Wasteland Wasteland 2 Pre-Release Discussion Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Infinitron]

And why should I not penalize a skinny guy trying to brawl with a guy twice its size? Boxing has different weight categories due the massive difference it makes, why an RPG should consider a punch from a hobbit and a punch from a orc the same thing?

Uh, because they both have the same unarmed combat skill? You know what you've just said isn't that far from the consoletards screaming at Morrowind that their sword "totally hit that mudcrab!".

Anyway, the question of combat damage and accuracy is actually less critical, since it's systemic, easy for designers to tune and generally easy for players to predict and understand. Involving both stats and skills in combat calculations isn't as problematic.

Dialogue checks and other non-combat checks are the problematic element here.

 

[NotTale]

And why should I not penalize a skinny guy trying to brawl with a guy twice its size?

He's already penalized. The issue is penalizing a second time.

The hobbit and the orc comparison only works if the hobbit is far better trained than the orc. It's the world lightweight champion vs the worlds fattest man.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I mean logical from the design point of view. Both stats and skills should be actively used and checked, often simultaneously. The derived effect is very limited, the longer you play, the less it matters.

Doesn't that depend on how high you can raise skills? If they can only provide a max of 20% increase to your base abilities then it doesn't matter how long the game lasts.

Then the skills become less important and your chance will be mostly driven by the stats.

Like I said, it's much easier (since it's a very simple formula) to take into account both. I mean, that's why we got computers, right?

In AoD, we check your combat skill, Strength, weapon type (within a class), attack type (fast, normal, power, etc) to get THC and damage, then roll for critical effect, passive effect, alchemical effect, etc.

 

[Vault Dweller]

And why should I not penalize a skinny guy trying to brawl with a guy twice its size? Boxing has different weight categories due the massive difference it makes, why an RPG should consider a punch from a hobbit and a punch from a orc the same thing?

Uh, because they both have the same unarmed combat skill? You know what you've just said isn't that far from the consoletards screaming at Morrowind that their sword "totally hit that mudcrab!".

Not the same at all. What's a combat skill in this case? It's an ability to use a melee weapon efficiently and hit your target, not hit your target for X points of damage. A Conan-type guy can whack you with the same sword for far more damage than some skinny kid. Strength in this case represents a weakness elsewhere (the skinny kid can have more points and attack twice per turn, for example) and thus the player must be compensated for his investment and the increase must be balanced.

 

[Infinitron]

And why should I not penalize a skinny guy trying to brawl with a guy twice its size? Boxing has different weight categories due the massive difference it makes, why an RPG should consider a punch from a hobbit and a punch from a orc the same thing?

Uh, because they both have the same unarmed combat skill? You know what you've just said isn't that far from the consoletards screaming at Morrowind that their sword "totally hit that mudcrab!".

Not the same at all. What's a combat skill in this case? It's an ability to use a melee weapon efficiently and hit your target, not hit your target for X points of damage. A Conan-type guy can whack you with the same sword for far more damage than some skinny kid. Strength in this case represents a weakness elsewhere (the skinny kid can have more points and attack twice per turn, for example) and thus the player must be compensated for his investment and the increase must be balanced.

Fine, then let's say I'm talking only about accuracy and swap the Strength stat for the Coordination stat (Coordination is W2's Agility/Dexterity/etc).

Same question: Should Coordination be involved in the accuracy calculation, or just the weapon skill?

Actually, in D&D, Strength determines accuracy as well, perhaps we should involve that too?

 

[felipepepe]

Uh, because they both have the same unarmed combat skill?

Due their skills, they have equal chance to hit a blow, but the power of the blow is competently different. Same way the same person deals different damage with different guns, the same unarmed skill should deal different damage with different "bodies".

You know what you've just said isn't that far from the consoletards screaming at Morrowind that their sword "totally hit that mudcrab!".

How? Because of the visual image of a hobbit vs. and orc? I disagree, you fucking created the character, you made him an hobbit, now if you wanna make him melee with an orc, pay the price.

Dialogue checks and other non-combat checks are the problematic element here.

I don't see why it should be different... diplomacy skill + bonus from charisma stat. Something like Arcanum did, with beautiful/charismatic characters getting a higher initial reaction, then having to use their skill to work from there.

 

[Infinitron]

I don't see why it should be different... diplomacy skill + bonus from charisma stat. Something like Arcanum did, with beautiful/charismatic characters getting a higher initial reaction, then having to use their skill to work from there.

I've already explained in this thread why that's problematic. It's because each separate instance of non-combat skill usage needs to be individually designed and scripted. It's not systemic, there are no universal rules. Unless you want to go the Oblivion route, yech.

 

[felipepepe]

Fine, then let's say I'm talking only about accuracy and swap the Strength stat for the Coordination stat (Coordination is W2's Agility/Dexterity/etc).

Same question: Should Coordination be involved in the accuracy calculation, or just the weapon skill?

Since it already boosts your initial weapon skill, it counting again on the calculation would be unbalanced... it should affect other things, like maximum distance or distance penality.

I've already explained in this thread why that's problematic. It's because each separate instance of non-combat skill usage needs to be individually designed and scripted. It's not systemic, there are no universal rules. Unless you want to go the Oblivion route, yech.

And we already dismissed that... every PnP RPG has a table on tests and difficulties, why should W2 not have one, even if just for the designers to create the levels?

 

[Vault Dweller]

You know what you've just said isn't that far from the consoletards screaming at Morrowind that their sword "totally hit that mudcrab!".

How? Because of the visual image of a hobbit vs. and orc? I disagree, you fucking created the character, you made him an hobbit, now if you wanna make him melee with an orc, pay the price show him your honor!.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I don't see why it should be different... diplomacy skill + bonus from charisma stat. Something like Arcanum did, with beautiful/charismatic characters getting a higher initial reaction, then having to use their skill to work from there.

I've already explained in this thread why that's problematic. It's because each separate instance of non-combat skill usage needs to be individually designed and scripted. It's not systemic, there are no universal rules. Unless you want to go the Oblivion route, yech.

Not necessarily. You simply add a stat or another skill effect and that's that. What's so complex about it?

 

[Infinitron]

Not necessarily. You simply add a stat or another skill effect and that's that. What's so complex about it?

It's not about complexity, it's about inconsistency which is inevitable in a game created by multiple designers. Of course, as a lone genius who created an entire RPG by himself and has been balancing it for the past 3 years, you wouldn't understand the issues.

Again: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...discussion-thread.74337/page-166#post-2793332

 

[Vault Dweller]

Same question: Should Coordination be involved in the accuracy calculation, or just the weapon skill?

It depends on the overall design. For example, we didn't use Dex because it determined AP, which was enough, but Per did provide a TH bonus, which made quite a difference and added a few builds.

Now, in WL2, iirc, everyone gets the same amount of AP, which makes Dex a bit useless, so I'd use it in TH calculations. Basically, our goal was to make all stats useful and make it hard to make a decision which stats to focus on.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Uh, because they both have the same unarmed combat skill?

Due their skills, they have equal chance to hit a blow, but the power of the blow is competently different. Same way the same person deals different damage with different guns, the same unarmed skill should deal different damage with different "bodies".

Or because of their different Strength, if you want to talk about skill levels. If both are equally skilled, the orc will mop the floor with the hobbit in a fair fistfight.

 

[Infinitron]

Now, in WL2, iirc, everyone gets the same amount of AP

Huh?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Not necessarily. You simply add a stat or another skill effect and that's that. What's so complex about it?

It's not about complexity, it's about inconsistency which is inevitable in a game created by multiple designers. Of course, as a lone genius who created an entire RPG by himself and has been balancing it for the past 3 years, you wouldn't understand the issues.

Again: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...discussion-thread.74337/page-166#post-2793332

Why inconsistency? I assume that all designers will be given some common guidelines, especially when it comes to dialogue checks. So, if they want to go with a single stat check, they tell everyone to use a single stat in checks and keep the values between X and Y for this area. No?

 

[Grunker]

just use gurps

 

[Vault Dweller]

Now, in WL2, iirc, everyone gets the same amount of AP

Huh?

My mistake, must have misread an old preview. Good news!

 

[Infinitron]

Not necessarily. You simply add a stat or another skill effect and that's that. What's so complex about it?

It's not about complexity, it's about inconsistency which is inevitable in a game created by multiple designers. Of course, as a lone genius who created an entire RPG by himself and has been balancing it for the past 3 years, you wouldn't understand the issues.

Again: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...discussion-thread.74337/page-166#post-2793332

Why inconsistency? I assume that all designers will be given some common guidelines, especially when it comes to dialogue checks. So, if they want to go with a single stat check, they tell everyone to use a single stat in checks and keep the values between X and Y for this area. No?

Sure, they can do that. They can factor in tons of stats. Weighted averages. They can go wild! The question is, is it worth the added design complexity involved in an already ambitious game?

I don't know. Could be me and tuluse are full of shit and inXile were planning on using stats in everything all along, even when using Brute Force. This is all an extrapolation based on the fact that Brute Force and Perception are skills. Just because Brute Force is a skill doesn't mean its usage can't factor in Strength as well.

 

[tuluse]

Guys you could use brute force to calculate melee damage

 

[felipepepe]

Infinitron, I won't be rude to say that no never played PnP, but I definetly think you never GM'ed a custom campaign... following a chart to add some checks during the game isn't a "added design complexity"... it's easier and more rewarding campaign-wise than adding a single one-monster encounter.

Damn, skill-checks are probably the simplest thing you can add to a campaign as a GM...

 

[Infinitron]

Infinitron, I won't be rude to say that no never played PnP, but I definetly think you never GM'ed a custom campaign... following a chart to add some checks during the game isn't a "added design complexity"... it's easier and more rewarding campaign-wise than adding a single one-monster encounter.

Rude? I'm not ashamed to admit I've never played PnP.

But of the three big Kickstarter RPGs, only Torment is being developed with a PnP system in mind, I think. (I don't believe Wasteland 2's MSPE adaptation will be anything more than a superficial influence)

So, I don't know how relevant that is.

 

[tuluse]

Not the same at all. What's a combat skill in this case? It's an ability to use a melee weapon efficiently and hit your target, not hit your target for X points of damage. A Conan-type guy can whack you with the same sword for far more damage than some skinny kid. Strength in this case represents a weakness elsewhere (the skinny kid can have more points and attack twice per turn, for example) and thus the player must be compensated for his investment and the increase must be balanced.

Doesn't higher skill also mean you know which areas to aim to cause more damage? The idea behind many Eastern martial arts is using your opponent's momentum against him to cause damage. Bruce Lee is not as strong as a certain Lithuanian hitman, but I bet he could have taken him in a fight.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Doesn't higher skill also mean you know which areas to aim to cause more damage?

I'd say more critical damage, not more generic damage.

 

[Darth Roxor]

So, I don't know how relevant that is.

I remember when RPGs of auld were supposed to emulate pnp experience. Those were good times. But then they stopped and we've been stuck with that decision ever since.


But consider this, an example taken from Fallout because I'm too lazy to think of a different one, but in the context of WL2 char system.

Your aspiring rangers come across the troubled farmer from Shady Sands, who can't make his crops grow properly. What SKILL do you test against here to give him advice how to fix the situation? Outdoorsman? Not exactly the same thing. And there's not one any skill out there that would be something like [Common Lore: Agriculture]. Isn't it only LOGICAL and CONVENIENT for both the game designer AND the player that this is derived from the raw intelligence attribute?

Or even better because I'm not as lazy as I thought - the aspiring party comes across a rusty old tank. What a stroke of luck, turns out it's still got juice in it, and will only need a basic kick to be put back into shape! What do you check against to repair it in the current system? "Toaster repair"? And what do you then check against to pilot it safely back home or use its hueg gun vs the raiders next door? Synth tech? Or maybe Silent Move to get a drop on them, too?

Each and every point at which it's only logical that a skill check should be applied because there's a narrow field of expertise presented, but can't be because there's no such skill present, should call for a check against the raw attribute. It gives players replay value and satisfaction from passing the checks and gaining new tools, and it gives designers a very useful and convenient backdoor to supply those features.

 

[Infinitron]

Your aspiring rangers come across the troubled farmer from Shady Sands, who can't make his crops grow properly. What SKILL do you test against here to give him advice how to fix the situation? Outdoorsman? Not exactly the same thing. And there's not one any skill out there that would be something like [Common Lore: Agriculture]. Isn't it only LOGICAL and CONVENIENT for both the game designer AND the player that this is derived from the raw intelligence attribute?

Hmm, that's the crop rotation thing, right? I always assumed that one used Science.

Each and every point at which it's only logical that a skill check should be applied because there's a narrow field of expertise presented, but can't be because there's no such skill present, should call for a check against the raw attribute.

That reminds me of the "God of the gaps".