Fallouts were RPGs originally, and you could approach your character as a tribal in Fallout 2... one skilled in spear and fist fighting; even tossed stones. Plausibly they could acquire grenades and like them.

But they don't need to develop combat if they have the ability to get skilled friends.  Odd as it sounds, you can make a tribal character that is very familiar with energy weapons ("from reading the old discs" ), and gets by with her knife and grenades, until one days she actually finds a plasma pistol. It could happen ~it should be able to happen; what should not be able to happen is her being given a plasma pistol by the elder, or as a thanks for killing the plants in the Shaman's garden.  And if she ends the game having never found one ~so what? she ended the game right?

 

Now the controversial part is that personally [me], I'm not actually against making the game un-winnable with builds that logically shouldn't be able to win... but I do understand why most people would balk at that, and I'd never press for it in a game.    The Fallout team made a careful effort to ensure that there were usually three paths to complete any [principle] task; even if it meant 'gimping' the opposition.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Gizmo

[Gromnir]

am gonna avoid reply/quote as it would make response extreme messy. if we miss something you feel is extreme pertinent, remind us o' our oversight and we will address in another post. 

 

first, do not do like bester. in your words, "This tack should be beneath you, and anyone else." rocket launchers in shady sands? naughty boy. fo:nv developers actual provide a simple solution and is identifying the flaw in your reasoning. big guns need never have been a skill in fallout. very easily coulda' been merged with something else or altered or any number o' possibilities. you is making the same mistake you made elsewhere in believing that fallout as it were developed were perfect or beyond reproach-- making major changes to improve doesn't even occur to you even when such obvious examples is available... particular as you is posting on an obsidian message board. 

 

while you think lumping folks together as codexians or nma is beneath us, such generalizations is as helpful as is labeling a game a crpg or a jrpg. sure, not all japanese crpgs has same qualities, but such generalizations is helpful, no? nma, in particular, is a site devoted to the exaltation o' a single game developed before the turn of the century. as often as not, the nma guys don't like fo 2 or fo 3 or fo:t, so what we got is reverence o' a single game that has been getting dissected and re-examined by many o' the same guys for over a decade. you needs must realize that such an environment will lead to a homogenization o' opinion.  codex? is not as different from nma as you might s'pose or wish. is any shock that you and ocelot got same perspective? is no more odd than two different jrpgs having similar qualities.

 

as for gimp characters... we need not really address this as you already made your peculiar point of view clear. "It's okay not to ever acquire an energy weapon in the game ~skill or no skill." this perspective is simply too alien. it complete denies the worth o' any kinda reasonable balance... and that is Not hyperbole as you specific observe that is ok to include a skill that the potential player would never benefit from tagging.  any balance argument we might care to develop is gonna fail to impact you if you truly do not see a problem with including a skill, trait, feature, or whatever that in practice provides Zero actual benefit to the player. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Humanoid]

I'm fully supportive of the fact that holding back access to big guns and energy weapons and the role that design has in terms of worldbuilding. That's great. But consider that access to their corresponding skills can be controlled just as well, and with an equally positive effect on worldbuilding when they're considered in context. A more immersive, naturalistic world, *and* a more intuitive character creation system lacking the gotchas of what actually shipped. Building an immersive and believable game world is a collaborative effort incorporating all elements of game design, not just literal level design alone.

 

Common sense should tell the player that they shouldn't be able to specialise in something they could not conceivably have access to.

[Gizmo]

am gonna avoid reply/quote as it would make response extreme messy. if we miss something you feel is extreme pertinent, remind us o' our oversight and we will address in another post. 

 

first, do not do like bester. in your words, "This tack should be beneath you, and anyone else." rocket launchers in shady sands? naughty boy. fo:nv developers actual provide a simple solution and is identifying the flaw in your reasoning. big guns need never have been a skill in fallout. very easily coulda' been merged with something else or altered or any number o' possibilities.

... And I hated it... It was bad enough that Fallout merged all heavy weapons into 'Big Guns', but later versions made it worse. I have never liked Josh Sawyer's [public] stance on balancing either... the idea that a small arms pistol should be [ensured] as viable as an energy pistol, or heavy weapon like miniguns and rockets (which should be different skills IMO). Nor did I ever like the odd change to power armor ~making it a choice, instead of THE choice... because it is what it is; and if it isn't ~then it isn't. Making power armor a close option to other top tier conventional armor just makes power armor silly. I would much prefer a noticeably extreme change in defensive and offensive capability for wearing power armor, and then include places in the game where it's impractical to wear it ~not 'gimp' it for the entire game in the name of equilibrium. In Fallout it was said to make the wearer a walking tank; that it does not do ~not in any game after FO2. (I consider this a flaw.)

 

Chronicles of Riddick did a far better job on power armor than Fallout 3, and that's sad.

 

you is making the same mistake you made elsewhere in believing that fallout as it were developed were perfect or beyond reproach-- making major changes to improve doesn't even occur to you even when such obvious examples is available... particular as you is posting on an obsidian message board. 

Certainly not ~it's full of flaws... but they are flaws that are akin to mis-measuring one's ingredients in a recipe for "Chicken Salad"; as opposed to instead misreading the choice of meat. I see Fallout as it was designed. I associate that as Fallout, and I don't see much of it in the later games; not gameplay, not atmosphere, not ~'vibe'. And I understand that Obsidian was probably on the leash with NV.  I honestly can't comment on the writing in NV, because I haven't played enough of the game to make an informed opinion of it.  But I did think it absurd that the player could have an entire casino try to kill them for picking up a cigarette off the floor.

Oddly [to some ~but no to me], I see Wasteland 2 and Arcanum as the best Fallout games since the turn of the century; not the best games... but the best Fallout games, in that they have what I associate with Fallout.

(In a way it's sad too, because while I love this fact... Wasteland 2 plays nothing like I'd have expected of a sequel to Wasteland. )

Technically you can consider the PC as an 'every-man' [in Fallout specifically; but possibly WL2], one with pinch-hitter's skill in the general areas. As such they should not really be professional anything; and/or unless they are well over 100%. "Big Guns" is not realistic, but it's far more so than "Guns".

(Or any other streamlined merging of ~not really related~ skills.)

 

 

while you think lumping folks together as codexians or nma is beneath us, such generalizations is as helpful as is labeling a game a crpg or a jrpg.

But where does the 'gibberish' part apply?

 

as for gimp characters... we need not really address this as you already made your peculiar point of view clear. "It's okay not to ever acquire an energy weapon in the game ~skill or no skill." this perspective is simply too alien. it complete denies the worth o' any kinda reasonable balance... and that is Not hyperbole as you specific observe that is ok to include a skill that the potential player would never benefit from tagging.  any balance argument we might care to develop is gonna fail to impact you if you truly do not see a problem with including a skill, trait, feature, or whatever that in practice provides Zero actual benefit to the player. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

In RPGs [and this certainly applies to Wasteland2 and the Fallout series], I see the PC as the player's implement; the one (and possibly only) window into that world ~~Not as a placeholder/costume/formality to then essentially switch places with. (This puts me at odds with FO3 immediately).  So the player should only have access to what the PC can logically access and accomplish.  It's a bit similar to those claw machines with the plush toys in them. You "tell it what to do" (which to grab), and it does it's best ~so to speak. 

 

So I don't look at any skill as a benefit to me; I look at them as what the PC knows how to do; and if they find themselves out of their element in a situation... then so be it... that's how they would be and behave in the situation; it's an RPG. I expect a pacifist to get beaten up a lot; I expect a thief to get caught [occasionally] and have to suffer the consequences. I expect a weapons specialist to be skilled at the weapons they specialize in ~not that they will have guaranteed access to them... but it's great if they do.

(Made greater by the knowledge that it's not guaranteed them to have access to those weapons, and when they find one ~it's worth its weight in gold; and Fallout allows weapons to self destruct too.  ~yes I'd be mad if it happened, but I'd wouldn't feel anything if it was assured never possible.)

 

Wasteland 2 includes 'Toaster Repair'.  As it is, this seems to be access to a magic container; it might mean that extra skill in 'toaster repair' adds more loot, and more value to the loot.   If that's all it is, then it seems pretty weak IMO.  I had been hoping for the skill to be a catch-all jury-rigging skill that included toasters, and could allow special events like turning on a gas stove, and rigging a toaster to ignite the room in 2 minutes.

 

It is a good example of your point for a player boosting up the ranks for Toaster Repair, and never finding any toasters.  It's sort of like that now... you still have to hunt them down ~and have the skill... That seems silly if that's all it is; as any PC should be able break them open with no intention of repairing them.

That would be bad design with a skill IMO.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Gizmo

[Gromnir]

"In Fallout it was said to make the wearer a walking tank"

 

again, you is using fallout to prove the validity o' itself.  use fallout description o' an item or feature to rationalize the lack o' balance is... wacky. is not as wacky as is creating an absurd or irrelevant example and then pointing out the absurdity of the absurdity you created, but is close. be better than that.

 

"(I consider this a flaw.)"

 

am getting that. the why is the problem. a new player who chooses a combat skill should not be rewarded with frustration. a skill that doesn't actual provide use is likely to cause frustration. this should all be obvious, but am uncertain why it is not. fo:nv has a wide range o' weapons, and some is considerable more powerful than others. nevertheless, Gromnir is knowing that choosing any o' the combat skills in fo:nv will provide us with an effective combatant from start of the game to finish, and that is as it should be. discover 10+ hours into a game that energy weapons and ammo for such is extreme rare. how the heck were we to know before playing fallout that energy weapons would only be useful somewhere past halfway of a long game?  assume that Gromnir didn't want our character to only be combat efficacious for last 1/2 to 1/3rd o' game (and ten hours in, how would we know when/if energy weapons would become more useful?) is that not a valid choice as a player-- to want a chosen skill to be relative useful? there ain't no inherent beauty in lack of balance. if fallout had had weapon distributions and skill breakdown o' fo:nv, virtual every quest and all aspects o' the setting would survive unaltered in any significant way. however, with fo:nv skills and balancing, fo would have been less frustrating to new players and it would have offered more replayability.

 

 

we mentioned already, replayability for Gromnir is not 'bout the frustration o' restarting a game 'cause we realize after ten hours of gameplay that a feature is not actual useful. that is just stupid. honest. call restart due to frustration replayability (as some has above in this thread... and is one such example o' the gibberish being shared) is insulting. replayability is wanting to play game again, which kinda presupposes we enjoyed game enough to finish a first time. whether You like fallout imbalance or not, one would s'pose you could at least recognize that the typical player o' a game requiring tens of hours of investment would wish for chosen skills to be offering a discernible pay-off... but that isn't the case. "It's okay not to ever acquire an energy weapon in the game ~skill or no skill." balance wherein skills is equally viable and useful is far more likely to promote replay. there is a pretension 'mongst the canists that suggests that a person who would choose a combat skill and actual expect it to be useful from the start o' the game is lacking "taste" or is "idiotic" (more gibberish). such nonsense should be stamped out as quick and as vigorous as possible. even if you hold to such a notion, why do you assume that Gromnir and others should also find beauty in imbalance? (and before you do reply/quote, read next paragraph... please.)

 

however, we is going in circles... and ultimately gizmo, as others, is losing sight o' the actual issue: respec. a single respec would make your peculiar desire for imbalance more palatable to people who do not share nma or codexian notions. the developers would need be less concerned with balancing to avoid frustration as respec would provide a safety net of sorts. and what would be the drawback o' such a feature? none for you as you would not be thinking it were necessary. some folks might choose to use a single respec opportunity to exploit an imbalance created by the developers. so what? is only a single opportunity... and why would you care if some random guy respec's his character in a sp game?  is ironic, but is actual the folks clamoring for beautiful imbalance who should be advocating respec as it would reduce pressure on developers to implement balance. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

"In Fallout it was said to make the wearer a walking tank"

 

again, you is using fallout to prove the validity o' itself.  use fallout description o' an item or feature to rationalize the lack o' balance is... wacky. is not as wacky as is creating an absurd or irrelevant example and then pointing out the absurdity of the absurdity you created, but is close. be better than that.

 

"(I consider this a flaw.)"

 

am getting that. the why is the problem. a new player who chooses a combat skill should not be rewarded with frustration. a skill that doesn't actual provide use is likely to cause frustration.

 

Gromnir what about a situation where someone uses a skill but doesn't expect a use, would you consider that a cause of possible frustration? 

[Gizmo]

"In Fallout it was said to make the wearer a walking tank"

Tecnhically the PA suits should be electric or even pneumatic exoskeletons that are laden with heavy armor ~or at least puncture resistant. They were described as reflective of lasers, and should almost be classed as a vehicle. Not post-apoc platemail. They are supposed to be the best armor you can get... but for balance sake, they are above average in FO3.

 

Irrational ~balance~ at work.

 

Logically anyone should choose the PA if acquired, and be basically pistol proof; and need a good reason to take it off. But in FO3 IRRC you could eventually kill a man in PA with a BB gun.

 

am getting that. the why is the problem. a new player who chooses a combat skill should not be rewarded with frustration. a skill that doesn't actual provide use is likely to cause frustration. this should all be obvious, but am uncertain why it is not.

Are you saying that the games [WL2 and games in general] should ensure that it's impossible for the player [character] not to acquire any [a] weapon they are skilled with... Like barring a door with a Shotgun, and they have to accept it to progress past the door?

[Extreme ~but real-world example; 'cause they did that in Shadow Warrior 2013.]

 

Baldur's Gate 2; katanas in BG2. BG games made katanas an exotic weapon, you could choose it, but there weren't many of them to be had.

The setting was such that it made sense to have one in the jail (so the PC is guaranteed access to one), but they are generally rare.

This makes sense in the setting; they just not plausibly common ~should they have been? If your character's rare weapon breaks (and it could IRRC), they should quickly contrive the appearance of a replacement? I understand your point, but the downside isn't favorable IMO; these games should not spawn weapons like Doom; (or practically.. as in the town merchant suddenly gets a Katana for sale when the PC breaks theirs). IMO this goes for energy weapons to ~or any exotic weapon. Fallout starts every PC with minimal competency in small arms; if they can't find a plasma pistol or one to buy or steal, they have skill with common guns until they do ~If they do. It's not as though they don't have them in the game ~that would be bad design.

 

But IMO it should be on the player to succeed in finding one ~not be issued one from the outset, or be given one as they leave the first area.

It could be different in WL2... the setting is such that ~at least hypothetically they could entrust a raw recruit with such impressive tech ~because they know how to use it... but... does that seem sensible on their first mission? Couldn't they easily lose it to raiders and have it used against them later?

I think the higher tier weapons should only be earned, bought, or discovered; and not impossible to miss.

 

and why would you care if some random guy respec's his character in a sp game?  is ironic, but is actual the folks clamoring for beautiful imbalance who should be advocating respec as it would reduce pressure on developers to implement balance. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

You don't want to know the answer.

(Seriously ~It's long and it involves discussing 'Middle Earth'.)

 

Aside from that, I just don't approve of repec options during play, because it rewrites the PC while leaving their past actions intact ~even if they could not have done them with the new skill set. Perhaps the game could 'forget' and reset parts of itself ~and take back acquired items retroactively... but I doubt it.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Gizmo

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Baldur's Gate 2; katanas in BG2. BG games made katanas an exotic weapon, you could choose it, but there weren't many of them to be had.

 

That's not a really good example. BG2 specifically mentioned that these things are rare and you won't find them lying around every corner in the skill description. Fallout, on the other hand, doesn't communicate what's useful (and even goes counter to post-apocalyptic genre tropes sometimes, so common sense isn't as useful as it could be).

[Undecaf]

am simply not seeing the drawbacks o' aiming for balanced use.

There does not need to be an inherent drawback. If [a] game has its experience intended to be evenly thick and servile regarding this matter (like NV, where the practical difference between choosing guns or EW is cosmetic for the most part - in my experience), then so be it. But the opposite, relative inequality of the skills (still provided that they earn their existence by having enough use throughout their respective ranges) is not such a boogeyman, regardless of whether Fallout had it right or wrong. It simply delinearizes the experience and requires a different approach in comparison to the balanced to serve [equally in all respects] way of doing things.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Undecaf

[Gizmo]

 

 

Baldur's Gate 2; katanas in BG2. BG games made katanas an exotic weapon, you could choose it, but there weren't many of them to be had.

 

That's not a really good example. BG2 specifically mentioned that these things are rare and you won't find them lying around every corner in the skill description. Fallout, on the other hand, doesn't communicate what's useful (and even goes counter to post-apocalyptic genre tropes sometimes, so common sense isn't as useful as it could be).

 

That's not a really good example [of my example]. BG2 is huge, and the skill is "Exotic Weapons"; and the game had the player choose among the skills.  Fallout's scale is comparatively miniscule here, and the game starts everyone with minimum proficiency in all skills; and those skills are 'catch-all' categories. 'Big Guns' includes miniguns, flame throwers, and rocket launchers. Its Melee weapon skill includes every melee weapon in the game, where BG2's sword skill does not include maces or even daggers. It's not the same thing at all. Fallout shouldn't have to tell anyone anything... In BOTH games [FO & BG2], it is an atmosphere of 'who the hell know what to expect out there', and in both cases it's gambling on the finding of highly advanced ~tech~ with no guarantees of anything. Well... technically the BG2 character should know more of their world than the Fallout character, so it figures that they would know that katanas are rarer items, and as such, you see it stated in the game. With Fallout the PC is tossed into the world with zero familiarity, and a head full of ~"how it was 80 years ago".

 

The point the katana example was that making that choice gave your PC a longshot ability to use a rare weapon ~one that's out there, but that you might never find, and at significant cost too... one that pays off only if you do find the weapon. Why should this not be the same for Energy weapons... or even TRAPS in Fallout.

(The traps skill being arguably THE skill that everyone seems to consider useless.... until they step on a mine or mess with somebody's hidden safe.)

Traps is hard to assume useful in every encounter; you'd not search the floor of a casino for traps... but it was useful if there were traps around.

*The flaw was that trap damage was usually minor by the time you started finding them in the game. But I do recall that in FO2, that setting off a trapped safe (in New Reno ) would bring a guard to investigate; where the player that did not set it off, did not alert the guard IRRC. Having a knack with traps enabled that.  It was also a flaw that Fallout 2 was made piecemeal and cobbled together at the end... making for all sorts of inconsistent use of game elements ~including the presence of traps. So there is some merit after all with Traps being poorly implemented.

(But it works when there are traps to be found. And is it really a fault that there isn't an excessive use of traps in the game?)

 

**I'm going to miss it terribly in both POE and WL2 if there is no traps detection; probably more so in PoE. I'd call it a key feature of the Infinity engines ~not counting Planescape much. I remember having to send the rogue in to hunt traps many times. Traps that could often kill outright, and several of them in proximity.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Gizmo

[aluminiumtrioxid]

The point the katana example was that making that choice gave your PC a longshot ability to use a rare weapon ~one that's out there, but that you might never find, and at significant cost too... one that pays off only if you do find the weapon. Why should this not be the same for Energy weapons... or even TRAPS in Fallout.

 

Well, if the game clearly communicates that this is a gamble, I see nothing wrong with that. But it didn't.

[Gizmo]

 

The point the katana example was that making that choice gave your PC a longshot ability to use a rare weapon ~one that's out there, but that you might never find, and at significant cost too... one that pays off only if you do find the weapon. Why should this not be the same for Energy weapons... or even TRAPS in Fallout.

 

Well, if the game clearly communicates that this is a gamble, I see nothing wrong with that. But it didn't.

 

 

... But how could it not be a gamble?

Energy weapons would be the most expensive guns in the game ~excepting miniguns, and that makes them rare by default, no?

(Or financially out of reach for a good bit of the game.)

 

** If I'd found one first day in those games... I think I'd have sold it for the small fortune it could bring, and saved myself the expense of the ammo.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Gizmo

[Gromnir]

 

 

The point the katana example was that making that choice gave your PC a longshot ability to use a rare weapon ~one that's out there, but that you might never find, and at significant cost too... one that pays off only if you do find the weapon. Why should this not be the same for Energy weapons... or even TRAPS in Fallout.

 

Well, if the game clearly communicates that this is a gamble, I see nothing wrong with that. But it didn't.

 

 

... But how could it not be a gamble?

Energy weapons would be the most expensive guns in the game ~excepting miniguns, and that makes them rare by default, no?

(Or financially out of reach for a good bit of the game.)

 

** If I'd found one first day in those games... I think I'd have sold it for the small fortune it could bring, and saved myself the expense of the ammo.

 

it is a bad example for multiple reasons.

 

as said, we is warned in bg2 that katanas is rare (which is actual not exactly true btw.) for a new player o' fallout, you get no such warning about energy weapons. you can very easily get ten or more hours into the game Before you realize that you took a gamble.

 

the only customization available to bg2 characters after start is weapon proficiency... and spells for mages. is a Horrible example. who is the characters that can get katana proficiency? fighters o' all flavors. paladins, rangers, thieves and bards. at most, a ranger and paladin may put 2 (+) into a single weapon. by necessity they will have other weapons tagged as well. thieves and bards can only put a single (+) into a weapon so they too will also have other weapons tagged.  the only 2 character builds who could even accidental lock self into katanas at start of bg2  is a ranger who places 3 (+) into dual wield at start of game and has only 2 more (+) for weapons. or, a fighter who goes grand mastery route.  

 

there is a katana available in irenicus's dungeon, in spite of the warning, so at least at start of game, even our dual wield ranger and grandmaster fighter has a weapon.

 

there ain't no ammo for melee weapons in bg2, so once you find or buy a magic katana, it will suffice for the entirety o' the game. you can buy a +1 magic katana at numerous locations. +2 magic katanas drop in the thieves den quest in amn, which is one o' the first major quests you is led by the nose to. furthermore, unlike energy weapons, the arguable best katana in the game is available potentially very early.  in fact, celestial fury is the easiest/quickest Super Weapon available in bg2. am recalling that on more than one occasion we considered giving our ranger characters katana mastery as katanas were along with war hammers the best single-hand weapons in the game.

 

is really a horrible example. not as bad as shady sands rocket launchers however as at least this example is, you know, real and possible.  even so, you and others is making mistake o' trying to compare bg games, which had very little customization options after start of game, to wasteland 2 and fallouts. we won't be finding true analogous scenarios no matter how much you try to make'em so.

 

"Tecnhically the PA suits should be electric or even pneumatic exoskeletons that are laden with heavy armor ~or at least puncture resistant."

 

and again you is using fallout to prove itself. stop it. serious. 

 

we didn't bother to read your remaining bit about fo3 power armour. you wanna beat the stuffing out o' fo3 rules mechanics? be our guest. fo3 mechanics is flawed on many levels. is not gonna be a particular good argument against balance however. 

 

"You don't want to know the answer.  :lol:"

 

actually, we kinda do. otherwise you got no valid reason to oppose respec. am thinking we can all agree that creating balance requires extra effort on the part o' the developers. they needs spend many hours testing mechanics to rid system o' over weak or over strong options. is equal hard to make skills and features that give few opportunities for use some value that will make them as reasonable a choice as those features that is getting much use. the beauty you see in lack o' balance is actual taking far less effort to achieve, and by its very nature is more subject to exploitation than balance. if you is against respec 'cause of exploit, then am gonna need call the hypocrisy hammer down upon you as balancing is the most common developer tool for combating exploit.

 

a single respec. that is what we is talking 'bout. a respe used by players other than yourself to reduce frustration encountered 'cause games has the imbalances you seem to like.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 26, 2014 by Gromnir