Skip to content


Combat should be closer to Fallout than WL/Bard's Tale

For all Wasteland 2 discussion that does not fit elsewhere, suggestions, feedback, etc. No spoilers allowed.

Moderator: Ranger Team Alpha


Re: Combat should be closer to Fallout than WL/Bard's Tale

Postby paultakeda » April 18th, 2012, 8:46 am

drake wrote:But what part of the first wasteland promo video you didn't understand .
Turnbased party combat , aka jagged alliance , x-com (he can no longer mention it cause x-com is being made ) fallout tactics .

Now what kind of combat system do you have in your mind ?
That you say it is so different , from everything said before ?

I understood the KS video and all interviews quite well and nothing officially stated has surprised me.

You misunderstand: my point is not about combat being turn based, my point is that the micro control of tactics in combat that are the focus of tactical games like JA2 will be streamlined in WL2. So what you mean by JA2 style is dependent on what you mean by style.

If you are expecting as complex a control set as JA2, I would say from the Q&A that that's not likely.
User avatar
paultakeda
 
Posts: 2075
Joined: March 14th, 2012, 1:47 pm
Location: At the Ag Center, roaring like an animal!


Re: Combat should be closer to Fallout than WL/Bard's Tale

Postby drake » April 18th, 2012, 8:59 am

Well he won't streamline it , he just will not be able to match the depth of games liike JA2.
The X-Com remake didn't streamline it either . but they have a bigger budget for cinematica or bird eye view.

What I am saying is that Fallout tactics is the most basic of turnbased strategy games , wasteland 2 will not streamline it ,but Improve on it , while tedious micro management that is one of the reason publisher don't want it .
It is exactly the micro management that made those games all time classic for fanbase .
Hard to get into but once mastered , it becomes awesome .

They probaly ad a easymode so people who just play it for the story , like Fallout 2 can just breeze trough it .
Without having to do 6 turns killing a scorpion , cause you move 4 characters , enemy move , npc move .
that is basically the combat system .

The difficulty of jagged alliance 2 was tons more depth cause interrupts , out of turn phases based on skills , cover positions and tons more features with a difficult learning curve . I do not think any modern game can match that depth .
drake
 
Posts: 63
Joined: April 2nd, 2012, 5:56 pm


Re: Combat should be closer to Fallout than WL/Bard's Tale

Postby Phaederuss » April 18th, 2012, 11:27 am

I was thinking more along the lines of Final Fantasy Tactics or XCOM: UFO Defense.
Phaederuss
 
Posts: 107
Joined: April 5th, 2012, 6:49 pm


Re: Combat should be closer to Fallout than WL/Bard's Tale

Postby dmazz » April 18th, 2012, 1:57 pm

Although Brian was unclear which combat type games he was referring to. (Could have been JA2/Silent Storm, or Baldur's Gate/NWN or Frozen Synapse/Wasteland, probably was the former) His criticism of combat dragging on, was a criticism at the time it takes for combat to take place.

So in short, I do believe he's using JA2/Silent Storm as his base, but is fully aware that type of combat is too slow for his game. So he's gonna try to speed it up, through whatever means he can. And dumbing down the combat depth to speed up the game is his last choice not his first.
dmazz
 
Posts: 281
Joined: March 15th, 2012, 8:13 pm


Re: Combat should be closer to Fallout than WL/Bard's Tale

Postby paultakeda » April 18th, 2012, 2:04 pm

dmazz wrote:And dumbing down the combat depth to speed up the game is his last choice not his first.


It's not about dumbing down combat depth. You can have deep combat tactics but integrated/streamlined into a smaller control set to reduce complexity (and therefore increase pace). I provided an example of a possible way of doing this in a post on another thread.
User avatar
paultakeda
 
Posts: 2075
Joined: March 14th, 2012, 1:47 pm
Location: At the Ag Center, roaring like an animal!


Re: Combat should be closer to Fallout than WL/Bard's Tale

Postby alanschu » April 18th, 2012, 4:42 pm

paultakeda wrote:I understood the KS video and all interviews quite well and nothing officially stated has surprised me.

You misunderstand: my point is not about combat being turn based, my point is that the micro control of tactics in combat that are the focus of tactical games like JA2 will be streamlined in WL2. So what you mean by JA2 style is dependent on what you mean by style.

If you are expecting as complex a control set as JA2, I would say from the Q&A that that's not likely.



Pretty much this. In his most recent interview, Brian talked about using elements from Fallout Tactics and Jagged Alliance for combat, but that doesn't mean we're going to drill down as in depth as a game like JA2 does. He still wants to balance it so that combat isn't a drag and people don't groan when a combat encounter occurs.
alanschu
 
Posts: 52
Joined: April 4th, 2012, 10:59 pm


Re: Combat should be closer to Fallout than WL/Bard's Tale

Postby MDF_MadDogFargo » April 19th, 2012, 10:26 am

OMG this is way too long, sorry guys, too many Wasteland thoughts, I hope it's not all gibberish to everybody but me! :)

dmazz wrote:Something else that unfairly adds to the speed of phased based combat in Frozen Synapse, is how definite everything is. Specifically instant death and a 100% hit rate. This suits the more chesslike aspects of the game, but if it was more realistically depicted it would slow down the game alot.


I've finally reviewed Frozen Synapse and I think I understand you better now. I see you literally mean certainty; each move is certain in Frozen Synapse like a chess move. It's an impressive game.

I believe the MSPE rules give us a different kind of universe than that; they give us a probabalistic universe, not a deterministic universe. In chess all the events in the game follow with certainty, as in logical deduction or mathematical induction. But in MSPE rules, events and actions follow probably, as in empirical induction; the conclusion is never 100% certain; the picture is never 100% whole; unspecified or unknown details may affect the outcome. IMO, that model fits the more quantum mechanical nature of the real universe.

But IMO Frozen Synapse has the same problem as Fallout Tactics and JA2 in that those games are focused mainly on the combat. They are combat games. But Wasteland is supposed to be an RPG, so making it into a combat game would be breaking the Covert Action Rule.

Let's try a new anology. Chess is an awesome game but I do not want to play a real chess game every time my Wasteland character plays chess. In the MSPE approach, a chess move or several moves would be determined by a dice roll! A character with high Chess skill would make an excellent strategic move or win the game instantly. If you wanted to provide more details of a chess game in the text or model some real games visually then you might play a chess game in two or three rolls of the dice to represent opening, middlegame, and endgame, or somesuch. That's the kind of universe Wasteland is.

Apply that analogy to combat. Two or three dice rolls (and pictures/excerpts/stages of movement) for a deep tactical maneuver analagous to chess. Some battles will have different stages you want to see, like hide, surround, and ambush. If you are fencing and you want some extra tactical sword moves, roll the dice two or three times to represent different parries, thrusts, and so on.

I'm suggesting that depending on your characters' skills, you might have more than one action for your characters or more than one character contributing to the same action in the same phase of combat. We are familiar with Brawling in Wasteland, and MSPE also has Combat shooting, which allows dual weilding. (it does nothing in Wasteland?) In WL2 we could possibly have combined, cooperative actions. Cooperative acts that combine your characters' efforts together would be literally simultaneous. (They would also be the basis of recreational games like basketball, laser tag, or RPGs.*)

In the WL system then you could get a text account of how "character A and B focus fire on enemy C for X amount of damage reducing it to a thin red mist." In the WL2 (more visual) system, characters contributing to each other's actions show up in the same pictures together; or, skilled characters (via e.g. Brawling, or Combat shooting) can make more moves which can be shown in a motion blur.

Individual characters act according to their speed; groups of characters (in combined actions) act according to the least speed in the group.

dmazz wrote:Wasteland combat can be built upon. One idea is one could move ones pieces in 'ghost time'. Instead of moving your actual character in combat to a different location or having them perform an action like in turn based combat, you would instead move their 'ghost' which would be a semi-transparent copy of your character. All the more fantastic elements of Frozen synapse combat will be removed (no 100% hit rate, instant kills, omniscience, no fog of war)

I like Wasteland combat and the above, because it injects a sense of action into what would otherwise be plodding back and forth attacks by one enemy at a time. This way the combat is seen to take place simultaneously onscreen and more at anytime can be put into slow motion, for that extra cool look.


The ability of the player to speed up or slow down the action can't be underestimated.

If I understand correctly, you're suggesting the command phase and action phase separation for the whole group's actions, like Wasteland/Frozen Synapse, but with the more tactical options of Frozen Synapse.

Are you saying that WL2 should also give you the optional "simulation phase" too?

Though I like that idea in Frozen Synapse, that doesn't strike me as very attractive in Wasteland. In a probabalistc universe, it's pointless to try to predict so many moves into the future and it's like playing new games every time when you do so, so why not just play new games and let my characters succeed or fail, learn or die. That's more dangerous and more typical of Wasteland than the careful planning of FS is.

I like the tactical options of Frozen Synapse. If we take the MSPE approach to that game as with chess above, then there ought to be some conceivable variation in character performance that can be illustrated one way or another by the game, and those variations can can represent the "dice" and have repercussions on the events that follow. Examples might be individual scars or distinctions, which can be intermingled, since every probability of success implies some improbability of failure and vice-versa.

In a probabalistic universe, there should be opportunities for spectacular failure and opportunities for spectacular success! In a RPG, the characters should decide some things that the player doesn't and be good as some things the player isn't. So, your character can play a great chess game or win a difficult battle even if you (the player) don't have those skills.

I am interested in exploring options for displaying combat and other encounters that resemble Wasteland's format; but of course they can be improved by better graphics. At the very least, Wasteland encounters demonstrate how to depict complicated simultaneous encounters in words and with a small program.

If Wasteland 2 can keep that principle, it can be used to describe things happening that are important, but for which we don't need to see all the details. Some examples of some encounters we might just want to read about and not see movies of could include social encounters, studying, training, hunting, or tracking. A Tracking skill could be quite useful and checked often in the outdoors, resulting in many different discoveries, but we could read those encounters, or read some and see some, and some Tracking checks can lead to battle encounters.

There could be a lot of other skills like Tracking that tune the character in to certain kinds of encounters and that defines your game, since you will track wild animals or you will scuba dive, or climb mountains, or whatever, to improve those skills. Every environment that requires a different skill to master, ought to have unique flora and fauna and different opportunities for discovery.

In principle, WL2 could give us comics-like slideshows in place of animations. If those can be fit somewhere in the game encounters, in the probabalistic model, they can come in so many variations that no one will ever see all the permutations. The results of a visual dice-roll can be the basis of the outcome of events, with degrees of success and failure that add up between encounters, giving your characters a unique appearance or identity.

I don't want to consider a WL2 where you can't have an encounter style format where the text informs you you did X amount of damage and pummeled your enemy into a bloody pulp! That is the thing that the game needs more of! There ought to be lots of new kinds of encounters. Games, puzzles, joinable NPCs, story events, social encounters, discoveries, new skills being learned, being able to enter in your own named skill and describe how your characters use it, and gain XP from it.

Keaton wrote:But even if the actions would happen simultaneously that wouldn't make it RT.
The game mechanic is what counts and that would still be
1. player input for each PC either with a limited amount of actions or with action points
2. turn resolved by the computer with everything playing out simultaneously
3. next player turn
and so on.
It would be perfect TB and much better than any sequential TB system could ever be (well, except chess and poker maybe) because your party could really operate simultaneously giving fire protection or entering and securing a room in a sweep like some elite task force. And speaking of securing rooms, sequential TB systems like JA2 and the original XCOMs always felt very very wrong in that aspect.


With combined actions, I believe you are correct about simultaneous fire protection and things like that. (I've imagined a category of skills for that, that enhance cooperative actions, such as Camaraderie, Bravery, and Leadership.)

But I believe we have to be specific about how we conceive the (2) of your model, the simultaneity. If we arrange group (cooperative) actions we can literally say these are simultaneous because it's two or more characters doing one thing. But some characters have equal speed doing two different things; and attacks are always "simultaneous" with hits or misses which is another sense of 'simultaneous.'

In the Wasteland combat descriptions we get one paragraph for every character we play, no matter if they are the same speed (going at the same time) or not. The actions are separated by order of speed (initiative). But they all happen on the same turn (phase) together, which makes them (degrees of) simultaneous. The Wasteland characters aren't standing there like Vic waiting for the Chosen One to make his move so that he can have his turn; they might attack at the same time; but the player sees (reads) them one at a time (in Wasteland).

I believe the following is a good way of handling initiative and simultaneous action phases:

Stainless wrote:On a computer game Winning initiative would allow for you to scroll over NPCs and an "action bubble" would appear over him. The AB would tell you his declared move for the turn; "preparing to shoot," "pulling pin on grenade," "ready to spill your entrails," "shitting his pants," "running towards(location)," "reloading," "applying pressure to the stump where his favorite arm used to be." or any other snarky but relavent information. Those NPCs who have higher initiative will only have their AB revealed when you are declaring moves for your PC with higher initiative.

So your PC with the lowest initiative goes first and only gets to see the AB of NPCs with lower initiative. Your next PC with the second lowest initiative gets to see more ABs and thus the battle unfolds giving the character with the highest initiative last deceleration of action and the best picture of the battle field. Now when you hit the end turn button you see the mayham unfold through success, failures, and botches.


The challenge, however in a computer game is visualizing all of these actions for the characters. The fast character needs to know the relevant information about his teammates/enemies, and how should that be modeled? Moving first is only one part of it.

I wonder if this Action Bubble approach can be combined with dmazz's 'ghost time' for a Frozen Synapse with action bubbles?

I am asking because I am not sure how to visualize this in a balanced game. I imagine that in a balanced game, the average combat ought to last about 2 minutes and give you breaks with other things to do for at least 2 minutes in between, unless you specifically seek out more combat than that. A balanced game would also give you, in addition to that, opportunities to do other non-combat things important to the story. You shouldn't have to do too much combat, nor should you be discouraged from seeking more of it out. You should want to see as many variations as you can get!

dmazz wrote:ps
Ghost time would be like a more advance form of those those 'colored footsteps' in JA2, which you use to gauge where your character can move to.


IMO we all want to see some kind of combat better than Wasteland (but like Wasteland), where your characters and the enemies all act on the same phase together. But within that regime, we don't necessarily need to see everything (on every turn) playing out simultaneously (meaning in real time). The computer simulation will be easier if we just let it show us one action at a time, whether individual (separated, not cooperative) or group actions. It can also change POV and slow the motion or show fast motion in a blur, and these could be UI (style) adjustments.

We are bootstrapped by the nature of the simulation one way or another. In a PnP game the GM isn't going to know what all happens until he rolls the dice on his side either. If we were to force the game into a chess-like or FS-like mold of certainty, and leave out the probability, then we would just be asking the computer to specify more intermediate steps, whereas Wasteland shows the (converse) power of generalizing more steps. It's in the context of the generalization that the probablity of success or failure provides the specific information; i.e. the dice rolls tell you the degree of success or failure.

dmazz wrote:Although there would be a default mode, one should on the fly be able to change the pace of combat from Baldur's Gate relaxing onscreen action, to tense nitty gritty precision control exceeding that of Frozen Synapse. That's because each different combat system shines in different combat scenarios. Frozen Synapse is the best for room clearing and fighting indoors. JA2/Silent Storm for the urban combat within 100m. Baldur's Gate/FOT real time for combat further out or against inferior opponents. (or ambushes where it's just a slaughter)


I like your concept, but that seems like too much to fit into a game with a one-year development cycle. Maybe we should set out the individual possible elements of something like that and decide the combination by rolling a D20. Then test those results and repeat until we find one that works for the most people who seem to be interested. Would that be building a consensus?

[*Allow me to elaborate on the cooperative party games. I'm imagining an encounter format where you initiate the encounter between party members. In the command phase, you order your characters; in the action phase, they play a game of baseball, or Monopoly, or Wasteland (the PnP version). They can play games with their own party members or opponents (other parties) as well; 2 parties or a split up party could play two sides of Volleyball. I'm imagining the Wasteland combat format which is mostly words describing what your characters do.

Recreational and occupational skills are present in MSPE. In that system, you can name your own occupational or recreational skill. Maybe you could do the same thing in WL2. Let the player name their own occupational/recreational/social skill and describe how it is used in the game, so it can show up where it works (which I imagine would mostly be in interparty activities), and give you some experience when you practice it.]

Edit:

drake wrote:Well he won't streamline it , he just will not be able to match the depth of games liike JA2.
The X-Com remake didn't streamline it either . but they have a bigger budget for cinematica or bird eye view.

What I am saying is that Fallout tactics is the most basic of turnbased strategy games , wasteland 2 will not streamline it ,but Improve on it , while tedious micro management that is one of the reason publisher don't want it .
It is exactly the micro management that made those games all time classic for fanbase .
Hard to get into but once mastered , it becomes awesome .

They probaly ad a easymode so people who just play it for the story , like Fallout 2 can just breeze trough it .
Without having to do 6 turns killing a scorpion , cause you move 4 characters , enemy move , npc move .
that is basically the combat system .

The difficulty of jagged alliance 2 was tons more depth cause interrupts , out of turn phases based on skills , cover positions and tons more features with a difficult learning curve . I do not think any modern game can match that depth .


That depth is okay in those games because the games focus on combat. WL2 is supposed to be an RPG, not a combat game. [cf. "Covert Action Rule" above.]
Last edited by MDF_MadDogFargo on April 19th, 2012, 11:18 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
MDF_MadDogFargo
 
Posts: 360
Joined: March 15th, 2012, 6:21 am


Re: Combat should be closer to Fallout than WL/Bard's Tale

Postby Vladplaya » April 19th, 2012, 11:10 am

Gizmo wrote:I dunno... I'm rather partial to WL2's not copying Fallout too much. They are different series, and making a sequel for one game that is closely derived from another is a slippery slope. Bethesda did this (I found it annoying to no end).


Those games are made practically by the same people, who couldn't make WL2, so they set down and said, if we would have a chance to make WL2, what would we improve and make better, and so we got Fallout games, which were great. (I am talking about Fallout 1/2 of course, and non of the latest garbage)

I would like to see game made like it use to be, with a engaging story, characters, huge and interactive world etc, but it doesn't mean it has to be exactly how it was many many years ago. So much times passed, developers and gamers learned so many things about games and how to make them fun, that knowledge should be used to benefit the game somehow, improving combat system probably wouldn't be a bad thing at all.
User avatar
Vladplaya
 
Posts: 8
Joined: April 3rd, 2012, 9:02 am


Re: Combat should be closer to Fallout than WL/Bard's Tale

Postby MDF_MadDogFargo » April 19th, 2012, 11:33 am

Vladplaya wrote:
Gizmo wrote:I dunno... I'm rather partial to WL2's not copying Fallout too much. They are different series, and making a sequel for one game that is closely derived from another is a slippery slope. Bethesda did this (I found it annoying to no end).


Those games are made practically by the same people, who couldn't make WL2, so they set down and said, if we would have a chance to make WL2, what would we improve and make better, and so we got Fallout games, which were great. (I am talking about Fallout 1/2 of course, and non of the latest garbage)

I would like to see game made like it use to be, with a engaging story, characters, huge and interactive world etc, but it doesn't mean it has to be exactly how it was many many years ago. So much times passed, developers and gamers learned so many things about games and how to make them fun, that knowledge should be used to benefit the game somehow, improving combat system probably wouldn't be a bad thing at all.


I'm sure there have been improvements, but which improvements are we talking about? Do the improvements extend combat to 10 mins long? Do the improvements force you to mouse through middling actions?

Sometimes to take advantage of advanced technology it's useful to put yourself in the mindset of a more simple technology and ask how we could use that advancement to improve the old version of our game; because the more recent models are based on old traditions, without examining problems in a fresh way like when the genre was new.

Take, for instance my above example of chess inserted into the MSPE rule system. WL2 could give you new combat options for opening, middle, and end game. You don't need to know how to play chess in order for your characters to do so. I believe that's the kind of model we should work on because that's what Wasteland was based on.
User avatar
MDF_MadDogFargo
 
Posts: 360
Joined: March 15th, 2012, 6:21 am


Re: Combat should be closer to Fallout than WL/Bard's Tale

Postby drake » April 19th, 2012, 11:38 am

Look what most fail to understand that even in RPG most of the times you are spent in combat .

Final Fantasy , Fallout , DnD infact the very few pure RPG games out there are Bioware but that isn't even RPG cause it is more cinematic ,so if you cut out the cinematic.
Then you realise most of the game is about combat, run back and forth fed ex , more combat .

Now once the story is done , you are left with a combat system , game like Jagged Alliance 2 (not back in action crap)
Had infact a lot of RPG elements , but cause it was too difficult for most people to play .
Strategic management , Economy Management , Squad planning , Time planning , the diffculty was just too high for most.
The combat system was way too advance too , that didn't help either .
Now am not saying Wasteland Jagged Alliance Fallout Clone , cause if that was possible , you would have the most complex
game in the century , for a very small hardcore audience that can last 20-30 year.

Since with the mod kit , it means people can make there own adventure ( so combat missions )
But in essence the game will be squad based combat system , I love final fantasy tactics , but it doesn't fit wasteland.
The problem is more how to keep the complexity of turnbased combat and depth .
While still giving the people who just like the story a easy stroll in the park .
Once the game over they can decide of they want to try this turnbased combat with depth , or just say he I hate chess.
No matter how you hide it , I will hate chess .
drake
 
Posts: 63
Joined: April 2nd, 2012, 5:56 pm


Re: Combat should be closer to Fallout than WL/Bard's Tale

Postby Phaederuss » April 19th, 2012, 12:12 pm

I wish I could get my JA2 to stop crashing and having weird cursor shadow effects lol. The idea of the action bubble is interesting. I think that if the enemy is somehow giving off indications of what he or she is doing, since it would be hard to animate these cues, it would be useful to see small things like "so and so is reaching into the pocket" or "so and so is raising grenade about to pull pin". That would be quite interesting.
Phaederuss
 
Posts: 107
Joined: April 5th, 2012, 6:49 pm


Re: Combat should be closer to Fallout than WL/Bard's Tale

Postby Phaederuss » April 19th, 2012, 12:18 pm

drake wrote:Look what most fail to understand that even in RPG most of the times you are spent in combat .

Final Fantasy , Fallout , DnD infact the very few pure RPG games out there are Bioware but that isn't even RPG cause it is more cinematic ,so if you cut out the cinematic.
Then you realise most of the game is about combat, run back and forth fed ex , more combat .

Now once the story is done , you are left with a combat system , game like Jagged Alliance 2 (not back in action crap)
Had infact a lot of RPG elements , but cause it was too difficult for most people to play .
Strategic management , Economy Management , Squad planning , Time planning , the diffculty was just too high for most.
The combat system was way too advance too , that didn't help either .
Now am not saying Wasteland Jagged Alliance Fallout Clone , cause if that was possible , you would have the most complex
game in the century , for a very small hardcore audience that can last 20-30 year.

Since with the mod kit , it means people can make there own adventure ( so combat missions )
But in essence the game will be squad based combat system , I love final fantasy tactics , but it doesn't fit wasteland.
The problem is more how to keep the complexity of turnbased combat and depth .
While still giving the people who just like the story a easy stroll in the park .
Once the game over they can decide of they want to try this turnbased combat with depth , or just say he I hate chess.
No matter how you hide it , I will hate chess .

Final Fantasy Tactics is just one example of how to do a squad or party based combat. I don't know if you meant to say that it wasn't or not.
Phaederuss
 
Posts: 107
Joined: April 5th, 2012, 6:49 pm


Re: Combat should be closer to Fallout than WL/Bard's Tale

Postby drake » April 19th, 2012, 1:11 pm

It was , but it doesn't fit wasteland , cause the action combo and levelup system , associated with final fantasy tactic .

Just does not fit wasteland , also don't forget FFT is more about collecting a whole bunch of characters ,
in FFT the order for that game was Tactical Combat , Pokemon (not in a bad way , just catch and level them all way) , Story (cause it is linear not enough choices)

In wasteland 2 it is Story (is in goodhands with Fargo ,Avellone and rest ) Tacticalcombat , Base management or Politics (this part is speculation of me , cause of what Brain said)

Before somebody scream where are the RPG elements , they are there in both system , tactical combat without a leveling system is really boring , one of the reason Fallout tactics wasn't so popular , too simple levelup system .
drake
 
Posts: 63
Joined: April 2nd, 2012, 5:56 pm


Re: Combat should be closer to Fallout than WL/Bard's Tale

Postby Phaederuss » April 19th, 2012, 1:24 pm

I'm not sure I get what you're saying. Hmm I think FFT was more about creating a more rounded party than just collecting as many as possible. Besides, I wasn't talking about anything other than the combat aspect. The leveling aspect will be different, obviously, and the main focus of Wasteland will be different as well. I don't think that if Wasteland's main focus is "story", which I hope it's not at least not in the narrative sense, the combat has to suffer.
Phaederuss
 
Posts: 107
Joined: April 5th, 2012, 6:49 pm


Re: Combat should be closer to Fallout than WL/Bard's Tale

Postby LostSoul » April 19th, 2012, 1:40 pm

My vision for the combat in Wasteland is more of graphical evolution of the actual system that the original game employed. You didn't control every little facet of a character's actions from one round to the next. You gave very basic, high-level commands and "the game" created the results of those commands. Why should Wasteland 2 be any different?

Each character has the command phase where you give very basic commands consisting of little more than the following: Move (which breaks out into a subset of non-specific commands: Flank Left, Flank Right, Advance, Withdraw), Attack, Use Item or Skill. That's it. You issue very basic commands, and the characters (based on their OWN stats and skills) attempt to carry them out. The rest of what goes on in any given round is determined by the game, and you just watch the whole thing play out. It's like giving the chess player a simple point directive "advance on the left side" or "consolidate the center" and the skill and ability of the chess player determines how well they do at it.

So you give each character their direction in order of slowest to fastest, with the AI building their actions in sequence with yours. Faster characters can attempt to get insight into the actions of slower characters to counter them (but again, based on the skills and stats of the character), but this information cannot be carried back down to your slower characters because the AI will alter their actions in response just like you are.

And once every character has their orders, that's it. The game is now hands off for the rest of the round. You just watch how it plays out (or hit fast forward and see the damage done).

Anything more than that, and combat will become the in-depth tactical design that was mentioned as being something to avoid. It is essentially an updated graphic version of the really old console RPG combat systems.
LostSoul
 
Posts: 24
Joined: April 11th, 2012, 8:37 am


Re: Combat should be closer to Fallout than WL/Bard's Tale

Postby Phaederuss » April 19th, 2012, 2:32 pm

Meh I don't want something like Final Fantasy 7 where most battles are just, "Attack, attack, attack". I'd love to see placement and things like cover and destructible environments used.
Phaederuss
 
Posts: 107
Joined: April 5th, 2012, 6:49 pm


Re: Combat should be closer to Fallout than WL/Bard's Tale

Postby cmagruder » April 19th, 2012, 2:34 pm

Implement the gritty realism of JA2/Silent Storm combat. (suppression, interrupts, advanced wounding, fog of war, morale, target body parts)


I'd much rather see it closer to Jagged Alliance 2 and Silent Storm than Fallout Tactics. Those two I played the heck out of. Fallout Tactics I left far far behind.

If they're already going with the 3D modeling (it's easier, as it is) those seem a natural type fit.
User avatar
cmagruder
 
Posts: 103
Joined: April 19th, 2012, 2:27 pm


Re: Combat should be closer to Fallout than WL/Bard's Tale

Postby LostSoul » April 19th, 2012, 2:51 pm

Phaederuss wrote:Meh I don't want something like Final Fantasy 7 where most battles are just, "Attack, attack, attack". I'd love to see placement and things like cover and destructible environments used.


If that was a reply to me, that stuff would still be there, but you don't exploit them. Your characters do. Employing them effectively would be based off their skills and stats and not YOUR skill and stats.

Smarter characters might not be quite as proficient at combat as your brutes meat shields...but they'd take a lot less damage and are far less prone to spontaneous splat-age on the battlefield. Experienced characters would perform better, coordinating with their teammates more often and more effectively.

And while "attack, attack, attack" is your first impression, keep in mind that you can't effectively attack entrenched enemies, you've got to cover range to get clear shots, and you'll have to find ways to advance while under fire. Think about the way that combat system breaks down. You can have your characters "attack" an area, and that functions as covering fire, while you've got other characters flanking out left and right, and another advancing towards the next block of cover.

It's realistic, its effective, but most importantly, the time between rounds and the length of combat is greatly compressed. In the press of a few keys you can move from one round to the next. Which was partly a stated goal; not to get bogged down in combat tactics. Wasteland isn't a game focused on combat and tactics and Wasteland 2 shouldn't be either. It should in some measure inherit features of how the previous game played. This is quite similar to how combat was handled in Wasteland. High-level, very hands off...and it was quick.
LostSoul
 
Posts: 24
Joined: April 11th, 2012, 8:37 am


Re: Combat should be closer to Fallout than WL/Bard's Tale

Postby Phaederuss » April 19th, 2012, 2:55 pm

I guess I wouldn't want it to be just "a few keys" or whatever. I get what you're saying about player skill vs. character skill though. Player skill comes in at the level of tactics, character skill comes in at things like accuracy, "perks", weapon proficiency, AP or whatever you want to use, and speed perhaps.

"Think about the way that combat system breaks down. You can have your characters "attack" an area, and that functions as covering fire, while you've got other characters flanking out left and right, and another advancing towards the next block of cover."

Right, so I don't get why having the player control those things directly would be bad.
Phaederuss
 
Posts: 107
Joined: April 5th, 2012, 6:49 pm


Re: Combat should be closer to Fallout than WL/Bard's Tale

Postby cmagruder » April 19th, 2012, 3:01 pm

LostSoul wrote:
Phaederuss wrote:Meh I don't want something like Final Fantasy 7 where most battles are just, "Attack, attack, attack". I'd love to see placement and things like cover and destructible environments used.


If that was a reply to me, that stuff would still be there, but you don't exploit them. Your characters do. Employing them effectively would be based off their skills and stats and not YOUR skill and stats.

Smarter characters might not be quite as proficient at combat as your brutes meat shields...but they'd take a lot less damage and are far less prone to spontaneous splat-age on the battlefield. Experienced characters would perform better, coordinating with their teammates more often and more effectively.

And while "attack, attack, attack" is your first impression, keep in mind that you can't effectively attack entrenched enemies, you've got to cover range to get clear shots, and you'll have to find ways to advance while under fire. Think about the way that combat system breaks down. You can have your characters "attack" an area, and that functions as covering fire, while you've got other characters flanking out left and right, and another advancing towards the next block of cover.

It's realistic, its effective, but most importantly, the time between rounds and the length of combat is greatly compressed. In the press of a few keys you can move from one round to the next. Which was partly a stated goal; not to get bogged down in combat tactics. Wasteland isn't a game focused on combat and tactics and Wasteland 2 shouldn't be either. It should in some measure inherit features of how the previous game played. This is quite similar to how combat was handled in Wasteland. High-level, very hands off...and it was quick.


I'd rather see us employing tactics than have to deal with A. the developers focusing on hyper advanced AI for our rangers. (I want an actual team that's me) or B. combat that feels like a dice roll

I don't see auto combat as being super fun or popular. And you can see those problems you discuss dealt with well in a lot of games.
User avatar
cmagruder
 
Posts: 103
Joined: April 19th, 2012, 2:27 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Board index

Return to Wasteland 2 General Discussion (No Spoilers)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests