Game News Wasteland 2 Kickstarter Update #28: Progress Report, Weapon Design

[tuluse]

I used small guns almost exclusively in most of my Fallout 1/2 playthroughs.

 

[Lancehead]

We’ve created a system where if you invest into pistols, you can use them from start to finish and be effective throughout.

Sounds very much like Sawyer on New Vegas' weapon skills.

It's a fucking stupid idea, only conceived to coddle retarded crybabies. "Waah, I put all my points in Small Guns, why do I have to invest in Energy Weapons, waah waah". This existed, to a degree, in F3 and it was fucking stupid and NV made it even worse. In Fallout you manned up and invested in either Big Guns or Energy Weapons, big deal. Smart players put a point or two in one of those already from early game, so when you found your first laser pistol or minigun, you could dish out some serious damage for tough encounters. But no, we have to streamline the system for morons so that they don't need to plan out their character in advance or spread out skill points to cover different possibilities - even in a game where you control a fucking party. Oh no, it's back to the Bethesda-school of thought (yes, with flank support from Sawyer):

"Oh wow, I found a laser pistol! Oh wow, it does less damage than my souped up baseball bat"



You keep pistols and SMGs relevant with side-benefits, backed by strong mechanics, not with creating a shitty MMO tier system - that works for MMO's only because the whole purpose of the game is to climb from Tier 1 to Tiear 2 to Tiear 3 and so on. But not in my singleplayer RPG!

I think there's merit to the idea that skills should be useful from start to finish. It can, when properly designed, make for interesting horizontal progression. The problems New Vegas had implementing such an idea were that you're supposed to invest heavily in a weapon skill (i.e. vertical progression), and the way weapons were grouped under skills, which lead to issues as you noted. New Vegas could have benefited from a different weapon groups (e.g. by function) and reducing the skill cap so that you can have different types of weapons under one skill while still maintaining "energy weapons more powerful than guns" etc., and require investing in different skills for different encounters.

 

[Jasede]

Gotta tell you, when Small Arms, Big Arms, Energy Weapons and Throwing are all equally viable and powerful it always kind of bothers me. It's boring, in a weird way. If you must make them all equally viable, give them all a unique flavor that doesn't overlap much. Example?

Small Arms: Plenty ammo, reliable, easy to repair, low damage
Big Arms: Ammo is medium-rare, medium-to-high damage, high rate of fire, good vs unarmed enemies / monsters
Energy Weapons: Ammo is rare, damage is high, rate of fire is low, good vs armored enemies
Throwing: Low-tech, doesn't need repairs, low damage, good for stealth kills, can throw random objects from environment

My examples don't make much sense but the point I want to get across is that they should feel very distinct so that A), any given character has reason to get more than one of these skills at the same time, and B), different characters that use different weapons feel sufficiently different in combat.

 

[FeelTheRads]

any given character has reason to get more than one of these skills at the same time

But what if my character insists on using just one type of weapon? That's what RPGs are about, I hear.

 

[Jasede]

Then that's fine too. But you shouldn't feel like you "saved" skill points because you want to play someone who specializes in one. Instead, it should force you to learn all about your chosen armament, weaknesses and strengths - and should often give you situations where you need to resort to means other than that one type of weapon you mastered.

All I am saying is that there should be a benefit to specializing in more than one weapon. If they are tiered and all equally useful, what's the point?

 

[FeelTheRads]

If they are tiered and all equally useful, what's the point?

I don't know, man. I was being sarcastic. Ask Sawyer who "saves" single-player RPGs by turning them into MMOs.

 

[Jasede]

I don't agree with a lot of what this Sawyer guy is doing. I enjoy playing games the... gamist way. Why LARP? I think it's fun when you can turn in a quest in Baldur's Gate for some XP, then kill the questgiver for extra XP. These games are meant to be enjoyed as we deem fit, once they get into our hands. Why impose some constraints?

Don't get me wrong, constraints make sense in certain genres, but it doesn't feel like they do in the way Sawyer likes to envision them.

 

[BobtheTree]

I'm confused. We're talking about the guy who worked on Fallout: New Vegas, the modern era Fallout game where you could do that, right?

 

[Roguey]

It's a fucking stupid idea, only conceived to coddle retarded crybabies. "Waah, I put all my points in Small Guns, why do I have to invest in Energy Weapons, waah waah". This existed, to a degree, in F3 and it was fucking stupid and NV made it even worse. In Fallout you manned up and invested in either Big Guns or Energy Weapons, big deal. Smart players put a point or two in one of those already from early game, so when you found your first laser pistol or minigun, you could dish out some serious damage for tough encounters. But no, we have to streamline the system for morons so that they don't need to plan out their character in advance or spread out skill points to cover different possibilities - even in a game where you control a fucking party. Oh no, it's back to the Bethesda-school of thought (yes, with flank support from Sawyer):

"Oh wow, I found a laser pistol! Oh wow, it does less damage than my souped up baseball bat"



You keep pistols and SMGs relevant with side-benefits, backed by strong mechanics, not with creating a shitty MMO tier system - that works for MMO's only because the whole purpose of the game is to climb from Tier 1 to Tiear 2 to Tiear 3 and so on. But not in my singleplayer RPG!

You seem to believe intelligence is the same thing as prescience.

http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/242061516721896348

why have the energy weapons been nerfed since the Fallout 2? they are now weak and common and don't feel like hi-tech weapons among with the guns which have higher DMG

Because the weapon skill subdivisions used in Fallout has never matched the design of weapon categories used in the games. I.e., there's nothing in the description of the EWs skill in F1, F2, Tactics, F3, or F:NV that would indicate that EWs are superior to conventional firearms. Along the same lines, there's nothing to prevent players from tagging EWs (or Big Guns, for that matter) at the beginning of the game only to find that they actually don't get any real chance to use that skill for at least a third of the game.

If players are presented with a variety of skills in which they can invest at the beginning of the game, they should be able to use those skills from the beginning of the game. If you want to return to the olden days of EW supremacy, I'd suggest re-structuring the skills based on stance/type or some other categorization (e.g. Pistols/SMGs, Rifles, etc.). That way, you could have EWs be the top weapons of each category and effectively non-existent in the early game.

Even so, you would still (IMO) have to find a way to make Pistols as viable as RIfles, etc. if you want players to be able to get the most out of each skill.

http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/294024319040750654

Do you think you homogenized weapon choices too much when you decided to make energy weapons an alternative to guns rather than an upgrade ala F1/F2? More generally, do you think balancing by time (weak early, strong late) is a valid strategy in a 1P RPG?

No. As long as players are offered weapon skills without any point weighting per skill, it's needlessly punitive to make one a "silent" upgrade of another. If weapon skills were categorized in some other way (e.g. Pistols, Rifles, Launchers, etc.), energy weapons could be inherently more powerful than guns, but you'd still have to either a) balance Pistols to Rifles to Launchers or b) weight the advancement of more powerful skills proportionally. If it costs 2x as much to advance EWs, sure, make EWs 2x as powerful.

Balancing by time/relative acquisition can work well and I think it did work pretty well in the original Fallout and NV. I don't really care about what people do on multiple playthroughs or by using walkthroughs on their first playthrough. If the game content is structured so that it is very likely the player will acquire weapons in a certain order, that will account for the vast majority of players.

http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/294670966997386370

The Fallout world very clearly isn't our world though. Radiation doesn't turn humans into zombies and make bugs gigantic. And in the 1950s retro-futuristic style of Fallout, plasma and lasers just ARE inherently superior. Get with the program Sawyer.

"Inherently superior" sets a pretty clear standard, so let's rename Guns and Energy Weapons to something else. Let's call them "Bad Guns" and "Good Guns". You find Bad Guns at the beginning of the game and they are bad. You only find Good Guns toward the end of the game and they are better than all of the Bad Guns. Does it make any sense to have these two skills available at the beginning of the game? Would any non-glutton for punishment, knowing the availability of these weapons from the get-go, do anything other than tag Bad Guns right away and then later buy Good Guns?

This was fundamentally the problem with the Small Guns / Energy Weapons division in Fallout 1, except that first-time players typically had no idea (and no indication from the game) that you would find Small Guns early and EWs later -- and that EWs were generally just the better, late-game weapons. If you tagged EWs and walked out of Vault 13, it was going to be a long, long time before you found a weapon you could use. And if you insisted on finishing the game as a combat character with a Sniper Rifle instead of the Turbo Plasma Rifle, you were essentially handicapping yourself immensely.

If you want EWs to be inherently superior to Guns, push for future Fallout games to re-organize the skills so that EWs aren't a stand-alone skill, but a subset of weapons that span several skills.

http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/294675418638728971

I just wanted to say that I find your arguments on EW compelling and out of context I would completely agree with you. It seems though, that your way of looking at this issue is generally inconsistent with the imaginative 'spirit' of the Fallout universe.

My job is fundamentally about making the game experience good for our audience. This audience includes Fallout veterans, RPG veterans who may be new to Fallout, people who are new to RPGs, and people who are new to gaming in general. Not everyone in this group will be happy, and trying to make them all happy certainly won't have good results, but many design decisions have to start with the assumption that the player only knows what the game's creators communicate to them.

At a certain point in F:NV's development, I was trying to create Big Guns to span the early game, mid game, and late game. It was an enormous pain in the ass, because trying to think up early game Big Guns that felt balanced with, say, a 9mm Pistol, strained the imagination. In documents, there were weapons that filled those slots, but they seemed forced and odd -- especially since so many of the "canonical" Big Guns were generally high-end weapons. Players liked using the Big Guns, and in a manner similar to EWs, many people wanted those Big Guns to be powerful. The way to make Big Guns feel appropriately powerful and not have a gaping low end was to abolish the Big Guns skill and migrate the weapons to other skills. You still used your Miniguns and Gatling Lasers, but you didn't have to tag a skill and then wander the wasteland for 6 hours before you found a weapon that utilized it.

It seemed to work pretty well for F:NV, though a remaining contention and expectation is that EWs should be more powerful than conventional firearms. If that expectation is widespread enough, maybe it makes sense to re-organize the skills again for future games. My first focus is always to ensure that when a player starts the game and decides what kind of character he or she wants to play, the options we give to the player are valid from the beginning of the game to the end. Each style of play should have its own rewards and challenges, but character types should not be intentionally neglected, they should not be secretly designed to be inherently superior to each other, and they shouldn't assume that the player has knowledge that they won't reasonably have.

Really, I think you could organize weapon skills in a bunch of different ways. For me, the bottom line is that if a player focuses on a skill, they should get pretty consistent gameplay out of it throughout the game. This includes access to items that make use of it, places where it can and can't be used to provide appropriate challenges/triumphs, and a rough semblance of overall balance between it and other skills.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Thanks Roguey for showing us once again that Sawyer is just about retarded streamlining and catering to the lowest common denominator, of which you so proudly are part of.

 

[Brother None]

Gotta tell you, when Small Arms, Big Arms, Energy Weapons and Throwing are all equally viable and powerful it always kind of bothers me. It's boring, in a weird way. If you must make them all equally viable, give them all a unique flavor that doesn't overlap much.

I guess this thread is about Sawyer and Roguey now (that seems to happen to a lot of threads on the Codex), but just in case people are wondering re: Wasteland 2, lemme copypaste; Yes, every weapon path is viable from beginning to end, meaning the game doesn't force you to abandon a skill-tree like pistols further into the game, but they are NOT universally good. We won’t be balancing them so you just pick your favorite type and can be awesome in all situations. Each weapon type has things it’s good at and things that it fails at. You may have a very high level character with handguns, but that doesn’t mean it’s the best weapon (or even a good weapon) in all combat situations. It’s all trade-offs. You might be good using your pistol (generally cheaper rounds, great efficiency (AP per round fired) but the lack of armor piercing value on some stronger fortified enemies could cause you to be doing minimal or no damage. Try using a normal 9mm round on a Scorpitron…good luck. Try using only sniper rifles or explosives in cramped corridors where enemies rush you as fast as they can. etc etc

Viable is not the same as equal or equally powerful. I know this is a wider debate and I can't speculate exactly where Wasteland 2 fits in it, but it's not in the segment of everything has to be *exactly* as useful or powerful, in skills or equipment, it's not like every "tier" of weapons has the same functionality and usefulness in every situation. Viable, yes, but at the same time, if you specialize your entire Ranger party in one weapon skill then there are fights where you will have an extremely hard time of it, because you didn't diversify at all. But that one ranger who started out specialized in pistols can end the game specialized in pistols, he doesn't need to make a side-move to rifles.

 

[Jasede]

Well, that's exactly what I want, in case there were any misunderstandings.

 

[Jestai]

I'm gonna build a charater with max Repair, Science and Lockpick. You know, your average handyman. Let's see what kind of playthrough Josh has in store for me.

 

[Jasede]

The one where you die to wolves for ten hours.
Wait, what game are we talking about?

 

[JarlFrank]

I should write for Wasteland 2 IÄm drunk IÄ
Ä m on my topü crativity level

that would be kidna awesome
lol foot fetish content
also codx references
also complex questds with mjltiple solutions cause that's just how i work bithcehs

 

[Roguey]

Thanks Roguey for showing us once again that Sawyer is just about retarded streamlining and catering to the lowest common denominator, of which you so proudly are part of.

It's smart streamlining. And catering to grognards who love trap choices is worse.

I'm gonna build a charater with max Repair, Science and Lockpick. You know, your average handyman. Let's see what kind of playthrough Josh has in store for me.

In New Vegas you'll be able to use all those skills immediately and consistently throughout.

 

[Jaesun]

I guess this thread is about Sawyer and Roguey now (that seems to happen to a lot of threads on the Codex)

Welcome to Roguey Shitpostingdex. Enjoy your stay.

 

[Roguey]

I didn't even start this fucking discussion.

 

[Davaris]

Some farm bro fists, while others collect ignores. Each to their own on the Codex.

 

[Infinitron]

Codex really needs to learn that "equally viable" doesn't mean "equally powerful in all situations".

 

[Jasede]

Are you referring to me? 'cause I made it abundantly clear that that's not what I meant. /narcissism

 

[FeelTheRads]

Codex really needs to learn that "equally viable" doesn't mean "equally powerful in all situations".

So what does it mean then? Because as I see it, as long as you can use it to complete the game, even if it's more difficult or much more difficult it's equally viable. But it doesn't seem like that's good, because if you have more trouble with a path than with the other then zomg gaem not balanced suckzors sawyer save us

 

[Infinitron]

even if it's more difficult or much more difficult it's equally viable. But it doesn't seem like that's good

First of all, I don't agree. Playing a game isn't just about surviving, it's also about doing things smartly. If using one weapon skill and not another to get past a particular battle is incredibly difficult, even if not impossible, then yes, that's a legitimate way of encouraging the player to try other options, without telling him LOL TIME TO REROLL YOUR CHARACTER ASSHOLE YOU FUCKED UP.

Second of all, that's not quite what I meant. "Equally viable" means the weapon or skill is useful enough, as compared with the other weapons or skills. Not that it's always useful in every situation.

 

[FeelTheRads]

that's a legitimate way of encouraging the player to try other options

Exactly. And what's wrong with that? You can't have that with the sawyerist logic according to which if you start with nailclippers you should be able to use only nailclippers until the end. In other words Sawyer's a gigantic LARPer who designs actions games and pretends they're RPGs.
And no, trying a magical nailclipper instead of your regular nailclipper isn't "trying other options".

And this thing is much, much more retarded in party-based RPGs.

"Equally viable" means the weapon or skill is useful enough, as compared with the other weapons or skills.

What the hell defines "useful enough"? There are people who wouldn't consider the technologist path in Arcanum to be equally viable because it's not as powerful as the mage path. Pure fucking retardation.

 

[~RAGING BONER~]

no pictures?