Wasteland 2

[ManifestedISO]

I thought he was saying the mechanical repair takes XP away from the lockpicker who failed critically. 

[Marceror]

I thought he was saying the mechanical repair takes XP away from the lockpicker who failed critically. 

I think that's what he's saying. That's not correct. In fact, mechanical repair potentially gives that lockpicker another chance to get some xp, since critical failure otherwise ends the xp opportunity for the lockpicker (unless you're save scumming, of course).

[Hiro Protagonist II]

you really don't get it. we noted, multiple times, that the value o' charisma in wasteland 2 were limited to 2 factors: "1) it boosts area of effect on the accuracy bonus for leadership (snort) and, 2) it gives a small xp bonus that is ultimately insignificant w/o giving your charisma jockey a high use skill." we also noted how leadership woked in the beta: "the way leadership worked in the beta is we got a 2% accuracy boost per level, and in-game description continues to boast a +2% boost that we do not get, but that is a whole 'nother issue."

 

charisma is still of negligible value for leveling purposes, but the most recent patch, which  we were made aware of by enoch in the following post on November 5th, http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68953-wasteland-2/?p=1532361 Doubled the value o' leadership's accuracy bonus.  if we did not take new information and changes into account, that would indeed make us as obtuse as you is being. we would also be contradicting self if we failed to applaud the return o' leadership to its beta state as we noted how essential the skill were in its beta form. 

 

again, you clear don't know what obtuse means if you is doggedly arguing this point. 

 

*shrug*

 

keep posting as you is further illustrating our point 'bout you being obtuse & evasive.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps as for your theory crafting acumen and diligence, we find such laughable based on your use of screen shots o' an ar wielding rose trying to make head shots at 48% as indicative o' headshot efficacy, and your desire to argue 'bout whether charisma affected zone of influence of rogue chance reduction of leadership rather than freaking testing it as Gromnir did. 

 

*Chuckles*

 

It's quite humorous seeing you flailing and flip-flopping like a drowning man. The last gasps of air as you try to fling this back onto others before finally drowning. I can picture it now. Grom-wah waving his hand angrily trying to argue the point and then seeing you finally go under.

 

But that's okay Grom-wah, you can still believe what you want. You keep that charisma around 4 and 5 on your characters. Some of us will have a leader with a CHA up to 8 and actually test this in game without the hypoethetical theorycrafting that you're trying to tell us and say our leader doesn't make a difference. hehe, your characters with 4 or 5 charisma. Yeah, great testing.

 

*guffaw*

Edited November 7, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Enoch]

 

you really don't get it. we noted, multiple times, that the value o' charisma in wasteland 2 were limited to 2 factors: "1) it boosts area of effect on the accuracy bonus for leadership (snort) and, 2) it gives a small xp bonus that is ultimately insignificant w/o giving your charisma jockey a high use skill." we also noted how leadership woked in the beta: "the way leadership worked in the beta is we got a 2% accuracy boost per level, and in-game description continues to boast a +2% boost that we do not get, but that is a whole 'nother issue."

 

charisma is still of negligible value for leveling purposes, but the most recent patch, which  we were made aware of by enoch in the following post on November 5th, http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68953-wasteland-2/?p=1532361 Doubled the value o' leadership's accuracy bonus.  if we did not take new information and changes into account, that would indeed make us as obtuse as you is being. we would also be contradicting self if we failed to applaud the return o' leadership to its beta state as we noted how essential the skill were in its beta form. 

 

again, you clear don't know what obtuse means if you is doggedly arguing this point. 

 

*shrug*

 

keep posting as you is further illustrating our point 'bout you being obtuse & evasive.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps as for your theory crafting acumen and diligence, we find such laughable based on your use of screen shots o' an ar wielding rose trying to make head shots at 48% as indicative o' headshot efficacy, and your desire to argue 'bout whether charisma affected zone of influence of rogue chance reduction of leadership rather than freaking testing it as Gromnir did. 

 

*Chuckles*

 

It's quite humorous seeing you flailing and flip-flopping like a drowning man. The last gasps of air as you try to fling this back onto others before finally drowning. I can picture it now. Grom-wah waving his hand angrily trying to argue the point and then seeing you finally go under.

 

But that's okay Grom-wah, you can still believe what you want. You keep that charisma around 4 and 5 on your characters. Some of us will have a leader with a CHA up to 8 and actually test this in game without the hypoethetical theorycrafting that you're trying to tell us and say our leader doesn't make a difference. hehe, your characters with 4 or 5 charisma. Yeah, great testing.

 

*guffaw*

 

Huh?  As I read Gromnir's posts, he never suggested that having more than 1 ranger with CHA>1 was useful.  He has been consistent in asserting that the XP effects of CHA are too insignificant to justify investment in the attribute, and that the one thing that makes CHA desirable (at least since the most recent patch changed the rules) is that it dictates the radius of the +2%/Level hit chance boost around a character with the Leadership skill.  (FWIW, I agree on both points.)  As such, his guess is that a CHA around 4 or 5 is the point where investment in the attribute is cost-justified.  (On that point, I don't have enough information to make a judgment.  I know that 7 is enough to have a healthy radius; if I built another team, I'd try a lower CHA than that and see how it worked.) 

 

 

Anyhow, the willingness on both your parts to continue baiting one another is tiresome.  Gromnir (at least his board personality) is a pugnatious guy and seems to get significant satisfaction out of puncturing what he sees as weak reasoning, and you seem to be oddly defensive about having built your team the "right" way.  Neither of you is going to convince the other, so why not just leave it be? 

 

 

So...  There's something particularly entertaining about punching a giant robot scorpion until it explodes. 

Edited November 7, 2014 by Enoch

[Cantousent]

Great, Enoch is stepping into the middle of a vendetta.  Nice ta know ya, man!  lol I keed!  I keed!

 

The scorpitron fight is 12 shades of ugly.  That's one of the two fights I have genuinely thought were ol' skool hard.  Those little scorpling bastards pack quite a punch also.  This is the fight that made me think that I should have two medics as well as a third surgeon.  Still, it's also the fight that made me soooo glad that I got that one 3 shot energy weapon with the ridiculous armor threshold.  That thing chews the hell out of anyone with halfway decent armor.  I swear, it's overpowered.

 

Generally, so far, I think those God's Militia morons are pretty damned tough, but I'm actually going to destroy them regardless of what my other options are.  They're one of three factions I have on my 'kill at all costs' list.

[BruceVC]

 

 

you really don't get it. we noted, multiple times, that the value o' charisma in wasteland 2 were limited to 2 factors: "1) it boosts area of effect on the accuracy bonus for leadership (snort) and, 2) it gives a small xp bonus that is ultimately insignificant w/o giving your charisma jockey a high use skill." we also noted how leadership woked in the beta: "the way leadership worked in the beta is we got a 2% accuracy boost per level, and in-game description continues to boast a +2% boost that we do not get, but that is a whole 'nother issue."

 

charisma is still of negligible value for leveling purposes, but the most recent patch, which  we were made aware of by enoch in the following post on November 5th, http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68953-wasteland-2/?p=1532361 Doubled the value o' leadership's accuracy bonus.  if we did not take new information and changes into account, that would indeed make us as obtuse as you is being. we would also be contradicting self if we failed to applaud the return o' leadership to its beta state as we noted how essential the skill were in its beta form. 

 

again, you clear don't know what obtuse means if you is doggedly arguing this point. 

 

*shrug*

 

keep posting as you is further illustrating our point 'bout you being obtuse & evasive.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps as for your theory crafting acumen and diligence, we find such laughable based on your use of screen shots o' an ar wielding rose trying to make head shots at 48% as indicative o' headshot efficacy, and your desire to argue 'bout whether charisma affected zone of influence of rogue chance reduction of leadership rather than freaking testing it as Gromnir did. 

 

*Chuckles*

 

It's quite humorous seeing you flailing and flip-flopping like a drowning man. The last gasps of air as you try to fling this back onto others before finally drowning. I can picture it now. Grom-wah waving his hand angrily trying to argue the point and then seeing you finally go under.

 

But that's okay Grom-wah, you can still believe what you want. You keep that charisma around 4 and 5 on your characters. Some of us will have a leader with a CHA up to 8 and actually test this in game without the hypoethetical theorycrafting that you're trying to tell us and say our leader doesn't make a difference. hehe, your characters with 4 or 5 charisma. Yeah, great testing.

 

*guffaw*

 

Huh?  As I read Gromnir's posts, he never suggested that having more than 1 ranger with CHA>1 was useful.  He has been consistent in asserting that the XP effects of CHA are too insignificant to justify investment in the attribute, and that the one thing that makes CHA desirable (at least since the most recent patch changed the rules) is that it dictates the radius of the +2%/Level hit chance boost around a character with the Leadership skill.  (FWIW, I agree on both points.)  As such, his guess is that a CHA around 4 or 5 is the point where investment in the attribute is cost-justified.  (On that point, I don't have enough information to make a judgment.  I know that 7 is enough to have a healthy radius; if I built another team, I'd try a lower CHA than that and see how it worked.) 

 

 

Anyhow, the willingness on both your parts to continue baiting one another is tiresome.  Gromnir (at least his board personality) is a pugnatious guy and seems to get significant satisfaction out of puncturing what he sees as weak reasoning, and you seem to be oddly defensive about having built your team the "right" way.  Neither of you is going to convince the other, so why not just leave it be? 

 

 

So...  There's something particularly entertaining about punching a giant robot scorpion until it explodes. 

 

I think the best solution is just for Hiro to admit he is wrong and apologize to Gromnir for making him explain his point over and over again?

 

That's what I would do if I was faced with such irrefutable evidence and logical analysis ?

[Cantousent]

Okay, guys, let's break it up here.  Time for a Kumbaya moment.  We'll sing songs and drink hot chocolate and knife a few raiders.  I think we can all agree that my next party will be the best of the bunch, mostly because I'll come up with a really good theme that will put all others to shame.  I was thinking of a Sandford and Son theme, but there really aren't enough strong main characters.  Maybe LOST?  Since charisma means squat for dialogue, I can split up the speaking skills between people.  Shepherd is the hard ass.  Locke is the smart ass.  Linus is the kiss ass.  I dunno.  Decisions decisions decisions.

[Humanoid]

Obviously the best solution to avoid such disagreements is to have 10 charisma in real life.

[ManifestedISO]

I wish my download speed would kumbaya this big ass update a little faster.

 

LOST characters, great idea. Do the obscure ones, Paulo and Nikki, Girl-In-Blue-Striped-Shirt, Arzt, Tom, Minkowski, Keamy for sure am I still talking it's because I enjoyed the show.

 

Obtuseness is a real word, I checked.  

[BruceVC]

 

 

Obtuseness is a real word, I checked.  

   you funny

[Cantousent]

Arzt would *have* to be my explosives expert.  :Cant's burnishing his halo while looking innocent icon:

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Huh?  As I read Gromnir's posts, he never suggested that having more than 1 ranger with CHA>1 was useful.  He has been consistent in asserting that the XP effects of CHA are too insignificant to justify investment in the attribute, and that the one thing that makes CHA desirable (at least since the most recent patch changed the rules) is that it dictates the radius of the +2%/Level hit chance boost around a character with the Leadership skill.  (FWIW, I agree on both points.)  As such, his guess is that a CHA around 4 or 5 is the point where investment in the attribute is cost-justified.  (On that point, I don't have enough information to make a judgment.  I know that 7 is enough to have a healthy radius; if I built another team, I'd try a lower CHA than that and see how it worked.) 

 

Anyhow, the willingness on both your parts to continue baiting one another is tiresome.  Gromnir (at least his board personality) is a pugnatious guy and seems to get significant satisfaction out of puncturing what he sees as weak reasoning, and you seem to be oddly defensive about having built your team the "right" way.  Neither of you is going to convince the other, so why not just leave it be? 

 

So...  There's something particularly entertaining about punching a giant robot scorpion until it explodes. 

 

I'm not defensive about having a leader with CHA 8. In fact, everything shows that it's a good number to have it around 8.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I think the best solution is just for Hiro to admit he is wrong and apologize to Gromnir for making him explain his point over and over again?

 

That's what I would do if I was faced with such irrefutable evidence and logical analysis ?

 

Bruce, you've shown to be dishonest in the WOT forum. And you're all for dishonesty and no integrity which I've shown the entire forum in the gaming journalism thread. You don't need to bring your trolling and dishonesty in this thread now. So instead of you trolling how about trying to refute why having a high charisma on one party member isn't any good. Because Grom-wah has not only failed badly, other people think it's a good idea. And I've shown that having a high charisma on one or your characters in the game can be beneficial. That is irrefutable evidence and logical analysis by your standards.

 

In fact other people have come on and liked or agreed with having one party member with high charisma. Marceror has come on and see's how it can benefit a party and people have liked his post. I don't see you disputing Marceror's posts. Now that is irrefutable evidence and logical analysis.

 

But ignore those people why don't you. You're concerned about me? LMAO. And not only that, you've been on the attack with me right from the start. Gee I wonder why. Sore loser much?  But I guess being a sore loser is part and parcel of being proven wrong on many accounts in the WoT forums.

 

So how about lets talk about the game instead of you trolling this thread. If anyone needs to apologise it's you. So how about that apology Bruce? I doubt I'll get it. Lets get back on topic. I know it's hard for you to do but I know you have it in you. Lets talk about the game and you can stop this unhealthy obsession with following me around the forums, jumping into threads and attacking me. The game is fun. Maybe you should try playing it some time.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[IndiraLightfoot]

On the Scorpitrons and one of dealing with them  (mini-spoiler - yes, there are more than one):

 

 

Before I met Rose, I had one of my characters pretty high with Cumputers, and Rose easily maxed it out earlier, so my other character got some free skill points that she put in that as well.

Heck, IIRC, even Lex has pretty high on it. So, a couple of guys in my party immediately "convert" the mini-scorps into allies, which then attack their Scorpitron-mother. In order to this reliably enough you need 9 or more (otherwise, it's a risk of wasting damage-enducing APs).

 

 

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

I thought he was saying the mechanical repair takes XP away from the lockpicker who failed critically. 

I think that's what he's saying. That's not correct. In fact, mechanical repair potentially gives that lockpicker another chance to get some xp, since critical failure otherwise ends the xp opportunity for the lockpicker (unless you're save scumming, of course).

 

Alright. I have played through the entire game, and this has slipped by me entirely. I had no idea you could do this!

[BruceVC]

 

I think the best solution is just for Hiro to admit he is wrong and apologize to Gromnir for making him explain his point over and over again?

 

That's what I would do if I was faced with such irrefutable evidence and logical analysis ?

 

Bruce, you've shown to be dishonest in the WOT forum. And you're all for dishonesty and no integrity which I've shown the entire forum in the gaming thread. You don't need to bring your trolling and dishonesty in this subforum and thread now. So instead of trolling this forum which I've shown that having a high charisma on one or your characters in the game can be beneficial, how about talk about the game?

 

In fact other people have come on and liked or agreed with having one party member with high charisma. Now that is irrefutable evidence and logical analysis. But ignore those people why don't you. You're concerned about me? LMAO.

 

Or are you going to keep on trolling? Because I haven't seen you do anything in this thread other than go on the attack with me. But I guess being a sore loser is part and parcel of being proven wrong on many accounts in the WoT forums.

 

So how about lets talk about the game instead of you trolling this thread. If anyone needs to apologise it's you. So how about that apology Bruce? I doubt I'll get it.

 

Lets get back on topic. I know it's hard for you to do but I know you have it in you.

 

 

Wow, when I read a response like this I almost want to never comment in another one of your discussions again. All I get is criticism and my head being bitten off

 

But I won't do that to you, I know how much you appreciate my input...you just have  a strange way of showing it

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Wow, when I read a response like this I almost want to never comment in another one of your discussions again. All I get is criticism and my head being bitten off

 

But I won't do that to you, I know how much you appreciate my input...you just have  a strange way of showing it

 

Bruce, the only time you comment in a discussion when I'm involved is to troll me. You admitted that you get great pleasure from it in the PoE forum. I'm glad that post is still there for all to see and you can't delete it. You're more concerned about me with your unhealthy obsession and I can assure you it's not all about me. So lets get back to discussion on the game, something I haven't seen you do in this thread. Funny about that. As I said, maybe play the game. It's actually quite fun.

[Cantousent]

Get a room before the thread gets locked, you two.  Don't make me lock the both of you up somewhere until you kiss and make up.  I haven't had any long exchanges in Bruce, although we did discuss cheese if I recall it right.  I *have* had many long and protracted disagreements with Hiro, and we seem to get along okay.  Geez, stop bein' playah hatahs and bury the hatchet, preferably not in each other's skull.  Grab a flight to CO and smoke a peace pipe full of the ganga or something.

 

Anyhow, thanks for the tip, Indira.  I'll have to keep an eye out for further Scorpibeast encounters.  My skill monkey is at 9 for Computers that I make ten with a trinket.  I might actually increase it to a full 10 so I can use a better combat trinket and I don't have to deal with the drawback of the current PDA trinket during battles where Computer skills have some application.  Or I'll just smite them with righteous vengeance like I did the first time.

[ManifestedISO]

I ... don't think I'll get to see what all the kumbaya is about, tonight. 

[IndiraLightfoot]

 I'll have to keep an eye out for further Scorpibeast encounters.  My skill monkey is at 9 for Computers that I make ten with a trinket.  I might actually increase it to a full 10 so I can use a better combat trinket and I don't have to deal with the drawback of the current PDA trinket during battles where Computer skills have some application.  Or I'll just smite them with righteous vengeance like I did the first time.

 

I know of at least one surprise encounter with one of them, apart from end game stuff. And yes, you are absolutely right about those trinkets. There are in fact a number of those, so know need to sacrifice all points on that. With those tokens, you get to reach 9 or 10, wich makes the mini-scorp conversion odds at 65%, 10% critical failure, IIRC, and if you have a decent number of APs on your comp tech guys, you get two chances each turn, so it's pretty easy and fun to watch. Heh, and if you critically succeed, those mini-scorps get overclocked.

Edited November 7, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I have to admit the Scorpitron you come across first wasn't as hard as I thought it'd be. I focused fired on the mother and ignored all the baby scorpitrons and when your team is dealing a 1000 or more (Pizepi does ~350, Brother Thomas does over 200 with his two energy weapons), it goes down pretty quick.

 

The hardest battle for me has been Whittier. Not because of the enemies but trying to keep my pets alive. It's the only battle in the game I've come across so far where you have a real risk of losing them. I found the dogs aren't too much of a problem. It's my rat that keeps running off (damn he covers a lot of distance!) and getting killed. After the third attempt, I managed to do it because my rat finally followed my dogs instead of going off in the opposite direction. Once all my pets went in the same direction, it was reasonably easy. And maybe because I left that as the last encounter and I was at a higher level.

 

Oh and to Enoch, there is no time limit to having to do these call out quests. You can leave them and do them anytime you want. I recall you asking about the Santa Monica quest and no, you don't have to go there straight away. You can leave it for later.

[BruceVC]

Get a room before the thread gets locked, you two.  Don't make me lock the both of you up somewhere until you kiss and make up.  I haven't had any long exchanges in Bruce, although we did discuss cheese if I recall it right.  I *have* had many long and protracted disagreements with Hiro, and we seem to get along okay.  Geez, stop bein' playah hatahs and bury the hatchet, preferably not in each other's skull.  Grab a flight to CO and smoke a peace pipe full of the ganga or something.

 

Anyhow, thanks for the tip, Indira.  I'll have to keep an eye out for further Scorpibeast encounters.  My skill monkey is at 9 for Computers that I make ten with a trinket.  I might actually increase it to a full 10 so I can use a better combat trinket and I don't have to deal with the drawback of the current PDA trinket during battles where Computer skills have some application.  Or I'll just smite them with righteous vengeance like I did the first time.

 

You right, I should try to be more civil

 

Hiro can we be friends or at least be more friendly ?

[Gromnir]

 

On the topic of having high CHA characters, well, first, there's more to it than just giving a character high charisma. You want them to have high charisma AND plenty of non-combat skills that grant xp (e.g. demolitions and lockpicking)

 

A 10 CHA character who is doing several of the key non-combat skills compared to a 1 CHA character who isn't can easily end the game with a good 6 level divide between them. Is this alone worth the CHA, investment? I guess that's open to interpretation, but when you add into that the huge radius of leadership influence, it looks a lot better. I realize that the bonus isn't huge, but when you're giving that bonus to SIX other characters, it makes a difference. It makes head shots a lot safer, and/or firing at a foe behind cover a fair amount easier.

 

I think I'm probably more inclined to stick with around 8 CHA for my leader going forward though.

in retrospect, giving all the good skills to the high charisma leader is arse backwards as it is gimping everybody but the leader.

 

the benefit of the charisma boost is largely negligible, so giving all your best xp generating skills to one ranger is effective gimping all those other rangers.  oh, sure, mathematically you get most benefit from the charisma boost by dropping the skills into one character, but to do so is ultimately self defeating as you is going to be giving leveling advantages to likely your least effective combat ranger and you will not be seeing any real advantages from doing so until At Least 1/2 into the game.

 So let's say you went balls to the wall with this character and gave them 10 INT and 8 CHA. Skills might be lockpicking, demolitions, sniper rifle, leadership and kiss ass (with less INT I would expect less skills assigned to that character).

 

we contemplated such a character, for about five minutes.  heck, we were trying to get hp jr. to recognize the mistake you is making and he never did. he wanted to compare his leader to his "best character" while seeming to forget that his leader were necessarily his worst character. so you wanna show us we ain't gimping party? *chuckle* ok, le'ts go balls to the walls and end up with a character that gots 10 int and 8 cha.  what kinda ap and ci does that character get? so, to build a character that will indeed start getting a few extra levels than the rest of the party by mid point of the game, you gotta turn that ranger into relative dead weight in combat.... which is fine. is a quasi-rpg, so if you wanna make a single character with terrible combat contributions, that is okie dokie. the thing is, as enoch notes, you ain't genuine enhancing your remaining ranger's combat efficacy by turning your charisma monkey into your party gimp. 

 

again, the insular mathematical advantage is to make such a skill & charisma monkey, but that mathematical advantage only exists outside actual gameplay. as soon as combat starts, and combat is a very large % o' the potential gameplay, the mathematical advantage evaporates. you can , of course, make a more combat efficacious charisma monkey, but doing so necessitates reducing intelligence or charisma, which largely nullifies the advantages o' such a character. furthermore, as you should be able to see from our screenie and feedback on this issue, skill choice is far more important than even two or three points o' charisma. 

 

Well, since I easily beat the game on supreme jerk, I can safely say that your assertion that I'm making "a mistake" is unfounded. I have no problem admitting that a 10 INT 8 CHA character is almost certainly going to be your weakest combat character, but who cares? You can have up to 7 characters, and combat is *totally* doable with some non-combatants on the team. And I never claimed that I would be "enhancing my remaining ranger's combat efficacy" by having a less combat oriented character on the team, so I'm not sure what you're on about with that point.

 

Trying to steer your response back on track, your point that I previously responded to was that by giving non-combat skills to my CHA character I would end up gimping "the party" and "gimping everyone BUT the leader". So why are you now trying to back that up by explaining that I will be gimping the high CHA character, pointing out low CI and such? In relation to the party, what relevance does that one character's CI or AP have? "The party" will still have plenty of non-combat skills they can spread around so the more combat oriented characters have additional sources of xp, which is what I pointed out. I neglected to mention weaponsmithing, so thanks for including that in the list.

 

Sorry, but you're really off point here.

 

oh, and mechanical repair is a terrible xp skill. to get the benefits o' repairing locks you must first needs fail at another skill, so you is simple taking xp from another character... need hope for many fails to make useful. furthermore, in our experience, is typical that the skill to repair a lock requires higher skill than to open said lock. chances are we is already making stuff such as lock pick and safecrack a priority for skills. the likelihood that we got higher skill in mechanical is near nil.  am guessing you could come back to critical fail locks some couple o' levels later, but isn't it easier to take a couple random map encounters if you is so desperate for xp? there is a safe in the ag center we failed. how likely is we to go back to ag center and fix the lock after we has level'd a bit? additional, folks on this board has observed a dearth o' mechanical repair opportunities in ca, and there are not a particular large number o' such options in az. in fact, more than a few mechanical repair options may be resolved via frequent use skills such as computers and demolitions, so assuming you got the trinket for mechanical repair (am pretty confident we saw one at a vendor, but am not certain) you won't need more than 4 or 5 points in mechanical repair to do all o' az... and if you got the skill boosting book, that number drops to 3 or 4. so, a skill we could stop paying for at between 3 and 5 needs have us get 8 or 9 skill levels to overcome the critical fails... fails which is less likely to occur if we spend points in the more relevant skills.  mechanical repair is better than barter. am having difficulty saying anything else that is positive 'bout mechanical repair if it indeed drops off in usage in ca.

 

other terrible xp skills is the speech skills, brute force, and we suspect something is wrong with outdoorsman, 'cause we skip every random world map encounter we can, but our outdoorsman character seems to benefit little or not at all from such avoidings.  weaponsmith also sux for xp boosts. am not certain how many weapons we has broken down trying to get a particular mod, or 3 such mods, but numbers is high. 

 

Clearly some skills are richer in xp opportunities than others, but as I stated previously, you can adjust who gets what as you see fit.

 

As for mechanical repair you are incorrect about xp being transferred from one character to the other. This skill actually creates an additional xp opportunity each time. The sequence is 1) critical failure (no xp), 2) mechanical repair (xp on success), 3) retry original skill check (xp on success).

 

enoch is correct that we do target poor reasoning. you is a treasure trove o' opportunities.

 

*shrug*

 

all we need say is that complete game on any level o' difficulty does not preclude the possibility that you is mistaken about a mechanic or feature or... whatever.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Marceror]

 

enoch is correct that we do target poor reasoning. you is a treasure trove o' opportunities.

 

 

 

*shrug*

 

all we need say is that complete game on any level o' difficulty does not preclude the possibility that you is mistaken about a mechanic or feature or... whatever.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Says the guy who is making incohesive points and sharing incorrect information about the game. I'll join you in wrapping this up with a "whatever".

[Gromnir]

uh, yeah. even if you think we is "incohesvive" and sharing incorrect info (*snort*) it hardly diminishes the validity o' our recent observation: your completion o' the game hardly confers infallibility.  

 

"Well, since I easily beat the game on supreme jerk, I can safely say that your assertion that I'm making "a mistake" is unfounded."

 

amusing. 

 

however, you is correct that theoretically mechanics creates a double opportunity. 'course one wonders if you is intentional ignoring the rest o' our observations 'bout mechanic repair. is maybe that obtuseness hp jr suffers from is contagious. your observation does very little to suggests that mechanics is indeed a useful xp generating skill for reasons we already stated.

 

your failure at reading an entire post actual does make us wonder at the possibility of creating a mechanics exploit. one ranger could be given intentionally poor lock or safecrack skills: 1(ish) level. again, fixing a lock is more difficult that opening, so the vast majority o' critical failed locks will be beyond repair skills of any ranger, unless one exploits the system. medium locks only got a small crit fail chance, so is tough to get much xp from such fails. there is few mechanics opportunities in the game, and hoping for fails to get the fix chance is silly for reasons we already explained.  but what if you has a ranger take an intentional ~1 in safes and locks? this ranger will be crit failing all the freaking time, and he/she will be doing so on locks that is simple for your ranger who is maxing such skills. one suspects that for every simple or easy lock one comes up against, one could send your auto-fail ranger in to intentionally crit fail. the mechanic would then have a easy or medium chance with mechanics, and your locksmith character would also get a chance to open the repaired lock. two rangers would then get xp for a pool of locks that is not simple a prohibitive small amount.

 

 

*shrug*

 

 

is too much work for Gromnir. have just enough throwaway points to near certain crit fail w/o being too incompetent to get "impossible" message?  otherwise, you is hoping for the 1% to 10% typical failure rates for the vast majority o' locked devices, of which there aren't all that freaking many to begin with. sans some kinda exploit, mechanics is a dog skill for generating xp.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited November 9, 2014 by Gromnir