UpgrayeDD

I don't really have a problem with static campanion characters in games, but I don't think that theres a problem with having characters that can change(for the better or the worse). The idea that some experiences have changed them for life is less believable then characters that have opinions that are constently being affected by the new encounters as well as the old.

I'm not sure about new game plus but I would like the idea of something like "sawyers arena fun time" Where he handmakes the most ridiculous, seemingly unbeatable scenarios imaginable. The kind of stuff where he might have to step in an say "heres how I did it".

So the reward for doing all objectives and no objectives in a given quest would be exactly the same?

/me raises hand I don't understand. Why is it bad design not to reward players for clearing those sewers instead of sneaking through them? You don't considering add an entire area that players think is a waste of time is bad design? If players get to an area and think "well skip this ****" thats not a problem? And in the example that cat gave how is the jungle not meant to be something skipped over? Maybe thats the biggest problem between the two camps. One side sees stealthing as skipping content and the other side sees it as something that is the content. Some people think experience comes from conflict and actions and other people think its about getting from A to B.

Then you're confused. In-game goals are whatever the game creators decide are the in-game goals. The game system within which the game creators work do the accommodation and provide the incentives that direct player behavior. Any game creator that doesn't make fun the top goal of their game needs to quit the business. :sigh: Because a quest objective is an in-game goal, and the job of the game system is to provide incentives for you to complete in-game goals. Whereas picking a lock or killing a monster is a means to an end, ways to complete those goals. You can set your own goals on top of that, naturally (aka LARPing), so if you want to go on a murder rampage there's nothing stopping you. Or you can LARP a pacifist and try not to kill anyone. These goals are not aligned with the in-game ones, therefore there's no reason the game engine should reward (or punish) them. It's not the devs' job to anticipate any and all additional LARPy goals you may want to set for yourself; their job is to worry about the goals they're setting for you, and to make sure you're properly incentivized to pursue them. So treasure and the satisifaction of doing the quest are not enough incentive to do something? If picking the lock for the 150 gold pieces is enough incentive why is returning the stolen ruby of zara for 1000 gold pieces and a sweet axe not good enough? Why would you need to skip quests to do that? What if my character likes small talk, gossip, and crafting. Why should I need to delve into dangerous situations just to advance my character. This time I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or just really dim. Here's a clue: you cannot complete a quest-based cRPG without completing the main quest. That makes the quest the core mechanic for delivering the content. Everything else is a subsystem. This is different from, say, Diablo, where combat is the core mechanic: any quests are distractions; the objective is to fight your way to the final boss and then defeat the final boss. All fighting, all the time. And that has what to do with being able to advance my character through other mean?

I thought that the in game goals were fun and accomidaring as many play styles as possible. Which aging exp does both.and if someone wanted max levels with no effort most games include such tools which will do the job much faster without consuming the use of you PC. If it's defecate gameplay to sniff out and kill as many monster as possible why is it not degerate gameplay to do as many quests as possible? What if I want to enjoy the beautiful locactions andnrub elbows with the locals. Why should skipping quests punish me for it? Just like the fun of combat is it's own reward shouldn't that apply to questing as well? Oh and don't forget the huge advantage the questers will have in money and loot

We need to just get rid or quest exp altogether. If I find I want to spend my time working at the baker shop and painting at the art gallery I need ways to level up too. Doing a quest because "ding! XP!" is a weak, metagame reason. Doing a quest because there's something you want on the other side is a good, in-game reason. I want to get rid of the weak metagame reasons because they cheapen the strong in-game reasons, and thereby reduce my enjoyment of the game. What's more, I believe that 99% of the people whining about no-quest-XP will enjoy a game with properly aligned incentives more as well, they just don't realize it themselves. Which is why I propose aging xp. The longer you spend in the game world the more you level up. No long should we be penalized for skiping quests that we don't want to. I much prefere to chat with the local politicians on about trade routes and make money blacksmithing. Aging Exp would make both perfectly viable options. It is perfectly fair and allows for the most variety of playstyles. I look forward to my playthroughs as Master pimp thurlow, day dreamer karen, and artisan wilks.

means you don't get NO loot. Nowhere does it state an EQUAL amount of loot (which is impossible, since kills drop loot). It simply says "you can get loot outside of combat" WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO READ AND UNDERSTAND?? so you fight the fights that give the best loot and ignore the rest WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO READ AND UNDERSTAND??

So are the only enemies in existence going to be ones that directing affect the local populace? That would feel very linear. And anything that doesn't affect them just becomes a waste of time then.

And this is bad, because...? yeah because convincing bandits not to attack you deserves Exp but killing a hostile yeti that eats people is nothing right? if the townspeople asked you to kill the yeti and it becomes an objective, what's wrong with dealing with the problem however you wish to? killing him, talking to him to not come back (taking his loot with him), and probably a few other creative ways that i can't think of right now. what's the problem? So the only way to advance your character is in doing whatever an npc tells you to? For some reason a dirty peasant holds the key to my growth? Not that I think the devs would make every objective come from an npc but should that be the case it would be terrible design.

And this is bad, because...? yeah because convincing bandits not to attack you deserves Exp but killing a hostile yeti that eats people is nothing right?

This. Why should one player who simply sneaks through an area receive the exact same amount of xp as another who fights his way through? Because he played the game in a clever and efficient way? Shall the developers, perhaps, insert a "shoot yourself in the foot" button in the game, and each time you press it, you gain xp for neatly crippling yourself? Also, it's a despicable act to affiliate the obviously superior race of cats with quite stupid viewpoints. Shame on you people. Your right they need the winStealth button is the obvious answer. Or the don't go near unneccesary combat button, because it will waste you time. If I'm exploring the wilderness and see a hostile yeti roaming around well %*^& that hes a waste of time. I might come across a pack of werewolves similar to what was in Baldurs gate 2 but unless I get an object to defeat them for attacking me then skip that too because I don't need the longswords they drop. THe shadows on the way to the sun temple? Waste of time if the don't give exp so avoid them too. Unless they are going to micromanage everything in exporable areas to give Exp or do away with them completely then most of those fights would be pointless.

This has to be one of the most arrogant and pretentious things I've ever seen you write. Becuase of course you are the one whos always right oh great Lephys. Why can the lemmings around you not see your wisdom. And why is it ok for the great Lephys to question things and not I. Because when I do it I am impeding those who are considerate of everyone, but when you question and present examples its the clearly right thing and &%^$ everyone else who doesn't get it. Everytime I see you walk into every single thread on the board I should just give up because Lephys put down the knowledge.

Noted. My mistake. That doesn't change the fact that he didn't say it wasn't easy, either. You chose to voluntarily ignore that possibility, whilst only addressing situations B and C, then calling the example out because their described ease didn't seem to fit the issue. And since he never said it was easy or hard I didn't applied a value to option A. I certainly didn't say that it should be rewarded over B or C. I addressed the options he gave the most information on no I fully expect there will be times when you simply can't stealth past some enemies. But it doesn't change the fact that when you can it becomes the optimal solution as it conserves your resources for those unavoidable fights. If I'm wasting limited resources killing units I could easily bypass then I'm making those later fights that much harder. I'm pretty much expecting an "avoid this radius" type system. Do you really expect easy combat encounters to be hard to stealth past? In my experience its usually the final encounters where stealth gets hardest. So who are these people who are putting forth the effort of considering possibilities beyond what suits their stance that I am arguing against? They pretty much only seem to be arguing for the stance they support which is objective/quest exp only. You say your interest ins't in proving me wrong but then you say I have no interest in looking past my own point of view? Even though I said earlier and if diplomatic solution and stealth solution are more difficult/resource consuming then combat they should be rewarded accordingly you're going to assume I think combat should always be the best rewarded?

I wish I had the same blind faith that no matter what the game designers know whats best about everything. I've seen a lot of games that might of been great turn out to be big disappointments due to poor mechanics. I've also heard the promises to bring back the fun of older IE games and they fell very short. I personally don't like seeing history repeat itself. If all the new gaming mechanics that are flying around now are so great then why are there so many people looking back at how great older games used to be?

so do you just ignore everything else that other poeple post? I already explained how avoidance is rewarded over combat in a good bit of detail using information from the devs. If you'd like I can quote it for you or you can explain where I went wrong.

So by you logic shouldn't stealthing past enemies and avoiding being stabbed be its own reward?

Well if both B and C are true then it sounds like there was no challange at all in your given scenario. If they are doing a task that is so incrediable easy to them why are they being awarded at all. I think we should award them for eating pie while we are at it. A seems to be the only choice where you don't imply that its a walk in the park. So option A couldn't possibly be easy? Also, imagine that options B and C are equally as tricky as combat (relative to your current combat, stealth, and diplomacy/negotiation skills, respectively). Example flaw: corrected. Any thoughts now? First notice the underlined part. If the combat was also no challange it shouldn't give much Exp either. And whats going to be so tricky about stealth and diplomacy? Is there some secret minigame they are making I haven't heard of? I can't really think of an existing example where diplomacy was hard to accomplish. And from what the devs have said there won't even be a role so selecting chat options 2 2 4 3 will likely be all it takes. and how tricky should we expect stealth from a top down isometric game? That being said if they all offer an equivalent challenge and resource consumption then I have no problems with the Exp being equal.

to be honest I much prefere a New vegas approach to xp where quests/fighting/lockpicking/using skills to solve problems where you're experience was based around doing things and exploring. To me I much prefere it to Quest/objective only. I never really felt pressured in any way to solve things a certain way and felt rewarded when I poked around. The only game I can think of that I played with quest and objective only was Mass Effect 2 and I have to say I didn't much care for the way it played out. The chunks of exp they handed out and the fact that you couldn't achieve the max level. It felt like they had an over controling GM feel to it. Not to mention everything was scaled and linear which made the entire experience feel rather bland.

If you want the game to be believable then you should gain most Exp outside of combat training ceasesly to become the best of the best at you skills. So in keeping with your goal we should do away with Exp in quests and spend our days training in the mountains Well if both B and C are true then it sounds like there was no challange at all in your given scenario. If they are doing a task that is so incrediable easy to them why are they being awarded at all. I think we should award them for eating pie while we are at it. A seems to be the only choice where you don't imply that its a walk in the park. Yay for picking a simplified example apart and missing the point entirely. I shall attempt to make it more simple: Any quest could be resolved in number of ways. If succesfully resolved, a violent approach should not automaticly be worth more than a non-violent approach. You were the one who asked and provided the examples

I'm not really saying its not viable (as it exists in games), but that the scenario encourages (via xp) the player using combat as a resolution. "Least effort" is an interesting thought; is it harder for a fighter with loads of skills in fighting to beat an orc guard who is stronger and bigger than they are in armed combat, or a thief with a lot of sneaking skills to get past an orc guard who can see in the dark and has better hearing than they have? Seems to me that there's effort in both situations, but effort of a different kind. So how does that encounter giving 600 exp to every solution not favor the hiding party? Because - for now at least - I don't know what resources might end up being expended for the hiding party. For example, stealth mode could consume stamina and stamina used in stealth mode could have a penalty to regeneration that stamina used in combat doesn't. Thus making the player whose party build is such that a stealth resolution is viable have to decide whether use of resources to stealth solve the quest outweighs the resources for using combat for the same (with the added penalty to stealth that failure in the stealth past results in losing both the stealth resources and your combat resources). But I'd like to think that if they're going to not encourage non-combat solutions at a high level that they're looking at ways to make the choice of resource use non trivial. the stealth mode would need to drain health and stamina in order for it to be considered equivalent to combat.

Indeed. Sadly enough, that's usually not the case. You and your co-worker could both worked 32 hours, paid the same. But it's 100% impossible both did the same amount of work. There always will be this variation. Same with questing in RPG's. And it's not a good way to reward one specific task more than the other, in this case, combat. Or you almost guarantee people will do it for the reward. It's why most people will want to work on sundays, it pays more than ordinary days. But one can hardly make everyone work on sunday alone and not the rest of the days. Nor is working on sunday really "harder" or " easier" than other days... I'm not saying to always reward combat as the best choice. I'm merely asking to reward the paths that hold the most conflict and confrontation(whether combat or not)

I'm not really saying its not viable (as it exists in games), but that the scenario encourages (via xp) the player using combat as a resolution. "Least effort" is an interesting thought; is it harder for a fighter with loads of skills in fighting to beat an orc guard who is stronger and bigger than they are in armed combat, or a thief with a lot of sneaking skills to get past an orc guard who can see in the dark and has better hearing than they have? Seems to me that there's effort in both situations, but effort of a different kind. So how does that encounter giving 600 exp to every solution not favor the hiding party?

True, it does, but in a way that is relatively easy to address. E.g. low-level loot drops from kills which more or less match your expected expenditure of resources for the battle. As an added perk, skillful players will be able to win battles with less resource use, meaning they'll end up ahead. This is a much easier problem to address than the imbalances introduced by kill XP. Could you please elaborate on how it would be so terrible if the majority of Exp was quest based and some exp was rewarded for combat ahead of avoidance options? I believe the inherent issue is the ability to double-dip into the XP. Lets say you have 10 orcs guarding a chest that contains an object you've been hired to get (the quest). If the 10 orcs have a 10xp for being killed value and the quest itself gives 500xp then if you fight the ten orcs (100xp) and complete the quest (500xp) you get 600xp else if you sneak past the orcs (no xp) and complete the quest (500xp) you get 500 xp so the scenario encourages combat. Same scenario but you add 100 xp for sneaking past the orcs to not encourage combat as a resolution now if you sneak past the orcs (100xp) and complete the quest (500xp) and then double back and kill the orcs (100xp) you now encourage stealth complete quests and clean up for xp. So now you have to deal with, how do you make sneak a viable option without adding an additional incentive to go back and kill the orcs upon completion of the ques. You could remove the orcs (but why do they leave when they don't know what they're guarding is gone?) so they can't be killed. You could make them unkillable (that sort of thing annoys players). Or you could script it so that if the quest is completed by stealth the orcs no longer give XP. But I think what the developers are saying, rather than looking at a low level (script something that changes the quest xp for each scenario) that they'd like a high level solution that works for all scenarios. considering the character got 500 exp for sneaking how is it not still viable? when the sneak is twelve the none sneaker might be thirteen. Not all combat would be avoidable so thinking there would be always be 5:6 ratio in exp between the two choices in the above example would be a false assumption. In the end it might become 9:10 or 10:11 ratio. I don't think the path with the least effort(hiding) should be equal to the path that faced the conflict head on.

I'm not saying it'd be terrible, I'm saying quest XP only is better. Combat XP -- even if there's only relatively little of it -- will create perverse incentives, which result in degenerate strategies. You won't be able to have any persistent respawns (e.g. the "close the portal wherefrom the demons spring" quest), you'll reward players who chase monsters for no other reason than XP and so on. Once again: if there is an easy way to align the systemic incentives with the in-game objectives, why would you not want to do that? If you were a designer, why would you knowingly leave in perverse incentives? but wouldn't you agree that which ever the harder path is(whether avoidance or combat) that it should be rewarded accordingly? Otherwise you are encouraging the easiest path(again the reason the want quest/objective only is to avoid encouraging one over the other)