Wasteland 2 update: Weapons and assets

[Geech]

So... what you're saying is that the sort of progression Mr. Morrow is describing for Wasteland 2 can't work because energy weapons were poorly balanced versus traditional slug-throwers in FNV?

That's clearly not what am I saying. This would be a pretty stupid argument to make, since we've already seen this type of system work in more than one game. My argument is that I prefer a more logical system that is more internally consistent. Fallout New Vegas is a really good example for that case, because the game features 19th century firearms technology keeping pace with or even exceeding 21st century laser gun technology. That's just silly, but on a practical level, I would rather use a cowboy repeater than a laser rifle when I'm playing the game.

Finally, even the original Fallout did not have a natural progression from small guns to energy weapons or big guns where you effectively wasted your skill points in small guns as you describe. You could easily stick it out with small guns to the end, even without the Gauss gun from Fallout 2. Granted, this is due mostly to the OP nature of armor-bypassing criticals using targeted shots to the eyes combined with the Sniper perk.

You can probably complete Fallout without ever firing a firearm, so it's true that the game does not force you to follow a given development track. However, if you want to use big guns or energy weapons, these are not really available in the early game, barring exploitative player knowledge. There's not much progression within those individual categories, they're simply late game weapon skills.

 

[smber2cnma]

1st let me get my bias out: I'd prefer the dev. not force me through a progression of weapon types to remain effective late game. If I use small arms, I'd like to be able to complete the game without being forced to tote around a bazooka and pump a level of skill points into its operation to make it past the final boss (as another said). I'm fine with certain approaches being less effective (esp. melee options), but still like to have a plausible path with the skill set that got my through the first 3/4 of the game.


On to these 2 quotes:

On the other hand, Lasers are a completely new technology compared to gunpowder, one that has allegedly superseded the older tech. As others have pointed out, a more apt real world comparison to that relationship might be modern rifles vs black powder rifles.

My argument is that I prefer a more logical system that is more internally consistent. Fallout New Vegas is a really good example for that case, because the game features 19th century firearms technology keeping pace with or even exceeding 21st century laser gun technology.

It seems to me that the developers don't allege that laser weapons are clearly better, but you do. Not every new tech proves superior to previous technologies & they almost always have some drawbacks.

Despite all the research into solar, wind, nuclear, and hydroelectric power; the planet is still using coal (used since BC) and oil (used widely since 1800's) for the vast majority of out energy needs. Fossil fuels are *relatively* abundant, cheap, and easy to use, modern techs fail in one of those areas right now.

You say you want "more logical systems that are internally consistent", what is more logical than reality. Lasers have limited use and the most powerful lasers as of 2013 still need to be very close to the target, to stay on the target for a long time, or need a huge power supply to do any significant level of damage to a target. All that energy, weight, time focused on an enemy down field to do in 2013 what a rifle round could do better a 100 years ago.

I think it perfectly acceptable and logically consistent for a game to provide laser rifles that are only equal to gun powder weapons, far from proving themselves superior (as firearms did to bows) so far lasers have only proven themselves to be inferior.

Now of course I'm fine with devs pretending lasers work well and are far better than conventional firearms, it's really up to what type of atmosphere they want to create in their game. But, in a Fallout/Wasteland setting I think conventional firearms seem likely to be superior just off of portability, repair/upkeep, and for ammunition scrounging. Their stronger real world stopping power can just be rounded down to about equitable with energy weapons to appease people who like things that go "pewpew".

 

[UncannyGarlic]

I think another good one might be bows vs firearms. Bows are still basically adequate weapons, and could have a progression themselves. From recurve, to composite and longbows, up to modern compound bows, a skilled bowman could be quite deadly. However, most people will readily accept that firearms have many advantages over bows, and are inherently superior weapons.

Longbows were superior to firearms until rifling. Bows were replaced in warfare by crossbows due to being easier to use thus reducing training time and cost for conscripts. Firearms were an extension of the same trend until they rifling was developed, creating accurate firearms. The point being that the military technology being used depends on more than how powerful the technology is. Energy weapons could very well be less powerful than firearms but be easier to use from a logistics side (cheaper to make, maintain, and train to use).

On the other hand, Lasers are a completely new technology compared to gunpowder, one that has allegedly superseded the older tech.

Some later, more powerful models do compete with traditional small guns and big guns. Both black power firearms and modern firearms are firearms but the difference in their efficacy is significant. Think of the crappy laser weapons as either degraded or the black power version of laser weapons.

This is clearly not what I wrote. Not valuing raw skill point optimization is not at all the same as not considering mechanics.

It's deliberately ignoring and rationalizing the point at which the mechanics fall apart rather than seeking a solution. Comparing the most, least, and averagely optimized builds is vital to the success of the mechanics.

My argument is that I prefer a more logical system that is more internally consistent.

You mean a system where if the armor didn't block the projectile then characters are knocked out of the fight? Part of what really helped Fallout 1&2 was the armor types. Granted, they weren't fully exploited and critical hits bypassed it but the idea is good.

 

[Gaspard]

Bows were replaced in warfare by crossbows due to being easier to use thus reducing training time and cost for conscripts.

While we're talking about history, don't forget that while being simpler to operate, crossbows packed a punch not unlike what a longbowman could achieve.
And good longbowmen needed to be trained soldiers, but you already mentioned that. So if you discount reloading speed - in certain situations an arbalest was a superior weapon by far.

In NV I liked the laser weapons' speed and large clip. To do good damage it ate a whole lot of ammo though

 

[Crni Vuk]

actually as far as I remember the long bow was more effective compared to the cross bow as far as penetration, range and power goes, because it was bigger and the projective (the arrow in this case) heavier.

The problem of the longbow is that you can not accumulate energy (for the the lack of better words). A cross bow, once ready can be fired as soon as you line up and thus a soldier can load it and carry it aorund which can be in war a huge advantage. And an long bow, just like you said, requires high training and skill. A crossbow is compared to that a fire and forget weapon. I might be wrong with that, but if I remember correctly, most cross bows used by the normal infantry lacked the punch of an longbow, particularly the english ones which could be over one meter in their spread. Over time new and better designs for the crossbow allowed them more power, using even a winding handle to assist in the reload.

 

[Zeronet]

Personally, i don't entirely buy energy weapons as a separate category. If I'm skilled at using a 9mm pistol, why is using a laser pistol a fundamentally different skill? There would be some differences perhaps, but the main principles would be the same and skills learnt using the pistol would be transferable to the energy weapon.

I mean really putting points into weapons like rifles should also slightly boost related categories which share skills.

 

[Crni Vuk]

there are a few differences though. Energy weapons I suppose don't work with the same ballistics in mind. A usual bullet has a certain ballistic behind it.

Of course there is no reason why you should not hit a target as big like the broad side of a barn from 5m, what ever if you use an plasma, laser or gun using bullets.

But as far as it comes to "mastering" your weapon, I would say there are differences.

I mean alone to get the distance right with something like an rifle and then adjust the sights for it, isn't something that you do on the fly without training and knowing your weapon.

To say it that way. Everyone can use a rifle, point it at something and shoot. But not everyone will become a deadly sniper.

 

[Gaspard]

I guess you're both/all forgetting that weapons need maintenance as well and maintaing a mechanical weapon or an advanced energy weapon are entirely different beasts to take care of.

Performance of guns that aren't well taken care of perform worse and malfunction more often. Hence the separate energy weapons skill as well.

Although I'm sure in the first two original games the decision to separate energy weapons from light and heavy came from the desire to expicitly point out that "hey, we have energy weapons 'cause this is a fucking sci-fi game!"

 

[gumbarrel]

Performance of guns that aren't well taken care of perform worse and malfunction more often. Hence the separate energy weapons skill as well.

Well, then you should also have a separate repair skill for energy weapons as well. And another repair skill for repairing different types of armor. And another repair skill for repairing elevators, another one for repairing computers, another one for repairing robots and power armor...

 

[Lexx]

Nope, you simply say that "repair skill" is the base understanding of repairing and the specific weapon repair knowledge is includet in the specific weapon skill.

 

[gumbarrel]

Nope, you simply say that "repair skill" is the base understanding of repairing and the specific weapon repair knowledge is includet in the specific weapon skill.

Then do the same with weapons and say that "Rifles skill" is the base understanding of using rifles and that the specific weapon use knowledge is included in "Rifles" skill.

 

[Feigenbaum]

Why? It seems stupid to invest skill points into a skill you will drop in the sooner future anyway.

A progression of categories feels more logical to me. I really, really hate that in New Vegas the laser pistol is clearly inferior to the 10mm, because the laser technology is so much more advanced.

Raw skill point optimization isn't the only thing I look for in a system. Honestly, it's probably not even one of the things I consider.

With all of the patches and Gun Runner's Arsenal the Laser Pistol is a cannon that can kill most things with its high-level armor penetration if you're using max charge ammo, and if you perk into Energy Weapons it gets even more ridiculous because you can achieve crit rates in the 90% range.

 

[Gaspard]

gumbarrel you make no sense!

 

[gumbarrel]

gumbarrel you make no sense!

Then you make no sense, because all I did was use your own logic...

 

[Dukeanumberone]

I guess you're both/all forgetting that weapons need maintenance as well and maintaing a mechanical weapon or an advanced energy weapon are entirely different beasts to take care of.

that is correct , it would be more logical to have that governed by the science skill.

Well, then you should also have a separate repair skill for energy weapons as well. And another repair skill for repairing different types of armor. And another repair skill for repairing elevators, another one for repairing computers, another one for repairing robots and power armor..

I agree with that, it makes sense to me gum.
I am very mechanically inclined, I am a trained machinist, trained in automotive repair, and can fix about anything with an internal combustion engine. That does not give me any magical abilities to sew my pants when they tear, I can do a shitty job of it but by no means am I a seamstress. If you give me specs or accurate measuring tools and machinery/tools I will figure it out with something mechanical, within reason. Which is why I don't understand why E-WEAPONS are not repaired with SCIENCE skill.

I.

gumbarrel you make no sense!

II.

But as far as it comes to "mastering" your weapon, I would say there are differences.

I.
Makes perfect sense to me. Consider the following.
Small guns / (guns in NV)
lumps together many greatly different models of weapons with
vastly different calibers, recoils, ranges, bullet drops, etc
and still considers the knowledge of using these to be similar enough in muscle memory(skill) to lump them into the same skill category,
II. WHY?
Are you saying a trained sniper can't pick up an AK or AR or SMG and use his firearms training to his benefit even though they are greatly different weapons than what he is a master at? Obviously mastery comes with time and plenty of practice with a given weapon, but discerning the muscle memory mechanics of mechanical vs energy weapons seems very odd to me, especially since the PC holds them the same to aim/shoot them.

Personally, i don't entirely buy energy weapons as a separate category. If I'm skilled at using a 9mm pistol, why is using a laser pistol a fundamentally different skill? There would be some differences perhaps, but the main principles would be the same and skills learnt using the pistol would be transferable to the energy weapon.

I mean really putting points into weapons like rifles should also slightly boost related categories which share skills.

+1

It seems to me that the developers don't allege that laser weapons are clearly better, but you do. Not every new tech proves superior to previous technologies & they almost always have some drawbacks...
You say you want "more logical systems that are internally consistent", what is more logical than reality. ...
I think it perfectly acceptable and logically consistent for a game to provide laser rifles that are only equal to gun powder weapons, far from proving themselves superior (as firearms did to bows) so far lasers have only proven themselves to be inferior...
But, in a Fallout/Wasteland setting I think conventional firearms seem likely to be superior just off of portability, repair/upkeep, and for ammunition scrounging. Their stronger real world stopping power can just be rounded down to about equitable with energy weapons to appease people who like things that go "pewpew".

ALSO
+1

 

[Crni Vuk]

Are you saying a trained sniper can't pick up an AK or AR or SMG and use his firearms training to his benefit even though they are greatly different weapons than what he is a master at? Obviously mastery comes with time and plenty of practice with a given weapon, but discerning the muscle memory mechanics of mechanical vs energy weapons seems very odd to me, especially since the PC holds them the same to aim/shoot them.

thats to simple. I never said they cant shoot them. I am talking about "mastering" your weapon. which is as far as I think in a game like Fallout covered by the way how the stats work. More or less. We should always remember, that we have PnP rules working here. So its not about creating real life, but a coherent gameplay. Invest points in to your energy weapon skills and you will become more effective, with them, causing more damage by scoring more critical hits and also being more accurate this means you can shoot from a bigger distance where you could become a perfect marksman of some sort with high enough skills who can take out pretty much any target from a distance where they can not engage you.

Many times Soldiers, particularly elite formations would receive training in the weapons of the enemy force. So for example Marines would examine weapons like the Ak-family, for the simple fact that is the most common weapon out there. Just because you know how to shoot with perfect accuracy an M16 rifle doesn't make you an master marksman with the Ak weapons. Many elite formations have a wide access to many weapons for exactly that reason. To train and master them.

I am no gun pro, just a guy who reads sometimes about it on websites like gun.ru, and it does seem that there are many differences between certain weapon families, details maybe. If you show someone how to use a handgun or rifle with decent accuracy, then its very likely that he will be able to pick up any other rifle or handgun and know how to pull the trigger of those weapons. But thats not what I mean.

 

[mobucks]

I'm never wrong either.

 

[Makenshi]

Did WL1 have energy weapons?

Just curious, it is not a question related to the debate up there.

 

[Dukeanumberone]

More or less. We should always remember, that we have PnP rules working here. So its not about creating real life, but a coherent gameplay.

ok, seems reasonable

I am no gun pro, just a guy who reads sometimes about it on websites like gun.ru, and it does seem that there are many differences between certain weapon families, details maybe. If you show someone how to use a handgun or rifle with decent accuracy, then its very likely that he will be able to pick up any other rifle or handgun and know how to pull the trigger of those weapons. But thats not what I mean.

I can't tell if you are agreeing that e-weapons should be governed by same skillset or not. It seems your conceding my point that there can be many variations in mechanical weapons that can alter a users effectiveness, which are STILL lumped into one group (small guns/ GUNS) . If that is so how can you argue that something such as an energy weapon is drastically different in terms of how they are fired with efficiency? To ensure coherency in gameplay shouldn't all rifle-like guns be = ? as should all handgun-like and all heavy weapons-like?

Also the DAM/SKILL ratio thing has always bothered me.
I think altering crit hits dam /crit chance is fine, but baseline dam seems rather odd thing to be altered by skills. Many people hate the
"MAGIC" clothing/armor in F3/FNV but are ok with this ? As if it were part and parcel to Fallout. I think both should be thrown out in favor of skills affecting accuracy and a set weapon/ammo base dam value.

 

[Crni Vuk]

well I am not sure either.

In some cases it makes sense to throw them together, in others it doesnt.

The question is, how much a weapon like a "plasma rifle" for example has in common with an M4 assault rifle for example.

Overall I think it makes sense to seperate "usual" guns and "energy weapons", becaus as far as the game goes, those weapons are very advanced and totally out of the ordinary. An machinepistol or assault rifle is somewhat ordinary compared to it, which also explains why energy weapons are not the most common weapon out there in the wasteland. Because if you go down that route, then you could also argue to throw ALL kind of weapons into a "ranged weapon" skill and all kind of meele weapons in to another, making everything more and more simple then it is already now. - Interesting enough this is actually an evolution we have seen in recent Elder Scrolls games, where a game like Daggerfall had a lot more skills then Morrowind, Oblivion and now Skyrim, where they removed even more skills so it has less then Oblivion.