"Old School RPG" thanks, but no thanks.

[krellen]

Well that got real ugly, really quck. Man, let's not loose our cool.

I'm Irish. I heat up quick, but I cool down quick too.

Here, I tried to make my case with a little less heat.

[Drool]

Well that got real ugly, really quck.

To be fair, I agree with everything krellen said and completely understand his frustration. I just stay out of threads like this one and instead bash my head against the "starting as Rangers" and the "what does 'Party' mean?" threads

[ffordesoon]

Someone's throwing a party? Where?

EDIT:

@Inca:

I wasn't calling you specifically out. I think this thread is one of the more reasonable ones of this type I've seen. I was really just expressing my confusion about all the "I pledged, now give me everything I have ever wanted in an RPG regardless of whether or not it fits" threads I keep seeing. I appreciate that people are so eager to offer input, but it's still a somewhat puzzling trend.

[paultakeda]

Well that got real ugly, really quck.

To be fair, I agree with everything krellen said and completely understand his frustration. I just stay out of threads like this one and instead bash my head against the "starting as Rangers" and the "what does 'Party' mean?" threads

I'm with krellen and Drool. That's probably obvious, isn't it.

[Bloodshard]

MEN YOU CANT FIGHT IN HERE THIS IS THE WAR ROOM!!!

Well at least this hasn't turned into a flame war...

[Woolfe]

Well that got real ugly, really quck.

To be fair, I agree with everything krellen said and completely understand his frustration. I just stay out of threads like this one and instead bash my head against the "starting as Rangers" and the "what does 'Party' mean?" threads

I'm with krellen and Drool. That's probably obvious, isn't it.

Yah, I am mostly as well... but I lean towards the more tactical combat.... And am open to arguments... mostly cause I am argumentative

[Inca]

I'm with krellen and Drool. That's probably obvious, isn't it.

Yeah, guys, I know your crew by now . Da three amigos

Did you fellas enjoy any of the "tactical" games here, like JA2, XCOM, or Silent Storm?

[Vryheid]

Inca, have you ever played or even read the manual of one of these "old school" RPGs before? Good tabletop games still have a level of complexity that video game RPGs can only dream of, mainly because the human factor of the DM adds infinite potential for branching storylines and dynamic encounters. You DO have to worry about things like supplies, tactics, resource management and careful use of skills in many tabeltop games. There was a staggering amount of effort that went into replicating this experience with early computer RPGs like Ultima and Wasteland, which was made all the more incredible by the limited technology they had to deal with. Unfortunately, as time progressed game developers got progressively less and less interested in recreating this experience. It became the trend in RPGs to start turning the player into some sort of puppeteer in a streamlined combat gauntlet rather than a world you could actually feel yourself as a part of.

That is what I feel like most people are most nostalgic about when they talk about "old school RPGs", not the limited graphics or simplistic dice based combat systems. What they want is an attitude from the developers that focuses on building a world rather than an interactive movie and respects the player's right to choose. If the devs can take these values and enhance them with modern innovations then it will still be faithful to the goals of old school RPGs.

[Drool]

Never played JA or Silent Storm (never even heard of JA before coming here), but I played the original XCom. I enjoyed it well enough, but it was... frustrating. Perhaps it was my lousy skills back then, but I found the learning curve to be exceptionally steep and very quickly ended up with continual total party kills. However, when I got my hands on a hex editor and hacked the crap out of it, I enjoyed it quite a bit more. Frankly, the psi powers were my biggest complaint; they seemed unbalanced and could wipe out your party too easily.

So... I was okay with XCom's combat system, just not so much the implementation and difficulty level.

[krellen]

Like Drool, I played XCom, though the team that I had the longest died horribly when attacking the Gray headquarters that led to getting to go to Mars (I think?) I never beat the game, 'cause the combat just took too long. I still haven't beaten Fallout Tactics for the same reason.

[Inca]

I recommend looking for some youtube videos of JA2, Silent Storm, Wages of War, The Fall Last Days of Gaia, Soldiers of Anarchy and maybe Faces of War. Watching a tube is not as good as playing of course but I just wanted you guys to have some experience with what the rest of the "tactical" advocates are talking about. Than maybe we can see more common ground.

Going to sleep, got to get up early tomorrow.

[Rzarkrusz Rowa]

Never played JA or Silent Storm (never even heard of JA before coming here), but I played the original XCom. I enjoyed it well enough, but it was... frustrating. Perhaps it was my lousy skills back then, but I found the learning curve to be exceptionally steep and very quickly ended up with continual total party kills. However, when I got my hands on a hex editor and hacked the crap out of it, I enjoyed it quite a bit more. Frankly, the psi powers were my biggest complaint; they seemed unbalanced and could wipe out your party too easily.

So... I was okay with XCom's combat system, just not so much the implementation and difficulty level.

No. The game is a meat-grinder. And that's the point. You can't sent eight grunts to fight an alien invasion. You need constant reinforcements. Learning curve isn't steep. It just requires reading a bit of a manual that explains tactics. Generally, it's a skirmish game, so you need to know small unit tactics. It's basic stuff like keeping AP for shoots, using bounding overwatch, using smoke, etc. If you lose whole teams all the time, you're simply making basic mistakes.
Last time I have played, my losses were ~110 men in ~50 missions with ~250 aliens killed and tens of UFOs captured and one alien base destroyed. Actually, the game felt easy because my losses were much lower than the alien losses. And I was playing on Superhuman. But then it's possible that I fell victim to the infamous bug that changes every difficulty to beginner...

[Drool]

When I can have a combat go like this:

Ship lands.
Rocket Dude steps out of ship.
Rocket Dude is possessed by alien hidden by fog of war.
Rocket Dude launches rocket into ship killing entire party.

I get really sick of even bothering.

[Mandemon]

When I can have a combat go like this:

Ship lands.
Rocket Dude steps out of ship.
Rocket Dude is possessed by alien hidden by fog of war.
Rocket Dude launches rocket into ship killing entire party.

I get really sick of even bothering.

It can happen. That's why you train them and don't give rocket launchers to the most weak minded idiot, or at least you don't send him first. It's called tactical combat. It's quite different than "press button to kill all" of Wasteland...

And brutal and absolute combat in Wasteland is OK but other game having it is unfair? Makes no sense to me.

[Woolfe]

When I can have a combat go like this:

Ship lands.
Rocket Dude steps out of ship.
Rocket Dude is possessed by alien hidden by fog of war.
Rocket Dude launches rocket into ship killing entire party.

I get really sick of even bothering.

Ok, its been a while since I played Xcom. But I do remember that once I got some psychic research done, I knew which of my team had high psychic strength and who didn't. Anyone with low str was relegated to base defence, usually in one of my minor secondary not important bases. And from that point on only strong psychic people were hired.

Once I did that the problems of psychic takeover were vastly reduced...

[krellen]

It's quite different than "press button to kill all" of Wasteland...

I would not describe Wasteland's combat as "press button to kill all" in the slightest. While games like Bard's Tale had more variety of enemies that led to more tactical play, Wasteland still had several instances when you have to make tactical movements in a combat - Ugly's hideout was a good example (and playing that out in any "richer" system - even Fallout - would take a very long time; Ugly's gang consists of at least 50 guys.)

Wasteland's combat allowed you to fight much larger groups than you can possibly face in a "tactical" game. I don't want to lose that. Just last night my team in Devil Whiskey (a Bard's Tale redux) killed 15 dragons to reclaim a dwarven heirloom. Try that in another combat system.

[Skirge]

I'm with most of the other folks who've replied to this thread. I don't want Wasteland: Tactics; I want Wasteland 2. I do want to be able to use SOME tactics in combat, but definitely not like what's being described. It sounds like Inca wants Takedown: Apocalypse. Now, that's a group of developers that want a hardcore, tactical game. It's just not in the right setting for you. Maybe you can convince them to go PA, rather than convincing Wasteland to go tactical? That's not intended to be a "GTFO" reply, so please don't take it that way. But, the amount of change Takedown would require to go PA is probably about the same as what you're asking of Wasteland 2. I feel it's simply a 180 from what Brian's plan is.

[paultakeda]

I'm with krellen and Drool. That's probably obvious, isn't it.

Yeah, guys, I know your crew by now . Da three amigos

Did you fellas enjoy any of the "tactical" games here, like JA2, XCOM, or Silent Storm?

I played Breach (Omnitrend 1987). Now that was a hard game, but I enjoyed it.

[Lanatir]

What is it that I suggest that would be a deal breaker for you?

I already went over every single one of your points. The big deal breaker, though? Your insistence on a Jagged Alliance level of tactical combat (which, BTW, was totally an RPG; your problem is that you didn't like its story or the elements of choice therein, but god fucking dammit all, these are not things unique to RPGs and do not make things RPGs (and I'm really upset with Extra Credits for trying to argue that they do)) and your insistence on intricately detailed inventory and resource management.

I'm not interested in juggling every last pound of weight, I'm not interested in coming down to even Fallout Tactics level combat every time I walk past an angry rodent, and I'm not interested in making the game you dream of seeing - because what you're asking for is a dream combination of elements that exist currently, but simply haven't put together in the manner you want. What I'm asking for is something that simply does not exist any other way - you're just absolutely wrong that this is the only way to get your game made, but it is the only way to get mine.

And I don't want to "forge a consensus" with you. Every time I have to have this conversation, I want to cry, I want to scream, I want to pull my money out of the project for fear Brian Fargo will listen to you and make your fucking modern fucking post-Apocalyptic game and leave me in the fucking cold. AGAIN. This wasn't supposed to be the project to make the new awesome post-Apocalyptic game everyone's been dreaming of in their spare time. It's the project to make a sequel to Wasteland, drawing from the basis of the original - and that is a goddamn direct quote from the pitch page.

While i think that Krellen goes overboard with HOW he says things at times, i agree 100% with WHAT he says.

[Inca]

I played Breach (Omnitrend 1987). Now that was a hard game, but I enjoyed it.

Well tactical games did come a long way from that point. I still suggest, guys, that you check out at least couple of game videos from the list that I proposed.
I am not trying to stir up a fight, I genuanly am trying to understand you. I quite literally never met a group of people that delibaratly wanted a dumbed down combat in the game, this is new to me so I am trying to see if there is a system we can all live with. Because the Original wasteland combat would be a grave dissapointment to me.
Will you be opposed to:
picking individual targets for the rangers?
being able to change position for individual ranger during combat?
Choose the mode of fire for individual member of the team?
Would it be OK if a certain position/stance provided a better protection from incoming fire?
Fog of war?

I mean those are basic tactical building blocks-it need not get more complicated than that in the worst case scenario.