Experience systems being used

[tubgoatstugboats]

Experience gained in a game generally follows a few rules. Level cap, gain x amount for doing x task, scaling, finite resources, and requiring certain amount gained per level.

 

Personally im tired of games with scaling. Scaling tends to reward the casual player and ensure they are of proper level for the story. This is fine and dandy for many players but the other side of scaling is that it punishes people like me who enjoy going at it till my character is completely overpowered for the story. Granted i dont like to cheat because it isnt earned, and i have plenty of time on my hands, but im not against it in single player games. Developers need to have the scaling bottom out at an average amount rather then almost nothing. If the developer is concerned with realism, they need to remember that even Carlos Hath**** used got better by target shooting.

 

Finite resources such as no respawns in a game is one of the most frustrating things to me in any rpg. When you kill everything and nothing ever comes back what the hell is the point, it just makes the world feel empty. I personally dont believe any RPG should not include respawns, no exceptions. Dont get me wrong i have enjoyed games without them gothic series and risen are examples, but the bottom line is the game felt very empty especially near the end. In games with their resources limited players are forced to make choices with only partial knowledge and later on they my regret their decision. If that player decides to go back to an old save then all the time inbetween was lost. This feeling of loss should be kept to a min, because enough of these decisions will piss of any player since they feel its a waste of time.

 

Out of the methods used that I listed those are the only two which piss me off. In games where these two things are used especially the latter i tend to not enjoy myself as much, and i buy games to enjoy them, not be forced through a story. Personally i think the experience point system is used because its something the player is familiar with or perhaps because its what the developers know to work and dont want to put the effort into making a new system. I found oblivion and marrowwinds systems to be great, using the concept of practice makes perfect. Experience points have been tried and true since pen and paper gaming, its just getting old in my eyes.

[Purkake]

Respawn is the devil.

 

Also, yay double negatives!

[Enoch]

Respawn is the devil.

This.

 

Also, every 'learn by doing' character progression system I've played has been awful. Game systems that encourage doing the same damn thing over and over and over again are pretty much the antithesis of fun. My breaking point with Oblivion was a moment of clarity when I realized that I had just spent 20 minutes doing nothing but summoning skeletons and punching them to death.

[HoonDing]

Spending 20 minutes summoning skeletons or 20 minutes killing identically looking bandits/darkspawn/goblins/undead: which is worse and why?

 

At least in Elder Scrolls one can buy training and max out everything without grinding.

[Hurlshort]

I hate respawns and I love scaling.

 

My brain stopped working at one point during the reading, so that's all I have to say.

[Enoch]

Spending 20 minutes summoning skeletons or 20 minutes killing identically looking bandits/darkspawn/goblins/undead: which is worse and why?

At least the latter option usually comes up as a reasonable obstacle in moving towards some quest/plot/story goal. Ideally, either the combat should be tactically varied and fun enough that the repeated enemies aren't as onerous as you make it sound, or both options should be avoided.

[Raithe]

There can be good story reasons for there to be some form of respawning enemies.. or situations where there's a constant stream of them until x is achieved.. (whether that's a plot point hit, or just reaching a certain point on a map).

 

Things where you move from one map to another..and then several days/weeks later in game time you move back to that map (like a lot of rpgs have you do), it can make a certain sense that new creatures have moved in (as long as they're not in the exact same spots that you previously killed creatures in...) to simulate that even if you depopulate an area over time there's going to be regrowth...

 

But generic respawns on every single creature is just .. no.. Pointless grindfest.

 

Frankly, if you've killed everything possible .. you really should have reached a point where you move along in the storyline. Hell, you should never have to kill every freaking thing possible to find just to move the story along (well, okay, again there can be story specific reasons which would make sense for some areas..but not every point in the game).

[Oner]

Spending 20 minutes summoning skeletons or 20 minutes killing identically looking bandits/darkspawn/goblins/undead: which is worse and why?

At least the latter option usually comes up as a reasonable obstacle in moving towards some quest/plot/story goal. Ideally, either the combat should be tactically varied and fun enough that the repeated enemies aren't as onerous as you make it sound, or both options should be avoided.

I demand that a positive adjective be named after me!

[Raithe]

I demand that a positive adjective be named after me!

 

How onerful that would be?

[Slowtrain]

I hate respawns and I love scaling.

 

 

I love respawns and hate scaling.

 

Scaling especially is the antithesis of the crpg experience. Its OK in games like Jag 2 or XCOM, but it completely defeats a huge chunk of the point of playing a crpg.

[Hurlshort]

My issue with non scaling is when you are moving forward in a story, but you reach a point where you can't beat a boss and you have to grind through some junk to get powerful enough.

 

I actually prefer quest xp games, where you get no xp for killing or grinding skills and rely solely on progress as a levelling up mechanism.

[Maria Caliban]

I'm okay with limited respawning (when it makes sense) and limited scaling. There are areas where things will pop up if you kill them. The deep roads in Dragon Age, for example, could have had respawning darkspawn. There are apparently hundreds of thousands of them down there. Likewise, if we have a world where killing stuff makes you more powerful, then NPCs who are killing stuff (bandits preying on travelers, for example) makes sense.

 

Also, every 'learn by doing' character progression system I've played has been awful.

 

Quest for Glory is the only game I know that did this 'right.' It also had a time limit in Quest for Glory 2.

 

I actually prefer quest xp games, where you get no xp for killing or grinding skills and rely solely on progress as a levelling up mechanism.

 

I thought Vampire - Bloodlines did this well.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Maria Caliban

[Humanoid]

"Learn by doing" mechanics result in the activity depicted in the graphic to the left.

 

<-

 

 

 

Anyway, it's all the same thing - whether your character becomes stronger through the acquisition of a singular experience point figure, discrete skill points, a sword of strongpower + 1 or a Super Mushroom (or any combination thereof) is immaterial and only of flavour value. Rrrrawr Bob become stronger, kill tougher bosses!

Edited March 19, 2010 by Humanoid

[Calax]

I'm with hurl. Having a boss be at a level that requires the player to run around for 2 hrs earning money is an idiotic idea at it's base. There is no real reason to force your player to get that frustrated (admittedly it does provide extra time the guy will be playing your game) just to progress through your story.

[HoonDing]

The system I like best is from the Gothics, lacking level scaling but still possible to kill a high-level foe at early levels with the right tactics (which in a lot of scaled games would be impossible due to foes with too powerful spells or too powerful melee damage). But one needed to find trainers to increase skills & attributes.

 

Unlike Daggerfall & Morrowind, the player wouldn't also become invincible around a certain level, but the game remained challenging until the end... even exaggeratingly so in Gothic 3 where one would go into Nordmar at level 30+ and still get raped by wilderness animals.

Edited March 19, 2010 by virumor

[Slowtrain]

I'm with hurl. Having a boss be at a level that requires the player to run around for 2 hrs earning money is an idiotic idea at it's base. There is no real reason to force your player to get that frustrated (admittedly it does provide extra time the guy will be playing your game) just to progress through your story.

 

 

Yeah, I totally disagree with this.

 

If there is an End Boss to a crpg (doesn't have to be though), it should be set in stone how tough that boss is, not up to the whims of the player. Otherwise you end up with absolutely ludicrous **** like in Oblivion where you could be come the Arena Champion at freaking character level 1. Preposterous.

 

The entire point of a crpg (one of them anyway) is to develop your player character from a weak noob to an ass-kicking machine. It's part of the job of the developers to make sure that the game is balanced so that most player characters will be tough enough to meet the various challenges along the way, while still allowing them the freedom to get it over their head or beat on some cannon fodder, as the player sees fit.

 

If you as a player don't want to go through the process of growing your character, you probably shouldn't be playing a crpg.

[Niten_Ryu]

Its OK in games like Jag 2 or XCOM, but it completely defeats a huge chunk of the point of playing a crpg.

 

I'd say scaling is even worse for strategy/tactical games. Total rookie can kill experienced mob in Jagged Alliance 2 or Xcom so there's absolutely no need for scaling. One of the worst things in Jagged Alliance 2 was the fact that there would be infinite spawn of gray mob (most experienced) troops that Queen could send all over the country. There should have been 1-3 elite groups (plus all the non moving ones at the fixed areas) at the most, who'd investigate latest location you successfully invaded.

[HoonDing]

Otherwise you end up with absolutely ludicrous **** like in Oblivion where you could be come the Arena Champion at freaking character level 1. Preposterous.

It is much harder to become Arena champion at level 1 than level 20. Agronak gro-Malog is a set level 10 character.

 

Also note that people have finished Morrowind & Baldur's Gate at level 1.

Edited March 19, 2010 by virumor

[Tigranes]

The thing about meeting a too-tough boss that stops your progress is, though:

 

a) Why would you want to meet perfectly balanced challenges every time? Sometimes you should enjoy a walkover, other times you should be stumped - just not too much. It's a lot more satisfying that way.

b) Especially if the story demands it, and provided there are enough sidequests and fun things to do for that 'grind', there's nothing wrong with having your progress stopped for a bit. Again, as long as it's not too extreme and you have to comb the last 10 areas for XP-headed monster babies... you've got to storm the bad guy's fortress and the characters say it's suicide. If the said fortress scaled to me that's pretty dumb.

c) Sometimes you just go for it and beat him anyway, using up a lot of your limited resource items and really taking things to the wire. Great! Again, as long as it's not too unbalanced, that's a great moment in that game.

 

The actual idea is fine - the only arguments against this is really against extreme cases. Total level scaling breaks so many things and takes so much fun out of a game, when all you need is some good balancing (which may include light scaling).

 

edit: I'm playing King's Bounty right now, and the game seems to be balanced so that at any given time, you will see a mix of battles a bit easy, mostly 'just right' and a bit too difficult, and sometimes very difficult ones. Of course, in this game, you can choose to go up against the difficult ones and pull it off, losing a lot of your squad, or come back when you can breeze past it. Later on, at Castle Necrocom, the main quest depends on you beating a very tough boss battle before progressing to new areas, and I did have to 'grind' for a couple of hours to come back to it. Given that KB gives you enough stuff to do for this, it wasn't very frustrating - and the satisfaction was immense once I beat it. I think KB overdid it a little making you squeeze XP from every area, but the principle is sound. It's only frustrating when the game ****s up, or you expect to be able to kill everything right now as you see 'em.

[Hurlshort]

I'm with hurl. Having a boss be at a level that requires the player to run around for 2 hrs earning money is an idiotic idea at it's base. There is no real reason to force your player to get that frustrated (admittedly it does provide extra time the guy will be playing your game) just to progress through your story.

 

 

Yeah, I totally disagree with this.

 

If there is an End Boss to a crpg (doesn't have to be though), it should be set in stone how tough that boss is, not up to the whims of the player. Otherwise you end up with absolutely ludicrous **** like in Oblivion where you could be come the Arena Champion at freaking character level 1. Preposterous.

 

The entire point of a crpg (one of them anyway) is to develop your player character from a weak noob to an ass-kicking machine. It's part of the job of the developers to make sure that the game is balanced so that most player characters will be tough enough to meet the various challenges along the way, while still allowing them the freedom to get it over their head or beat on some cannon fodder, as the player sees fit.

 

If you as a player don't want to go through the process of growing your character, you probably shouldn't be playing a crpg.

 

I think we might be thinking about very different types of level scaling, here. I agree that Oblivion had a terrible scaling implementation, but that is a problem with sandbox games that let you go everywhere off the bat.

 

Again, I'm more a fan of smart design that makes level scaling a moot point. I don't really notice scaling in Mass Effect or Dragon Age because I'm more focused on progressing through a story line.

[Purkake]

Slowtrain, games aren't about eating your quarters anymore, they are about having an enjoyable experience.

 

I, for one, don't find a 20h grind session that has only been added to pad out the 4h of actual content the game has, enjoyable.

[Calax]

FF8 had level scaling (which led to some pretty funny stories about a guy grinding up to lvl 99 at the very first dungeon), but it still provided a challenge to the player. The problem is when the targets level is set and the mobs are four levels lower than the boss then you get a problem where you can sweep the mobs aside and get blown up by the boss to the point where you have to grind yourself retarded (to steal from Yahtzee) just to compete. Usually I find one or two of these bosses in most games that I play (the first boss in Lost Oddessy, I think I hit this with the first Ultimate Weapon fight in FFVII) because I have a tendancy to just BUM RUSH the main story much faster than most people and probably faster than the devs expect.

[Slowtrain]

Its OK in games like Jag 2 or XCOM, but it completely defeats a huge chunk of the point of playing a crpg.

 

I'd say scaling is even worse for strategy/tactical games. Total rookie can kill experienced mob in Jagged Alliance 2 or Xcom so there's absolutely no need for scaling. One of the worst things in Jagged Alliance 2 was the fact that there would be infinite spawn of gray mob (most experienced) troops that Queen could send all over the country. There should have been 1-3 elite groups (plus all the non moving ones at the fixed areas) at the most, who'd investigate latest location you successfully invaded.

 

 

I think the idea in Jag 2 is that you meet better troops with better gear as the conflict intensifies, and while Jag 2 does have some balance issues with gear vs player characters stats and skills, facing 20 elites is a heck of a lot tougher than facing 20 yellow shirts.

 

Also Jag 2 does not use level-scaling exclusively. It blends level-scaling (technically progress scaling since the scaling is not directly tied to a character's level but what you have accomplished to that point in the game) with area based diffculty.

 

DOn't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of the level-scaling in Jag 2 either, but it makes more gameplay sense to be facing better troops later then it does to be facing a mouse that has 2000 hitpoints can kill you just as easily at level 20 as it can at level 1. Or viceversa an endboss who is only level 2.

[Slowtrain]

Otherwise you end up with absolutely ludicrous **** like in Oblivion where you could be come the Arena Champion at freaking character level 1. Preposterous.

It is much harder to become Arena champion at level 1 than level 20. Agronak gro-Malog is a set level 10 character.

 

 

My point there though is that Oblivion has so much level-scalign going that there is almost no point to actually leveling your character since you stretngth relative to the world remains the same. You're better off doing "tough" fights at low-levels when the bosses are weaker. That's a crappy design paradigm for a crpg, imo.

 

 

Also note that people have finished Morrowind & Baldur's Gate at level 1.

 

 

People use all sort of metagaming gimmicks to do weird things with games. I find it highly unlikely that a first time player with no meta-knowledge could beat either game at level 1. Generally speaking, if you want to make it to the end game of either, you have to do some work in character development, both stats and gear.

[Slowtrain]

Again, I'm more a fan of smart design that makes level scaling a moot point. I don't really notice scaling in Mass Effect or Dragon Age because I'm more focused on progressing through a story line.

 

 

Sure, I agree that more subtle level-scaling is preferable to more obvious, but even still.

 

 

FO3 was better than Oblivion but it was still assinine that spawning molerats were all replaced with deathclaws as you leveled. How incredibly dull and predictable.