Jagged Alliance Don'ts

[Shaewaros]

I'm not the first one to point this out but Back in Action is not a real Jagged Alliance game. Everyone on this forum are referring to JA2 and the modified version JA2 1.13.

[Woolfe]

This place is sort of hardcore game hipster place, where anything that got sequel in past 20 years is horrible mainstream shit and those series were cool before they became popular.

Not true. The Witcher and Dark Souls are, for example, great games.
It's just that most old-school fans generally don't like Bethesda's and EAware products.

I think it's more that most old-school fans are unwilling to admit what they like in a forum like this that is so relentlessly hostile to anything published by a big publisher in the past 15 to 20 years. The atmosphere in these forums is positively toxic on the subject, especially, of Bethesda and EA. I've several times discarded posts because I had to mention a Bioware or Bethesda game in a positive light to make my point and figured the flamewar would derail the thread.

People need to stop believing that getting into ****-waving contests of who can hate EA and Bethesda more on these forums. It doesn't make anybody look cool, except possibly the people smart enough to avoid the subject. You can like a niche product at the same time as you like the mainstream products that have largely displaced it.

There is a fair bit of dislike for Bethesda and EA/bioware. Its not wholly unwarranted. However you'll also find plenty of people stating that the games like Fallout 3 and Mass Effect were actually pretty good, but they were aimed at a very different market. A mass market in fact. Which this kickstarter is not aimed at. Brian says so in the first video they did. (the whole vampires with red boots thing)

Perhaps if you read some of the other forums, you would see that most of us are saying the same things. Its not that we are against changes or indeed "upgrades" its just that we don't want a WL2 that is like Fallout 3 was to a lot of Fallout 1 and 2 fans.

Now Brian has already stated that the game IS going to be more tactical. I can guarantee you that JA, FO:T and lots of other "tactical" games will have influenced their decision making process. The good bits and the bad bits, it would be crazy not to. That said, I don't think we are going to get something that is the same level as JA and the others. But I do think we are going to get what is essentially a tactical game that allows you to have involved and enjoyable battles.

[Lucius]

As for folding stocks, go ask a security or military personel why they have hard-ons for them. It has a place in combat.

Yes but this thread is discussing a video game, not real life combat. The majority of people couldn't care less about folding stocks.

[rakenan]

Perhaps if you read some of the other forums, you would see that most of us are saying the same things. Its not that we are against changes or indeed "upgrades" its just that we don't want a WL2 that is like Fallout 3 was to a lot of Fallout 1 and 2 fans.

Now Brian has already stated that the game IS going to be more tactical. I can guarantee you that JA, FO:T and lots of other "tactical" games will have influenced their decision making process. The good bits and the bad bits, it would be crazy not to. That said, I don't think we are going to get something that is the same level as JA and the others. But I do think we are going to get what is essentially a tactical game that allows you to have involved and enjoyable battles.

If you mean the other forums in the Wasteland Survival Guide, I do. It's always an open question whether anybody will be willing to mention a feature, either to like or dislike it, without mentioning how much they hate Bethesda and think Bioware games are crap. My issue with this is that both Bethesda and Bioware make some enjoyable games with *SOME* features that are worth at least looking at, and the constant harping on how B&B are the antichrist of gaming interferes, at least psychologically, with having discussions on the subject of those features.

I wish people would have some faith in InXile. This game is a labor of love - and it's not love for modern, FPS-ified RPG's with linear storylines and a jesus-hero who is loved by all, especially the ones who hate him. We're not going to get a modern RPG - we will get an old school classic RPG, ideally with the modern trimmings they couldn't have back in the day. The constant harping on how evil the gaming industry has become interferes with discussions of exactly which modern trimmings can appropriately be added to Wasteland 2 without screwing up its old school appeal.

I am sincerely hoping that Wasteland 2 has a less involved combat system than Jagged Alliance 2, by the way. I want Wasteland 2, not Jagged Alliance 3: Post-Apocalyptic Edition. I'd like something closer to Ultima 5 than Jagged Alliance - still room for tactics, but the battles are small enough to be over quickly.

[CookieEatingHuskarl]

As for folding stocks, go ask a security or military personel why they have hard-ons for them. It has a place in combat.

Yes but this thread is discussing a video game, not real life combat. The majority of people couldn't care less about folding stocks.

WOW! You continue rolling your eyes. I'll wait for them to wear out.

Also do your best on your new research project on surveying the world's population on "Do you think folding/telescopic stocks are useful. A short tutorial based population wide survey." I happily await your data to reinforce the imposing views you dump on others by the bucketload.

[Gennadios]

Thread title should really be Jagged Alliance: Back in Action Don'ts.

I agree that skill requirements for support items such as healing kits, repair kits, bomb diffusal kits, and bombs themselves are a mother******, I'd rather have somebody with midlevel healing skills try to use a medic kit with a high chance of failure than have the game tell me I just can't do it.

I also agree that those same items suck in general. They have 3 - 5 uses, and health/weapon degradation waaaaay outpaces them. I'm at the point where i have to haul around 5-10 healing items per medic and 3-6 repair kits because they're not easy to find on the field and their longevity sucks. Once again, it's a balance issue, could have, and has been done alot better.

JA2 had both of those but well balanced and the inventory management screen could handle the 1 - 15 person inventory tetris. In BIA, managing squad's inventory for an hour was a chore, in JA2 it was fun and a game in and of itself.

[Lucius]

Also do your best on your new research project on surveying the world's population on "Do you think folding/telescopic stocks are useful. A short tutorial based population wide survey." I happily await your data to reinforce the imposing views you dump on others by the bucketload.

The question would be "do you think folding/telescopic stocks are useful in a video game." Are you dense? Why can you not understand we are talking about a video game.

I do not argue with you that a folding stock and retractable barrel is very useful in real life. Without those, a sniper rifle would never fit in the trunk of my car. It's entirely excessive realism for a video game, though. Along with much of the items added via JA 2 v1.13 patch.

[Gennadios]

The question would be "do you think folding/telescopic stocks are useful in a video game." Are you dense? Why can you not understand we are talking about a video game.

It's entirely excessive realism for a video game, though. Along with much of the items added via JA 2 v1.13 patch.

If you're just basing your statements on the JA2 feature list, you're not getting the whole picture.

JA2 didn't have consumables. The RPGs you keep alluding to have potions/drugs or enchanted equipment to buff characters, JA2 didn't have a magical one-off way of giving your character +5 range or +15 accuracy, if you want to offset squad mate's weaknesses weapon mods are what you had to work with.

Would the game have been better off just replacing weapon mods in favor of having Gauntlets of Dexterity and Potions of Perception lying around?

[UniversalWolf]

I never played JA. I think I want to now... Specifically the 1.13 patch

Go for it Woolfe. Ignore the sniping in this thread.

You can pick up a copy of JA2 for peanuts these days. Then head over to Bear's Pit:

http://www.ja-galaxy-forum.com/

[ffordesoon]

Jagged Alliance 2 wasn't perfect, because no game is perfect. It was, however, a fantastic game. Back In Action blows, but it has some interesting features. It also hews closely to JA2 in a lot of ways, which I understand is largely to its detriment, because the game is fundamentally different from JA2 in ways that don't complement JA2's feature set.

But it is a game that exists, and it has some lessons to teach us. That is true of all games. The idea that people can't bring it up is as idiotic as people not bringing Fallout 3 up, except Fallout 3 was actually a good game. Not as good as Skyrim, of course, which was a great game, but its gameplay systems were more well-designed in some ways than those of the Interplay Fallouts - which are still better games overall. Oh, and Mass Effect 2 and 3 were better games than Mass Effect 1 by a fair margin, but they were all pretty great.

I'm sorry, does that last paragraph anger some of you? Tough, it's my opinion. I would hope that anyone around here who's gotten into a debate with me about a certain game's quality would be willing to admit that I'm fair-minded, perfectly willing to concede that the games I love have notable flaws, and absolutely not convinced that my opinion is fact. I phrased it as fact in that last paragraph to isolate the kneejerk reaction of a few people in this thread to the idea that the games they're into are not sacrosanct.

Good ideas can come from anywhere. Bad games can have good ideas. Mainstream games have plenty of them. That's why they're popular. It is idiotic to dismiss a feature because you don't like the game the feature was in or the company who made the game. Every game has its good points and its bad points. If you honestly can't admit that those exist because you feel spiteful towards the company that made it, or because it doesn't fit some strict genre classification, you're just as much of a sheep as the mainstream gamers you decry. More of one, in fact; the mainstream gamers I talk to tend to be enthusiastic about the games they enjoy, and genuinely curious about the games I enjoy. There's no stone-faced dismissal of my opinions because I haven't played Modern Warfare 3, and when I mention that I've been playing a cool game they've never heard of, they want to know what it is so they can check it out too.

A few of you could learn from their example, I think.

[CookieEatingHuskarl]

Someone went off and answered for me. So here.

The question would be "do you think folding/telescopic stocks are useful in a video game." Are you dense? Why can you not understand we are talking about a video game.

It's entirely excessive realism for a video game, though. Along with much of the items added via JA 2 v1.13 patch.

If you're just basing your statements on the JA2 feature list, you're not getting the whole picture.

JA2 didn't have consumables. The RPGs you keep alluding to have potions/drugs or enchanted equipment to buff characters, JA2 didn't have a magical one-off way of giving your character +5 range or +15 accuracy, if you want to offset squad mate's weaknesses weapon mods are what you had to work with.

Would the game have been better off just replacing weapon mods in favor of having Gauntlets of Dexterity and Potions of Perception lying around?

Like all things RPG, everything, even things based in reality can be crammed into an RPG as an enhancement tool, or an 'enchantment'. What is the difference of a folding stock and an enchantment of attack speed in D&D? None.

[Woolfe]

<SNIP>

If you mean the other forums in the Wasteland Survival Guide, I do. It's always an open question whether anybody will be willing to mention a feature, either to like or dislike it, without mentioning how much they hate Bethesda and think Bioware games are crap. My issue with this is that both Bethesda and Bioware make some enjoyable games with *SOME* features that are worth at least looking at, and the constant harping on how B&B are the antichrist of gaming interferes, at least psychologically, with having discussions on the subject of those features.

I agree... I have really enjoyed Mass Effect 1 and 2, and other games (Dragon Age not so mcuh tho). People shouldn't be afraid tho. Bear in mind the reason people are antagonistic is because the modern RPG is currently seen as Masss Effect, fallout 3, Dragon Age and those sort of titles. And the reason people are arcing up so much is that they are really not the same sort of game as what WL, Fallout 1 and 2 were.
+ there are significant diferences between WL and the game sof its time and say Fallout 2 or Baldur's gate etc.

So those of us that new and loved WL and other games at that time, are somewhat fearful that we will lose some of those elements. So we speak out. Not all of us voraciously attack, but there certainly are a few.

I wish people would have some faith in InXile. This game is a labor of love - and it's not love for modern, FPS-ified RPG's with linear storylines and a jesus-hero who is loved by all, especially the ones who hate him. We're not going to get a modern RPG - we will get an old school classic RPG, ideally with the modern trimmings they couldn't have back in the day. The constant harping on how evil the gaming industry has become interferes with discussions of exactly which modern trimmings can appropriately be added to Wasteland 2 without screwing up its old school appeal.

I agree, but I think the worry is if we don't stand up and fight for what we want, then the dev's etc reading the forums will make changes because it won't matter to the fanbase, as they obviously care about XYZ.
I personally do trust them to make the right decisions, but I certainly want to make sure my concept is well and truly represented.

[CookieEatingHuskarl]

Plus chewing each other out is always much more fun than sitting around a circle wanking each other off.

[Lucius]

If you're just basing your statements on the JA2 feature list, you're not getting the whole picture.

Of course. That's fair.

JA2 didn't have consumables. The RPGs you keep alluding to have potions/drugs or enchanted equipment to buff characters, JA2 didn't have a magical one-off way of giving your character +5 range or +15 accuracy, if you want to offset squad mate's weaknesses weapon mods are what you had to work with.

Can you please quote a previous post of mine where I allude to any other RPG, except for specifically mentioning Wasteland, which did not have modifiers or "magical one-off way" of giving bonuses.

Would the game have been better off just replacing weapon mods in favor of having Gauntlets of Dexterity and Potions of Perception lying around?

Where is this statement coming from? I don't have a problem with scopes and silencers or maybe extended clips. I draw the line at muzzle flash suppressants and folding rifle butts. Just to be perfectly clear, I favor some items that enhances my character's abilities but not an excessive number because I feel the character's skill should be the focus and not items. I don't think there should be a gazillion guns to choose from and a billion weapon mods to attach to our weapons.

I would prefer there be no single use items like potions, bandages, repair kits, etc in Wasteland 2; like I said in the first post.

[CookieEatingHuskarl]

And where everyone's mum (statistically incorrect I know) and I have already mentioned that the system for consumables used in BIA was horrible and JA2 had a much more streamlined version of it.

Tool + You + Time invested = MOAR REPAIR!

Doctor Bag + You + Patient + Time invested = MOAR INJURY CURED!

See, even JA2 wasn't kicking the realism mule. The initial balance for guns was not as tight as 1.13. The 1000000 mods with 100000000000 guns that come along with 1.13, is mostly roleplay, since the guns have the near same stats (accounting for barrel length and what not) dependent on the caliber of rounds they use, since a nicely made gun launches the same bullet as the gun made by the gods and imbued with Zeus's ejaculation.

The mods don't even improve the gun that much. Poor gun user + good gun + good mods still = death for the user.

[Gennadios]

Can you please quote a previous post of mine where I allude to any other RPG, except for specifically mentioning Wasteland, which did not have modifiers or "magical one-off way" of giving bonuses.

Something about "I think many of these things I mentioned are fine for a strategy game (except weapon repair. That sucks in any genre apparently), mind you. Just not for an RPG." That gave me the impression that either WL is the only game you consider an RPG or you're familiar enough with the genre to understand how the other games handled character management. Just trying to put things in perspective.

Just to be perfectly clear, I favor some items that enhances my character's abilities but not an excessive number because I feel the character's skill should be the focus and not items.

WL wasn't a skill-based a game as you're making it out to be. Sure there were no consumables, but just try taking on a Scorpitron with an under geared party... you needed those Photon axes and Chitin/Power armor. It won't go well no matter where your skills stand otherwise. I'd say that demonstrates an axcessive over reliance on equipment right there.

In JA2, you at least had multiple outlets to lean on against tanks. You had accuracy for the use LAWs, Explosives to craft explosives, Stealth to sneak up on the buggers to plant the explosives, Dexterity to run up to them before they target you to plant explosives, probably a few other ways of dealing with them, I forget.

[Lucius]

Just to be perfectly clear, I favor some items that enhances my character's abilities but not an excessive number because I feel the character's skill should be the focus and not items.

WL wasn't a skill-based a game as you're making it out to be. Sure there were no consumables, but just try taking on a Scorpitron with an under geared party... you needed those Photon axes and Chitin/Power armor. It won't go well no matter where your skills stand otherwise. I'd say that demonstrates an axcessive over reliance on equipment right there.

That's not true. You can kill Scorpitron, with some effort with clip pistol skill 6 or higher and starting weapons. The armor would help a lot of course, but could theoretically be supplemented by a high CON instead. It's easier with assault rifles and energy weapons, but even then for assault rifles you really need a skill of 5 or higher.

But again, I have no issues with gear progression. There should be a few armors to choose from at each gear tier. There should be a handful of weapons to choose from per weapon tier. The keyword in the quote is "excessive". Fifteen assault rifles to choose from at each weapon tier is extremely too many. It's the overkill that I take issue with. I feel with all those items in the game, it takes away from the RPG parts — story and exploration. The game will feel more focused on the combat and weaponry if you will.

[Gennadios]

The keyword in the quote is "excessive". Fifteen assault rifles to choose from at each weapon tier is extremely too many. It's the overkill that I take issue with. I feel with all those items in the game, it takes away from the RPG parts — story and exploration. The game will feel more focused on the combat and weaponry if you will.

I can concede that point but there are also people who will find the RPG aspect of their own game enhanced by such additions. I personally enjoyed creating a squad specifically made up of Russian mercs with nothing but AKs. Sure they were outclassed by some other guns, but at the end of the battle, all that mattered was how well I prepared my killzones and the agility of the mercs covering corners, I could afford the slightly sub-par weaponry because the disadvantage wasn't huge and I enjoyed the thematic consistency.

It's not like you absolutely have to choose a different assault rifle for every situation, number crunchers enjoy accounting for the tiny accuracy, reliability, and range differences. For everyone else, there's a large stat at the top of the list that reads "Damage", nothing wrong with just equipping whatever happens to list the highest value.

[Independent George]

Beneath the snark, there are a lot of good points in both directions. I'm going to skip quoting people because that would turn this post into 1,000 pages, so I'm going to try and keep this as general as possible.

I agree 100% that the level of detail in JA2 v1.13 is excessive for a (presumably) plot and character driven RPG, and that the inventory micromanagement would not work in a game that requires you to think about far more than how much ammo you can carry. JA2 was a tactical combat game, so all of that detail is probably overkill on a RPG.

On the other hand, all of those things can actually be controlled by sliders at the beginning of the game. You can select fewer guns as a game option, which removes most of the exotic and historical weapons from the game. Or, you can opt for hard core gun pr0n, and load up on as much 6.8mm ammunition as you want. It's the player's choice.

The question for us is what the appropriate level of detail is in WL2. To go back to the ammunition question, I would think the best answer is to try and match what we think would be available in a post-apocalyptic American Southwest. In no particular order, I'd say .22 LR, .380, 9mm para, .45 ACP for pistol rounds, 12 and 20-gauge buckshot, birdshot, and slug for shotguns, .308 , 5.56mm, 7.62x39, and 7.62x51mm rifle rounds. That's four pistol rounds, six shotgun rounds, and four rifle rounds, or 14 total, which represents some of the most common ammunition types used in the US. That seems appropriate to me.

This brings us the weapon mods and modelling. I lean in the direction of v1.13's level of detail, because it gets at the tradeoffs inherent in all weapons selections. The point wasn't variety for variety's sake; it was about giving you the ability to select the type of weapon best suited to your particular style of play, and the strengths and weaknesses of your party. The mods didn't make a weapon better or worse; it made them more suited toward one task and less suited towards another. An 8x scope is not inherently superior to a 4x scope; they both have a use appropriate to a given combat role. The aforementioned folding stocks allowed heavy, cumbersome battle rifles to be slightly more nimble, but at a cost to aimed shots. A heavy G3A3 would never be as handy as the M4 Carbine, but it does become a little more useful at close combat. It all depends on how you want that weapon to be used by that particular character, and most importantly, it's completely optional. I think that's a much better system than simply having each attachment give a flat bonus.

[RoboRevolution]

Beneath the snark, there are a lot of good points in both directions. I'm going to skip quoting people because that would turn this post into 1,000 pages, so I'm going to try and keep this as general as possible.

I agree 100% that the level of detail in JA2 v1.13 is excessive for a (presumably) plot and character driven RPG, and that the inventory micromanagement would not work in a game that requires you to think about far more than how much ammo you can carry. JA2 was a tactical combat game, so all of that detail is probably overkill on a RPG.

On the other hand, all of those things can actually be controlled by sliders at the beginning of the game. You can select fewer guns as a game option, which removes most of the exotic and historical weapons from the game. Or, you can opt for hard core gun pr0n, and load up on as much 6.8mm ammunition as you want. It's the player's choice.

The question for us is what the appropriate level of detail is in WL2. To go back to the ammunition question, I would think the best answer is to try and match what we think would be available in a post-apocalyptic American Southwest. In no particular order, I'd say .22 LR, .380, 9mm para, .45 ACP for pistol rounds, 12 and 20-gauge buckshot, birdshot, and slug for shotguns, .308 , 5.56mm, 7.62x39, and 7.62x51mm rifle rounds. That's four pistol rounds, six shotgun rounds, and four rifle rounds, or 14 total, which represents some of the most common ammunition types used in the US. That seems appropriate to me.

This brings us the weapon mods and modelling. I lean in the direction of v1.13's level of detail, because it gets at the tradeoffs inherent in all weapons selections. The point wasn't variety for variety's sake; it was about giving you the ability to select the type of weapon best suited to your particular style of play, and the strengths and weaknesses of your party. The mods didn't make a weapon better or worse; it made them more suited toward one task and less suited towards another. An 8x scope is not inherently superior to a 4x scope; they both have a use appropriate to a given combat role. The aforementioned folding stocks allowed heavy, cumbersome battle rifles to be slightly more nimble, but at a cost to aimed shots. A heavy G3A3 would never be as handy as the M4 Carbine, but it does become a little more useful at close combat. It all depends on how you want that weapon to be used by that particular character, and most importantly, it's completely optional. I think that's a much better system than simply having each attachment give a flat bonus.

I'd listen to this man. Everything he's saying is right on the money. (Though having .380 with 9mm luger seems, unnecessary)