What PoE can learn from Wasteland 2 release? (faults and lessons to learn)

[phalzyr]

 

You cannot finish the game without combat like in Fallout, but many quests have ways to do them without killing everything that moves (including a Frog you run into early).

 

 

Man I always kill the frog without trying to do it peacefully... LOL its just a frog so never even thought to try...

[Volourn]

Not partaking in combat in games like WL2 or even FO is silly. I mean, in FO, you really have to try to  not fight since you get random encounters or enter places where creatures are instantly hostile  so you basically have to avoid content and role-play a coward. Why would one choose to role-play a coward except as a gigle fest for fun  play through after you played it a through once or twice.

 

I doubt a lot - if any - people played through FO without killing anyone first time through. And even if you avoid physical combat, the end game  is done by either setting off bombs or   'convincing' someone to do it themselves. Not exactly pacifist.

 

Hey, mahn, I don't believe in killing anyone, so can YOU please press the pretty red button on behalf so I can get off on a 'technicality'. L0LZ

[prodigydancer]

Man I always kill the frog without trying to do it peacefully... LOL its just a frog so never even thought to try...

Me neither. But I know from experience that it can crit for 50+ on Ranger. For something like ironman SJ run having a way of dealing with it without fighting may be actually pretty handy.

[archangel979]

The frog has patrol paterns. When it turns its back you can run in with one guy and grab the quest items and run away.

Lots of places in the game let you avoid combat by watching enemy patrol patterns and avoiding their field of vision.

[Volourn]

But, why? Why would you?

[archangel979]

To avoid fighting a tough enemy at level 1. Especially important if you are playing Ironman. Or if you are trying to play in a way to kill as little as possible.

[Volourn]

It's a game where the focus is on gunplay. If you want to avoid combat, play tetris. Wastelands are supposed to be harsh. You gonna let the killer frog live so he can eat innocents?

[Yellow Rabbit]

Only real complaint I have about WL2 is its weird role system with attributes disjointed from skills. Adding connection between them would magically make all those "useless attributess" slightly less redundant and, among other things, more sense in terms of simple logic. I just keep feeling strange when I see Ranger with 1 point of strength crushing every door he sees with his high-level Brute Force skill. Never heard of dystrophy manifestating that way. Short-sighted snipers and retarded hackers goes into that list too.

Other than that WL2 feels and plays really good for me.

 

But what lessons PoE supposed to take from WL2 giving the fact only things they have in common are engine, genre name and some people among the devs?

[Volourn]

"Only real complaint I have about WL2 is its weird role system with attributes disjointed from skills. Adding connection between them would magically make all those "useless attributess" slightly less redundant and, among other things, more sense in terms of simple logic. I just keep feeling strange when I see Ranger with 1 point of strength crushing every door he sees with his high-level Brute Force skill. Never heard of dystrophy manifestating that way. Short-sighted snipers and retarded hackers goes into that list too.

Other than that WL2 feels and plays really good for me."
 

Agreed.

[Ink Blot]

Only real complaint I have about WL2 is its weird role system with attributes disjointed from skills. Adding connection between them would magically make all those "useless attributess" slightly less redundant and, among other things, more sense in terms of simple logic. I just keep feeling strange when I see Ranger with 1 point of strength crushing every door he sees with his high-level Brute Force skill. Never heard of dystrophy manifestating that way. Short-sighted snipers and retarded hackers goes into that list too.

Other than that WL2 feels and plays really good for me.

I don't look at a 1 as meaning they're inferior in that particular attribute to the average Joe. I feel the characters we roll up are exceptional when compared to the regular Wasteland denizen. They're just not as good as someone with a higher score in that attribute. So someone with a 1 Strength can still Brute Force an object. I'd look at it as higher ranks meaning you know better where to put your weight or apply pressure in order to get results.

 

I made mention of the fact this might make more sense if the attribute gave a boost to your percentage chance the higher the attribute was, and I was informed that this is actually the way it works for many skills. I haven't tested it yet though. But if that's the case, then your 10 STR character will have a better percentage chance at success than your 1 STR character, given the same number of ranks in the skill.

[Yellow Rabbit]

I don't look at a 1 as meaning they're inferior in that particular attribute to the average Joe. I feel the characters we roll up are exceptional when compared to the regular Wasteland denizen. They're just not as good as someone with a higher score in that attribute. So someone with a 1 Strength can still Brute Force an object. I'd look at it as higher ranks meaning you know better where to put your weight or apply pressure in order to get results.

Hm. Never thought about it that way. Thanks for the tip But still, I'm used to role systems defining what character is good at and what he's bad at. Replacing it with "what he's good at and what he's very good at" doesn't seem right to me, it's cutting off significant chunk of roleplaying options. As if this game has much of those to begin with.

Besides, why wasteland denizens we pick up as companions wandering all around are just as exceptional as our core team then?

 

I made mention of the fact this might make more sense if the attribute gave a boost to your percentage chance the higher the attribute was, and I was informed that this is actually the way it works for many skills. I haven't tested it yet though. But if that's the case, then your 10 STR character will have a better percentage chance at success than your 1 STR character, given the same number of ranks in the skill.

Maybe they meant weapon skills. Some attributes affects chances to hit with either ranged or melee weapons, that much is true. But percentage is too small to be of real use anyway. I didn't pick up any info about attributes influencing non-combat skills neither from in-game tips nor from manual. I think devs would've describe that if there was some.

[archangel979]

The explanation about how recruits are somehow better does not work because everyone in that world uses same stat system and has similar bonuses. Actually it is implied that rangers are worse than an average soldier today as they didn't get a proper military training. 

 

But it still stands that Brute Force can be explained in more ways than the animation of it. People mostly complain because the animations does not fit a Strength 1, Brute Force 10 character.

Edited October 20, 2014 by archangel979

[Lephys]

I don't look at a 1 as meaning they're inferior in that particular attribute to the average Joe. I feel the characters we roll up are exceptional when compared to the regular Wasteland denizen. They're just not as good as someone with a higher score in that attribute. So someone with a 1 Strength can still Brute Force an object. I'd look at it as higher ranks meaning you know better where to put your weight or apply pressure in order to get results.

 

Yeah, but, then, is the system just trying to suggest that everyone in the world is no-less-than-average in any given attribute? If the purpose of a scale like that isn't to represent a quantified attribute as relative to an average, then why is it there? Why not just have a thing called "strength bonus"? That way, 0 would still just mean that you aren't getting a BONUS, without suggesting you're in the 1st percentile of people as far as strength measurements go.

 

For what it's worth, the Shadowrun PnP ruleset (well, and the recent video game, for that matter) have your skill values being capped/limited by your associated stat values. It works rather well. Stats give you a raw bonus, but skill ratings are what give you the biggest chunk of improvement. You gain new abilities (both passive and active) as your skill rating progresses.

 

That being said, I don't think WL2's focus is really on the extremely technical representations of roleplay factors. The very way that Brute Force works in the game is more of an all-in-one representation of your character's ability to overcome obstacles of the same type that are strewn throughout the game. Doesn't make a lot of sense from a simulation standpoint, but it works fine as a general RPG mechanic/option.

[Ink Blot]

Yeah, but, then, is the system just trying to suggest that everyone in the world is no-less-than-average in any given attribute?

No, you misunderstand me. I go by the assumption that our Rangers are exceptional people. The average Joe has no chance of becoming a Ranger, and therefore our Ranger's stats show how exceptional we are compared to the average. So all stat scores are positive and better than Joe Average.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it makes perfect sense, but viewing it this way makes it easier for me to pas it off without getting into a horrible logic/sense loop and tearing the whole thing apart. Because when it comes right down to it, no matter what system is used, you can find all kinds of logical inconsistencies. I try not to drive myself too crazy by overanalyzing them.

[Lephys]

No, you misunderstand me. I go by the assumption that our Rangers are exceptional people. The average Joe has no chance of becoming a Ranger, and therefore our Ranger's stats show how exceptional we are compared to the average. So all stat scores are positive and better than Joe Average.

Oh, okay. Yeah, sorry, didn't take that from what you said. That makes more sense.

 

Still, the skill is literally called "Brute Force." I mean, if it's just intelligently using force to get the thing open, wouldn't Demolitions fall under the same category? I'm not trying to be a smart ass or anything. When you blow a door open with an explosive, you're literally opening the door with force. You're just not using your own self to generate the force.

 

I'm not saying there's no way you could get better at using your own force to open things intelligently. Obviously, the skill doesn't represent your character just getting stronger, because that's what their Strength represents. And I agree that it's not worth over-analyzing the point of insanity. But, I hardly think acknowledging a mis-simulation is the same thing. It's a bit strange that someone with a billion Strength and only 1 rank of Brute Force would have loads of trouble kicking in a rusty door, while someone with 1 Strength (which, if the Rangers are all exceptional people, just puts them at the bottom of the upper range of strong people) and 9 ranks of Brute Force can kick the door in with ease.

 

I don't think we have to pretend that's not the case, just to accept that the representations work just fine with gameplay mechanics, and serve a purpose other than perfect simulation.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Brute Force isn't just about strength and knocking down a door. It can also be used on a turtle that's on its back and you use it to flip the turtle on it's legs. Also demolitions wouldn't fall under the same category because brute force is a combination of things from your body like using your legs to kick down a door. Demolitions is more mechanical with disarming traps and explosives. How do you brute force a land mine? You don't. You disarm it.

[Didier2]

 

Still, the skill is literally called "Brute Force." I mean, if it's just intelligently using force to get the thing open, wouldn't Demolitions fall under the same category? I'm not trying to be a smart ass or anything. When you blow a door open with an explosive, you're literally opening the door with force. You're just not using your own self to generate the force.

 

I'm not saying there's no way you could get better at using your own force to open things intelligently. Obviously, the skill doesn't represent your character just getting stronger, because that's what their Strength represents. And I agree that it's not worth over-analyzing the point of insanity. But, I hardly think acknowledging a mis-simulation is the same thing. It's a bit strange that someone with a billion Strength and only 1 rank of Brute Force would have loads of trouble kicking in a rusty door, while someone with 1 Strength (which, if the Rangers are all exceptional people, just puts them at the bottom of the upper range of strong people) and 9 ranks of Brute Force can kick the door in with ease.

 

I don't think we have to pretend that's not the case, just to accept that the representations work just fine with gameplay mechanics, and serve a purpose other than perfect simulation.

 

 

I have no proof of this but i really think they just deciced to turn "strength" checks into this "brute force" skill checks in order to increase the number of skills somewhere along the line of development, hence the misleading name that doesn't really make any sense.

I suspect they did the same with awareness and the "perception" skill in order to appease their backer's demand for more skills.

 

Kind of half-assed and cheesy if u ask me.

[Didier2]

Brute Force isn't just about strength and knocking down a door. It can also be used on a turtle that's on its back and you use it to flip the turtle on it's legs. Also demolitions wouldn't fall under the same category because brute force is a combination of things from your body like using your legs to kick down a door. Demolitions is more mechanical with disarming traps and explosives. How do you brute force a land mine? You don't. You disarm it.

 

If you look up Brute Force in the dictionary though, u get "purely physical force". So they didn't name the skill correctly at the very least.

[Ink Blot]

 

 

If you look up Brute Force in the dictionary though, u get "purely physical force". So they didn't name the skill correctly at the very least.

 

And it is physical, but that doesn't mean just Strength. I look at Brute Force as I said earlier: it's more about knowing where to apply leverage and force than about pure Strength. Sure, you'd think a really strong guy could kick in that rusty door better than a weaker guy. But have you ever tried something like that? If you don't know where to apply the force, you can do real damage to yourself - and not succeed.

 

@Lephys: no demolitions wouldn't fit that category. It never even crossed my mind that Demolitions was anything other than the knowledge of explosives and mechanical devices that are designed to go boom. As noted, if you try to Brute Force a mine, you'll get your arms (or legs) blown off.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

If you look up Brute Force in the dictionary though, u get "purely physical force". So they didn't name the skill correctly at the very least.

 

Are you not turning a turtle over through "purely physical force"? What other force are you using if it's not physical? Telekinesis?

[Volourn]

INtelligence. Afgility. Perception. Luck.

 

  Sorry but the flimsy excuses try to defend strenth 1 brute force 10 character si silly. It is illogical. It's gamey. Nothing more nothing less. There's no 'RL logic' in it.

 

Also, WL2 has lots of skills 'cause it is old skool and it is a sequel to WL1 which also had lots of skills.  And, it's awesome because of it. of course, some skills are shortshafted but eh can't all be winners. <>

 

Then again, according to some everyone should be winners in 2014. Unless you disagree with the hive mind then you are a loser.

[Cantousent]

Brute Force isn't just about strength and knocking down a door. It can also be used on a turtle that's on its back and you use it to flip the turtle on it's legs. Also demolitions wouldn't fall under the same category because brute force is a combination of things from your body like using your legs to kick down a door. Demolitions is more mechanical with disarming traps and explosives. How do you brute force a land mine? You don't. You disarm it.

 

 

If you look up Brute Force in the dictionary though, u get "purely physical force". So they didn't name the skill correctly at the very least.

 

Are you not turning a turtle over through "purely physical force"? What other force are you using if it's not physical? Telekinesis?

 

Aside from the argument about the topic, where I think Didier is right at the penny but wrong at the pound, I didn't even know you could even use brute force with the turtle.  I've done the turtle part twice and I used animal whisper both times.  I think it's a good sign that I keep finding out little things like this even after a couple runs.

[Yellow Rabbit]

Kinda agree with both Lephys and Ink Blot here. All skills (Brute Force, for that instance) make perfect sense as a part of game mechanics but they clearly not intended to simulate real life. It scratches the eye from time to time, but game's game. We're making all kinds of assumptions due to mechanics in other games, aren't we?

 

 

I have no proof of this but i really think they just deciced to turn "strength" checks into this "brute force" skill checks in order to increase the number of skills somewhere along the line of development, hence the misleading name that doesn't really make any sense.

I guess you're half right here. There obviously are needless (or at least not so useful) skills in Wl2, but I've left with impression they were made in order you could allocate all skills among 7 members of your team without repeating. Make a bunch of narrow specialists or something like that. Of course, that doesn't concern combat skills. Edited October 22, 2014 by Yellow Rabbit

[Didier2]

I guess you're half right here. There obviously are needless (or at least not so useful) skills in Wl2, but I've left with impression they were made in order you could allocate all skills among 7 members of your team without repeating. Make a bunch of narrow specialists or something like that. Of course, that doesn't concern combat skills.

 

 

I think what they were trying to do is make it so u can't max out all skills in a 7 member squad, which is silly cause you'll need a stupid amount of skills and very little skill points to distribute among individual characters to achieve that.

The result is these silly skills like "Brute Force" and "Perception" , and being limited to only investing in one weapon skill, which would be fine if weapons were balanced, but they aren't.

 

They really should have had a better idea of what their character system was going to look like from the start, including perks and traits.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Didier2

[Yellow Rabbit]

@Didier2: Not sure why you're calling Brute Force and Perception "silly". These skills are quite meaningful regarding both game mechanics and reality simulating. Problem is they don't depend on attributes in any way like they should. This CLASSIC system overall looks like an unfinished experiment. Not a bad one, but unfinished.

 

Speaking about perks and traits, WL2 as it is ended up being compared to Fallout much more than it's needed, if you ask me. And conclusion more often is "This is lousy Fallout!". I think the first reason devs came up with brand new role system is to avoid using SPECIAL (does it fall under Fallout license, by the way? Just curious.)

 

I just hope people playing PoE will never conclude "This is lousy Baldur's Gate!".