Include Perks/Feats

[Zombra]

But in arguing for level based perks against the idea "abilities just appears" as a negative. Some things do work like that, for example, for a long time I could do handstands, and for a long time I could do pushups, but also for a long time I COULDN'T do handstand pushups, until one day I just could.

My main point isn't that "sudden learning" is impossible or totally unrealistic; it's that this isn't how Wasteland worked and it would therefore be a series departure; for me, a very unwelcome one.

If Perks were necessary for a good character development system, then I would totally support their inclusion. They're not necessary; Wasteland's system was great without them. Adding them would be changing the formula for no good reason.
(No, "but they're neato" is not a good reason. )

[nustada]

But in arguing for level based perks against the idea "abilities just appears" as a negative. Some things do work like that, for example, for a long time I could do handstands, and for a long time I could do pushups, but also for a long time I COULDN'T do handstand pushups, until one day I just could.

My main point isn't that "sudden learning" is impossible or totally unrealistic; it's that this isn't how Wasteland worked and it would therefore be a series departure; for me, a very unwelcome one.

If Perks were necessary for a good character development system, then I would totally support their inclusion. They're not necessary; Wasteland's system was great without them. Adding them would be changing the formula for no good reason.
(No, "but they're neato" is not a good reason. )

I think, the argument, "it wasn't in the first one, so it shouldn't be in the second" is a weak argument for any aspect of the game. The only result to faithful commitment to that idea would be, "re-release the first game".

I could understand not having perks just to ensure it has a different flavor from "fallout". But then again, fallout was the result of not having rights to wasteland, who know, other than Brian Fargo, if it would(nt) have ended up in wasteland 2 if licensing wouldn't have screwed things up.

And the idea of leaving something out just because it isn't fundamentally necessary, kinda eliminates the idea of playing games all together. I think making any "formula" conceptually more broad and deep is almost always a good thing. I am sick of constant simplification that has infected modern games that comes as a result of "no patches" for consoles. After all, what is more fun to figure out, x+x=2x or e=mc^2

[CaptainPatch]

(No, "but they're neato" is not a good reason. )

Actual development of previous games would seem to contradict this idea. Power Armor, Energy weapons, fusion power, etc. would seem to have been included in WL primarily because, "Even though these things do NOT exist, and there's a distinct possibility that they never will, it seems to be things that the consumers want, and so it would be definitely neat if we included them."

[Drool]

"It's neat" is perfect justification when developing a new property. It's rather less good when developing a sequel to a property.

"You know what's neat? My Little Pony. So let's add Twilight Sparkle to the Dark Knight Rises."

[Woolfe]

"It's neat" is perfect justification when developing a new property. It's rather less good when developing a sequel to a property.

"You know what's neat? My Little Pony. So let's add Twilight Sparkle to the Dark Knight Rises."

WOOHOO!!!!!!

Oh wait.. was that Sarcasm... that was sarcasm wasn't it... damn... um yeah ... nothing to see here... These are not the droids you are looking for.... Move along...

[Zombra]

I think, the argument, "it wasn't in the first one, so it shouldn't be in the second" is a weak argument for any aspect of the game. The only result to faithful commitment to that idea would be, "re-release the first game".

I completely agree. Apparently, you only caught half of my argument, though; I'll bold the important part this time:
"It wasn't in the first one, so it shouldn't be in the second without a good reason."

Wasteland 2 should and will be different in a thousand plus ways from Wasteland. Hopefully, every difference will be there for a good reason. The old graphics sucked by modern standards; therefore new graphics are a good idea. The incredibly limited size of the game sucked by modern standards; Wasteland 2 will be much bigger. The writing in the first game was great, but redoing the same material would make the game shallow, short, and predictable; new content is therefore a good idea.

The character system in the first game was pretty damn good*
*although many of the Skills themselves were horrendously balanced ... too useful or not useful enough. We all hope that the Skills that exist in W2 will all be worthwhile. Revamping Skills is another change that will happen with good reason.

... so a fundamental "jazzing up" of the basic nature of PC advancement is uncalled for. It wouldn't really make the game better; just different.

Since every difference will make the sequel less like the original, it's important that the changes that are made are made for substantial and valid reasons. I don't see a substantial reason for Perks to be in W2.

[CaptainPatch]

I don't see a substantial reason for Perks to be in W2.

For all intents and purposes, many of WL's Skills were Perks -- before the concept of Perks had been introduced. Confidence, for example, would be a Perk like "Persuasive" or "Silver-Tongued". Perception would be any number of Perks that involve spotting something more often than Joe Average. Etc.

[snakeoil]

if there have to be perks of any kind, they should be passively activated just by playing, not by choosing from a number of diffrent perks. so if i am using only heavy armour for 100 times there should be a message that says: " you have obtained the heavy armour perk, your armour feels just half as heavy!" same goes for any other imaginable perk. passive perks are more immersive and fitting for the players style and shouldnt have any negative effect. a perk is a sign of perfecting a skill, giving it a negative side effect is simply not necessary for a fun experience.

[Zombra]

I don't see a substantial reason for Perks to be in W2.

For all intents and purposes, many of WL's Skills were Perks -- before the concept of Perks had been introduced. Confidence, for example, would be a Perk like "Persuasive" or "Silver-Tongued". Perception would be any number of Perks that involve spotting something more often than Joe Average. Etc.

Well ... kind of, but not really. Most Perks are more like modifiers to Skills, with many exceptions of the "weird power" type. One major difference is that Skills have a chance of failure; a major focus of Wasteland is "Will you succeed this roll?" Again, this is a fundamental part of the design. Perks don't work like that at all; although many of them are reskinned Skill Levels, there are no "Perk Levels" or "Perk Checks"; either you have a Perk or you don't.

Anyway, if Perks and Skills are more or less the same thing, then there's even less reason to have two different systems. Why not just keep it all under one roof?

[tuluse]

I'm ambivalent towards perks, if done well they're good, but it does make balancing the game harder (and even harder when you have 4 PCs instead of 1).

I do hope we have traits. I love those in both Fallout and Arcanum. They just add so much more depth to a character and make character generation much more fun.

[CaptainPatch]

...there are no "Perk Levels" ...

Actually, there were quite a few Perks that could be "leveled up" by taking them repeatedly: Action Boy, Bonus HtH Damage, Bonus Move, etc. http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_perks

[Zombra]

...there are no "Perk Levels" ...

Actually, there were quite a few Perks that could be "leveled up" by taking them repeatedly: Action Boy, Bonus HtH Damage, Bonus Move, etc. http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_perks

Factually correct but missing the point. Perks can't succeed or fail like Skills can. Let's not get sidetracked with nitpicking, OK?

[CaptainPatch]

...there are no "Perk Levels" ...

Actually, there were quite a few Perks that could be "leveled up" by taking them repeatedly: Action Boy, Bonus HtH Damage, Bonus Move, etc. http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_perks

Factually correct but missing the point. Perks can't succeed or fail like Skills can. Let's not get sidetracked with nitpicking, OK?

Aside from the oddball situational Perks, most did nothing more than give an Attribute bump, which results in superior -- but NOT automatically successful, performance. Which is pretty much the same thing that Skills do: bump up performance.

[Zombra]

Aside from the oddball situational Perks, most did nothing more than give an Attribute bump, which results in superior -- but NOT automatically successful, performance. Which is pretty much the same thing that Skills do: bump up performance.

So, again: why change the system if the results end up the same?

[nustada]

So, again: why change the system if the results end up the same?

I am pretty much against perks that are simply x=x*y better. As they are boring.

If skills/perks are implement, I think they should represent new abilities. In my previous post, I gave some examples of what I think would be ideal types perks/skills. for example, a skill/perk enabling a character to alternatively use landmines as grenades or visa versa, would make that character more flexible. Or a perk that allows a character to occasionally make money by entertaining in a bar (while your other PC's go about their business). it could be cohesive and non cheesy.

Also if the "best" perks are given to unconventional, traditionally bad builds, it could change results in interesting ways. In fallout II (and maybe 1, don't remember) the best perk was given to the inherently best "sniper build" which is the opposite of what I would like to see.

To be honest, I don't mind if there isn't perk system where if you reach level x you get to pick Y. I would like SOME system where you skills gained that branch out the game dynamic into a practically unlimited plausible paths.

[Gurkog]

I would not mind certain perks that are effected by or directly effect teammates. Such as getting a perk that makes shooting behind another ranger easier, or hacking on a target that is being attacked by someone else gives a bonus to your melee strikes. Stuff that effects skills, but does not make any single character into a solo god.

[Zombra]

If skills/perks are implement, I think they should represent new abilities.

That makes sense. I still don't think Perks should be implemented at all, but I at least see where you're coming from.

[CaptainPatch]

"A rose by any other name would still smell just as sweet." If Skills and Perks (the Attribute bumps and new abilities types anyway) function the same, then the argument isn't about whether or not Perks should be allowed. It's only about semantics.

[nustada]

"A rose by any other name would still smell just as sweet." If Skills and Perks (the Attribute bumps and new abilities types anyway) function the same, then the argument isn't about whether or not Perks should be allowed. It's only about semantics.

I see a significant different in that perks even if you had the stats, you could not collect them all in one playthrough. Whereas, if I understand correctly which I may not as I haven't gotten very far in wasteland, you could collect all possible skills as long as you complete the prerequisite quest.

[CaptainPatch]

...if I understand correctly which I may not as I haven't gotten very far in wasteland, you could collect all possible skills as long as you complete the prerequisite quest.

Checking... There were 35 available Skills. Most of those were NOT available at initial character creation. Most PCs started with only 7-8. Over the course of many, many, many playthroughs, I don't believe I had any single PC finish with more than 20 of them. The entire party may have covered as many as 25. Most PCs got by on only 10-15 Skills by game's end.