In Wasteland 1, there is a definite hierarchy of firearms. Clip Pistols are the worst, followed by Rifles, then SMGs, then Assault Rifles, and finally Energy Weapons. The later ones on the list are clearly stronger, but they don't appear at all until later in the game, whereas you actually *start* with the weakest ones, Clip Pistols.

Do you think that is a good way to balance the weapon skills, or would you prefer the weapon types to be equally available and useful throughout the game? (I remember reading that you can actually start Wasteland 2 with an energy weapon at the beginning if you have that skill; Wasteland 1 doesn't even let you pick the skill until later.)

Not a fan of how that approach sounds.

Oh, you'd probably like elaboration, right? Okay, here comes:
It's a fairly clear attempt of introducing risk and reward scenarios into your design, but... Well, how do you even learn to shoot an assault rifle whwn you don't have access to one? Besides, the approach Wasteland 2 chose allows every weapon class to have wildly different behaviour which definitely adds to replayability big time, and allows for more freedom at character creation stage.

I believe that a better way to handle this would be to either add some highly specialized skills which are absolutely devastating in limited amount of situations (or using them is risky in itself), or allow for specialization of current weapon skills - let's say you can train your demolitions expert to follow "volatile" path of explosives which would make explosives more devastating but also much more likely to harm him/his teammates

This is a clear weakness from the old systems, don't forget this seem good at 80's (and 90's with Fallout) but are one of the reason I like more wasteland 2 than Fallout 1&2 and Wasteland 1. Even InXile published a full update with this. The following is a small abstract of the issue: And personally, I love my gunslinger be useful all the time (and the fact the game don't become easy because you get the most powerful armor, as now you are more susceptible to other type of attack).

This is the original link; https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/wasteland-2/posts/461235

Well if you start your character with a skill in say, the Shotgun, he gets a shotgun or mg he`ll get one, so I suspect if you start with a laser skill he`ll start with that too.

However, I`m playing the Director`s Cut (well trying to) and lasers are only really good against armoured or metal targets now, so, theoretically you can stay with good old slug throwers which I prefer anyway.

Anyway, i`m happy with how it is right now, although all weapons should be available if being realistic (only your skills and availability should limit ... Now if they would just bring out a patch for these inventory crashes...

Yeah, perks was mostly what I was thinking of. I have also seen some RPGs utilizing branching skills, as in at certain point in development of a skill, the game asked you whether you'd like to continue developing that skill in general or to switch to specialization. And then there's stuff like prestige classes in DnD

Well, I grew up with the old games and I still like the old-school weapon progression :).

Never been a fan of tier-based anything, especially weapons. It negates one of role-playing sides of game, specifically character side - no matter how superb your character is, using M1 vs someone equal, but armed with G41 wouldn't work. For me in original game this was reflected by California, while in Arizona my M16 worked damn well, in California they turned not to pea shooters, but required at least twice more shots. Swapping to AK-97 all of a sudden got team back in game.
In original W2 this weapon system mess was rather hilarious, M24 and M40, basically sister rifles IRL, yet one had stats that were basically more than twice better than the other. Eh? Wear and tear? Equal on all guns of that type? Disbelief's suspension is broken. Can't say for DC, haven't seen any of those two. But a bit later on DC.
Wrong calibres, logically wrong stats, wrong skills, wrong ideas (rechamber Ma Deuce into .5.56, srsly? In this aspect game reminds me of Fallout Tactics, Brotherhood of Steel, same WTF approach to arsenal. Browning High Power weighing 6 pounds? M14 using .303? Come on. I wonder if FT:BoS gun designer was working on W2, basically same pattern. If not worse, really. Flashhider weighing 4 pounds? Tactical flashlight weighing 3? High cap "beta" mag adding just 4 rounds? FOUR, CARL! Similar, yet wrong calibres and guns using them? Guns that do not look like they should? I understand player model "dummies" limitations, but why not using correct picture for reference? Come on, it's 2015, gun porn everywhere, it's not like 90s and dialup where finding reference image of new gun had been a quest comparable to looking for a freaking water chip. Same goes for ammo. I understand, there are different types of cartridges even within same type (say .308), but those I know kinda lighter than those in game.
Vanilla game resetted traders' stock, allowing us to leave location and get back, buying more guns to equip our team with. DC does not, therefore Melson offers only one M16. Same goes for many other traders (if not all, though some stocks are not exhausted (as it seems, could buy all grenades from Tan)). Anyway, instead of giving us options, game forces us into it's bad design.
And weapon system is bad design. Majority of categories of guns are simply useless. Mostly because of unbelievably short ranges: SMG, Pistols, and, of course, Shotguns. Shotguns also have ridiculous shot spread. It's not Claymore mine, for fuck sake, it's a shotgun! Whom you're going to hit with 9 balls with spread like this? I understand Inxile located in California, which is pretty much anti-gun state, but for crying out loud, it was that difficult to visit Arizona or any other more gun-friendly state and fucking try? I'm not the best shot in a squad, but generally 12 gauge shotgun with 20 inch cylinder barrel (no choke) at 20 metres could put all pellets into a circle of around 30 centimetres, at 40 metres - 60 centimetres. At 100 metres, using a slug, you should be able hit a human-size target. Maybe not all the time, it's smooth bore after all. I'm pretty sure you can try that even at 200 metres. Of course, that's range results, when nobody shooting at you (you can beef it up by parallel duel with a friend though), but I'm not Desert Ranger nor Jerry Miculek either.
But I digress. Entire skills system is complete clusterfucking hymn to redundancy, and weapons just marches along. I understand desire to add more guns to appease people, but doing it this way is something terribly wrong.
Oh, and modding itself. Disassemble the gun to find mod. Ohh, look, someone placed laser pointer into rifle. Where it was, inside chamber or under handguard? Still, why do you need to disassemble the gun this way? I'd understood Fallout 3/NV style "cannibalization" to repair guns - obviously some spare parts could remain unused, but, thankfully (no sarcasm) this game does not involves any "maintenance" (though permanent jam percentage on shotguns is killing me, better mag spring maybe?). Dunno why you need to be a weaponsmith of level 9/10 to remove tactical scope or laser pointer, I though Picatinny rail was designed to be easy to use. Unless it was duct-taped to gun, that indeed required MIT degree.
And DC (so far) made a lot of changes into weapon system (partially money gathering system too). In vanilla we could just stroll around, kill some raiders, harvest their G33, sell, rinse, repeat. Now very few enemies actually drop guns, at least sensible ones. In this aspect DC reminds me of Jagged Alliance 2 RND drop, where Minimi gunner (distinct 6-round burst) could leave you rusty helmet. Yet here you can't even pry guns from their warm live hands. No pun intended. Haven't seen many guns as of now (returned from Damonta, can't talk to Danforth at all, speaker doesn't initiates anything, goodbye treaty). Yes, damage of those available has been increased, as well as some other stats, but guns are really scarce now. Why have more guns yet show very few? I'm halfway through game, yet I saw like 2-3 models of each category, most of them early tiers. And forcing us to use available guns this way is about as bad as forcing all "impenetrable wall" (turrets and mine-field) in Prison to add moar dramah to RSM subplot (sorry, folkes, Red Baron beats you blindfolded, hands-bound, waist-deep in river, upside-down, with fish in his mouth). Because it's RPG and OUR choices matter. Even if wrong ones.
So yeah, less can be more, and in cases like this, more doesn't always means the merrier. Alas, woe, woe.

It's a videogame. It doesn't even try to pretend being realistic, so why on earth would lack of realism be a reason to criticize it? I mean you're using Witcher 3 as a good example of all things, with its completely realistic progression and swordplay, right? Anyway, shotguns work the way they do so they're differentiated from other weapon classes, I thought that the way they work is quite clever, mechanically speaking. How would you have them work while giving them unique behavior within the ruleset?

I actually like shotguns in WL2. You can deal out some serious damage if you can hit 2-4 guys at the same time, and it's different from all other weapons. You need to be well positioned for it work right, but I count this as a positive as it gives you some leeway to work with tactically, instead of just hanging back with everybody until the battle music stops. Just make sure you aim the shotgun manually so it is easier to hit enemies and NOT friendlies. Targets hit will be slightly highlighted in red, and you should get a percentage of hit chances for them.

Not played WL1, but both systems have their pros and cons. The way WL2 did it, all weapons are in play from day 1, but since all weapons can't be equal, people are likely to favour assault rifles and sniper rifles, simply because they deal out more damage. Think I would favour the WL2 system so I can specialise the characters throughout.

A kindred spirit, I nodded my head in agreement with every sentence. It really left a sour taste in my mouth that the wasteland 2 team thought it was appropriate to pick "real" weapons and then not give a damn about how they implemented them. Some people will say it doesn't matter but to me this is like having a game include a rusty '55 Buick that can outrace modern high performance cars. Another example would be to have a game that tells me it takes place in London and the most prominent landmark to be found is the Statue of Liberty. Nope, not buying it, the illusion does not work. I expect that in a game that is 50% about shooting and stabbing stuff the designers would care enough to make the weapons feel like they belong in the world they are crafting.

I'm not asking for realism, the game is not about simulation anyhow, but I demand internal consistency and clever use of real world imagery. If you want your game design to work wildly differently from the real world, don't use real world imagery. A compromise would be to have a few real world weapons that function much like a person who is moderately knowledgable about firearms would expect them to, then craft entirely new ones for your fantastic alternate history setting that can be anything you want them to be. It is a post apocalyptic setting after all, you could make most gun designs and certainly all gun upgrades improvised and makeshift and balance them pretty much any way you want to.

Wasteland 2 went the "I know it is square but it still fits in the round hole, who gives a shit" direction. It feels very much like the late 90's and early 00's, but it is not a positive nostalgic thing. It was bad then, it is extremely distracting today. Every generation alive today has watched gun porn on the evening news almost daily, it is not like guns are indistinguishable pointy boomsticks to the common man any longer. Everyone knows at least one fact about the Kalashnikov family of guns, and everyone has heard of at least a couple of different handgun calibers. Likewise, more people than ever are exposed to news about cars and car customisation, and certainly people are more commonly versed in geography and history than they used to be. You can't half-ass these things and think that only neckbeards will notice. If you want people to believe in and get engrossed with your alternate history game universe, it must respect it's source material.

Sure, we can suspend disbelief and ignore the fact that a bullet or a slash across the neck would incapacitate and hospitalise a human being, because we want the story to continue and for a game to present both a challange and be forgiving (depending on which end of the gun you're standing). Asking us to just accept the random logic of the representation of the universe itself and consider only abstract game balance on the other hand is just unneccesarily shooting your own game in the foot. There was no reason not to do it "right" and fill in the game balance gaps without tweaking the real world aspects of the game universe.

If this was strictly a competitive game I wouldn't care, but this is a game that leans more on being a roleplaying fantasy. Being able to kit out a group the way I feel makes narrative sense (because I find the equipment during the game) and in a way that I find pleasing to my sensibilities (because how a person dresses and which equipment they use is a large part of their personality). The fact that these things are arbitrarily tied to a game balance curve takes some thunder out of them rather than have them be a fantastic make-your-own-adventure playground.

Request for GoG administration to increase max allowed symbols per post or allow two post following each other without attempts to auto-merge them (and fail). Thank you. My favourite reply ever. It's a movie/book/game. Tl;dr - "it's not life". Sorry, don't buy it. Because all this is part of narrative and, if you like, immersion. I don't criticize Fallout 1 (and only 1) guns - they aren't real, with exception of Desert Eagle. Why discuss something that doesn't exist and cannot be extrapolated? Moreover, why do that when almost every gun is usable from beginning to very end? Of course shooting supermutants with 10mm pistol is kinda long and painful process, but with enough skills you could try do that. good criticals beat heap of meat neatly.
While Desert Eagle itself could be extrapolated (i.e. transforming real world muzzle energy into damage points, for example), there is no point, because it is one and only. Other guns, though, do have unique niche, allowing you to use each and every one and succeed. That's what I'm talking about - options and freedom. They gave us tools (guns and skills), and put us into sandbox before term being coined. And generally Fallout 1 (and even 2, though you need to keep that suspense of disbelief regarding "real" guns implementation) allowed you to use almost every gun throughout majority of game, with only exception being flamethrower. Sorry, folks, 5 hexes that's hilariously short, even WW2 flamethrowers could fire at 20-30 metres, which is consider to be "general" pistols' distance. Probably the only game where flamethrowers are depicted realistically is Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War, Imperial Guard's Hellhound),
In this aspect Wasteland 2 is far less balanced, basically chopping off 3 categories of guns. Why? Well, best protection is not the armour, but the thick layer of air between you and your opponent. I understand anyone's desire to keep things up close and personal, but I think if it goes into melee, your tactic sucks. Or developers spawned enemies right on top of your head (hello, NWN2, DA2, and, ha-ha, Tinker). Should Pistols, SMGs and shotgun ranges be upped to relatively realistic 20-30 metres, then they could be back in game (and shotgun should have very narrow cone or no cone at all - within ingame parameters this spread is statistically insignificant. Up rifles to 50 metres and now we're talking. Not sure about energy stuff, all I have in DC seems to be kinda meh. Plus, they don't exist IRL, so hell if I know what meson cannon is. *sigh* Where is my turboplasma Winchester? Nope. I dislike Witcher 2/3 tier-based equipment (next chapter equipment beats previous chapter equipment, no matter what, while in Witcher 1 you could wear same jacket till almost very end or use swords you made or found early on), and Witcher 3 skills/swordplay, especially swordplay. It is dull, boring, bland, repetitive, and not engaging. In Witcher 2 your Witcher 1's endgame equipment was basically turned into pumpkin, and highly trained Geralt, whose memory is started coming back into lawlnewb. In Witcher 3, imagine that, all your Witcher 2's engame equipment is totally gone, and your highly trained (again!) Geralt, whose memory completely returned is turned to selfpropelled punching bag. Even later ingame he could easily be killed by such opponents in such ways it'll made you think why the fuck anyone would need witchers if they are so easily killed. I understand he is only Geralt and not Commander Shepard, or, better, Garrus, capable to catch a missile with his face and keep walking, but really. That's where narrative fails, miserably. Because in games, unlike other media I mentioned above (books and movies) there is one additional form of narration - actual gameplay. Do not tell me how awesome someone is, let me experience it. And what we have in Witcher 3? I'm not going to quite my entire nitpicking thread, no, but just few examples: Geralt, with exceptional senses unable to spot an elf on tree in Velen, even if he heard Iorveth's elves in Witcher 2, or missed that nilfgaardian girl running away? Don't drink and drive - magic and teleport! Apparently. Or that pair of quests on Skellige, fog on lighthouse and subsequent cave of dreams? Some local dudes knocked Geralt out, despite him beaten all boxing opponents, and even some other enemies, because game dorks and lags with sheathing/unsheathing? Nuh-uh, don't buy it. I remember Geralt was killed by kid with pitchfork, but that's a way too off.
Sorry, nope. Witcher 3 offers generally nice story and narration, but gameplay isn't something shining. Uh-huh, less clever than in SWAT 4, where, if I recall correctly, shotguns' spread pattern depended on speed of movement and injuries your character had. The faster you moved, the wider was spread. I'd understood if we had narrow cone of shot be placed within wider circle, but no, it was each pellet it shot. Like dynamic barrel calibre or something.
And in W2 shotguns are not that much differentiated other than having wide cone and permanent jamming chance you can't fix. Other than that, pretty mediocre and similar to SMG or handgun classes. Increase range, remove cone (because combat is grid-based, and within this grid spread is insignificant), alter reliability (say, better springs for magazine tube), ideally add slugs as ammo (wave Fallout Tactics). This way, slugs will have higher accuracy requirement from shooter, but will provide better penetration, range, and knockdown, while buckshot will lower accuracy requirements, and will be very deadly against soft targets. After all, nine 9mm buckshot pellets hitting target simultaneously is something worthy to think about wrong choices made in past. In reality shotguns are very versatile because of wide ammunition selection, sadly very few, if any media depict them properly. True, they aren't really suitable for open plains or mountain fights, or sniper duels, but hey, don't turn them into melee weapon.
SMGs and handguns should also receive upped range, just for sake of those willing to use them as main armament, because it is game and why the fuck not.
Other changes I'd like to see will require massive reworking on skill system. Srsly, assault rifles, sniper rifles, shotguns - three different skills? Okay, long range ballistics maybe, somewhere beyond five hundred metres, but in this game? Nuh, too many essences we don't need. 1 shooting skill is more than enough.


2Sufyan - Sorry, but I can't fit my reply into one post, but I agree with you.

Actually, I have never heard of the Kalashnikov family of guns, and I don't know what handgun calibers even are. In other words, I think you overestimate the average person's knowledge of guns.

I will later make a post in this topic about how this approach to game balance works out in practice. (Hint: It doesn't work as well as it should because firearms aren't that useful in the early game.)

What that reply is supposed to convey is that artistic vision/gameplay always trumps realism, unless realism is an integral part of the artistic vision/gameplay. If realism is what you want, seek out media focused on it. I'm working in IT and I love everything Tron related, regardless of it making no sense. I was bothered for like one second about Liberty Island not really looking like Liberty Island in Deus Ex. You and Sufyan make an argument that when something is using real assets/names, it should always be realistic - but just about no entertainment media ever worked that way.

Oh come on, Fallout games were extremely tier-based. I mean... It's not even much of an argument, just look at this table.

Okay, your argument basically comes down to: cut meele weapons, merge all other weapons and make them behave mostly the same. I'm sorry, but you want Wasteland 2 to be something it never wanted to. If these are your requirements, I suggest you to research games more before purchasing them, you will avoid being disappointed over things they never intended to do in the first place. I quite enjoy the diversity of ranged-meele-various weapon behavior and am thankful it's not trying to simulate reality - in spite of actually realizing that's not how they behave at all.

I said I did not want realism, I only want the world building to be believable or at least not distracting. I am far from a firearms expert and I don't want to be a neckbeard about these kind of things, but I want to be able to use what little real world knowledge I have to understand the fictional real world setting of the game. Guns are kind of a big deal in this game, but they are handled really terrible as a world building and narrative device.

Consider the Hitman series of games. A series about an assassin pulled straight out of every bad movie you have ever watched. Supposedly his bread and butter is not drawing attention to himself and to use high quality equipment in order to get the job done with perfection. Still, due to design choices, his signature firearms are AMT Hardballers and the Walther WA2000. Hardballers are target shooting pistols (of mediocre reputation, I believe) and not really a sensible choice for someone who needs dependable and rugged combat pistols. The WA2000 is a super rare collectors item sniper rifle which, while accurate, is hardly inconspicuous and not particularly rugged. I'm sure you don't think this matters in any way whatsoever, and it certainly isn't the biggest narrative and world building problem with the Hitman series, but it is one that could have easily been avoided if the designers cared a little more than to just make a game.

Wasteland 2 feels that way to me. It just seems so unnecessary to me that they will go through all this trouble to make the guns and the mechanics detailed but completely ignore the real world connection. As RudyLis listed throughout his post, there are many things that do not make any real world sense upon a closer look and my position is "Why not give it more love and care like you do for the dialogue writing, the sights and sounds and the characters?". Treat the topic as more than just abstract game design. There is a wealth of easily digestible information available to most people in the world today, we can create better and more immersive works of art for a more informed audience.

Guns in Wasteland 2 (and many other games) are treated like technobabble: They are only necessary to enable gameplay, who cares what it means or that anything makes sense. I disagree, quite strongly so. Clever and caring use of real world imagery can greatly enhance an interactive experience, and even in a completely fantastical setting, lessons learned from the real world can enhance the suspension of disbelief in another. Guns can be more than game difficulty progression: they could be part of the emergent story telling experience (ie the stuff that is only in the player's head). That one pistol could be important to my sense of character and dramatic flair and I would love to see that character use it as a signature weapon. Too bad the game design is only concerned with the gameplay challange, more or less forcing me into an arms race that leaves no room for these kind of sentiments. I see it as an incredibly wasted opportunity.