16
General / Re: Underrail wiki?
« on: January 04, 2017, 02:32:56 pm »
The map I was using is the one by pipboy. So far the map has been very accurate, it's only that small part that seems to be missing.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
17
General / Re: Underrail wiki?
« on: January 04, 2017, 04:00:08 am »
How unfinished is the map in the wiki? I've just stumbled into a non mapped place which is... not nice to say the least.
There is an uncharted passage going west of platform 1 (next to south railroad outpost). I've confirmed that it then turns north, then north again, then it continues north with an exit east as well. The east exit has a north passage and a passage into the tunnels. Havent checked the north passage from there. In the underground the north passage continues with a passage north and it has a ladder that puts you besides the railroad into a place seemingly full of lurkers (and I hate lurkers!).
I know there is an 3d map but honestly, I cant figure how to use it properly, it's so much easier to use a flat map.
EDIT: After exploring it I found it leads to platform 2. through it you fight lurkers, crawlers and even a black crawler for good measure. As for the earlier exit east with a passage north and a tunnel entrance, I don't know where those lead yet.
There is an uncharted passage going west of platform 1 (next to south railroad outpost). I've confirmed that it then turns north, then north again, then it continues north with an exit east as well. The east exit has a north passage and a passage into the tunnels. Havent checked the north passage from there. In the underground the north passage continues with a passage north and it has a ladder that puts you besides the railroad into a place seemingly full of lurkers (and I hate lurkers!).
I know there is an 3d map but honestly, I cant figure how to use it properly, it's so much easier to use a flat map.
EDIT: After exploring it I found it leads to platform 2. through it you fight lurkers, crawlers and even a black crawler for good measure. As for the earlier exit east with a passage north and a tunnel entrance, I don't know where those lead yet.
18
General / Re: New player I need help. This game seems unfair.
« on: January 03, 2017, 06:05:30 pm »
The problem might be a build problem more so than anything else, if you show what stats you took and skills as well as feats that will help.
19
General / Re: Al Fabet
« on: February 22, 2016, 02:36:24 pm »
Chimaera - I didn't called other player masochists, I simply said there are some, doesn't means the majority of people are like that. Similarly the majority of people don't like bad rulesets. That was the comparison. In other words, the people who like such settings are a minority. It's nt bad that theminority is included in a game, but not at the expense of ignoring the majority.
Actually, a goody two shoes paladin can be greedym it's natural for characters to have flaws. I've actually played a paladin just like that in D&D once... It's also the same concept that people have to say that characters have to always be in character. People forget that while people have their morality, sometimes they break it if what they get is too good or just because they feel that it is worth to do it in the moment. No one is that perfect.
While to a degree I will agree that game immersion may be subjective, there are things that people will always agree. To archieve game immersion you have to actually feel like you'r in the character's shoes. So you are exploring this area and looting it. You now there are enemies around. Would you clear out the place first or would you stop mid way to go back to a shop to sell loot cause you can't carry more? If you do the second it breaks game immersion because no one would realisticly do that. However in underrail that's what many will do due to the current system. Even if you can stash, it's less bothersome to go back and forth as your carry weight fills up than doing multiple runs at the end of it.
Player1 - I am not going to preten to say how long it takes to level up exactly. But there are always some side quests and a minimal exploration you do. For example, you will always explore that side passage you know to have some fixed loot that is great, like for example, those special weapons. You will always do quests that give such weapons, for example that knife that gives you criticals and so on. It is true you will level up faster if you jsut explore and do more sidequests, but it is not necessary to go out of yourway.
Find better stuff than in shops? I doubt you'll find anything in the junkyard that is better than whatever is for sale at the next settlement and by the time this rule no longer applies because yes, it will cease to apply at a certain point. You will be able to just craft better. Possible exeption for said extra special weapons which are located in specific locations anyway.
Loot in stashs is indeed not going away, it just acumulates higher and higher if you manage to systematicly swipe it all out. You'll always get more than you can sell. Unless you sit there doing nothing until the next reset comes and do so until you run out of loot to sell, you will keep getting more than you can sell. your stickpile just gets bigger, not the other way around.
More XP, again, you reach a point of saturation. More supplies? When you can't even get rid of the excess? Interesting encounters. Sure, but that's going to be a limited number amoung all there is.
Actually, a goody two shoes paladin can be greedym it's natural for characters to have flaws. I've actually played a paladin just like that in D&D once... It's also the same concept that people have to say that characters have to always be in character. People forget that while people have their morality, sometimes they break it if what they get is too good or just because they feel that it is worth to do it in the moment. No one is that perfect.
While to a degree I will agree that game immersion may be subjective, there are things that people will always agree. To archieve game immersion you have to actually feel like you'r in the character's shoes. So you are exploring this area and looting it. You now there are enemies around. Would you clear out the place first or would you stop mid way to go back to a shop to sell loot cause you can't carry more? If you do the second it breaks game immersion because no one would realisticly do that. However in underrail that's what many will do due to the current system. Even if you can stash, it's less bothersome to go back and forth as your carry weight fills up than doing multiple runs at the end of it.
Player1 - I am not going to preten to say how long it takes to level up exactly. But there are always some side quests and a minimal exploration you do. For example, you will always explore that side passage you know to have some fixed loot that is great, like for example, those special weapons. You will always do quests that give such weapons, for example that knife that gives you criticals and so on. It is true you will level up faster if you jsut explore and do more sidequests, but it is not necessary to go out of yourway.
Find better stuff than in shops? I doubt you'll find anything in the junkyard that is better than whatever is for sale at the next settlement and by the time this rule no longer applies because yes, it will cease to apply at a certain point. You will be able to just craft better. Possible exeption for said extra special weapons which are located in specific locations anyway.
Loot in stashs is indeed not going away, it just acumulates higher and higher if you manage to systematicly swipe it all out. You'll always get more than you can sell. Unless you sit there doing nothing until the next reset comes and do so until you run out of loot to sell, you will keep getting more than you can sell. your stickpile just gets bigger, not the other way around.
More XP, again, you reach a point of saturation. More supplies? When you can't even get rid of the excess? Interesting encounters. Sure, but that's going to be a limited number amoung all there is.
20
General / Re: Al Fabet
« on: February 22, 2016, 02:18:57 am »
Oddities = XP -> you get more than enough XP to level up, as far as you can see everyone asks for more levels because they reach level cap too soon. You don't need those oddities.
Items you want to keep -Z alright, you may find some good items, odds are when you go to the next settlement, items will be so much supeiror to what you found that it's not even a contest, at least up to a point where you can only get better by crafting.
Loot that is easy to carry -> yeah you'll find it, only that you can sell it because the merchant was already at it's limit and will probably be for a very long while.
Stashing the rest -> fact of the matter is, you'll keep stashing and stashing and stashing some more because you'll get so much more than you can ever sell.
You keep saying that exploring is reward of itself. Again, I never said it isn't, but past the first time what is the drive to explore? You already saw it, you already know what's there. That particular drive is fulfilled. How do developers balance this? Adding the reward for exploration which here is just inexistent since XP there will always be plenty and loot, well I've already expressed how it goes. If it was just carry all, sell all. Fine, there is a reward. Just isn't the case.
There is less respawns, but are still respawns. If you can run the whole area now under the merchant reset, the area was made much easier than before which is just sad. I remember both the psionic and guns+grenades took me more than an hour to run through easily. Even the gun+grenade which was by far the better build (since mk5 grenades were a lot easier to craft back then) still took quite a while to finish due to having to plan each encounter, being careful with the pulls and so on. Apparently you can just casually stroll in there if you can finish it under the reset timer. However I'm willing to admit I was wrong here. If you can do under the respawn rate then at least you can stash things inside the area and then do transfer runs.
Items you want to keep -Z alright, you may find some good items, odds are when you go to the next settlement, items will be so much supeiror to what you found that it's not even a contest, at least up to a point where you can only get better by crafting.
Loot that is easy to carry -> yeah you'll find it, only that you can sell it because the merchant was already at it's limit and will probably be for a very long while.
Stashing the rest -> fact of the matter is, you'll keep stashing and stashing and stashing some more because you'll get so much more than you can ever sell.
You keep saying that exploring is reward of itself. Again, I never said it isn't, but past the first time what is the drive to explore? You already saw it, you already know what's there. That particular drive is fulfilled. How do developers balance this? Adding the reward for exploration which here is just inexistent since XP there will always be plenty and loot, well I've already expressed how it goes. If it was just carry all, sell all. Fine, there is a reward. Just isn't the case.
There is less respawns, but are still respawns. If you can run the whole area now under the merchant reset, the area was made much easier than before which is just sad. I remember both the psionic and guns+grenades took me more than an hour to run through easily. Even the gun+grenade which was by far the better build (since mk5 grenades were a lot easier to craft back then) still took quite a while to finish due to having to plan each encounter, being careful with the pulls and so on. Apparently you can just casually stroll in there if you can finish it under the reset timer. However I'm willing to admit I was wrong here. If you can do under the respawn rate then at least you can stash things inside the area and then do transfer runs.
21
General / Re: Al Fabet
« on: February 22, 2016, 01:02:51 am »
Again, no point in doing something that has no reward so the by definition is not wrong. It's is not that you cannot do it despite not being rewarded, but it is not what the game encourages you to do.
Although admitedly a very long time ago (almost in a galaxy far far away...) Starting by the tunnels, going up into the mutant infested upper area and then working all the way back, you'd have enemies respawn. As far as I am aware, enemy respawn times hasn't changed, at least I don't remember that being in the patch notes. Also literaly all enemies in depot A would respawn however the game was reduced in difficulty or maybe at the time everything there respawned for testing purposes I am willing to grant that much as a possibillity, but at least the first time you'll do it, it's hardly not going to get a respawn in the earlier areas at least... Another possibillity is that the place was made easier cause depot A used to be quite the nightmare if you weren't prepared for it in which case maybe it is faster to run through now... I kinda liked the difficulty of the game though. I remember how many people would ask for help reguarding the bandits on the way to the SGS and while they were hard to deal with in a straight up fight, the way to do it was so simple, just toss a grenade and the fight becomes that much easier. However they were apparently nerfed.
Although admitedly a very long time ago (almost in a galaxy far far away...) Starting by the tunnels, going up into the mutant infested upper area and then working all the way back, you'd have enemies respawn. As far as I am aware, enemy respawn times hasn't changed, at least I don't remember that being in the patch notes. Also literaly all enemies in depot A would respawn however the game was reduced in difficulty or maybe at the time everything there respawned for testing purposes I am willing to grant that much as a possibillity, but at least the first time you'll do it, it's hardly not going to get a respawn in the earlier areas at least... Another possibillity is that the place was made easier cause depot A used to be quite the nightmare if you weren't prepared for it in which case maybe it is faster to run through now... I kinda liked the difficulty of the game though. I remember how many people would ask for help reguarding the bandits on the way to the SGS and while they were hard to deal with in a straight up fight, the way to do it was so simple, just toss a grenade and the fight becomes that much easier. However they were apparently nerfed.
22
General / Re: Al Fabet
« on: February 21, 2016, 11:56:45 pm »
Elias - The game was well received by the public? And how many copies didthe game sell exactly? I mean, let's compare this to to say, pillars of eternity or divinity original sin.
Now yes, this is a niche title and perhaps this perceived well reception just means that only the people who like really bad systems like this bought the game... Well tis is exagerating but many people don't even complain whether they like the game or not. then there is also the unknown element of how many people tried, didn't liked it and just refunded the game. I don't imagine it was that many because again, very niche game with this current system anyway.
What you can say for sure is that amoung the people like a game which imposes realism at the expensive of the game suffering in the quallity of life department the game was a success.
You may want to call all the points that I've made subjective by saying they are viewed from my perspective only. Yet at the same time you already admited that I am right when I say the game encourages you to leave loot and by definition to ignore side quests and exploration and that it was what the developer wanted... How is this subjective?
More to the point. I've made a listing of what each system does for the game. I have yet to see anyone say that the current system has anything that is better other than realism (which I put down) and even then I find it highly unrealistic that there is such things as a lack of demand for anything in a post apocaliptic world. Quite literaly anything you can salavage is worth it's weight in gold and if a merchant can buy something for half it's value or less to sell later to someone at it's normal going price. It is always worth doing so. How many electrocincs parts do you think can be made now that the world has gone to hell and you can't even go to the surface? How much iron copper and on do you think you can get before it runs out? From a realism standpoint. What the current trade system does is making a realistic trade system should no appocalipse have ever happened and it does that well enough. however this is a debatable system and I merely wanted to present you something that even the people who like this so called realism possibly might have not stoped to think for a moment. However do present me with advantages of this system other than a hipotetical realism that I was willing to accept even if I don't fully agree with it.
Chimaera - Let's say you are fighting in depot A, the underground, clearing room by room working your way forward and sudenly. inventory is full, there is more good stuff you want... Depot A respawns enemies so storing stuff to pick up later is not an option. Option A, you nearly get nothing out of it and you do it all in one go. Yes you didn't broke immersion. Option B ad most often chosen by players who are by nature greedy cause human beings are by nature greedy. Stop doing the quest, go to the seller, sell quickly the loot that you can, stash what you can't sell nearby, continue the quest. Rinse and repeat as many times as necessary and for Depot A, I'm guessing a lot. Game immersion broken.
Now some players like to play with much worse rules than this. It is after all their choice, some people are masochists too and who are we to judge?
It isn't just a case of preference. For example. While I know that objectively a hex based movement system is better. I prefer a square based movement system even though it is objectively worse... I can diferentiate between what is subjective and what is ojective. Just because you happen not to agree with me, it doesn't means that I am not objective in what I'm saying.
Now yes, this is a niche title and perhaps this perceived well reception just means that only the people who like really bad systems like this bought the game... Well tis is exagerating but many people don't even complain whether they like the game or not. then there is also the unknown element of how many people tried, didn't liked it and just refunded the game. I don't imagine it was that many because again, very niche game with this current system anyway.
What you can say for sure is that amoung the people like a game which imposes realism at the expensive of the game suffering in the quallity of life department the game was a success.
You may want to call all the points that I've made subjective by saying they are viewed from my perspective only. Yet at the same time you already admited that I am right when I say the game encourages you to leave loot and by definition to ignore side quests and exploration and that it was what the developer wanted... How is this subjective?
More to the point. I've made a listing of what each system does for the game. I have yet to see anyone say that the current system has anything that is better other than realism (which I put down) and even then I find it highly unrealistic that there is such things as a lack of demand for anything in a post apocaliptic world. Quite literaly anything you can salavage is worth it's weight in gold and if a merchant can buy something for half it's value or less to sell later to someone at it's normal going price. It is always worth doing so. How many electrocincs parts do you think can be made now that the world has gone to hell and you can't even go to the surface? How much iron copper and on do you think you can get before it runs out? From a realism standpoint. What the current trade system does is making a realistic trade system should no appocalipse have ever happened and it does that well enough. however this is a debatable system and I merely wanted to present you something that even the people who like this so called realism possibly might have not stoped to think for a moment. However do present me with advantages of this system other than a hipotetical realism that I was willing to accept even if I don't fully agree with it.
Chimaera - Let's say you are fighting in depot A, the underground, clearing room by room working your way forward and sudenly. inventory is full, there is more good stuff you want... Depot A respawns enemies so storing stuff to pick up later is not an option. Option A, you nearly get nothing out of it and you do it all in one go. Yes you didn't broke immersion. Option B ad most often chosen by players who are by nature greedy cause human beings are by nature greedy. Stop doing the quest, go to the seller, sell quickly the loot that you can, stash what you can't sell nearby, continue the quest. Rinse and repeat as many times as necessary and for Depot A, I'm guessing a lot. Game immersion broken.
Now some players like to play with much worse rules than this. It is after all their choice, some people are masochists too and who are we to judge?
It isn't just a case of preference. For example. While I know that objectively a hex based movement system is better. I prefer a square based movement system even though it is objectively worse... I can diferentiate between what is subjective and what is ojective. Just because you happen not to agree with me, it doesn't means that I am not objective in what I'm saying.
23
General / Re: Al Fabet
« on: February 21, 2016, 10:45:20 pm »
Player1 - Simple, because you can't carry the loot and you can't sell a lot of it. The incentive to explore and do sidequests is exactly to get said loot!
Elias - Apparently I need to explain myself better. Just giving more option for the sake of it is not going to improve the game, it has to be things that bring something new and positive to the game, that said, more option is always good. Limiting a player in what he can do is not always a good thing. Obviously there are always going to be limitations but even so you should always seek to give players as many options as possible.
You say it encourages me. This is wrong, the whole game and the way Al Fabet was made pretty much throws this at your face. Ignore loot! You don't need all that loot, you can do with just taking the most valuable items and be done with it. This is not theory, this is what the game encourages you to do and what the developer wants you to do. The moment you are throwing away the majority of loot you are losing the rewards of exploring and sidequests (to some the degree the ones from the main quest as well but the less you do the less you lose). Doing side quests and exploring is for the rewards. You may do it once for the fun but the majority of people are not going to do all the side quests and exploring the entirety of the map in every single playthrough. They've done it in the pastm, they know the outcome, they know there is no reward waiting for them, might as well just skip it! That is what the game encourages the player to do... Yes, I do have a problem with the system, but that is because the system is bad. I'm not saying the old system was perfect, but it was a lot better than the current system. Why do you think that there are no other games with systems so agressive towards player loot? Because they know it's a bad system, because they know most players will dislike it. In fact one of the most common cmplaints about RPGs is their limited invetory size being too small.
I'll tell you even more, if you create a pool and manage to get it spread to most gamers with the 2 following options. Do you prefer your RPG to have a system that has no limit of inventory space and merchants buy everything or a system that highly limits your inventory space and merchants only buy a small percentage of what you can carry. What do you think will have most votes?
Above all this question must be disassociated with a game. So there is no fanboys nor haters voting specificly in one or another. What matters is simply to evaluate what system is perceived as being better by gamers.
And lastly, yes it is as simple as putting it back. Unbalanced system? The only problem the old system had was one and just one. There was too much money floating around. Guess what, the current system does exactly the same, only worse and yes, it is worse because while not having much recent playing experience, I remember how much money I got after doing the first quest and right now, even selling less I still end up with more money than before. So what could the old system do to unbalance things? You'll have more money? It's not like it is a problem to beggin with! Other than that nothing changes. The loot you get is the same after all. You only leave the things that are not valuable and you'll never use behind after all. There would be no balance issues that don't currently exist and more to the point, were not as bad before!
Elias - Apparently I need to explain myself better. Just giving more option for the sake of it is not going to improve the game, it has to be things that bring something new and positive to the game, that said, more option is always good. Limiting a player in what he can do is not always a good thing. Obviously there are always going to be limitations but even so you should always seek to give players as many options as possible.
You say it encourages me. This is wrong, the whole game and the way Al Fabet was made pretty much throws this at your face. Ignore loot! You don't need all that loot, you can do with just taking the most valuable items and be done with it. This is not theory, this is what the game encourages you to do and what the developer wants you to do. The moment you are throwing away the majority of loot you are losing the rewards of exploring and sidequests (to some the degree the ones from the main quest as well but the less you do the less you lose). Doing side quests and exploring is for the rewards. You may do it once for the fun but the majority of people are not going to do all the side quests and exploring the entirety of the map in every single playthrough. They've done it in the pastm, they know the outcome, they know there is no reward waiting for them, might as well just skip it! That is what the game encourages the player to do... Yes, I do have a problem with the system, but that is because the system is bad. I'm not saying the old system was perfect, but it was a lot better than the current system. Why do you think that there are no other games with systems so agressive towards player loot? Because they know it's a bad system, because they know most players will dislike it. In fact one of the most common cmplaints about RPGs is their limited invetory size being too small.
I'll tell you even more, if you create a pool and manage to get it spread to most gamers with the 2 following options. Do you prefer your RPG to have a system that has no limit of inventory space and merchants buy everything or a system that highly limits your inventory space and merchants only buy a small percentage of what you can carry. What do you think will have most votes?
Above all this question must be disassociated with a game. So there is no fanboys nor haters voting specificly in one or another. What matters is simply to evaluate what system is perceived as being better by gamers.
And lastly, yes it is as simple as putting it back. Unbalanced system? The only problem the old system had was one and just one. There was too much money floating around. Guess what, the current system does exactly the same, only worse and yes, it is worse because while not having much recent playing experience, I remember how much money I got after doing the first quest and right now, even selling less I still end up with more money than before. So what could the old system do to unbalance things? You'll have more money? It's not like it is a problem to beggin with! Other than that nothing changes. The loot you get is the same after all. You only leave the things that are not valuable and you'll never use behind after all. There would be no balance issues that don't currently exist and more to the point, were not as bad before!
24
General / Re: Al Fabet
« on: February 21, 2016, 09:41:46 pm »
That is where you are wrong. You can define things as being objectively right or wrong.
Saying that you prefer one or another system is subjective. Pointing out what different system do for a game is objective.
In any game you'll always play by a certain set of rules, that much is true, however the more choice you have the better, this is not subjective, this is objective.
For example. It's always better to be able to solve a quest in multiple ways, than only having a single way to solve a quest.
It's always better for an FPS to have lots of places to explore (not necessarely saying open world) than to be a rail shooter.
It's always better when a game encourages the players to try out different things and to go out of the beaten path.
Option are just good. This is not subjective at all.
The new system pretty much seems to encourage players to play in a single play style. Ignore loot, ignore exploration, ignore sidequest. Just go on a rail doing the main storyline and be done with it. All because the incentive to go out of your way is gone.
Now I will agree that removing a system to implement a new one takes times and time is money, especially in the development of a game. That said the old system still exists, implementing the option is as simple as putting it back. Everything is coded, it's just putting it back in place and then set the option to use one or the other. Assuming all you need to do is implement it and add the linking to the new items, it's something that can be done in one or two days easily.
Certainly, it will take a lot more time for a modder to grab the game and make the old system from scratch as they don't have the files and even then I'd bet you anything that a modder would be able to get rid of the buying limits and while he's at it, just remove carry weights directly in a couple days. It's actually when you have to make new pieces of art and dialogues and adding things, modifying the maps that it starts taking a long while to get anything done. Just diving into the code and making a few alterations is relatively quick.
Saying that you prefer one or another system is subjective. Pointing out what different system do for a game is objective.
In any game you'll always play by a certain set of rules, that much is true, however the more choice you have the better, this is not subjective, this is objective.
For example. It's always better to be able to solve a quest in multiple ways, than only having a single way to solve a quest.
It's always better for an FPS to have lots of places to explore (not necessarely saying open world) than to be a rail shooter.
It's always better when a game encourages the players to try out different things and to go out of the beaten path.
Option are just good. This is not subjective at all.
The new system pretty much seems to encourage players to play in a single play style. Ignore loot, ignore exploration, ignore sidequest. Just go on a rail doing the main storyline and be done with it. All because the incentive to go out of your way is gone.
Now I will agree that removing a system to implement a new one takes times and time is money, especially in the development of a game. That said the old system still exists, implementing the option is as simple as putting it back. Everything is coded, it's just putting it back in place and then set the option to use one or the other. Assuming all you need to do is implement it and add the linking to the new items, it's something that can be done in one or two days easily.
Certainly, it will take a lot more time for a modder to grab the game and make the old system from scratch as they don't have the files and even then I'd bet you anything that a modder would be able to get rid of the buying limits and while he's at it, just remove carry weights directly in a couple days. It's actually when you have to make new pieces of art and dialogues and adding things, modifying the maps that it starts taking a long while to get anything done. Just diving into the code and making a few alterations is relatively quick.
25
General / Re: Al Fabet
« on: February 21, 2016, 09:00:29 pm »
I was under the impression that system came to be before Styg started hiring, but it was so long ago that I can be wrong. However, if it was from another Dev then it makes it even more incompreensible as to why it was chosen. Never the less, Styg do is the one who makes the final decision and his was to stick with it.
26
General / Re: Al Fabet
« on: February 21, 2016, 08:41:59 pm »
That is what you feel from it. To me it feels like a mockery of the feedback that was given because if it was simply a case of agreeying the feedback was good but just not liking the insistence on something that is after all very important, then there would have been no need to make a mockery out it.
I don't think Styg is incompetent but I do think he is hard headed. The design decision was frankly horrible. I presented plenty of proof that it was flawed and that the system was objectively worse than the previous one. Styg chose to keep it because he wanted to make something different. Not because it was better but because he made something different and it is his game so he will have his way.
Looking at it objectively, having the option to at least use the original system would have not hurt the game in any way, in fact, it would only bring more people to buy and play because it would please a larger amount of people and in the great scheme of things, it wouldn't change what underrail is.
You say you don't know whether implementing the old system would take a long development time or not. I'm telling I know for sure it wouldn't because it was already in place. It was 100% made and working, it's just adding an option to the options menu to to flick between them (or maybe to the start new game menu). the only thing needed to do was add the new items to the old system which is little more than adding the command to fetch the item from the item list.
And yes I feel let down massively. I've been waiting for years and years for a game that would at least come close to fallout 2. Underrail appears only to be brought down by a bad design decision. One that was ultimatly unnecessary because it isn't a case where you can't even have a choice.
I could understand if it was a case where it was just impossible to have 2 concurrent systems because it would fundamentaly change the game. I could understand it if it was a case that no system was better, they just had good and bad points. But it was not the case. Both systems can be there without changing what the game is and more than that. The new system is downright bad. I presents no single positive point over the old system.
Let's look at both systems from an objective point.
Old system:
The good:
Gives you the choice to grab everything or only what's valuable.
Makes sure exploration is rewarded with loot and XP (loot is always worth something as it is worth money).
Makes sure that all side quests are worth it for the same reasons as exploring.
Allows you to go to a single settlement and sell everything to the merchants around.
Does not breaks game immersion by having you stop mid quest, possibly several times, to go and dump loot.
The bad:
Too much money floating in the economy.
Not very realistic.
The new system:
The good:
More realistic.
The bad:
Even more money floating in the economy.
Breaks game immersion by forcing the player to stop several times to dump loot.
Encourages the player not to explore because the loot is going to be left behind (at least a large part).
Encourages the player not to do side quests, same reason as exploration.
Forces the player to play in a single playstyle which is leave loot behind rather than actually letting the player decide his playstyle.
Forces the player to waste his time going to various settlements in order to sell his spoils making him waste a lot of time just running around.
This is what we see from both systems when we look at them objectively. It's isn't just a design decision, it is objectively a bad design decision.
What is truly sad is that Styg is a capable developer, apart from this system he's shown he can design a really good game. If only he was less stubborn and more accepting of the opinion of people trying to help him create a better game (that is what early access is for after all) he'd have a really great game that could possibly compete with fallout 2 for one of the best cRPG ever made.
I don't think Styg is incompetent but I do think he is hard headed. The design decision was frankly horrible. I presented plenty of proof that it was flawed and that the system was objectively worse than the previous one. Styg chose to keep it because he wanted to make something different. Not because it was better but because he made something different and it is his game so he will have his way.
Looking at it objectively, having the option to at least use the original system would have not hurt the game in any way, in fact, it would only bring more people to buy and play because it would please a larger amount of people and in the great scheme of things, it wouldn't change what underrail is.
You say you don't know whether implementing the old system would take a long development time or not. I'm telling I know for sure it wouldn't because it was already in place. It was 100% made and working, it's just adding an option to the options menu to to flick between them (or maybe to the start new game menu). the only thing needed to do was add the new items to the old system which is little more than adding the command to fetch the item from the item list.
And yes I feel let down massively. I've been waiting for years and years for a game that would at least come close to fallout 2. Underrail appears only to be brought down by a bad design decision. One that was ultimatly unnecessary because it isn't a case where you can't even have a choice.
I could understand if it was a case where it was just impossible to have 2 concurrent systems because it would fundamentaly change the game. I could understand it if it was a case that no system was better, they just had good and bad points. But it was not the case. Both systems can be there without changing what the game is and more than that. The new system is downright bad. I presents no single positive point over the old system.
Let's look at both systems from an objective point.
Old system:
The good:
Gives you the choice to grab everything or only what's valuable.
Makes sure exploration is rewarded with loot and XP (loot is always worth something as it is worth money).
Makes sure that all side quests are worth it for the same reasons as exploring.
Allows you to go to a single settlement and sell everything to the merchants around.
Does not breaks game immersion by having you stop mid quest, possibly several times, to go and dump loot.
The bad:
Too much money floating in the economy.
Not very realistic.
The new system:
The good:
More realistic.
The bad:
Even more money floating in the economy.
Breaks game immersion by forcing the player to stop several times to dump loot.
Encourages the player not to explore because the loot is going to be left behind (at least a large part).
Encourages the player not to do side quests, same reason as exploration.
Forces the player to play in a single playstyle which is leave loot behind rather than actually letting the player decide his playstyle.
Forces the player to waste his time going to various settlements in order to sell his spoils making him waste a lot of time just running around.
This is what we see from both systems when we look at them objectively. It's isn't just a design decision, it is objectively a bad design decision.
What is truly sad is that Styg is a capable developer, apart from this system he's shown he can design a really good game. If only he was less stubborn and more accepting of the opinion of people trying to help him create a better game (that is what early access is for after all) he'd have a really great game that could possibly compete with fallout 2 for one of the best cRPG ever made.
27
General / Re: Al Fabet
« on: February 21, 2016, 06:50:53 pm »
I kept bringing up the issue in the past for a simple reason. Styg never said we are not going to do this. Styg said he might implement the option between the 2 systems and as I've said in the past, it wouldn't cost much development time because the system was already made and working, if anything just a slight adjustment needed for the new items introduced meanwhile. So I kept asking for this to be a priority, much like the XP had both oddity and classic from the moment Styg decided to implement the oddity, the same concept should have been applied to the merchants and carry weight system.
So I obviously kept asking since there was the chance that Styg would actually implement it as he put it on the table himself! At no point did he ever say. No we're never going to implement the old (and better) system as an option anymore.
Granted, right now there is no point in asking, Styg has made it clear that he wants this horrible system to be the way to play the game.
You say it's not a mockery of feedback but from my point of view, it is. I don't take it as a personal insult, but it do is a mockery of good feedback none the less.
So I obviously kept asking since there was the chance that Styg would actually implement it as he put it on the table himself! At no point did he ever say. No we're never going to implement the old (and better) system as an option anymore.
Granted, right now there is no point in asking, Styg has made it clear that he wants this horrible system to be the way to play the game.
You say it's not a mockery of feedback but from my point of view, it is. I don't take it as a personal insult, but it do is a mockery of good feedback none the less.
28
General / Re: Al Fabet
« on: February 21, 2016, 06:13:05 pm »
Because this issue is rather important. It's important to the point of a game going from, best game since fallout 2 to worst crpg I've ever played. That's the level of importance of this issue.
29
General / Re: Al Fabet
« on: February 21, 2016, 05:08:00 pm »Are we still bringing this up? I thought it was a lost cause?
I might be misinformed but are there trainers that allow you to remove the carry weight? I think I heard someone mentioning it, could be wrong. Trade limits might be more difficult to alter, not sure if there are mods for that yet.
It all comes down to intent and design, which is subject to the creator and not the ones that play it (most of the time). Styg decided that the game will work this way, there's really nothing to do about it (aside from modding). One can debate this forever, there's no right or wrong answer. What matters is why it was implemented the way it was, not why something else wasn't. I have already detailed my thoughts on the why's of the design of trading and encumbrance in Underrail so I won't repeat myself again. I just find it funny that this is still rolling knowing nothing will change. I think this discussion was heading the wrong direction from the start.
One thing did lead to another but the start of the topic did boil down to. Pitty that Styg chose to make a mockery out of serious and good feedback rather than listening to it. Eventually it did lead to the explanation of why I said this and the discussion of this topic once again.
There is cheatengine that can disable carry weight yes! Nothing that fixes the broken traders. Fact of the matter is, the people who were interested in modding this game so far still don't know what they need to have in order to mod the game cause they don't recognise the game code language or something like that. Apparently Styg does not wants to disclosure this or release modding tools. At least not just yet.
It may be true that debating this might not help it, at least as far as Styg is concerned cause he wants to stick with a poor design decision just because he came up with something different. I guess it do is as pointless as exploring or doing sidequests in underrail.
I can only hope that some day some one will be able to make head and tails out of the language and mod the game into something playable at which point I will play and will give credit for a good game to that modder and that modder only.
30
General / Re: Al Fabet
« on: February 21, 2016, 04:01:51 pm »
And why are we talking about respawning enemies exactly? If you are merely refering to the portal in arcanum I merely did it at the time cause it was retardedly good XP and no, it wasn't easy, I had to very carefully pull one at a time, sometimes 2 came and they did loads of damage and damaged my armor with each attack. Normally I wouldn't kill all because it required a certain build to work and even then I had to be extremely careful. However it wasn't just respawning enemies, cause it threw harder and harder stuff at you, when I did it was to see how much XP I could get before closing it and to see if there was a limit on enemies and indeed there was... As far as underrail goes, I don't fight respawning enemies usually I used to do an area once and that's that.
Arcanum is indeed a case where there is more to see in some quests by playing differently. Also no I haven't tried the unofficial patch, didn't even knew there was one. I had first the original, then I bought later on a new copy of the CD very cheap that came already with the latest official patch but it was still broken in places. for example, the owner of the brothel started lowering her likeless of you each time you visited untill the point where she just attacked you or the dragon cave chest provoked an instant crash. just to qoute a couple I remember.
Dirtman - For others? Everyone else can go die in a fire. It's my loot, my money, if they everyone else wants to loot, they have to beat me to it.
Also I don't want unlimited loot and respawns. I only want to get what I earned in that fight. If you think I don't like challenge you are wrong. I'd gladly play underrail on the hardest dificulty, ironman mode if I had no weight limits and merchants buy it all. All I want is my due, that all.
Arcanum is indeed a case where there is more to see in some quests by playing differently. Also no I haven't tried the unofficial patch, didn't even knew there was one. I had first the original, then I bought later on a new copy of the CD very cheap that came already with the latest official patch but it was still broken in places. for example, the owner of the brothel started lowering her likeless of you each time you visited untill the point where she just attacked you or the dragon cave chest provoked an instant crash. just to qoute a couple I remember.
Dirtman - For others? Everyone else can go die in a fire. It's my loot, my money, if they everyone else wants to loot, they have to beat me to it.
Also I don't want unlimited loot and respawns. I only want to get what I earned in that fight. If you think I don't like challenge you are wrong. I'd gladly play underrail on the hardest dificulty, ironman mode if I had no weight limits and merchants buy it all. All I want is my due, that all.