Reloading should take at least 1 full turn

[WEKarnesky]

To those who say 3+ seconds is realistic, I disagree, here is a guy wearing a tac vest who runs full speed up and down a range to prove mags are secure before doing a combat reload drill http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR9mN6Y7iHo

for those who say those 3 seconds times don't factor in stowing the mag, I against disagree. Here is an amateur who is clearly having troubles going from fully stowed, to reloading, stowing, and firing in 3-4 seconds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOAhhQ5sIb0 A fully trained soldier with a full rig should be able to shave quite a bit of time off of his average time.

Edit: That said the reason Fallout had slow shooting times IMO was mostly so Melee could close and be effective and allowed for other maneuver tactics. It also helped the difficulty, if a guy could pop-out and have enough actions to shoot everyone in one round, it made the battle exceedingly difficult for the player if they got caught by surprise.

[Harpo]

To those who say 3+ seconds is realistic, I disagree, here is a guy wearing a tac vest who runs full speed up and down a range to prove mags are secure before doing a combat reload drill http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR9mN6Y7iHo

for those who say those 3 seconds times don't factor in stowing the mag, I against disagree. Here is an amateur who is clearly having troubles going from fully stowed, to reloading, stowing, and firing in 3-4 seconds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOAhhQ5sIb0 A fully trained soldier with a full rig should be able to shave quite a bit of time off of his average time.

I think it is two completely different things to do it under the best circumstances and do it in general. I can't recall how many magazines I reloaded in the military, but very seldom was I in a position to reload that fast. At the firing range, the first couple of mags. Maybe. Full gear, adrenaline pumping, changing stances, carrying cumbersome equipment like RPGs on your back, winded. Not even close. But I'll humor you on this one...

How long did it take the guy in the video to fire three single shots, at what I imagine would be some kind of target? Let's say it took 1.5 sec tops. That's 0.5 secs per shot. So reloading at 3 secs takes 6 times as long as firing a single shot. Add a 0.5 sec for readjusting the aim and it still takes a factor 3 longer.

In games like FOT it's a factor 2 or more... the other way around! So, we are actually a factor 6-12 off target. So in that sense it should have taken at least 12-24 action points to reload in FOT. It took 2. I think 10+ action points would be over the top. But some kind of compromise where it takes approximately 2-3x a single shot would be nice. That is both realistic and would make it more than just a routine, tedious end-of-every-turn task.

[Drool]

Stowing takes 0 seconds. You drop it on the ground and retrieve it after combat.

[Inca]

I am not sure about that. In US in peace time, maybe you can drop your mag (especially for a video) but IRL in a conflict zone you do not throw your mags on the ground-they get dirt into them, they rust, they dent.

[suz]

I am not sure about that. In US in peace time, maybe you can drop your mag (especially for a video) but IRL in a conflict zone you do not throw your mags on the ground-they get dirt into them, they rust, they dent.

Oh you can get a new mag from your local unfriendly raider camp later on =P

And in a conflict zone when a Scorpitron 2.0 is shooting me the last thing I'd worry is getting some dirt in a magazine

[Inca]

I disagree, certain things are part of military training, you will do what you were trained to do in a stress situation. Decision to drop a mag is a decision, not a trained response, and I doubt any sergent in the world will instruct you to drop your gear.

[Harpo]

Yeah. I agree. They teach you that for a reason. Other than the reasons you mentioned, my experience is that a lot of magazines get lost - even if you stow them away. We went looking for countless magazines and only recovered some of them. I can't imagine how many mags you'd go through if you drop them all to the ground.

If it's not part of military training today, I doubt it would be in the setting of Wasteland. Things like properly functioning magazine would probably be valued too much to be scattered over a battle field or a raider base.

Anyways. Even if the 2 seconds for stowing it away is deducted from the total reloading time, FOT would still be off by a factor of 6 or more

EDIT:

I would like to see some arguments for shorter reloading times (And by short I mean something in the area of FOT where they where a factor 2-3 times shorter than a fired shot/burst). So far it has been more of "I'm going to prove your military experience wrong with these Youtube videos" and less "These are the advantages of shorter reload times".

How do you think it will add to the fun in combat? How will it positively affect the tactical elements? What other advantages does it have? How is the risk of being considered insignificant and routine-like avoided?

If you are more of the debunk type, feel free to turn it around: How will longer reload times reduce the fun in the game? How will they take away from the tactical elements? Are there any other reasons for not having longer reload times?

[krellen]

I have no military experience, but I'm with Inca on this one; you don't just drop things on the battlefield.

[The Tallest]

One full turn to reload a magazine fed weapon? Or change an energy pack on a energy based weapon? Seriously? lol

No. Maybe if this game was called Front Lines: Revolutionary War or Dawn of the Fire Arm and there were muzzle loaders but not in a game steeped in the mythos of a dystopian 1980's.

[Fuzi0n]

You just can't flat out say "Reloading should take at least 1 full turn" imo. There are alot of other combat mechanics that you have to consider and it must all fit together like a puzzle.

We can discuss this when the beta arrives... I don't think it will make much sense until then.

[Gizmo]

You just can't flat out say "Reloading should take at least 1 full turn" imo. There are alot of other combat mechanics that you have to consider and it must all fit together like a puzzle.

We can discuss this when the beta arrives... I don't think it will make much sense until then.

Actually... Reloading did take one turn in the original Wasteland.

[Harpo]

One full turn to reload a magazine fed weapon? Or change an energy pack on a energy based weapon? Seriously? lol

No. Maybe if this game was called Front Lines: Revolutionary War or Dawn of the Fire Arm and there were muzzle loaders but not in a game steeped in the mythos of a dystopian 1980's.

I fail to see how this has anything to do with it. Especially since it took an entire turn in the original.

[Drool]

Well, everything too one turn. The game didn't have action points, so everything took the same amount of time. Reloading took a full turn, but so did clearing a jam and reloading.

[suz]

in the original.

This isn't the original, it's called Wasteland 2, and we can debate on stuff that seem to make more sense than the original since now the technology allows for a bit more complex mechanics than 24 years ago.

Unless you want 16 color ega graphics and pc speaker chirping in 2014 release (I know krellen does ).

[Gizmo]

in the original.

This isn't the original, it's called Wasteland 2, and we can debate on stuff that seem to make more sense than the original since now the technology allows for a bit more complex mechanics than 24 years ago.

Unless you want 16 color ega graphics and pc speaker chirping in 2014 release (I know krellen does ).

The technology is moot... one can match the mechanics of any 2012 game in a text based game; it's when you want to visually and aurally represent what those actions look and sound like that the technology becomes significant, but I'd say it's irrelevant to the actual mechanics themselves.

I am not necessarily for a clone of the combat in Wasteland 1, but I do ascribe to the preference that a sequel not stray far from the original mechanics, and I also am no fan of copying mechanics between franchises; I play different games for different mechanics. I do not want every new game to copy popular mechanics from previous popular games ~unless they are direct sequels in the same franchise ~certainly not if in doing so it steps away from the established series gameplay.

Just because one series does something is no reason to adopt it into every series ~even if it's fun. Hopping on turtles is fun in a Mario game, but stupid in a Batman or Gears of War sequel. Just because Fallout had action points is no reason to adopt it into Wasteland ~especially when the original series never implemented anything of the sort... and that sort was not some mythical tech limitation.

** Also I would not mind 16 color EGA if it was done well, but none of us here that I have read ~(I doubt Krellen either) sees a legitimate need for 16 color graphics... Even if Wasteland (1) was remade to look identical to the 1988 version, it would still likely be 16 or 24 bit color instead of 4-bit.

[paultakeda]

A classic turn is an abstraction of time that does not represent a specific unit of time and in fact could represent different units of time depending on the action taken. So reloading, firing, doing any one action, all of it is one turn.

In an attempt to resolve what some perceive as a deficiency in the concept of a turn, action points were born. But now you have a different problem: you have made the turn a direct representation of unit time divided into points that represent what a character can do within that unit of time. In doing so, a turn suddenly divides character actions into a series of actions that happen in specified chunks of time in serial order. During this period of time, no other combatant can do a thing, as per the turn mechanic. Yet the turn-based mechanic was never meant to directly represent a unit of time, which is why a standard action equated a turn regardless of that action.

It makes less sense to have a character be given a specific length of time to perform a series of actions with no other actions being taken by other characters than to just abstract time into turns where a single action takes a single turn.

This is what bothered me about games with action points like the Fallout series. It just made no sense to have a guy shoot three bursts from his rifle while no one does a thing. Better to have time abstracted where one character fires a burst while another reloads than deal with the mess AP has made of turn-based combat.

Yeah, I said it: I think action points have wrecked turn-based combat; it forces a real time concept onto the abstract time concept of turn-based play.

[Drool]

Yeah, I said it: I think action points have wrecked turn-based combat; it forces a real time concept onto the abstract time concept of turn-based play.

That's why I'd prefer it if you queued up everyone's action, and then the game resolves it simultaneously. If five people are shooting, show them all shooting all at once. And then have a little text box in the corner with the combat text (like the original). That way, you could have the graphical combat everyone wants, but without big battles taking freaking forever, and still retain the literary feel.

I mean, just imagine doing this combat with Fallout's combat system:



...and that's not even all of them. A battle between four Rangers and 63 Temple Guardians would take forever.

[suz]

That's why I'd prefer it if you queued up everyone's action, and then the game resolves it simultaneously. If five people are shooting, show them all shooting all at once....

Phase based combat is more sensible than turn based, however you need to brace for the "it wasn't like that in WL1"/"It wasn't what was promised at kickstarter" screams coming up

[Drool]

That's why I hewed as close to the original as possible. Which was actually pretty much phase based anyway. The biggest difference between what I suggested and the original is the addition of graphical representation of the combat round.

[paultakeda]

That's why I'd prefer it if you queued up everyone's action, and then the game resolves it simultaneously. If five people are shooting, show them all shooting all at once....

Phase based combat is more sensible than turn based, however you need to brace for the "it wasn't like that in WL1"/"It wasn't what was promised at kickstarter" screams coming up

A phase based turn, as Drool mentions, is pretty much how WL1 operated and if AP is spent prior to the actual action, where it is mixed in with enemy action, that would work except that by having multiple actions you still are unable to change a sequence you specified in the command phase. With visualized movement this could prove ridiculous.

If you send a character to cover, then shoot then move to another area of cover, but during the action phase that second cover is obliterated by a combatant, you would think your character should not spend the final action point on moving to a now non-existent cover.

Here people will want interrupts. You've now compromised the phase by reintroducing the turn within the phase. Combat remains confused and gets bogged down.

So I remain skeptical and still adhere to one action, one turn (whether that turn is phased or not, though to hew towards WL1 I'd lean towards phased).